Testwiki:Requests for Deletion/Archives/20

Pervasive copyright violations by User:Marshallsumter

Template:Archive top {{cot|Though still active, this is a long discussion that should be archived and replaced by a status report--[[user:Guy vandegrift]]}} User:Marshallsumter has over 1500 images uploaded on this site. Most of these images were uploaded under a claim of fair use.

Unfortunately, none of these fair use claims appear to be valid. Almost every one I have looked at followed the pattern "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to show…" followed by the description of the image. For example, some of this user's uploads state that:

• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show a group conducting psychotherapy in a clinical setting." - File:Grouptherapy.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show a girl from China with her tongue colored to match the Union Jack." - File:English_tongue_chinese.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show glacial grooves & polish on an outcrop in Central Park, NY, about 2014." - File:Glacialpolish.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show the planet Earth is made up of three main shells: the very thin, brittle crust, the mantle, and the core; the mantle and core are each divided into two parts; all parts are drawn to scale." - File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png
• "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to show the sesquiterpenes from the essential oil of the Boswellia sacra resin." - File:Sesquiterpenes_from_the_essential_oil_of_the_Boswellia_sacra_resin.png
• "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to show one of the 140 pyramids imaged and observed by archeologists in the Madalena area of Pico Island, Azores." - File:Pyramid_on_Pico_Island_Azores.jpg
• "No free use or Public Domain image known to show an annotated image of Hudson Bay as viewed from space containing the Great Hudson Arc: A 250-mile-wide mystery." - File:Hudson-bay-annotated.jpg
• "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to reliably show colonial rule in Africa as of 1914." -- File:Colonial_Rule_in_Africa_1914.jpg

If you have any familiarity with the legal history of fair use, then you'd know that all cases won against the use of fair use have been won only against .coms. None has ever been won against .edus or .orgs. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, most of these images are not used in ways which comply with Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy. The vast majority of them are used in a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page, not to further any specific educational goal.

Does Wikiversity have a process capable of handling the bulk deletion of these images? I can't imagine RFD would be able to handle it. Is there any better way to address this?

-- Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Omphalographer Yes, we have bots and can handle bulk deletion of these images. Whether or not you can imagine it, RFD is the correct place for this discussion. Please note that your request would have much more credibility if you used your regular wiki account rather than a single-purpose account. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the only active account I have. I was an active editor on enwiki 10-15 years ago, but I've long since lost the login information. And my concern with using RFD is how to list somewhere around a thousand files for deletion - the ones I mentioned are representative examples, not the sum total of my concerns. (I don't know exactly how many files will be affected, but I'm reasonably certain that most of this user's uploads will be.)

And I'm concerned by your suggestion that this request lacks "credibility". The invalid fair use claims on these files should speak for themselves. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

All or nearly all of the users at Wikiversity 10-15 years ago are contributors listed in the "View history" of the Wikiversity:Main Page. Which one is you? Your unproven allegation: "The invalid fair use claims on these files should speak for themselves." suggests that you have little or no legal experience in these matters, which appears to be the case, as your actions here appear to be nothing more than disruption. You've stated "Recognizing and addressing copyright issues is the responsibility of all users of a wiki", but so far you have not presented any facts supporting that this is what you are doing. I've discussed these matters extensively with WMF legal and supplying the rationales here on Wikiversity as I've done for these images meets and has met their concerns. As I've indicated in the Discussion below you have failed to provide facts to support your allegation. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

When and where did you discuss these issues with the WMF legal team, and what specific rationales did they approve? I would be interested to know more. If you don't recall, I would be happy to check with them - I'm sure they can provide details. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If you know where such discussions would take place then you'd know where to look. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with the assessment that the use of many of these "fair use" images is not consistent with either the spirit of Fair Use or the Exemption Doctrine Policy. The simple solution is to delete all Category:Fair use files images uploaded by Marshallsumter. Are there any other suggestions? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

First, does the user:Omphalographer own the copyright to any of the images under fair use here at Wikiversity?

Second, is the user:Omphalographer a lawyer, attorney or barrister in the employ of a copyright holder of any fairuse image at Wikiversity?

Third, we've been over this issue numerous times and all the fair use files I've uploaded meet US fairuse law and the Exemption Doctrine Policy, all of its parts and should be kept.

Fourth, the pattern noted by the user is the rationale statement as required.

Fifth, "a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page" is an educational goal though less than the value of the use of the fairuse image to the resource. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No, as far as I'm aware, I do not own copyright to any of those images, nor do I personally represent anyone who does. But that doesn't matter. Recognizing and addressing copyright issues is the responsibility of all users of a wiki, not just the copyright owners.

You claim that "we've been over this issue numerous times". Who, when and where are you referring to?

The fair use statements you have applied to these images are not valid fair use rationales. The simple fact that you could not find a freely licensed image that met your needs (or did not care to use the ones you found) does not grant you the right to use anything you find online, for any purpose. This is not true of copyright law in general, and it is particularly not true on Wikimedia sites, which have stricter copyright policies. As a past Wikiversity administrator, you should have been aware of these policies; it was once your responsibility to enforce them! Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikiversity is the only .org managed by the WMF that permits fair use by its mission statement as an educational wiki. The rationales are legally valid independent of your opinion and are necessary and sufficient. I conducted a valid search and where found have used free media! Your statement "or did not care to use the ones you found" is subjective and potentially libelous, please refrain from statements you cannot support factually. In addition, thank you for accepting the fact that "a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page" is an educational goal. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Wikiversity is the only .org..." This is flatly incorrect. There are many other WMF projects which permit the use of fair-use content under limited circumstances. Permitting fair use content under an EDP is not a unique feature of this site, nor does the EDP permit this site to use non-free content indiscriminately.

You've deliberately ignored the key issue: "Wikiversity is the only .org managed by the WMF that permits fair use by its mission statement as an educational wiki." Even Wikipedia does not contain "educational" in its mission statement because it's not! It's an encyclopedia not a .edu as a .org.

If you conducted any search for free content before uploading these images, that search was clearly so cursory as to be entirely ineffectual. For example, your upload of File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png somehow overlooked File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg, which presents substantially the same information and was visible on the enwiki article "Earth" on the day you uploaded the image. (And no, even if you preferred some detail of the other image's presentation, that isn't sufficient reason to reject the freely licensed content and substitute a piece of non-free media.)

The USGS image that I used is to scale and accurately represents the inner structure of the Earth for the purposes with which it has been used. I did not overlook the image you show. File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg isn't accurate. Per the rationale: "No free use or Public Domain image known to show the planet Earth is made up of three main shells: the very thin, brittle crust, the mantle, and the core; the mantle and core are each divided into two parts; all parts are drawn to scale." Secondly, as stated under Permission: "Fair Use, USGS is usually PD, but Eugene C. Robertson may not have agreed to this." otherwise this image would likely be on Commons!

Finally, I accepted nothing of the sort. The use of non-free media as decoration is not permitted by Wikiversity's EDP. Declaring that simple decoration is "an educational goal" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what those educational goals are, and what fair use permits in general. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again you've ignored the key point: "a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page" is an educational goal. The USGS image is far more accurate than File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg. It well points out how small the crust actually is. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC).

(Unindenting for clarity.)

With regard to the term "educational", the mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation (as a whole!) is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". Wikiversity does not have a unique mandate to create educational content - that is the purpose of the entire Foundation! - and neither does it have any unique privilege to use non-free content in the pursuit of that mission.

You're focusing unduly on the single image I chose as an example, but I'll indulge you for a moment. The primary page where you used that image, Earth/Geognosy, does not even mention the image in the accompanying text. It appears alongside a definition of the term "geognosy". Moreover, it appears directly below another freely licensed diagram of the Earth's structure; you clearly found that one accurate enough to display, so it's not at all clear why you felt the need to use another non-free image with substantially the same content. Diagrams are almost never justifiable as fair use, as they are by their nature replaceable with free content (even if that content has not yet been created), and this one is no exception.

If you believe "Diagrams are almost never justifiable as fair use, as they are by their nature replaceable with free content (even if that content has not yet been created), and this one is no exception.", then upload File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png or create your own to Commons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I'll add that editing that page immediately after I mentioned it gives the appearance of a bad-faith attempt to cover your tracks. Please don't do that. You aren't deceiving anyone here. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You mentioned that the resource did not cite the image so now it does. You could have done that yourself but instead you've come here using the apparent threat of deletion to modify resources to be more like Wikipedia articles rather than Wikiversity resources. And, you still haven't identified yourself. Your apparent effort here is more along the lines of disruption than contribution. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me take another completely different example to show that this is not an isolated issue. On 28 July 2014, you uploaded File:Transportation-terminology.jpg, an image of a highway with cars and trucks at sunset, and declared that you were using it under fair use. You provided no justification for your claim of fair use, and you only used it on the page Draft:Terminology/Quiz, as a decorative element on a quiz about "terminology". At no point does the quiz even mention highways, cars, trucks, nor sunsets. The only connection I can see between this non-free image and the page you used it in is the fact that you obtained the image from a web page titled "The Definitive Guide to Transportation Terminology to Stay on the Same Logistics Page". The image was a decorative element on that page, and it does not serve any other purpose on this site either.

The image File:Transportation-terminology.jpg is no longer available on the website provided so that no rationale is available for its status as fair use. I've requested it to be speedy deleted. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Or another: on 1 October 2016, you uploaded File:Diversity_of_plants.jpg under a claim of fair use, with the justification that "no free use or Public Domain image known to show the diversity of plants". I have an extremely hard time believing that no freely licensed images exist which contain multiple different plants, nor that it is somehow impossible to create a freely licensed collage of plant pictures. I am especially troubled by the fact that the image description indicates that you recognized that "apparently the image of sunflowers in copyrighted, and the image was deleted from Commons", and you uploaded it in knowing disregard of those copyright issues.

At the time I uploaded this image File:Diversity_of_plants.jpg it had been deleted from Commons per the reason stated; however, as you failed to notice this image has been returned to Commons as File:Diversity of plants (Streptophyta) version 1.png. It simply hasn't been stated on the the page File:Diversity_of_plants.jpg that this is a duplicate of the now available file on Commons. It has been a common occurrence for files initially on Commons to be deleted sometime after I've begun using them. I have asked for them to be temporarily undeleted so that I can upload them to Wikiversity as fair use to continue their use here and Commons has kindly complied. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Or yet another: on 29 November 2017, you uploaded File:Referral_letter_1.png. This is a photograph of a private medical document which was deleted from Wikimedia Commons over copyright concerns. You provided no justification for it being fair use on Wikiversity, and you failed to provide accurate source information (the Commons URL it was deleted from is not the original source of the image), and the page you used it in contains no text referencing the image - it appears under a header with no additional caption or explanatory text.

May I suggest you take a look at this file which I recently updated with its rationale for being fair use on Wikiversity. The instructor for this upper limb orthotics course was not against this fair use practice and did appreciate that her course here was now fully available, including her students efforts. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

None of these uses are justifiable as fair use under any definition of the term - neither Wikiversity's, nor WMF's, nor the law. Claiming otherwise - claiming that any image can be an "educational illustration" if it appears alongside a related piece of text - represents a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law and fair use. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through each of your file objections and handled them appropriately. With the exception of the File:Transportation-terminology.jpg for which the source of the rationale is no longer available, each is appropriately justified at the time for being fair use. Unfortunately, it still appears that your actions here, albeit perhaps well-intended, have been unnecessarily disruptive. I also urge those who may have prematurely reacted to this user's efforts to kindly reconsider their comments regarding my use of fair use. I really do legally know what I am doing regarding fair use and am conducting my efforts here in direct accordance per consultations with WMF legal and as noted with Commons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't have time to sift through all the nitty-gritty back-and-forth discussion between the two. So I jump right to the files. The fair-use examples that Omphalographer raised are quite concerning, and certainly requires Marshallsumter's adequate response given that copyright interpretation was a stumbling block during Marshallsumter's candidate for custodianship in 2013. I start to wonder if we're seeing a pattern here, or whether it was simply an old file/page that hasn't been noticed until now. For File:Transportation-terminology.jpg, there are plenty other similar images that can be re-used on Commons (e.g. File:Interstate 40, Arkansas 001.jpg, File:Wildlife Overpass east of Snoqualmie Pass on Interstate 90.jpg). When there is a choice between Commons vs. fair-use images, users should opt for Commons. And Omphalographer is right about Draft:Terminology/Quiz. It is not an appropriate usage for a fair-use image because it is not used to describe the content in question, but rather an image used for aesthetic purpose. Aesethic does not fall under fair-use. And echo what was said about File:Diversity of plants.jpg. You can combine a number of freely licensed images into a mosaic without resorting to using a fair-use. Moreover, it does not require author to flag copyright violations. Anyone can do it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see any advantage in engaging with Marshallsumter regarding this issue. As with dozens or hundreds of previous discussions, it is likely to only result in long diatribes of misdirection without any acknowledgement or acceptance of the actual issues involved.

Instead, I recommend we focus on the community response to the situation at hand. Omphalographer has identified issues which apply to hundreds of uploaded images. OhanaUnited has looked into several images and confirmed the findings. I have similar concerns regarding the images I've viewed. Others are welcome to review and confirm (or object) if they wish.

But, accepting for the moment that the concerns are legitimate and widespread, do we want to just delete them all and have Marshallsumter start over, providing adequate fair use justification of any such images? Do we want to prohibit Marshallsumter from uploading any Fair Use images, as there is clear disregard for what Fair Use is and how it should be applied, and none of us has time to oversee this effort? Or is there someone willing to investigate the issues and identify which images legitimately meet Fair Use and EDP guidelines? I'm inclined to delete them all and give Marshallsumter a chance to start over and demonstrate that he is able to apply guidelines appropriately going forward.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that allowing Marshallsumter to continue uploading non-free content without oversight provides us with no assurance that this situation will not arise again - or even that he would not reupload the same non-free images with the same sorts of inadequate fair-use rationales they already have. As such, my recommendation would be to require him to submit any future fair-use media he wishes to use, and his rationales for using them, to some trusted entity for approval - perhaps an administrator or a member of some group of trusted users? - before uploading those files. If he can demonstrate a consistent, long-term pattern of using appropriate, detailed fair-use rationales for media which is truly necessary for educational purposes and which cannot be replaced with freely licensed content, this restriction could be lifted. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Omphalographer Quite honestly, it's easier to tell a bot what to delete than it is to supervise in advance or monitor in real-time. Unless you're also volunteering to be one of those trusted users. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Omphalographer Your comment above is pejorative rather than constructive criticism! You've presented no facts to support your claims! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I may have missed some of the subtleties here, but would requiring images to be uploaded to (and suitable for) Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikiversity offer a practical solution? Generally speaking, I prefer images to be on Commons because there is more checking to make sure they are appropriate and the images can then be used in any sister project in any language. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't applicable. Commons only accepts freely licensed content. The content at issue here is not freely licensed; it was uploaded to Wikiversity under (faulty) claims of fair use.

Marshallsumter has uploaded freely licensed files to Commons in the past, and he is, of course, welcome to continue doing so as long as he complies with that project's content guidelines. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your claim "uploaded to Wikiversity under (faulty) claims of fair use" without facts to support it is potentially libelous and is the second as such. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

---

What is the status of this discussion? It's been open for nearly a month now with no action. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 08:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Omphalographer Actually, there has been significant action. More than 1,000 images that were only used in non-main space were deleted in October. The remaining images require research and I really don't have time to address this right now. Some of them are licensed incorrectly. They should be PD-USGov but were listed as Fair Use. Others are legitimate use as is. Certainly many more should be deleted. But we are very shorthanded on people willing to do administrative work right now, so it is what it is. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Where does that put us with regards to further uploads by Marshallsumter, though? It appears that he's simply reuploading some of the images that were deleted, like File:1_2_Crystal_tcm14-406719.jpg and File:I-love-a-mystery-original.jpg. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Now blocked. Half of his file uploads for the last three weeks were repeat violations of the EDP. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Similarity of matter levels

Template:Archive top On December 25, 2022 User:Guy_vandegrift renamed the Similarity of matter levels page to Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Similarity of matter levels page without leaving the redirect to new page. But in Wikiversity there are some pages with links to Similarity of matter levels page, such as

Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, SPФ symmetry, Stellar Stefan–Boltzmann constant, Stellar Dirac constant, Substantial neutron model, Scale dimension, Gravitational constant, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Praon, Stellar Boltzmann constant, Nuon, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Discreteness of stellar parameters, Substantial electron model, Electrogravitational vacuum, Quantization of parameters of cosmic systems, Stellar constants, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Hydrogen system, Substantial proton model, Coupling constant, Stellar Planck constant, Strong gravitation, Model of quark quasiparticles, Characteristic speed, Substantial photon model, Strong gravitational constant, Gravitational model of strong interaction, Covariant theory of gravitation, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Monopoles, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Velocity circulation quantum, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitoelectromagnetism, Field mass-energy limit, Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Quantum Gravitational Resonator.

There is no any explanation for the action of the User:Guy_vandegrift. I suppose he can explain. On the other hand it would be much better if the User:Guy_vandegrift take part in improvement of the Similarity of matter levels page, before its deletion in main space of Wikiversity. Fedosin (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this can be archived because according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Similarity_of_matter_levels there are no links to the old name anymore.

Looking in the page history the reason is stated as "belongs with the other essays". --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

VHDL for FPGA design

Template:Archive top Abandoned page.

duplicate content of VHDL.

Sirnails (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Neither this page nor VHDL have any meaningful content, but we do have a substantial collection of lecture notes on the topic at VHDL programming in plain view, and I believe there are some additional notes which aren't linked from that page. How would you feel about redirecting VHDL for FPGA design to VHDL, and turning the latter page into a collection of resource links? That seems like a more productive solution than deleting the page outright. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

that sounds great - i've got no objections to redirecting the page however i'm planning to put some effort into the VHDL page (and the Field-Programmable Gate Array page).

On a tangent, any objections to consolidating the content on the VHDL programming in plain view with VHDL?

Sirnails (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comments, I've gone ahead and redirected this to VHDL. I think that should handle it for now. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Nation

Since the deletion template in this page was removed, it is perhaps fit for the full formal RFD process, so I am listing it here.

• Delete. There is nothing to learn from the page. There is not even a further reading. There are 5 questions, which are rather trivial and some of which confuse nations with states (there are and were state-free nations). One can produce this kind of content in volumes by creating e.g. Volcano and brainstorming some random questions, but that is not going to significantly help learners but rather further the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of worhtless material. The definition "Nations are countries that have political and geographic boundaries" seems wrong to boot; which countries do not have political and geographic boundaries? Does it mean all countries are nations? (Does not seem to be the case.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Support deletion unless there's some substantial content added. Open-ended questions, on their own, are not substantial. A discussion of nations (and states, and how they differ) would be great in a course on political science and/or anthropology - but this isn't a course, it's just a page called "Nation".

(As an aside, you're absolutely right about the nation/state distinction. "Countries that have political and geographic boundaries" are states, not nations, and the questions on this stub all make faulty assumptions like "nations have boundaries" or "nations have a government".) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Do not Delete. I make two arguments: Changed vote to Support pagemove.

1. The community has not officially changed its policy regarding stubs. A practice has evolved over the past few months to put stubs up for speedy delete. But a recent change in practice does not mean we have a change in policy. A change in policy requires a deliberate discussion and vote.
2. This stub has been edited by three active editors over the past 2 years. The collapsed text shown below contains excerpts from Nation: Revision history The active editors are myself and Template:Ping, and Template:Ping. The latter is a custodian and bureaucrat. My edits include a "call for essays", a project I have actively pursuing for about a year because I have deep concerns about how social media is carried out these days. Instead of snarky posts mostly read by allies on a subject, we need to learn to write thoughtful essays on complicated subjects. Wikiversity has and continues to host student essays. I like to add a call to essays when I see a stub page. And to remind you, the has been no consensus reached on whether stubs should be allowed, or whether they should be replaced by blank pages.

curprev  01:16, 4 January 2024‎ Guy vandegrift discuss contribs block‎  2,262 bytes +1,033‎  No edit summaryundo Tag: Reverted
 curprev  01:07, 4 January 2024‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs block‎  1,229 bytes +22‎  readd "proposed deletion" (should have ideally been speedied): there is 
 nothing to be learn from this page, and therefore, there are no "learning outcomes", and thus, consistent with the deletion policy, this should be deleted 
 undothank Tag: Reverted
 3 January 2024
 curprev  22:37, 3 January 2024‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  1,207 bytes +9‎  added notoc until more content is added. undothank
 curprev  22:37, 3 January 2024‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  1,198 bytes −14‎  added a bit of info and removed deletion template per "You may remove 
 { {proposed deletion} } from this resource's source text to contest this proposal, with or without discussion." Bless up. undothank
 2 January 2024
 curprev  00:04, 2 January 2024‎ Guy vandegrift discuss contribs block‎ m  1,180 bytes +2‎  →‎Should this page be deleted?: ce undo
 curprev  00:03, 2 January 2024‎ Guy vandegrift discuss contribs block‎  1,178 bytes +61‎  →‎See also: Inviting talk about deletion undo
 1 January 2024
 curprev  09:35, 1 January 2024‎ Dan Polansky discuss contribs block‎  513 bytes +90‎  +delete|sub-minimal: nothing to learn from here; no further reading; 
 trivial questions undothank
 20 October 2022
 curprev  01:09, 20 October 2022‎ Jtneill discuss contribs block‎  423 bytes +4‎  Change from psych-stub to geography-stub undothank
 18 October 2022
 curprev  08:17, 18 October 2022‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  419 bytes +220‎  added ==Discussion questions and essay ideas== undothank
 curprev  08:16, 18 October 2022‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  199 bytes −23‎  removing per template "If you disagree or intend to fix it, and you have 
 not contributed to it before, you may remove this notice." undothank
 curprev  08:15, 18 October 2022‎ Michael Ten discuss contribs block‎  222 bytes +71‎  i added a bit of info. i suggest that we remove speedy delete. undothank 
 Tag: Visual edit: Switched
 17 October 2022
 curprev  20:49, 17 October 2022‎ Omphalographer discuss contribs block‎  151 bytes +23‎  delete - empty undothank
 18 October 2009
 curprev  22:22, 18 October 2009‎ Jtneill discuss contribs block‎  128 bytes +128‎  Created page with '{ {psych-stub}} ==See also== * [[w:{ {PAGENAME}}| { {PAGENAME}}]] (Wikipedia) Category:Geography Category:Social psychology' thank

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a request for speedy--although I did originally put it for speedy--but rather for the 3-month deferred deletion bar expansion with meaningful content. The request is consistent with the deletion policy guideline (WV:Deletion): "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely." Those who support keeping should ideally argue in terms of policy, but that does not seem to be the case. If there is no consensus for having this policy, the policy should be changed. One might object that since there are objections to deletion, that alone makes the page keepable per policy; but then, the policy says that keeping is based on a whim and not on criteria. And then, if this page is to be kept, I have no idea why the pages by Marshall Sumpter were being removed from the mainspace; they were much more valuable for learning that this kind of sub-par material that is inaccurate and worthless. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Marshall Sumpter's pages are worthless. He has entire pages devoted to images that contain a color like "blue". I had no problem with letting keep his efforts if they were contained as subpages under one main page. But he was so uncooperative, especially with image copyright issues, that we had no choice but to ban him. I remove his pages because there was a clear consensus to do so, and because someone makes a speedy delete request every time they see one of his pages. Now even I delete his pages, so I don't have to deal with another speedy delete.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I will change my "vote" in order to achieve unanimous consent to get the page out of top-level mainspace. It will be a move, something either of you can revert if you don't like what I do (which will involve blanking the page with a redirect to another page.)Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you proposing to redirect it to? Do we have a suitable resource on political science? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I moved the page to War Seminar. Some of the subpages were deleted or moved to user space, as I recall. I will close this discussion, if there are no objections.

I see the redirect as unfortunate since nations are not primarily about war. I do not understand what is wrong with deletion. If deletion is seen as bad in principle, one could use Template:Advise, which would direct the reader to a page where they at least learn something about "Nation", to Wikipedia. Or, perhaps better, I can collect a list of decent further reading/external links for the learners to start with; Britannica online is usually good, as is encyclopedia.com, and perhaps I will find other good FR. I could also link to OneLook for definitions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Move to draft namespace suggestion: move to draft namespace. bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Nation is currently a redirect, so moving it to draftspace makes no sense. I kept the redirect alive only because it was recently edited by User:Jtneill, who is an important contributor/editor on Wikiversity. I have informed him of the recent deletion of such stubs and am confident he has no strong opinion about the deletion of Nation as a redirect. I think some of the subpages and content of the original Nation might be the War seminar subspace, but deletion of that stuff is War Seminar problem. So now: If there are no objections, I will soon archive this discussion. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the very unlikely event that someone want's to revive the original Nation page, it is at Special:Permalink/2441361.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Expressions

(I am listing the page here since there is some disagreement about whether it should be deleted after I tried to have it speedied.)

Delete: subminimal content. Nothing to learn from here. No further reading.

Policy: WV:Deletion: "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely." This resource as is cannot produce any "learning outcomes": there is no way to learn from it.

Has been like this from September 2010‎. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Done It's already been deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024

Template:Archive top Template:Cot Template:Ping Also will pinging Template:Ping Template:Ping Template:Ping

Feel free to ping any other active and useful editor here:$\to$

This is actually a page-creation request. If you look at everything on this page or after #Nation, you will see that 5 out of 6 discussions are bogged down by confusion over where to put mediocre and low-quality efforts. User:Dan Polansky and I almost simultaneously called for a pause for all deletions until this gets sorted out.

I think we can move the discussion to Colloquium rather than creating a dedicated page: the forum is well suited for that. My reasoning is usually based on Wikiversity:Deletions (which I never edited) and its "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely"; I also support (and don't recall objecting to) moving pages to userspace out of kindness instead of outright deletion. Admittedly, I usually ignore the "objections to deletion are unlikely" part since it does not make sense: if objections are unlikely, there is no need for a full RFD; full RFD is there to give people a change to air objections. So I focus on "learning outcomes are scarce". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If there is a fear about lack of genuine consensus about the kind of nominations I am making (for deletion/move-to-userspace proposals), anyone can review e.g. Student Projects/PhotoTalks, User:Leutha/Social Enterprise glossary, User:ChayaninP/Twitter Faceoff1, User:Stivi10/Trap, User:Jomar.villar/Number Systems, User:Neposlusan/Other views, among the recent nominations. I think none of them belong to mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dan Polansky has put forth a Proposal that we discuss this on the Wikiversity:Colloquium. Does anybody second that motion?Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I support it in as much as I don't see a compelling reason for this new proposed page. No strong feelings either way, tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping feel free to start the conversation on Wikiversity:Colloquium. After you do that, I will place a note at the top of this page redirecting users to Wikiversity:Colloquium#Whatever_title_you_give_it. If there are no objections, I will keep this discussion open to serve as a landing page for all the invites I sent out.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand the scope of this page is to request deletion rather than any other actions. Increasing the scope of this place is possibly confusing. Proposals about the deletion procedure should be done at a generic discussion venue like the Wikiversity:Colloquium or specific talk pages like Wikiversity talk:Requests for Deletion. Since many users would be watching the Colloquium, I support moving this discussion to there. The new proposed page can be used as a redirect to the colloquium archives once the discussion has ended. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping My poor choice of proposed title managed to convey the exact opposite of my proposed "Deletion Convention": We need to look at deletions, userspace, draftspace, subpace, and even page-moves as part of an overall strategy. The real questions involve how we organize Wikiversity. Here is a list of questions we should ask ourselves:

1. Where do we put sincere but flawed student efforts? If we put them in userspace, we remove all hope of students reading each others work and collaborating. We could solve that problem by having students place abstracts of their efforts somewhere in mainspace, but that strikes me as too complicated.
2. How do we solve the problem associated with advanced technical articles? We don't have any referees, and I for one do not enjoy reading an article that may or may not be nonsense.
3. How do we judge student efforts intended to be art, or satire? Universities teach poetry (even MIT has creative writing classes), and how are we supposed to judge poetry? Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to a poet who is apparently most famous for one of the world's shortest poems, with "Fleas" as the title and only two lines ("Adam" & "Had 'em".) I don't think we want to be debating the quality of student efforts, ever. Instead we should focus on bad taste, harm to young readers, and not angering people on other wikis.
4. To what extent do we take steps to prevent unfortunate outcomes that are highly unlikely? I have on several occasions looked at something I wrote many years ago and was horrified at its low quality. That was, and continues to be a learning experience and a reminder that I am incapable of writing good prose without many rewrites (and I have more than twenty refereed publications.) I know that virtually all users who stop writing on Wikiversity never return. But does that justify deleting all old prose that seems to have no value? I'm sure we can find places to put such prose. But if multiple authors are involved, userspace may not be the best place for such prose.
5. Here's another question that needs to be answered: We are and should be beholden to the Wikimedia Foundation. To what extent do they care about low-quality pages on Wikiversity? I, for one, would like to know the answer to that question.

So when I called it a "Deletion Convention", I misspoke on the word "deletion", but I do think we need a "convention". I labeled the proposed site for discussion with the year 2024 because we have a history of failed efforts to resolve things in pages that start with "Wikiversity:foo-bar". If we fail accomplish anything, I don't want anybody looking at what we do there with high hopes. I try not to rant, but I guess I just did.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I think the agenda above is reasonable, and I do support the need of some kind of convention. I will be glad to join upcoming discussions at the colloquium with my availability. I hope we can accomplish something, but if we fail, then others should not look with higher hope. On the other hand, I think future participants should avoid the same failure, so I also believe some kind of navigation would be helpful (with Template:Tl or any other kind of notice template to alert the readers to not have a high hope). MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping Thanks for your support. I agree that this is not the right time to start the "convention". I will keep the red-link in the title in case anybody wants to jot down some ideas, and will contemplate a better title. In an act of desperation I left a message on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Maybe somebody high up might answer it (not Jimbo of course.) One of my counterintuitive beliefs is that tolerating low-quality pages on WV is good for WP because WV acts like a magnet for the nutcase editors. Years ago, I visited a small town in Russia that had a large military academy. The locals joked that the academy cleaned up the town because the soldiers took away all the bad girls. Maybe WP will take the same attitude (but probably not.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Taking Gemimi's advice, I spent a long time looking for what the WMF allows Wikiversity to do on meta.wikimedia.org, looking at pages like ...Requests_for_comment/Shut_down_Wikiversity. I have absolutely no doubt that we are encouraged to allow student learning journals, such as already exist on WV pages like Digital Media and Information in Society/Student Journals. There is nothing controversial about posting student journals in mainspace. On the other hand, if the WV community chooses not to allow such pages, it is unlikely that the WMF would step in and force our hand. So my effort to contact the WMF through the message to Jimbo Wales was not necessary.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I created Wikiversity:Colloquium#How to handle very-low-value pages AKA deletion and move to userspace convention; Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion seems to be a less-than-ideal place for the above discussion, since this page, from what I understand, should ideally be about individual RFD nominations. Feel free to undo my post to Colloquium; I might have misunderstood something. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Dan Polanksy. Whoever wants the have the floor can take it right here:Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Template:Outdent

I've not been following the conversation, but moving a user's unfinished resources to their userspace seems reasonable to me. Where one should put their resources in general is something I'm still not clear on. I've suggested in the past that wikiversity might be better organized if users simply made a "home directory" (in mainspace, I suppose) and add their resources there. It doesn't seem like many resources are collaborative in the same way wikipedia articles are. That isn't to say users shouldn't collaborate, but perhaps discussions on talk pages are a better way to initiate collaboration here, as opposed to wikipedia's "be bold" directive. This would also resolve naming conflicts in mainspace and obviate the need for laborious cleanup efforts in the first place. Why make so much work for yourselves? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, it would be trivial (for someone familiar with the wiki software) to write a script that traverses a list of "dormant" users, creating a home directory for each such user and moving their resources into that directory if those resources haven't been edited recently and don't get a lot of traffic. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

One variation on the idea above is to restrict "new users" from creating pages in mainspace except within their home directory. Regular users could be granted this privelage after they make however many contributions or something like that. This would tend to keep student contributions contained within their respective home directories. New users who are educators could request exceptions. I understand the appeal of having a single course for each given subject, but it would not be hard to curate good resources if they meet some standard of quality. To be clear, by "home directory" I don't mean one's userpage, but a page in mainspace, assuming this distinction is meaningful (e.g. are they searched when the user types something into the search bar?) AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You have identified a major problem with Wikiversity. A probation period before going onto mainspace is not a bad idea, but it doesn't completely solve the problem because people with years of constructive edits would object. The reality is that as humans organize, decision-making becomes a real problem (that explains authoritarian leaders.) I think a better solution is something that you proposed elsewhere: Encourage users to "own" a page and its subspace. We have a policy against the username being the top-page namespace, and I think it would be nearly impossible to get a consensus to change it (the rule is embedded in our mindset.) But there is a workaround: I work under Physics/A, which I personally prefer because my username is so long.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Cob This discussion is taking up space on Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion. I suggest that we close and archive with no consensus to create a Wikiversity page on this topic. The community seems to prefer the Colloquium. I already moved Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024 to my userspace and left a redirect. Also, this was never a request to undelete. If there are no objections, I will this discussion and post a permalink to it on what is currently at User:Guy vandegrift/Deletion Convention 2024--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Template:Archive bottom

Thousands of unused files

Template:Archive top Template:Cot There are thousands of unused files on Wikiversity. 5.000 can be seen on Special:UnusedFiles. There is a general clean up project on Wikiversity_talk:File_Review and one of the things discussed is unused files.

So far unused non-free files have been deleted and files without a license have also been tagged for deletion. That leaves files with a free license. So the question is what to do with those.

Unused does not always mean unusable. But if the file is not in use anywhere there is a risk that it is out of WV:Scope.

Example: The first file on the list is File:Sysop buttons.png. It is not in use and there is no links to the page. How to move forward?

1. Should files be discussed one by one?
2. Should there be a speedy template to add and if there are no objections after 90 7 days the file can be deleted? And if someone disagree they can remove the template and start a regular DR?
3. Should they be taken in batches?
4. Should we just leave all the files alone?

--MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait to hear more from the community regarding which option(s) everyone would prefer. But regarding Option 2, I would use Proposed Deletions (90 days) vs. Speedy. We have a long history of tagging things and allowing 90 days for anyone to remove the tag if they want to keep the resource. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Then 90 days. No need to make a special exception for unused files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the unused files list, I get the sense that the majority of them fall into a couple of basic categories:

• Slide presentations and other class documents created by User:Young1lim, which should probably be indexed somewhere and kept. There's a ton of potentially valuable material here and it would be a shame to delete it. (Update: this accounts for 4264 of 5791 total unused files in the last database dump!!)
• Graphs, diagrams, and homework assignments uploaded by ENES100 students. These are useless out of context and should be deleted.
• Files uploaded but not used by User:Jtneill's students for Motivation and Emotion pages. These should be deleted.
• Unused files or homework assignments from Filmmaking. These should be deleted as well.

I would hesitate to use proposed deletion for these files, as there's simply so many of them that it'd be difficult for other editors to review what's up for deletion.

Instead, as a first step, how about if we remove all of Young1lim's files from the list by creating a temporary page linking to all of his PDF uploads? Most of those files have fairly systematic names, so it should be straightforward to index them on that page. Getting those files out of the way will protect them from deletion, and should make it easier to figure out what's going on with the rest. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've created a temporary list of User:Young1lim's (previously) unused files in my sandbox. After Special:UnusedFiles updates, those files should be off the list, making it easier to handle those. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Omphalographer I do not think that a link is enough to make Special:UnusedFiles skip the files.

But I think it sounds like a good idea to take the deletions in similar batches. If they are added to categories it would be easier for users to see the files. Then files could be nominted for deletion one category at a time. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 06:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the links I used should be sufficient; the files I linked to now all show my sandbox under "File usage", the same as any other file link would. It might be a few days before the page updates; it currently says the last run was on the 4th. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

UnusedFiles has updated and... well, either the links don't count, or there are a lot more PDFs that I missed somehow. Wow. I'll look into this. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:Outdent Omphalographer I added all free files from Young1lim to User:MGA73/Sandbox2 and if https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/73587 is correct then there are 1845 unused files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Omphalographer I wonder if system can handle it if a page use 20k files. For example this file File:DM.H.2.Logic.20180302.pdf is unused but if you click what links here it shows my sandbox. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now added the files to 21 galleries in User:MGA73/Sandbox2 to User:MGA73/Sandbox22. Lets see if that does the trick. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 09:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked Special:UnusedFiles today and now there are 2,295 files. Omphalographer and Dave Braunschweig as I understand it mass tagging all the files would flood the process so instead it is better to tag them in smaller numbers. Would you like to tag a few to begin with so we can see how it goes? If the files are usable and the source/author/license is good then the files could also be moved to Commons. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If we are convinced there is value in removing these images (the cleanup effort improves Wikiversity enough to be worth the time invested), then I'd like to see them tagged in themes. Perhaps start with all of the unused Robert Elliott Film School uploads, or all of the engineering homework uploads. If someone is going to the effort of tagging the images, it might be worth adding a category at the same time (Unused Film School images, Unused engineering homework images, etc.).

I don't have time to do this, but I'm not opposed if someone else is willing. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think unused files should be deleted if:

1. They not have a valid license. There are no unlicensed files left (except perhaps newly uploaded).
2. They have a non-free license (including NC and ND). It seems they are harder to find on wikiversity because here a link to the file also count as "in use". I noticed that some files are "in use" in pages in draft namespace or user namespace. On Wikipedia it would not be allowed to use non-free files outside main namespace.
3. The copyright is for other reasons unsure. For example the files in Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott (other) are uploaded by Robert but the author is someone else.

If everything is good but the file is just not in use for some reason then the file could still be usable. And I agree that it would be a valid option just to ignore them unless someone want to spend some time to check the files.

So for now I will try to put all unused files uploaded by Elliott in a category. Then we can see how many it is and I can check if the files really are unused. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There are 95 files in Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I checked that they are unused. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Outdent Perhaps someone can help me out here? If the result that it is easier/better just to keep the unused files (unless they are non-free)? Or is the result that they could be deleted? If they can be deleted should the files be marked with a deletion template?

I made a list and it seems that these users are the top uploaders of orphan files (50+). Not sure if that info is relevant but now you now :-)

• User:PCano 288
• User:Guy vandegrift 233 deleted
• User:Katluvdogs 138
• User:Robert Elliott 100
• User:Alsirajmamun 80
• User:Pabloruiz 68
• User:Evolution and evolvability 66 linked to (WikiJournal files)

--MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping If you tell me now to access my orphaned files, I will be happy to go through and delete them. It would probably be OK to mass delete them right now, but it would be nice to double check before doing that.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping I made a list in User:MGA73/Sandbox. Perhaps some could go to Commons? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed all the files except one that I did not create: File:Monopoly;_Corruption_makes_the_world_go_round.jpg -- Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! I checked my list and the problem is that I filtered the files by username and there was one other user that had the letters "Guy" in the name (User:Mr. Guye). He only uploaded one file and that file ended up on the list. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

For my uploads, I'm guessing that it's probably PDFs? The majority of these are linked to by pages, even if they're not embedded, so are probably false positives for this flag. If that's not the case let me know! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping I added the files to User:MGA73/Sandbox and it seems you are right that it is pdf-files and that they are linked to. I noticed that some of the files are not in Category:WikiJournal files. I wonder if the files should all be there. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@MGA73 Thanks for collating those together! I've updated the name of that category and I'm going through the files using a template (Template:Tlx) to make sure they're all included in that cat. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Cob Template:Outdent As written above I created Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused. Perhaps someone could make a conclusion to this discussion 1) if the files in this category should be deleted 2) if there are other files there should also be marked for deletion or 3) if we should just keep all the files for now (unless they are non-free or badly sourced etc. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping Is it possible to close this entire discussion, provided we reopen a new one based solely on Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused? You probably know this discussion better than anyone. Is there any other unfinished business here?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping Sure. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping My question was massively inarticulate because I asked two questions. I presume you mean "sure" the discussion can be closed. Am I right? Am I wrong?-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping Yes the discussion can be closed :-) Depending on the result of a new discussion of the files in Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused perhaps it could be relevant to start other discussions about other files (User:PCano 288 files and User:Katluvdogs 138 files etc.). But if it is decided to keep the files by Robert Elliott then the other files would probably be kept too and in that case there is not much point in starting discussions about those files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat off topic, it would not be amiss to change WV policy to prohibit any uploads and only allow media via Commons. This would save the scarce human resources and pose only a small limit; it would only limit fair use and such. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Dan Polansky is 100% correct about copyright ambiguity. I don't know if the WMF would object to removing copy-vios in a way the preserves the material in the page's history. My understanding is the this is routinely done on Wikipedia. But either way, we do what the WMF tells us to do. I would be tempted to immediately delete any statement to the contrary.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer

• Draft:Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer and its talk page have been moved to Draft:Archive/2024/Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer. All further discussion should continue on that talk page.

Unless somebody wins the $1 million dollar prize, this will be deleted on 15 April 2024 or moved to userspace. Further discussion available on the talk page.

A discussion is underway at Draft talk:Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer, but for the record, we should log the request here.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, Delete (or move to user subpage): very unlikely to be a correct proof, by 1) superficial glance, and 2) by this being a notable open problem, and it is unlikely that a competent prover would choose Wikiversity as a publishing venue, and if he/she did, there would probably be no-one competent in Wikiversity enough to check for possible subtle mistakes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As the original nominator, delete. This attempted proof is mathematically incomprehensible; the author may have a faulty understanding of computational complexity theory. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I lean towards delete, after looking at the sentence that begins "I wrote an article in german wikipedia" in w:Special:Permalink/1194335471#strict_logic_by_Walther_Brüning in which he claims to have written the German Wikipedia article on Strict Logic. I looked at the authors of the German article and he seems to have used a different name. If he can't explain this, we should permanently block him. Here is the exact wikitext quote: ::::I wrote an article in german wikipedia: [[de:strenge Logik|strenge Logik]]. Sorry, but i dont understand, why there should be exactly seven syllogisms. For any questions about strict logic you can ask me. Here is a short introduction (again): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2esURv_dtBk&vl=en [[User:123qweasd|123qweasd]] ([[User talk:123qweasd|talk]]) 13:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC) --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ... And here is the link to the German history page, where there is no mention of User:123queasd: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strenge_Logik&action=history Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Since I highlighted my qualified vote to delete, I won't change it. Dan Polansky and Omphalographer have me convinced that the article has no merit. I will use prod to place a one-week delay on that deletion. I hope we all agree all of our views on what-goes-where are based more on intuition than logic. My intuition tells me one thing and yours say otherwise. There is little point in debating the topic.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For better traceability: W:P versus NP problem: "The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in theoretical computer science". From in Britannica: "In 2000 American mathematician Stephen Smale devised an influential list of 18 important mathematical problems for solving in the 21st century. The third problem on his list was the P versus NP problem. Also in 2000 it was designated a Millennium Problem, one of seven mathematical problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., for a special award. The solution for each Millennium Problem is worth $1 million." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved;

• See Draft talk:Archive/2024/Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas KäferTemplate:Archive bottom

PhotoTalks

• I (Dan Polansky) am listing the page here since there is some disagreement about whether it should be deleted after I tried to have it speedied.
• I (Guy vandegrift) slightly edited the line above and am moving the page to Student Projects/PhotoTalks, and am "restarting" the conversation by collapsing the old conversation about PhotoTalks--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Cot Delete: almost nothing to learn from here; no clear subject; seems to be a small collection of random photos associated with random statements about them and questions. I can imagine e.g. page "Sociology - interpreting photographs" or something of the sort executed in the direction/style of PhotoTalks, but here: 1) there are only 4 images; 2) there is no shared domain/topic for the images; 3) the statements and questions associated with the images do not seem particularly educational, e.g. for a photo of Egyptian pyramids, the questions are "Who built these pyramids? Where do they come from? Where are they gone to? Will they be back?"; 4) one could expand this kind of material indefinitely; that is, if one accepts this page as valid Wikiversity content, this opens the door to volumes of pages of very little value or no value. (No objections to moving to user subpage.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Make it a subpage of Photographic Composition. Be sure to add an explanation and a link on the top page. If you don't like the captions, edit them. If you don't like the photos, explain how they could have been better. My personal opinion is that this is an educational wiki, and that education begins in childhood. Maybe a child made these photos. We don't have time to decide whether something is of poor quality because it is a first attempt, or if it was created by a person with no hope of improving. And even if the person has no hope of improving, we block disruptors, not people who are failing to make progress.

When I first came to this wiki 11 years ago, my first "mentor" helped me with page creation and editing. After a few back-and-forth messages, he invited me to see one of his pages. It was in mainspace and I was shocked by the low quality; it looked like something a child would write. It turns out that he was a child. He stayed on Wikiversity, growing up on here, so to speak. He is now a Custodian or Administrator on three wikis.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

But it does not really belong to "Photographic Composition" because it is not about photographic composition: one does not learn how to make photographs. I have no objection to the particular photos per se; I have an issue with the concept. The concept is: put together 4 photos, do a quick mental association from the photos to sentences/questions and be done with it. No scope is provided (which photos should be there? from what field domain?) Etc.

This nomination really is not personal at all; it is about the material nominated and its suitability for consumption by others to learn something. As per WV:Deletion, "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely". I submit that "learning outcomes are scarce" is the case, and I do not see how this could be remedied.

I do recognize your kindness, and it is to be appreciated. However, the problem I have with the above reasoning (everyone was a child at some point; Wikiversity is also for children) is that it provides a plan for making Wikiversity an accumulation of analogues of child-grade writeups, and that cannot be the objective. The project's keeping subpar pages in user subspace is more than kind enough, in my view. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Student Projects/PhotoTalks

Since there is consensus (between two editors) that PhotoTalks does not belong at the top of mainspace, it has been moved to Student Projects/PhotoTalks--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fresh start: Template:Cot Keep as subpage of Student Projects--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I still think the page is not for mainspace but for userspace, following the model of what has been done recently with other subpar pages: it is not something that can reasonably be called a "student project", to my mind, and the reader learns nothing or almost nothing from reading it. A project, as a minimum, has an assignment and its solution; I see no assignment or scope statement on the page. If this kind of subpar material is to be salvaged as "Student Project" and kept in the mainspace, then I think too many writeups can be called a "student project" and so salvaged. What speaks against my proposal is e.g. page Student Projects/Tiger, but this counter-argument is weak: this could mean Tiger is for userspace as well. I think the whole thing should be renamed from "Student Projects" to "Student writeups", "Student writings", "Student writing practice" or the like, unless it is really for "projects".

As long as "Student Projects"/"Student writeup" exists, I think there should still be some minimum requirements on it. E.g. Student Projects/Neuron at least contains a coherent set of statements on a well defined subject, on which the reader can practice reviewing skills and test their knowledge. Thus, I see an at least superficially plausible rationale for having "Student writeups/Neuron" in the mainspace, but not for Student Projects/PhotoTalks. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Renaming Student Projects to Student writeup is not a bad idea. The problem is that as a custodian, I cannot automatically move that many subpages.
2. We are discussing the relative merits of two mediocre pages on Wikiversity. That is a waste of time. Of course I agree that there needs to be limits on what goes underneath Student Projects. A simple criterion is anything annoying; that would include: Too long, too short, too likely to bring in too many complaints (especially from people on other wikis.) For me it is less annoying to place a weak article underneath Student Projects than it is to endlessly discuss what to do with it. We get people who want an almost endless stream of short pages; that can't be allowed. We have people who write endless streams of prose on politics or some fringe scientific theory, or long collections of anything. I see reasons to ask those people to stop. But I simply don't have time to judge every mediocre page we have on Wikiversity. And when I delete without fully vetting each deletion, I end up having to undelete.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

To save your time and attention (thanks again for doing all the deletion cleanup work in Wikiversity! I don't see other admins handling so many deletions), we may stop the discussion now and see whether someone else chimes in and takes a position. If no one chimes in a week or month or whatever the conventional discussion period is, it will be "no consensus for deletion, 1:1". I think my position is based on WV:Deletion guideline, but it is only a guideline (not a policy) anyway. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

About the renaming: if you support the proposal, I would take it to Colloquium and in case of consensus I would rename the pages myself. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping We all know about edit-conflicts. You and I are experiencing a "discussion-conflict" by simultaneously making two conciliatory statements on in different places on the same page. If you look above, I put offered to delete with a one week delay, while you made a similar offer to pause the discussion right here. Your statement came first, but I wrote mine before seeing yours. And, yes, we need a pause in order to reach a reliably accurate Wikiversity consensus. Regarding your offer to rename all the subpages in Student Projects: Consider renaming only the subpages that are of high quality. That might be far less work.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I would like to archive all talk about Student Projects/Phototalks as closed without consensus to delete (i.e. we are keeping it in its current location.) Requests to renew this discussion will be "in order" at any time.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per speedy criteria #1: Why on earth does anyone want to keep this page? Some new user start a random page 8 years ago and never made any edits since then? Is there any learning or any research to get from this? I really can't see anything in Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? that can justify to keep pages like this. (I know I'm not really active outside File namespace but I simply could not help it) --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• On a time note: are there any Wikiversity customs/guidelines about for how long a RFD discussion is open? In the English Wiktionary, there was a guideline says that a RFD discussion should be open for at least a week, and usually for a month. Having a week as an absolute minimum seems very reasonable to me. Having it usually open for two weeks or a month seems reasonable as well, given the low RFD discussion participation. A key part of the purpose of a RFD discussion is to collect input; if no input were required and there was a hurry, we would use speedy deletion (one person being the nominator, another deleting the page, thus ensuring the 4-eye principle). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Voting

Template:Cot The motion is to either delete Student Projects/PhotoTalks, or move it to draftspace.

• Strongly Oppose . This article represents an excellent assignment for an elementary school teacher. If the WV community deletes this page I will perform no future duties as a Custodian on the grounds that WV has abandoned is mission to improve higher education. If you think wikversity implies that we only do higher education, you ignore the fact that universities teach people how to teach at the elementary level.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  If we have to choose between your services and having this useless page moved out of the mainspace, we of course have to choose your services and the page can stay. But I really do not see any value in the reader's ability to access this page in the mainspace. Again, if you feel so strongly about the page as to want to cease to serve as a custodian/administrator, I will feel forced to formally abstain on this page since the harm of its being in the mainspace is relatively small.--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Template:Cot I don't know why this discussion went on (after it was moved to a subpage of Student Projects. I think we got sidetracked by a discussion about creating another top page (other than Student Projects.) I noticed that Dan Polansky has no objection to PhotoTalks residing where it is now, so if there are no objections, I will take this as a 2-? vote to oppose removing it from its present location--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of this discussion so far: Dan Polansky and MGA73 want Student Projects/PhotoTalks to be moved out of mainspace; Guy vandegrift wants to keep it Student Projects/PhotoTalks. I see weak consensus (since via only a small number of participants) to move the page out of mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikisphere

Template:Archive top This is a confusing jumble of content for which learning outcomes are scarce (WV:Deletion); a hard to characterize chaos, with unclear relevance of the parts to the whole. I propose one of the following actions:

1) Delete. Perhaps not ideal since then non-admins will no longer be able to view the page, which can be seen as some kind of historical discussion, given the number of participants. But I see deletion as justified anyway, since it is not even a discussion proper; it is not clear who posted what, etc.

2) Move to user subpage of User:Dionysios, the original creator of the page.

3) At least move to Wikiversity:Wikisphere.

From the revision history, this was tagged for deletion in 2014, and then untagged.

I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikisphere to see the impact on pages linking to it, and it seems tolerable.

I support all three actions, in the preference order 1 > 2 > 3.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I now found some of the content was copied from elsewhere; one small discussion was copied from Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006. Thus, the page Wikisphere gives the impression more people edited the page than they really did; e.g. Andrew massyn and Rayc did not edit the page. Almost all edits to the Wikisphere page seem to have been done by Dionysios. This reinforces my view that option 1 is preferable and that nothing is lost by deleting the page or moving it to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a counter-proposal: Keep everything as it is, because the old-timers might want to refer to the old rules as they contemplate proposals by the young Turks. I suggest we create a new page with a title like Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024. Labeling the year is essential because we now know that all such decisions have a shelf-life. I know for a fact that User:MathXplore does not like to delete policy statements until a new policy has been established. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The deletion proposal is based on guideline WV:Deletions, which I never edited. I edited WV:Verifiability in a way that keeps the core of what that page had; AFAICS, WV:Verifiability is not a meaningful input into this proposal since I do not charge statements to lack verification but rather that the Wikisphere page is, put simply but rudely, worthless and very confusing to boot. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this resource should not be placed in the mainspace. It seems to be a proposal for a WikiProject rather than an educational resource. I understand that the mainspace is for educational materials. According to the current categorization of this page, this page is a discussion venue (I don't know how it is related to Category:Time). In other words, it doesn't belong to an academic subject. On the other hand, I don't think this is harmful to require deletion of all revisions, so moving to another namespace seems to be reasonable for me. If this page is going to be moved to the project namespace, I suggest adding Template:Tl to reduce confusion. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Maybe not directly related to this RFD but please allow me to reply to the mention above) "not like to delete policy statements until a new policy has been established" is not only my personal preference but also generally required at many Wikimedia sister projects. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It is off-topic, but even what remained in Wikiversity:Verifiability after my edits is something hardly anyone takes seriously. Thus, information stated in Wikiversity pages is not either "already been published by a reliable source" or "has been produced by scholarly research performed at Wikiversity", unless we consider all those low-quality writeups to be "scholarly research performed at Wikiversity". Even now, Wikiversity:Verifiability is not fit for purpose, and demoting it from a policy status, into which it did not get through any transparent process, is a very desirable thing unless we want to live in an Orwellistan in which policies are not policies and do not even remotely resemble the actual practice and incoherence and contradictions rule the day. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

On substance: Originally, I thought moving the page to Wiktionary space was a pretty ok idea, but I no longer think so. Since, I realized the page was not really a discussion but merely looked like it could be one based on a very superficial impression: the author just copied parts of discussions that took place elsewhere. The categorization of this page as a discussion is misplaced/misleading. This can be verified from the revision history of the page. It is confirmed on the page itself, where it says "This Page began as a Copy of Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006." The oldest revision of the page is this, and it does look like a copy of Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006. I find the whole idea of copying a discussion, and then editing it willy-nilly while leaving the editor signatures there, without using quotation marks to make it very clear these are quotations and not original discussion contributions, mildly inappropriate, to be frank. Either delete, or move to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The page makes no sense to me. But an editor who until recently was our most active Administrator rescued the page with the with the claim that it contained "Important historical discussions." I move that it be moved into Draft/Archive/2024/Wikisphere, notwithstanding the fact that none of us see any historical value to this document.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Dave got confused by the false impression the page created, which is why he wrote "Important historical discussions". It was easy to get so confused unless one payed a close attention of the manner in which this page originated. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Voting

Motion to move Wikisphere to Draft:Archive/2024/Wikisphere

• Template:Support (as person making the motion--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC))

Note: It just occurred to me that nobody will object to this location for Wikisphere, so I am declaring it as passed without objection. Let me know if you want to reopen this question; otherwise I will archive this discussion in a few days --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: move Wikisphere to Draft:Archive/2024/Wikisphere is fine. I also support moving to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)