text:
Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

  Deletion requests

If an article should be deleted and does not meet speedy deletion criteria, please list it here. Include the title and reason for deletion. If it meets speedy deletion criteria, just tag the resource with rather than opening a deletion discussion here.

If an article has been deleted, and you would like it undeleted, please list it here. Please try to give as close to the title as possible, and list your reasons for why it should be restored. The first line after the header should be: Undeletion requested

Unused files uploaded by PCano
I suggest to delete the 287 unused files listed in Category:Files uploaded by PCano - unused. A longer discussion about unused files in general can be seen at Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20 and a similar discussion about files uploaded by Robert Elliott was closed as delete above. Uploader have not been actice since 2011 so it is unlikely the files will ever be used. The files seems to be a part of a set of data. I do not know if the set is complete. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details, but sometimes the WikiJournals process the copyright differently. Has anybody checked with them about these files? If not, I would be happy to do the deed.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Guy vandegrift I have not checked with WikiJournals. I was not thinking about copyright but if we are sure the files are correct and if they are of use to anyone? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I recall, files that are imbedded in pdf files are don't show up as being used. I don't know why the WikiJournal would care,   the wikitext but want the pdf and raw files (wouldn't make any sense.) But the value of the Wikijournals is such that somebody needs to double check.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the files are really embedded in a pdf (not linked), they are part of the pdf, and even if the files get deleted, the content is still in the pdf. What are examples of pdfs produced by Wikijurnals? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Leaning toward delete: since the files are unused, there seems to be no harm in deleting them. If someone presents arguments why they should be kept, I may reconsider. For the record, the files seem to be in the public domain, and many of them are for "HLA allele distribution"; "Source: HumImmunol 2008". A selection of concerned file names: File:2005 ASHI Poster 48 PCano.pdf, File:A-0101.gif, File:A-0102.gif, File:A-0103.gif, File:A-0201.gif, File:A-0202.gif, File:A-0203.gif, File:A-0204.gif, File:A-0205.gif, File:A-0206.gif, File:A-0207.gif, File:A-0208.gif. I randomly checked a couple of these files and they were uploaded in years 2010 and 2011. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be safe, somebody needs to contact the WikiJournal. This a a dormant author.  Right now my biggest problem is an active author.  I need to get an active author, Saltrabook, to put all their work under a single subpage before they become a bigger problem.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No hurry here, AFAICT. This RFD can be opened for weeks and that is no big problem. And there are also other admins. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a comment at Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group. Lets see if anyone join the discussion. And I agree that the discussion can be open for weeks. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group has gone unnoticed for a month. What next?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete :-) In case anyone ever wonder which files it was they can see the files in my sandbox history. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More for the record and about the question where these files were probably used: The uploader User:PCano (Pedro Cano, M.D., M.B.A. MD Anderson Cancer Center, HLA Typing Laboratory, Houston, TX ) created Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen (originally under the title HLA, moved to Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen in April 2017), which was much later (in December 2022) deleted as per Requests for Deletion/Archives/18. Deleting the files used there seems to be a natural follow-up on that deletion decision. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you still worry about the WikiJournals I think you can delete the files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a meeting with the WikJournal of Science tomorrow and I will bring it up.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I just talked to the WikiJournal editors and they have no problem with deleting these files. Moreover, they have no problem with deleting any unused files, with one exception: They would prefer that we not delete pdf files that are marked as preprints, without first contacting them.  These preprint pdf files are easily identified with the standard WikiJournal preprint headers.  Apparently, they keep a record of all preprints and would need to create another depository for them if the Wikiversity community decides it doesn't want to host them.  Their policy is to post the preprint pdf files only if the article is submitted for publication.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added File:WikiJournal Preprints COVID-19 ELIMINATION AND CELL DIFFERENTIATION - Wikiversity.pdf to Category:WikiJournal Preprints to remove it from deletion suggestion . Perhaps some one can find the right category for it? Also It could be a good idea to make sure that all the WikJournal files are categorized somewhere in Category:WikiJournal. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have I correctly conveyed the wishes of the WJ editors in this regard?Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, thanks! Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! And as info I can tell that I made by bot add all files that seems to be related in any way to Category:WikiJournal. For example if the word WikiJournal is used on the file page or the file is used on a page with WikiJournal in the title. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While this File:WikiJournal Preprints COVID-19 ELIMINATION AND CELL DIFFERENTIATION - Wikiversity.pdf file is a preprint within WikiJournal, the author never moved the PDF onto an actual preprint page. Judging from this author's global contributions, it's safe to say that the author abandoned the draft 4 years ago.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  03:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha so it might be safe to delete this file even if its a preprint. However, I think the best is to discuss those files case by case and in a separate discussion. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Koavf Seems you are the expert in deleting unused files. This is the only open DR about unused files. Could you also do this one? And do you think we should make more DR's for Special:UnusedFiles? Or should we just leave them alone for now? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Archiving of Invalid fair use by User:Marshallsumter

 * See Requests for Deletion/Archives/21

This space is for any unfinished business from that discussion.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can be closed and archived, I guess. If anyone figures out a new task in the area of "Invalid fair use by User:Marshallsumter", they can open a new RFD nomination as and when they do so. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the task (as mentioned in Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20) is to check all the files uploaded by User:Marshallsumter and check if they meet the criteria for fair use. Sadly it is 1,151 files so I doubt anyone will spend the time on that. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to support preemptively deleting all files (not pages) uploaded by User:Marshallsumter. The fact that many of the files uploaded by him were determined not to meet Wikiversity criteria for fair use should be grounds enough. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought we deleted all his files and userfied all his pages. Apparently I was wrong: File:Earth Shells to Scale.png // Earth/Geognosy/Quiz // Earth/Geognosy. When I deleted his images, I went to a page (category?) that someone else created. ... See also: This List.  Apparently this user spend all day long uploading files and putting them into pages he/she created. ...  This is why I don't bother with a couple of nutcase articles in Physics/Essays--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For anyone's interest, the upload list is visible at Special:ListFiles/Marshallsumter; a single-page view is at https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&limit=1160&user=Marshallsumter. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The abuse of the fair use doctrine by this former participant is so egregious that I fully support nuking all image uploads. --mikeu talk 04:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 * And I presume all pages by same participant that contain these images?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Any pages that have copious copyvio images should be deleted, along with the images. If there are pages without image violation they should be userfied. I doubt there are very many resources that have relevant learning content without copyvio. So, that leaves the resource pages open to deletion - which I support. --mikeu talk 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Mixed discussion related to User:Marshallsumter and other topics
(Moved from Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22 --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC))
 * While I have your attention, I am confused about two lists that I compiled from various requests on RFD:
 * >1500 Marshallsumter files: Why we deleting Marshallsumter images?
 * Draft:Original research/Literature & Dominant group/Literature Marshallsumter sometimes delves into the "soft" (unscientific) subjects like literature where personal taste becomes important. I see no reason to delete or even read them.
 * I believe these are being deleted because they are unused, yes?
 * I am not very skilled at uploading files to commons that I did not create (most of my contributions need only attribution to other files on commons.) I uploaded three files from the loc, and it was a time-consuming learning experience.  Is there someone else who can do it?  Perhaps I could watch till I got the hang of it.
 * After writing this I found, which answers a lot of my questions.
 * I find this page a bit cluttered, but can live with it. If you want a general archiving and cleanup-just ask.
 * --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Many of the files uploaded by Marshallsumter did not meet the requirements of fair use (violating the Exemption Doctrine Policy). I think all "the easy files" are deleted now. So to clean up the rest we either need hard work or a brute descision to delete everything just to be safe.
 * 2) I do not think I suggested to delete those 2 pages?
 * 3) Yes because they are unused.
 * 4) If you mean move files from here to Commons it is very easy: just click the tab "Export to Wikimedia Commons". If you mean files you found on the Internet it is more tricky. You need to add the relevant information manually and more important add a source. If you found a website with hundreds or thousands of good files it may be possible to do with a bot (see c:Commons:Batch uploading).
 * 5) Great :-)
 * 6) I can live with it too.

 * On #1, I am happy with the brute decision if you are. It's the uploader's responsibility to document the copyright.  Recently Mu301 and I "rescued" some high-quality photos on a high-quality resource.  But that was an exceptional case. Regarding #4, is (or should it be) our policy to move all Wikiversity files to Commons that are not fair use?  My problem with that is we sponsor some pretty low-quality stuff.  For example, instructors sometimes use Wikiversity for student submissions, and we can't delete those files until the course is over (in fact, we have no policy on deleting course-affiliated student submissions.) What do we do if the main page is a high-quality course, but some of the student submissions have no educational value?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I have no problem if everything is deleted in #1. And I also have no problems if course-affiliated student submissions are deleted after some time (#4). But I think both should be discussed on separate topics (perhaps just move the content to ). --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been on Wikiversity for more than 10 years, most of the time not paying attention to such things, but I am unaware of any policy that calls for the routine deletion of student efforts that were created as part of an established course. If no decision has ever been made to routinely delete student efforts, we need to make sure the entire community is on board with any change in policy.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Deleting student efforts that were created as part of an established course needs a new discussion and concensus.
 * Except if it is a copyvio then it should be deleted. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting ALL non-free uploads by User:Marshallsumter
Okay so it seems everyone agree that files that violates Wikiversity criteria for fair use should be deleted - not a big surprise :-D

The big question is if files should be checked one by one or if they should all be deleted. I noticed that some users more or less support to delete all non-free files.

I therefore have 2 questions:
 * 1) Do you agree to delete all non-free files?
 * 2) Would you like to try to save any of the files and if yes should all the files be put on a list or in a category or how do you propose to make that possible?

Ping User:Guy vandegrift, User:Dan Polansky, User:Mu301, User:Koavf, User:Omphalographer, User:Dave Braunschweig, User:AP295 and User:MathXplore that was involved in discussions recently. Sorry if I missed anyone and if you do not want to join this time thats of course okay. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Yes
 * No
 * —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also yes to 1 and no to 2, with the understanding that this policy only applies to MS because of the large volume of images involved.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct and also because MS had a lot of bad files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * yes, all non-free files should be deleted, prejudiced.
 * no, I don't believe that there is anything worth saving, in this batch from MS.
 * --mikeu talk 21:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Same as Justin, Guy and mikeu: delete all Marshall Sumter-uploaded non-free files/uploads. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that there is concensus to delete. I am now adding the files to Category:Files uploaded by Marshallsumter - non-free. I have created Category:Files uploaded by Marshallsumter - non-free - do not delete where anyone can add files if they think some files should be kept (permanent or temporary). I hope it will make it easier to delete the files.--MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as info. Marshallsumter wrote to me on Commons (User_talk:MGA73) saying we should not delete. I do not see how it will change the result here. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Facilitation
Trivial questions don't save what is a page with learning outcomes that are scarce (WV:Deletions]). I don't care whether this gets deleted, moved to userspace or moved to Draft:Archive. This was proposed for deletion in 2016 by Dave Braunschweig and was "saved" by adding questions that in my view are trivial and do not save the article. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think the page achieves anything. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify, pending vote to rescind the 6-month draftspace deletion rule (latest vote change)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Archive, Delete, or Userspace (roughly in that order: vote cast on behalf of Dan Polansky by Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) That's accurate. I guess I prefer Archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify (Move to Draft namespace) - I contributed to this page in good faith. Deleting this page rather than preserving it somewhere will further decrease my motivations to contribute Creative Commons content to the Commons on this wiki, with the understanding that it is OK and considered a "best practice" to delete some good faith Creative Commons contributions on this wiki. A relevant rational may also be found here. Limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The "good faith" talk is, in my view, entirely beside the point. Faith is not in question in deletion discussion, merely the aptness of the material for inclusion on a project, or inclusion in a specific namespace. For example, Wikiversity is not a repository of good-faith small children's creations or their analogues, or at least its mainspace is not. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the word you are looking for is "rationale", not "rational". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not accept your premise that "Wikiversity is not a repository of (small children's creations)". ... Also, there is a parallel discussion at Wikiversity_talk:Deletions, and it may remove most of the need for Draft:Archive. Michael Ten has pointed out that pages in draftspace could remain permanently. Looking back into the history, I discovered that I voted for the 180 limit. I had forgotten all about that vote, but my own choice of wording jogged my memory: I voted for a 180 day limit because the decision to delete old drafts seemed like a foregone conclusion (Groupthink - who needs it!)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, then, from what does it follow that Wikiversity is such a repository? Which guideline, policy or scope statement? By small children I mean, say 0-6 years olds. Should e.g. scans of all pictures drawn by such children be uploadable as "educational content"? And if not pictures, should their first writings be uploadable? Why do they need publishing; does their local harddrive storage not serve the creative purpose enough? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I overstated my remark about children's work: For the most part, it belongs in userspace or draftspace. And, we need the parent's permission. But colleges teach courses in elementary education. I once walked into such a course and somebody was reading a children's book to the entire class.  But we have no entrance requirements for Wikiversity, no minimum IQ is needed. Keep in mind that our differences are matters of personal taste (not factual reality.)  The question at hand at Wikiversity_talk:Deletions is what requirements we wish to have for a page to reside indefinitely in draftspace.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose that we close this discussion with decision to delete, as author voted for that option.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Decadic numbers
Arguably, this is not good enough for the mainspace; I have no objections to this being in the draft space or the userspace. Issues: 1) The page appears to be an original research but is not marked as such; 2) it introduces the term "decadic number" as an original terminological invention, as far as I can tell, but does not disclose this to be the case; 3) the term "decadic number" is unfortunate since what is meant is something like "infinite decadic number"; 4) even the term "number" is questionable since it is not clear how these so-called numbers can have anything to do with quantity (but then, complex numbers arguably also do not express quantity, or a single quantity); 5) no attempt to formally define what a decadic number is made; this so-called decadic number appears to be a mapping from positive integers to the set of digits 0-9, to be interpreted from right to left; 6) e.g. "Addition of the decadic numbers is the same as that of the integers" is clearly untrue: integers are finite discrete quantities; ditto for "Multiplication works the same way in the decadic numbers as in the integers".

Perhaps this can be salvaged rather than moved out of mainspace. The first thing to do is add external sources dealing with the concept or state that this is original invention; and then, address the issues. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * As with Surreal numbers the choice is between userspace and a subspace where users could be encouraged to cooperate. Unlike Surreal numbers, I am unaware of any application in physics for this topic. The ideal place would be Discrete mathematics/Number theory because the Olympiads is a high school thing. I will contact the author about both pages--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If the page should stay in mainspace, I see no reason why it could not stay at Decadic numbers; I don't see moving it around in mainspace as an improvement. But my position as explained above is that it is not fit for mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Decadic numbers and Surreal numbers have enough that they should be parallel subpages of the same page. I have suggested to the author that they should either create a top page, or find a top page and group these resources together.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Rational numbers/Introduction
The page does not do anything that Wikipedia does not do better: Rational number. The page contains unfilled tables that seemed to be intended to explain something, but since they are empty, explain nothing. The page has no further reading, revealing no attempt to find best complementary sources online, probably of much higher quality. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I see why you were kicked off Wiktionary. Wikiversity has a long and established tradition of allowing student efforts. This page is no worse that Student Projects/Major rivers in India, a page which I randomly selected from Student Projects.  I am trying to recruit students to contribute to Wikiversity.  Until the Wikiversity community changes its mind about allowing student projects, I will continue with that quest. I will change the template so as to not discourage a person clearly interested in teaching mathematics, and I want you to refrain from placing rfd templates on student efforts.  Use subpagify instead.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was blocked in the English Wiktionary for "racism" and more. In the English Wiktionary, I often defended pages nominated for deletion and rather rarely nominated anything for deletion. The English Wiktionary has almost no useless pages and is the 2nd most often visited project after Wikipedia. By contrast, the English Wikiversity has very few useful pages, a state of affairs that I am trying to turn around, step by step, following processes and guidelines that I did nothing to establish: WV:RFD and WV:Deletions. That is as far as persons go (ad hominem); as far as process, I hoped here to have a discussion with editors about whether this nearly useless page (Rational numbers/Introduction) should be moved out of the mainspace, and unless consensus developed for my position, I stand no chance to prevail. Rational numbers/Introduction  is not a "student project" in any sense of "project" but rather example of all-too-typical junk. Again, I do not decide, others do with me being only a single voice/input. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now you are on the right track! Wikiversity might be in a transition period between allowing all sorts of pages, to morphing into a selective institution. But the process has to change from the top-down, not from the bottom by deleting one page at a time. When I say "top", I am referring not to the administrators, but to the community at large. At present, RFD has nothing near the quorum required to implement the changes you (and others) are seeking. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The only reasonable way going forward, to my mind anyway, is to follow WV:Deletions and not worry about the precedent of its countless violations. Since, should we take e.g. Relation between Electricity And Magnetism, existing since 2011, as an example of a page to be kept, then we must keep nearly everything. There are too many pages like that, and therefore, if we take their aggregate as a binding precedent to follow, we end up in trouble, unable to delete junk. It seems only fair to proceed according WV:Deletions, especially when using RFD process which gives potential opposition enough time to object. Such a procedure violates neither established guidelines nor processes; if it "violates" anything, then preexisting extreme lenience/tolerance toward junk, lenience that, as far as I know, was never codified into a guideline. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Please don't use this page as an agenda for reforming Wikiversity. Go to the Colloquium or write an essay. Having said that, I did delete Creating Relation between Electricity And Magnetism because that follows both guidelines and established practice.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, lenience is given an advantage when pages are up for deletion (See Special:Permalink/2615245 for evidence that deletion requires somewhat of a super-majority.) But you are not calling for deletion of low quality pages. Instead you want them out of mainspace. We have room for compromise. But, as I said before: RFD is not the place to discuss this. If you want, I could take "Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024" out of my user-space and we could discuss it there.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Complex Systems Digital Campus/E-Laboratory on complex computational ecosystems/Members of the ECCE e-lab
I noticed a recent edit in the archives and stumbled upon an unanswered question by user:MGA73.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The linked page shows a list of laboratory members and their photo portraits (photos of faces). Such a thing does not seem to be particularly educational, and no big loss ensues by deletion. On the other hand, if this group of people wants to use Wikiversity to contribute research or educational material, this kind of page could be kindly tolerated. I do not really know what to do here. What is the precedent or similar previous RFD cases? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also a copyright problem and possibly a privacy issue.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The page was created by User:Collet = Pierre Collet, who, believing the page, is one of three representatives of the group. Presumably, if these people did not want to be so published, they would not have agreed to Pierre's creating the page? Therefore, as for privacy, should we assume a problem unless some of the members depicted contacts us, or should we rather assume Pierre Collet knew what he was doing? Pierre Collet's last edit was on 5 July 2021. Many of the images were uploaded by User:Pallamidessi in 2014, per Special:Contributions/Pallamidessi. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am OK with keeping it as is.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. The copyright belong to the photographer and not the person on the photo (unless photographer transferred the rights to the person). So the person have no right to allow other to use the photo. The person can ofcourse say that they do not mind that a photo of them is used somewhere. But there is a good chance that the photographer allowed the persons to use the photo. So I do not think there is a big risk using the photos. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Unused files (user uploaded 1 file only)
I suggest to delete the unused files in Category:Unused files (user uploaded 1 file only). There are 115 files but a few are also in Category:NowCommons and could be speedy deleted for that reason.

A longer discussion about unused files in general can be seen at Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20 and a similar discussion about unused files uploaded by Robert Elliott and Katluvdogs was closed as delete. Currently there is an open discussion for.

These files were uploaded by users that only uploaded 1 file. So it is most likely not users that were very active on Wikiversity.

I made a comment at Colloquium about moving files to Commons but I do not think these files look useful. If anyone think that one or more of the files should be kept they are welcome to move them to Commons so they can be put in relevant categories and hopefully be used for something in the future. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Many of them are not useful for any real purpose. I'll chip away at some of these. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was actually pretty easy to go thru most of these as they are 1.) clearly not useful, 2.) unused, or 3.) already exported to Commons. A substantial majority has been deleted. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did them all. Mostly lo-rez selfies, images of text, and diagrams or equations that related to nothing, plus a few screenplays. None of them were in use locally, a handf
 * were already on Commons and I exported some as well.l —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Unused files (user uploaded 2-5 free file only)
I suggest to delete the unused files in Category:Unused files (user uploaded 2-5 free file only). There are 81 files but a few are also in Category:NowCommons and could be speedy deleted for that reason.

A longer discussion about unused files in general can be seen at Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20 and a similar discussion about unused files uploaded by Robert Elliott, Katluvdogs and was closed as delete. Currently there is an open discussion for.

These files were uploaded by users that only uploaded a few free files so the files are most likely not a part of a bigger set of files.

I made a comment at Colloquium about moving files to Commons but I do not think these files look useful. If anyone think that one or more of the files should be kept they are welcome to move them to Commons so they can be put in relevant categories and hopefully be used for something in the future.

There are some pdf-files among. Commons does usually not value pdf-files unless they are scans of old books for example. So I do not think we should move those files unless there is a good reason to do so.

One of the files is called "File:WikiJournal Preprints COVID-19 ELIMINATION AND CELL DIFFERENTIATION - Wikiversity.pdf" so that would fit in Category:WikiJournal. However it is also called "preprint" so I'm not sure if it is the final edition. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I removed File:WikiJournal Preprints COVID-19 ELIMINATION AND CELL DIFFERENTIATION - Wikiversity.pdf from category and added to Category:WikiJournal Preprints to keep it per comment Special:Diff/2624512. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Koavf you did the "1 file only" so well. Perhaps you could also check this category? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. I should be able to get to this today. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Advanced C Programming
Delete or move to user space or to draft space. Nothing to learn from here. I see no subpages. The page was edited in 2024 by Anonymous Agent, but it did not result in any useable content, from what I can see. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Delete unless who has recently edited it has any intentions on expanding it to something useful in the short term. If you don't, AA, would you be interested in hosting it in your userspace and working on it at your own pace until it's ready to be published in the main namespace? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree to delete this page. I once requested to delete this page but was rejected. Happy to delete it now ! Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Adel shirazy
Delete as out of scope for Wikiversity. This is part of an attempt at various WMF sites to publicise Adel shirazy who lacks notability. The creating editor, Adelsoft, shares Adel with Shirazy, so this may be self promotion. Please see Adel Shirazy and w:en:Draft:Adel Shirazy. Setting aside the deletion discussion on the former, this is the correct venue for a biography. Timtrent (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Deleted as spam since this request. Thank you. Timtrent (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion


text:
Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/1

GaryGoldstein - DELETED
Not sure why (or how) it was created, but it deffinitly should not exist. -- Trevor MacInnis 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ARGUMENTS -
 * Looks like User:GaryGoldstein was mistakenly created there.-- digital  _  me   13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted it, I don't really see any reason for it to be there.-- digital  _  me   16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Pages created after importation from wikibooks - DELETED
REASON -- Matteo 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ARGUMENTS - The Process I would like to use is:
 * Direct links in wikibooks away from redirects in wikiversity b:Category:Wikiversity Moved Pages
 * Check the redirect pages for pages that link to it and correct the links.
 * RfD the pages that are redirects

This seems logical to me - any objections? Cormaggio 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * we should add the/a template(+category) Redirects for Deletion Matteo 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and be bold. No longer needed redirects can be marked with for deletion. -- sebmol ? 07:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What do stars look like up closer - DELETED
Trying to not bit the newbie, so I'm proposing What do stars look like up closer here. Nice that 5th graders are editing, though.--Rayc 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Web Design:ICAB5180A Integrate database with a website - DELETED
REASON: This page seems to be a test edit by an IP. It contains no valuable context. -- J.Steinbock 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * yup. try a google test on that code at the beginning, its non-sence. Heltec  talk

 * I've deleted the page. In the future, if you find such obvious nonsense just use delete. sebmol ? 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Service community (deleted)
Another cross-namespace redirect. All incoming links have been repointed (by hand .. as I'm too lazy to get AWB to work on wv :P) after the page was moved out of mainspace, save for two links from Wikiversity talk:Service where context was rather relevant. The only advantage I could see to keeping this redirect would be convenience for those who are used to it, but I still think we should avoid using cross-namespace redirects where we can. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

deleted per nom sebmol ? 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Plp (deleted)
This template really doesn't make any sense--it's supposed to be used to tag "Proposed learning projects," but such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. Anyone can create a learning project with no need to propose it or seek approval to create it, although this template seems to suggest that there's some proposed project process. As I can't see any real use for this template, I'd like to propose that it be deleted. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a paradox. You can only use the template when the page exists, but if it exists, it's no longer proposed.  Might be useful in the future if we start setting some standards about when Learning projects start, but not now.--Rayc 06:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

deleted per nom sebmol ? 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Orientation (deleted)
Add to that list Orientation. Cross-namespace redirect resulting from my moving project-oriented material out of the mainspace. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

deleted per nom in the future, please consider using delete for cases which do not need discussion sebmol ? 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I would have, but I got screamed at the last time I tagged a cross-namespace redirect for deletion, so I figured it best to just bring them all here for discussion :D. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ocean_Engineering_and_Naval_Architecture (deleted)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ocean_Engineering_and_Naval_Architecture Topic Topic:Ocean_Engineering_and_Naval_Architecture already exists. --Remi0o 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gone. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Precursors of Chemistry (-1800) (deleted)
Matt McTague is the king of the world!!!!

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Precursors_of_Chemistry_%28-1800%29

 * Was speedy deleted by Sebmol --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

from User:Mlanaduncan (deleted)
these are all available for deletion. they are name changes to remove the + signs.

 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Philosophical+Method
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Presocratics+and+Socrates
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Faith+and+Reason+
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Arguments+for+God
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Problem+of+Evil
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Truth
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Skepticism
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/MindBody
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Mind
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Personal+Identity
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/FreeWill
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Deontology

 * Done. Cormaggio talk 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The question, needed non direct link to display (deleted)
REASON:A close to direct quote from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (I checked, its from book 2 pg.37). Non-sense and copyright infringement.-- Heltec  talk  01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ARGUMENTS -
 * Well, it's our only philosophy learning project, and it's a deep one. HGttG might be a good starting place, but the copyrighted text should be removed.  --Rayc 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I have deleted the page linked to here, as well as a duplicate page (The Question), because they contain copyrighted text. (and also because this discussion has been open for over a month without a decision :S) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mejan the Snowman (deleted)
I nominated this for deleteion. Am I right in thinking that Wikiversity isn't the place for this kind of thing? Xania 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, speedily delete with fire. AmiDaniel (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Has any attempt been made to Assume Good Faith and contact the author? --JWSchmidt 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is someone attempting to analyze cartoon scripts for storyboarding practice. If you follow the "bulgy" in this file found by following the IP address The_Adventures_of_Simon_Douglas:_The_Genuis you find a lesson on 3D Storyboarding.  All the contributions made under this IP address seem related to concise outlines of cartoons and analysis of characters and basic themes or plots.  Perhaps if we left a note asking the user to register and use their talk pages and sub pages for personal notes and exercises we would eventually gain a knowledge participant vs. irritating someone by deleting their efforts with a note it is not relevant to Wikiversity. Mirwin 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this, along with others added by this user (contribs): Helen Prince, Helen Prince (character), My Gym Partner SItes, List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified, Mejan and Pepe, The 3 Teenagers, Chip Skylark's Holiday Hits, The Adventures of Simon Douglas: The Genuis, Harried Treasure, A Christmas Film, Fred's Rule Of Dumb, and Stopp N Hollywood, are probably intended for Wikipedia. I've added a note on their talk pages, requesting clarification from the author - as has Mirwin on some. Cormaggio talk 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Nice detective work there, Mirwin. So, should we leave them be until the author replies (which could be indefinitely), or what? Cormaggio talk 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it could be categorized as a learning project under... it seems like a manga or anime piece... animation??? --Remi0o 12:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly would prefer for the author to give us feedback before we do any further work on these pages. I'm still not convinced of their usefulness - but would not like to dismiss them out of hand either. Cormaggio talk 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Based on what can be seen at Wikipedia, the person editing from 68.37.205.18 does not discuss their edits. --JWSchmidt 14:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd speedily delete those articles. All cut and paste. --HappyCamper 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought. We wait. --HappyCamper 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok - thanks for that - I didn't realise that the same stuff was on Wikipedia (eg List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified). But yes, there's no harm in waiting for a bit - but I don't want to get swamped by loads of muck - this is quite a prolific and specialised user! Cormaggio talk 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think we've waited long enough, and the user has not responded to the messages. I have deleted the pages in question --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Game Maker (closed)
Contesting scope tag, not sure if those are to be brought here. (Prod template on wikipedia are only brought to AfD if the template is removed and then contested). We have School:Computer Simulation and Game Design as an example of the school it is in, and Audacity as an example of the type of page it is.--Rayc 17:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why this page was marked for deletion. One of the goals of Wikiversity is to review and provide links to existing learning resources outside of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I de-tagged it as being outside the scope of Wikiversity. I'm fairly sure this can be kept. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

discussion closed sebmol ? 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kincachoo (deleted)
This page I happened to have come across while skimming through the random page selection, it has no content whatsoever and I don't think such a word exsists, I really don't think we need this article. Its been here nearly two months. Student Galaxy 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like something was created that would be better on the tree of life or a wikipedia page. Unless it how to take care of Kincachoo (which might not actually exist), it doesn't belong here.--Rayc 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

deleted per request sebmol ? 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Briefsism (deleted)
It's either a hoax, or someone making a joke article, or an obscure religion, but whether it's useful here, well, it's anyone's guess! -- 1qx 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a wikipedia article in any case. Best to delete it and let them recreate it in wikipedia, and then it can be deleted under hoax--Rayc 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple points of view/Wikimedia Garbage Detail (deleted)
Cross namespace redirect.. do we have that dumb rule here too? I thought it was only enforced in enwikipedia because they were running out of space and could foresee when a redirect could get turned into an article.--Rayc 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The namespaces each serve very particular roles, and in particular, crossing projectspace with mainspace just gives me the eeberjeebers. Projectspace is for metadata, where random WikiProjects such as this one are appropriate, whilst the mainspace is for educational content only. By redirecting from the mainspace to projectspace we completely shatter this divide, and, while such redirects may be helpful to our editors, they are not helpful to our everyday readers who come looking for lessons and get "Wikimedia Garbage Detail." It's important to keep in mind that the site search, by default, searches only in the mainspace, meaning that a search may well turn up redirects such as this one, which is really just a horrid embarassment to all who have helped to build Wikiversity--like a gaping whole in the set staring directly into backstage. We need to think of redirects in terms of how they are most useful and least confusing to our typical readers, not to ourselves. So, I'd say delete all cross-namespace redirects from mainspace to project and userspace. And no, enwiki is not deleting cross-namespace redirects because they're running out of article space :D -- rather, it's for some of the reasons I mention above, and many, many others. Before discussing the cross-namespace issue, I'd strongly encourage everyone to take a look at pages such as w:Wikipedia talk:Cross-namespace redirects, w:WP:RfD, and many other related pages on enwiki. AmiDaniel 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the sake of completeness, let it be said that the various WP: and CAT: shortcuts on English Wikipedia are technically also cross namespace redirects. I've deleted Wikimedia Garbage Detail and I have no problems seeing the other one gone too. sebmol ? 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes, but WP: and CAT: have become pseudonamespaces through popular usage, and though some are occassionally deleted, you'll never hear anyone calling for their deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, there would be allot of confusion if Main Page was deleted, so not all Cross-namespace redirects should go. --Rayc 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * * blinks* Except, naturally, those excluded by common sense :). AmiDaniel (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Both deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

KARL MARX PAGE (deleted)
PLEASE DELETE THE KARL MARX PAGE: Karl_Marx_Page

 * It was moved to Karl Marx - do you still think it should be deleted? Why? Cormaggio beep 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirect deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese/Vocabulary (deleted)

 * Verbs 1 REASON redundant with Japanese I/Vocabulary/Verbs 1 and too ambiguous of a title.-- Balloonguy 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nouns 1 REASON No content and too ambiguous of a title. -- Balloonguy 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Numbers 1 REASON No content and too ambiguous of a title. -- Balloonguy 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Page histories merged and subsequently deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Topic:Psychology (deleted)
This page redirects to School:Psychology. I found five pages that still link to Topic, and converted all of them to link to School. Deleting is a minor neatness I know, but it frees Topic:Psychology to be used properly if needed. Thanks John Havey 02:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirect deleted. -- digital  _  me   23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Several pages regarding Judaism (1 of 2 deleted)
Both will perhaps be created again later, but right now this is just clutter which is not being maintained and has no use at all. I intend to remove both from Topic:Jewish studies. --Daniel575 | (Talk) 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Topic:Jewish Mysticism-Kabbalah
 * Topic:Jewish prayer

Topic:Jewish Mysticism-Kabbalah deleted, Topic:Jewish prayer left as it has content. -- digital  _  me   04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Media files with no copyright information
There is no licensing information for these files.
 * Image:French Vocabulary - Introductions.ogg
 * Image:French Grammar - The French Alphabet.ogg
 * Image:French Vocabulary - How are you?.ogg
 * Image:French Vocabulary - Greetings.ogg
 * Image:12barBlues001.ogg 1.ogg
 * Image:Hanka Dublin.jpg--JWSchmidt 17:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 * JW has already placed request for licensing information on the originator's discussion page with a warning that the files will be deleted if it is not forthcoming. Mirwin 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of these are candidates for Template:GFDL-presumed. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

An_intorduction_to_Data_Structures_and_Algorithms
Page has no content and is obviously abandoned because of typo in title. Mirwin 05:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. McCormack 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Creative_information_artist
Page content has been merged into a subpage of Lunar Boom Town project, I created most or all of the content for Lunar Boom Town. It is now redundant and should be deleted. Mirwin 06:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. McCormack 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Participants (moved/archived)
Note: I moved the old contents of Portal:Participants to Portal:Participants/Old and that page is now in Category:History of Wikiversity.

REASON -- Similar to Wikiversity:Participants, except all (or most, at least) of the users on this page come from Wikibooks, and so it is not only useless, but also out of date. While the page could be altered to become something useful, as it stands it should be deleted—anyone that comes to it would get the impression that it's meant to be a (quite defunct) list of who's active on Wikiversity. The Jade Knight 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ARGUMENTS -- * at this time.  An Effort has just begun to Coordinate this Page with Participants.  It would be difficult or impossible to do so were the Page to be Prematurely Deleted.  A successful effort would result in the establishment of a user-friendly guide to WV Participants.  With cultivation we may expect a harvest.  (s) Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-07-18 (July 18, 2007) Time: 2228 UTC

 * See argument above about reorganization of participant lists. Mirwin 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * strong for the same reasons listed above.   The information here is even more useless than Participants and can not even be salvaged by something like my dynamic page suggestion above.  Just about the only way to salvage it is to rename (out of portal: space) and tag it with Template:Historical as an archive.  In this case there is only one bot edit since 16:29, 18 July 2007.--mikeu 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic:Departament of Chinese culture, by Guo Britney (renamed/expanded)

 * Reason: Blank page and bad name (Name with by: in title)--Unionhawk 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I moved the page to the shorter Topic:Department of Chinese culture and will write the creator, if he wants to continue with it. What do you say ? Erkan Yilmaz ( Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog ) 07:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Question: is this an open deletion debate topic? It does not look like the template was ever included in the page.  I'm fine with keeping the renamed version (not sure what category to assign it to, but it needs one or some association with a shool or parent topic.)--mikeu 17:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Page has been expanded since this discussion started. I just added to Category:Cultural Studies.  --mikeu talk 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BMCs (deleted)
Bunch of articles from BMC02 to BMC30 (for complete list see Category:Requests for Deletion), except BMC01, BMC04 and BMC23, where could be some useful content. First I wanted to mark them for speedy deletion, but may be these articles have some purpose (not clear to me, however) -- Gbaor 13:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I created a new Category:Biochemistry Exam Study Guide and added all the articles to it. It appears that this study guide was a class project last Sept. 2007 but only a few of the students actually added content to the pages.  One possible solution is to rename the pages with content using a more desriptive title, and delete the empty placeholder files.  --mikeu talk 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, this doesn't seem to call for mass-deletion, but rather a project to make useful resources out of 'dumped' material (or material which was used as part of a course). In cases where there was clear collaborative activity, and for the purposes of preserving that somehow, it might be an idea to either 1) keep those pages as is, and then fork/merge relevant content into new pages with different educational goals, or 2) start refactoring-and-merging, while leaving a note on the context of the page's history (somewhere on page or talk page) and a link to the version at which point it was refactored. Does that make sense? Any better ideas? Cormaggio talk 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I looked in a bit more and I see there wasn't really that much collaborative activity - as admitted by one of the participants . There really are only three useful pages, as you point out - we can tag these as historical, and perhaps fork into new materials, but the rest could easily be deleted. (I'm thinking we can also use cases like this to build policy and practical guidelines for dealing with materials geared towards specific groups which have since disappeared.) Cormaggio talk 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I deleted all of the empty pages. Only the ones with content (BMC01, BMC04 and BMC23 in Category:Biochemistry Exam Study Guide) remain.  They should probably be renamed or reworked into something more generic.  --mikeu talk 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The empty page BCM11 and BCM12 have also been deleted. --mikeu talk 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Master in Geology (moved to userspace)
This page is irrelevant, as well as being a stub with useless biographical information. --Laleena 13:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The page was moved to here - also see previous comments here. Afterwards Master in Geology was deleted, so it can be created new. Erkan Yilmaz ( Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog ) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:202.163.95.225 (was Master in Geology)
The page Master in Geology was tagged for deletion but never listed here. It was then moved to User:202.163.95.225. I will close this in one week if there are no objections with a decision of moved since that seems to take care of the objection to the original page. --mikeu talk 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

✅ Removed Template:Deletion request from User:202.163.95.225 --mikeu talk 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

English to Spanish (deleted)
REASON: Doesn't seem to ever have had anything significant on it, and is possibly vandalism. Doesn't seem to be anything but a joke -- Mathboy965 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ARGUMENTS -

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support, created quite some time ago by an IP address that only had a single edit - this one. Countrymike 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] This one could be semi-speedy deleted also :) --Gbaor 06:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps it could be kept as a welcome and expand and be made into a help desk of sorts for people who would like to have an english phrase translated to spanish. --Remi 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted. --mikeu talk 03:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexuality Questionnaire (removed copyright material)
The article is acknowledged to be a copy of http://www.pinkpractice.co.uk/quaire.htm, stated to be "Reprinted with permission via email". The original contributor, mehmetaergun, asked on the talk page to "pls let me know if this is problematic", on 2007-02-09. Cormaggio asked about the permission for the article on mehmetaergun's talk page on 2007-04-19, and mikeu replied on the article talk page on 2007-12-16, but mehmetaergun's actually hasn't edited anything since 2007-03-21. I suggest deleting the page and replacing the links to it by external links to the source page. Benja 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 * delete There has been plenty of time with no response and we can't keep the page without knowing that it is covered by the proper license. We can always undelete if/when we know that is can be used here.  --mikeu talk 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The questionnaire is actually all over the web, and the author (Martin Rochlin) is now deceased. I think it's probably best to link out to it, and to quote/discuss it within relevant pages in Wikiversity. (Delete.) Cormaggio talk 14:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let's remove the survey from the page, and replace with a link.  Then add instructions to the reader to comment and discuss.  --mikeu talk 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Benja 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

✅ The Questionnaire has been removed, but there is still a link to it. --mikeu talk 22:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives to High School Partying (rename and edit)
Added by an anonymous editor who added nothing else. Does not seem to be anything more than a gag. --McCormack 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. --Gbaor 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Wrong wiki - do we really need to discuss this? Cormaggio talk 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * OK - discussion over then! I'll semi-speedily delete it. --McCormack 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * - As a counter point, it seems that this could be something that might be handed out at a high-school/early college as a sort "prevention" (don't do drugs, don't suffer the negative effects of alcohol, don't have a baby!). Considering that Wikiversity is not meant to be solely geared towards higher education and presuming that this is not a copyright violation, could resources like these perhaps have a place at Wikiversity? --Remi 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Note to the author of this deleted article: A better place for this type of thing would be WikiHow . StuRat 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * (Belated) - I agree with Remi.  I don't think this was a gag.  This is a serious concern at some schools.  For example see the Late Night Fund to provide non-alcoholic activities for students.  See also 'O'Reilly Factor' segment claims to uncover U.-sponsored 'debauchery' at Saturday party for why...  --mikeu talk 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I didn't dismiss this article on the general gist of what it was talking about (which I agree is a very valid topic) - but more on the grounds of its orientation to just one area of the US - eg.: "In Clay County there are plenty of options for food and movie theatres. If you want a quick meal there are plenty of fast food restaurants: McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc." It seemed to be more oriented to a Clay County wiki (if there is such a thing.) I'd be in favour of a more generally applicable article - perhaps it could be restored, and encouraged to be relevant to at least high schools across the US? Cormaggio talk 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Different IP, but looks like the same person created Missouri Teens: Alternatives to Partying. I agree that we should encourage expansion so it is not location specific.  --mikeu talk 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

✅ Both Alternatives to High School Partying and Missouri Teens: Alternatives to Partying now redirect to Alternatives to partying which has had some of the specific geographic references removed. --mikeu talk 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

SMU (deleted)
(South Mediterranean University)

I add this here to raise discussion about our Outreach policy and its implications. The above page, as it stands, looks like advertising (which it pretty much is). However, we say on our outreach page that we would allow a page on Wikiversity for institutions we were doing some outreach to/from. This was proposed so that the institution could give some information about themselves, and to organise their Wikiversity outreach activities. I personally think the above page goes too far down the line of advertising, but I am aware that "the line" is not at all defined. I would outline a first stab as: Comments on this, the above page, or anything else that might be related? Cormaggio talk 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Outreach pages must be categorised as outreach pages
 * Outreach pages must be used as organising pages for clear outreach activities (or intentions to organise such activities)
 * Outreach pages may only give minimal (one paragraph) introductions to their institution which conform to NPOV (ie would be acceptable as first paragraph introductions on Wikipedia)

 * . WV should not be or contain directories of institutions or academics' visiting cards, unless these are heavily involved with producing content for WV. As an aside, I wonder what outreach has ever achieved for Wikiversity? There are many far more important things to do. --McCormack 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I wouldn't want to get into judging resources/activities on the grounds that there may be "more important things to do". (We can support many types of initiatives - in fact I think we must if we are to be true to our "experimental" nature - and I think outreach is an extremely valuable one). However, there is no indication here as to what their outreach proposal is, and so it becomes indistinguishable from advertising. Maybe we can use it as an example for what is unacceptable, and make another for what would be ok, and have them as resources for Outreach? Cormaggio talk 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * - Maybe move it to user namespace as it is (i.e. User:South Mediterranean University), or since it is in the main namespace then just remove what comes across as advertising so it is more factual, or even just keep as is for now and see how or if it evolves. --Remi 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhere I read that it was Wikimedia policy not to allow multi-person accounts - perhaps connected with privacy? --McCormack 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Speedy delete as copyright violation. The three sections of text are from:, and   Also: Image:Dean.gif as copyvio  and no permission from subject of photo.  Also: Image:Mediterranean School of Business.jpg as trademark logo with no fair use rationale.  --mikeu talk 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * See also same material at South Mediterranean University which I have tagged as a copyvio.   And Image:Mediterranean_School_of_Business.jpg which has already been deleted.  --mikeu talk 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Delete also Image:Logo-MSB-couleurs juin 2006.jpg as logo unused in any pages with no fair use rationale. --mikeu talk 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

✅ Deleted page and images as copyright violation. --mikeu talk 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (deleted)
REASON: This article may be outside the scope of Wikiversity, being an encyclopedia article and adding nothing of educational value to the equivalent article already on Wikipedia. -- McCormack 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ARGUMENTS - Thanks for your concern. I would appreciate, if you kindly give me some time as I am new to WV and still learning, I will try my level best to make my article as per WV. --Iamsaa 06:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a Wikipedia article to me (actually, it looks like a copy-paste of an article). Wikiversity is not an encyclopedia. --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But the original WP article is different, if similar. I checked ;-) I think it would be more polite to give Iamsaa a chance to agree with deletion of his page before we do anything. McCormack 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deletion, particularly Speedy Deletion. The Initiator of the Page has indicated that Time is needed to bring the Page into Conformance with Policy.  Let the Page be Retained and later Revisited to see what Progress has been made.  --  Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-08-10 (August 10, 2007) Time: 1400 UTC
 * I've left a brief message on Iamsaa's talk page about the purposes of WV. I don't really see any way this page could be brought into line with WV's aims, but as a matter of politeness to Iamsaa he should have a chance. I'd suggest waiting a week or so to see if the page is developed any further. McCormack 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, McCormack, for your Civility. An attempt will be made to bring the Page into line with the Aims of Wikiversity.  --  Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-08-10 (August 10, 2007) Time: 1659 UTC
 * Thank you, I am very much grateful to all members of WV, as I requested above to grant me some time as presently I am busy with my exam and thus unable to work any further on my article on WV. Meanwhile, May I request you guys to please help me by editing my article? --Iamsaa 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could give us some guidance as to how this article could be turned into an educational resource? McCormack 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deletion. At 09:05:11 on Today's Date Initiator of the Page made a Revision such that there is no longer any Basis for the Original Objection to the Page: that it is "an encyclopedia article and adding nothing of educational value to the equivalent article already on Wikipedia".  Accordingly the Deletion Request should be Removed; and those involved with the Page should be accorded the opportunity to develop the the Resource as they are able.  As indicated above by the Initiator of this Resource, Time will be needed to fully develop the Page; but, absent some New Objection, the Deletion Request should be Removed.  --  Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-08-15 (August 15, 2007) Time: 1912 UTC
 * Thanks, I will try my level best to meet your expectation but these days I am busy in my exams. --Iamsaa 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deletion. Again, there is no longer any Basis for this Deletion Request.  Your Servant would Remove the Request himself, but his view is that as a General Rule those who place such Requests should be the ones to Remove them.  If this is not done, Perhaps Administration should become involved.  This Participant is slowly be surely becoming convinced that Deletionism can be a problem.  The Decoration of Pages with unwarranted  Header Templates can be an obvious Distraction.  Those who place Deletion Requests should follow the Arguments and be quick to Remove their Requests if the Reason for the Request no longer Applies.  Again, absent some New Objection, this Deletion Request should be Removed.  --  Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-08-17 (August 17, 2007) Time: 1605 UTC
 * sorry to bother you but the deletion request it still placed on my article. Can you please take notice of this?--Iamsaa 09:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice is Taken, at least be the Undersigned; and he has brought the Matter to the attention of the Wikiversity Colloquim and to the Custodians. Perhaps we may expect that the Matter may be Resolved soon; but then, in Academia, does anything happen quickly?  --  Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-08-20 (August 20, 2007) Time: 1502 UTC
 * Deletion, still. Bringing the Matter to the Wikiversity Colloquim drew an immediate Response from McCormack, who now strongly supports the deletion of this page.  It will be most desirable engage with his arguments.
 * While he concedes that Iamsaa responded to the challenge to make the page acceptable, however to McCormack's mind, Iamsaa completely failed.
 * McCormack finds nothing educational about the Page, describing it as still just an encyclopedic biography.
 * (The Undersigned does find the the Page to have been "Educational" at least for him. In considering the Page, both in its Original and Present forms, he has learned about Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.  So, to that extent, it has been a Learning Resource; and chances are he might never have learned of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but for the Contribution of Iamsaa.)
 * McCormack suggests some things which would make it educational, but which he finds to be lacking:
 * 1. That it should be part of a Course or Series of Pages.
 * 2. That it should be an Explicit Internal Educational Structure.
 * Starting by revising the background of relevant Islamic thought,
 * Placing the new thinker in their context,
 * Summarizing the main ideas in a memorable manner,
 * etc.
 * 3. That there should be Interactive Content such as Quizes or Open Questions for Discussion and Activity Suggestions or Project Suggestions.
 * 4. That there should be Classroom Materials for Printing, Cutting Out, Photocopying, or Displaying.
 * 5. That there should be Some kind of Social Constructivist Element, that is that there should be Multiple Participants Discussing or Building something as they Engage in Learning.
 * 6. That there should be Explicit Reference and Relevance to Related Educational Material in Related Study Areas.
 * The Undersigned would respond that the approach of McCormack represents a Particular approach to Education, but not the only one; and he awaits the views of others.
 * (s) Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-08-20 (August 20, 2007) Time: 1555 UTC
 * This does not correctly represent my views. McCormack 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-08-22 (August 22, 2007) Time: 1401 UTC, having thought that  He  was accurately representing what McCormack wrote in the the Wikiversity Colloquim, but Apparently Having Failed, hereby Appends the the Colloquim Entry by McCormack at 15:05 (UTC), August 20, 2007 Verbatim.  It follows:
 * Many thanks for your thoughts. However I respectfully disagree, and I now strongly support the deletion of this page. It's true the author responded to the challenge to make the page acceptable, however to my mind, he completely failed. There is nothing educational about the page - it's still just an encyclopedic biography. The page needs to actually have something about it that makes it a learning resource. Here are some examples of things which would make it educational, but which are lacking...
 * Integrated into an educational resource of larger granularity (e.g. a course, series of pages).
 * Explicit internal educational structure (e.g. start by revising the background of relevant Islamic thought, place the new thinker in their context, summarise main ideas in a memorable manner, etc).
 * Interactive content such as closed questions (e.g. quiz) or open questions for discussion; activity/project suggestions.
 * Classroom materials for printing, cutting out, photocopying, displaying.
 * Some kind of social constructivist element - e.g. multiple participants discussing or building something as they engage in learning.
 * Explicit reference and relevance to related educational material in related study areas.
 * Above comments added by: Dionysios
 * My comments were non-exhaustive and suggestive (as help to the author); you took them to be exhaustive and prescriptive. McCormack 08:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one could be excused for taking the suggestions as prescriptions, at least in a general sense, so long as the Deletion Request continues to decorate the page. After all, it seems as though compliance with some prescription or other must take place before the attack on this page is going to end; and McCormack has suggested that he doesn't really see any way this page could be brought into line with the aims of Wikiversity.  --  Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-08-29 (August 29, 2007) Time: 1328 UTC

 * Summary of opinions: this has got rather long, so I'll summarise the opinions.
 * Thunderhead proposed a speedy delete (which I removed, as I thought consensus was better).
 * SB_Johnny made a comment vaguely in favour of deletion.
 * McCormack (me) is in favour of deletion, but thinks more consensus would be good.
 * Dionysios is strongly opposed to deletion.
 * Iamsaa (the original author) seems to appreciate the short-comings but is too busy with exams to do anything right now.
 * Proposed course of action: wait for further users to express opinions. The key question would seem to be: does this page have any educational value which is not and cannot be supplied by the Wikipedia article on the same topic? The deletion tag should remain on the page either until we have a clear consensus or until the page has been modified sufficiently to satisfy those who favoured deletion.
 * -- McCormack 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The Undersigned has removed the Deletion Request Template from the Page and suggests that it remain off of the Page for One (1) Year, long enough to see if the Author ever returns. Combat Deletionism.  --  Dionysios  (talk), Date: 2007-09-11 (September 11, 2007) Time: 2044 UTC

 * I disagree strongly with this move as it is against the prevailing consensus. This move is antagonistic. -- McCormack 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for replacing the tag, Dionysios. -- McCormack 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm wondering if we should have a template that's somewhere between delete and our "welcome and" templates (Welcome and expand and Welcome and advise). Perhaps this should be something like "The educational context of this page/resource is unclear. Please help make this page/resource more useful in a particular educational context". We still then need to provide a clear tutorial or guide as to what ways material can be made more clearly educational (as opposed to simply informational). Cormaggio talk 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd agree with and expand your proposal, for a whole variety of new templates advising on weird content. e.g. Welcome and WP-differ) with "It is unclear how this page adds educational value to the WP article on the same topic. Please help emphasize the added educational value offered by this page". McCormack 08:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I oppose deletion. If the time, energy, comments and questions present here were added to the discussion page the originator or others who find the page might be inspired to improve it a bit.  Mirwin 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * delete The page is not a learning resource. Not one edit has occured since this deletion debate was active.  There is no indication of how the page might be turned into a learning resource.--mikeu 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

 * Check the current version and further guide me that how can I improve this further. --Asikhi 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your work. However, I still have trouble in seeing how this fits into an educational schema. What is this person's place in the study of Islam (as I presume it is meant to do)? Also, the language is biased - if it is to be kept as part of the study of Islam, then it should be either substantially rewritten in parts, or its bias should be disclosed. Cormaggio talk 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Comment It looks quite a bit like an encyclopedia article at Wikipedia, except with maybe more than average point of view ("Short sighted religious clergy...") and maybe less than average citations. --Remi 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Comment See w:Talk:Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi and w:User:Asikhi. The first identifies Asikhi at wp as Press & Information Secretary for Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and he requests that wp "restrict the rights of amendments for this page to only for the Iamsaa (Creator of this page)"  Also see this diff from w:User:Iamsaa which identifies the user as "Office Bearer of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman."  Both userpages (above) are "articles" (forks?) on the religion and founder.  A disclosure of bias is required if this page is to be kept.  (and I don't think it should be kept)  Discussions about bias and w:WP:OWN have been going on since June 2007 and the two authors do not seem to accept that pages on a wiki can be edited by anyone, and that they can not control the content as they would wish to.  See also w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohar Shahi.  I propose speedy deletion.  --mikeu talk 13:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what I've seen (and thanks for these links), I'm finding it difficult to see this article itself being used in an educational capacity, or have faith in its authors to steer it in this direction. Even with a disclosure of bias, I think we should determine a given standard for such material - especially around religious studies - and the suggestions in the 'Theistic Satanism' section about a policy for religious content sound useful (as well as political, I would suggest - any others?). But even without such a policy, this page seems to be overly oriented to encyclopedic content (and the Wikipedia article seems to be serving a better purpose) and we are trying to develop other relevant policies about distinguishing WV and WP at eg Learning resources. If this page were to be made useful, I would recommend reducing it to a stub biography, adding a link to Wikipedia (and selected other resources), and linking to pages which study this branch of Islam. Cormaggio talk 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "any others?" <-- Qur'an is the word of God Project contains the statement "This is a project that aims to collect scientific evidences to the claim that the Qur'an is the word of God or that it is the most probable to be so among any other book that their followers claim it to be the word of God." (emph. in original) This raises some tricky questions about bias, disclosures and the open nature of exploring ideas in a wiki.  I can see the possibility of an interesting debate developing along these lines, but not within the current structure of that page.  See also Talk:Science as religion and the reaction to it at Einstein's Theory of Gravity as religion.  We need to raise the bar on these debates.   --mikeu talk 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to see such pages as opening up the possibility of a debate around knowledge and epistemology. Even if (and often because) there are sometimes strange statements in materials, the opportunity is always there to develop critiques of the page - and thereby develop an understanding of different perspectives and contexts. I think perhaps part of "raising the bar" on debates around religion, politics etc would be to actively invite critique on any such resource. It might be useful to develop a set of questions that could then be asked of any resource, eg: "What are the assumptions inherent in this material?"; "How does this material facilitate the building of understanding of its topic, and on what basis?"; "How does this material conflict with other materials (or what do other materials have to say on the matter)?"... Should we move this discussion to somewhere like Religious and political material (or Points of view)? Cormaggio talk 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * "I would recommend reducing it to a stub biography" <- A biography is no less a duplication of other wikimedia projects than an encyclopedia article. Wikiversity_project_proposal I'm all for giving someone time to show that a subject can be developed into a learning resource, but the PR person has a clear conflict of interest and shows little inclination to do this.  "Should we move this discussion" <- We now have Draft policy on religious content.  --mikeu talk 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

These authors have been making a concerted effort to spam wikimedia sites with biased information and they have a clear conflict of interest between promoting the subject versus creating a balanced and informative learning project. Here are some of the links that I found after just a few minutes of searching, but there are more, see also above:

 * w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam
 * w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Log_7
 * w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive85
 * w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menara-e-Noor
 * http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Log_7#Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi
 * s:Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/09
 * wikinews deletion log

I will close the RFD with a decision of DELETE if there are no objections within one week. --mikeu talk 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

✅ --mikeu talk 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikiversity talk:Chat

Are IRC channel cloaks now available specifically for Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I just asked on Meta today...apparently not yet. --HappyCamper 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity Forums
Has there been any thought of creating forums for wikiversity? Forums would make for easier communication between wikiversity members. Mainly, they do not have to be online at the same time to discuss certain issues. It would especially be useful for teachers and students to interact. --Totti 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * What form do you picture such "forums" taking? like this? Sometimes we just go free-style. We have been hoping that a threaded discussion system will be built into the MediaWiki software. --JWSchmidt 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * LiquidThreads was more along the lines of what I was talking about. Just a threaded, organized type of communication.

--Totti 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

** #wikiversity-en-projects

 * #wikiversity-en-projects

Freenode no longer accepts mibbit
Removed the mibbit link since freenode no longer accepts it. EAS 07:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ban of JWSchmidt
Moved from here. Adambro 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was banned from #wikiversity-en by User:SB Johnny without any warning, discussion or reason given. I still do not understand why I was banned or why the ban is allowed to stand. I hope that some day Wikiversity will return to the practice of allowing free discussion in #wikiversity-en. --JWSchmidt 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there was no reason given, there will be no reason given in here either. Just his "GFY" reply, I guess, which, obviously, will not be "censored". --Davichito 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 * This block should be reversed. There is no transparent reason given. It looks like censorship.
 * The crat that did this should not be a crat. Custodian maybe, but not crat. This is horrible. At least we should change the welcome templates to direct people to channels where long time users are not blocked for reasons that users can understand in other ways than just hearsay. Emesee 06:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Community Review
Development of a policy for #wikiversity-en chat channel behavior is now under community review. The Blocks and bans from IRC page is part of the proposed policy. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Review
The proposed policy for the chat channel is a subject of Community Review. --JWSchmidt 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy Change
I saw that this was stilla proposal but no one has discussed making it policy. I've used chats before and bans are rarely used. I think it would be good to make this a policy. IDangerMouse 14:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read the page section and making it a policy is fine with me. Guido den Broeder 20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * not quite ready. In order for this proposed policy to make sense, the chat channel must be publicly logged. All Wikiversity official process should be, normally, on-wiki, but exceptions can be made if another medium is more efficient, and chat might be that. But, then, it should be logged for public review. If users want to have private discussions, they may use email, where an expectation of privacy is reasonable. The problem has been the use of chat to come up with an illusion of consensus, based heavily on participation bias, or, alternatively, chat has been used to threaten users, etc., but if the user complains, there are objections about making the log public. If a log is made public by an offended user, there is no easy way to confirm that the log hasn't been cherry-picked, comments taken out of context, etc. But if the logs are public, cherry-picking can backfire. --Abd 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * not ready. Wikiversity doesn't even have a policy with consensus for when to block on wiki yet, and so the proposal makes premature assumptions, plus most of the page is information based and not policy based which shouldn't be mixed. -- dark lama  18:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I think he was referring to the IRC section which, at least to me, would prohibit bans based on personal disputes than any real reason. I would support that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Support a removal of bans on users of IRC from the chat except in clear cases of spammers or other similar individuals. Regular users should be allowed to freely speak and not be intimidated into silence. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Chat


text: Template:Delete

title: Template:Delete


text:
Bloom Clock

The Bloom Clock is a research and learning project about flowering plants. The research component is aimed at creating a language for discussing the bloom times of wildflowers and other plants that is neutral in respect to climate, region, and hemisphere, while the learning project aspect is aimed at helping people identify plants using visual keys.

To participate, read the page on /How to Contribute/, then go to the /Contributors/ page and sign in, and then start adding your records in either of two ways:
 * 1) Participants who know plants fairly well (including the scientific names) can log bloom sightings on the current text-based clock or using the /Master List/.
 * 2) Participants can also use the keys, which can help you narrow down and identify plants through simple characteristics and photographic images.

If you want to use the clock to identify a flower you saw today, try using the /Keys/!

If you are interested in improving the clock or have questions and comments about it, please join us on the /Project Discussion/ page.

What are Bloom Clocks?
Bloom clocks are kept by gardeners, ecologists, and others to record the time of year different plants are in bloom.

How are bloom clocks helpful?
The data from bloom clocks tell us about both the plants themselves, and the region in which a particular plant is growing.
 * Knowing when a plant blooms (relative to other plants) is helpful for garden designers.
 * Knowing when nectar-producing plants bloom is useful for farmers, orchardists, and beekeepers who want to ensure a continual supply of nectar.
 * Knowing when wind-pollinated plants bloom can help those with allergies (and the doctors that treat them) predict when pollen will be a problem. A major example of this is that in most parts of North America, goldenrods (showy, yellow flowers that don't cause allergies) tend to bloom at the same time as ragweeds (which have green, non-showy flowers, and do cause allergies).
 * In Integrated Pest Management (a strategy used by farmers and gardeners in pest and disease control), bloom clocks can provide phenological cues which tell the farmer or gardener when to look out for a certain pest. For example, if a certain pest generally emerges at the same time as a particular plant is blooming, the farmer or gardener will know to check susceptible crops and plants for signs of the pest.
 * Patterns in the variation of bloom times with temperature or day length can reveal aspects of plant physiology and growth season relevant to modeling plant response to the environment. Such models help reveal seasonal roles plants play in microclimates and in cycles of nutrients and water.
 * Bloom times can be used as indicators for monitoring changes of local and regional climate. Flowers have been blooming earlier in the 21st century, indicating accelerating climate change.

How can the Wikiversity Bloom Clock help support other Wikimedia projects?

 * When the Bloom Clock project was developed, it was hoped that original research could support other Wikimedia projects. It is possible, but not in this format. See WikiJournal for the accepted approach necessary to support other Wikimedia projects. The following comments represent the goals of this project when it was developed.

 * For the Wikipedias and garden books on the Wikibooks, the bloom clock data can eventually yield a "geographically neutral" language for discussing the flowering times of plants, which will be helpful in writing articles.
 * For Wikimedia Commons, the visual interface pages can help uploaders identify plants (by using DynamicPageLists for flowers of certain colors and seasons).

How can a bloom clock be created on Wikiversity?
If there are enough participants, all it should require is for bloom watchers to note any plants they noticed to be in bloom on a particular day, with information on their location specific enough to determine the local growing degree days and day length, which are the two factors plants respond to. Precipitation reports may also be handy for some climates.

Each report can then be organized to reduce the effects of anomalous data, allowing us to generate geographical "zones" that can eventually be used when describing a plant's expected bloom time in a particular region.

Data can be extrapolated any number of times. Many different species can be used, because they can be correlated to the bloom times of other species over time.

Hypothesis

 * Plants may be classified into groups that can accurately predict bloom dates according to geographical zones.
 * There will be 2 sorts of zones for most plants: a day-length zone and a growing-degree-day zone (gdd-zone).
 * Some plants will not fit into this system.

Plant behaviors

 * Some plants bloom according to growing degree days.
 * Some plants bloom according to day length.
 * Some plants bloom according to various conditions.
 * The gene Apetala1 controls the processes responsible for blooming based on environmental cues.

Methods

 * Collect data.
 * Collate data.
 * Establish zones.

Further testing

 * Check plant bloom times in areas not previously checked, but in the same zones.

title: Bloom Clock


text:
Category:Astronomy

Pages and categories that are used by the Department of Astronomy of the School of Physics and Astronomy.

title: Category:Astronomy