Tule-hog

Welcome 🎓

Welcome to Wikiversity, Tule-hog! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or get in touch with me personally if you would like some help. Remember to sign your comments when participating in discussions. Using the signature icon makes it simple. We invite you to be bold and assume good faith. Please abide by our civility, privacy, and terms of use policies. To find your way around, check out: Introduction to Wikiversity Take a guided tour and learn how to edit Browse or visit an educational level portal: pre-school | primary | secondary | tertiary | non-formal Explore links in left-hand navigation menu Read an introduction for teachers Learn how to write an educational resource Find out about research activities Give feedback about your observations Discuss issues or ask questions at the colloquium To get started, experiment in the sandbox or on your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Babel

Would you be interested in adding Babel information to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Added tags 👍 Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiverity:Spam

Hello, the correct spelling is Wikiversity:Spam (already existing). What should we do with this page? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 05:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Junk it, my bad! Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 05:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, can you tell me why you have recreated this page despite the wrong spelling? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I made the exact same mistake. So sorry!! (very ironic page to do so) Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

When you nominate something for deletion like in Special:Diff/2662354, it is better to leave the page intact instead of emptying it, in part since it makes it easier for the deleting admin or quasi-admin to review the content of the page. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. For some reason I thought that was a standard on WP, but its not even there. —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

IT Security/Network

First off, I apologize for duplicating this discussion, which I also started at the page of Dave Braunschweig. I now think it is better to talk to you as the deletion nominator.

You nominated IT Security/Network for speedy deletion. Why? I checked e.g. IT Security/Network/Devices and the YouTube videos it links to are still alive and usable. The link to https://certification.comptia.org/docs/default-source/exam-objectives/comptia-security-sy0-401.pdf is dead but is in Wayback Machine. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The course IT Security is under development to SY0-701, the newest updated version of SY0-401.

The content contained in the Objectives and Skills section of each subpage (e.g. IT Security/Threats/Application Attacks § Objectives and Skills) is now found at IT Security/Objectives. The Multimedia section of each page is exclusively populated with ordered links to Professor Messer's course which follows the CompTIA objectives exactly (e.g., IT Security/Access Control/Authentication and Authorization § Multimedia). The References section of each subpage is exclusively populated with a link to the SY0-401 guidelines, which is now contained at IT Security § References.

None of the other sections are populated on any of the pages. Thus, the deletion nomination for each parent page (with a request to delete each subpage as well) is just a matter of restructuring, not loss of content. —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 08:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you then point me to a page/page section that now/newly covers what was previously covered in IT Security/Network/Devices, if there is such a page? IT Security/Objectives does not list any YouTube videos. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Those concepts appear to have been redistributed between IT Security/Objectives § 2.0 Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Mitigations and IT Security/Objectives § 3.0 Security Architecture.

The videos are found (fully sorted by Messer to correspond to the new objectives) at IT Security § External links. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So there are no longer going to be granular links to videos, split by subtopic, unlike in the original course by Dave? There is only going to be one (or two?) link to all the videos for the complete "IT Security" course? I am not sure this is really user friendly; my guess would be that the videos are at least as important as the learning objective lists. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Granular links to videos, split by subtopic (corresponding exactly to the objectives listed at IT Security/Objectives), are provided by Messer at the link. I trust that students are capable of identifying the resources' direct correspondence and will utilize them as such - perhaps I should highlight that relation more clearly on the page.

I will look into a stylized template to include in each subsection that minimizes clutter. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(Noting I will continue to take care preserving content before nominating for deletion as I work through the A+ and Network+ courses, but I appreciate the diligence in preventing unnecessary loss and welcome any future comments on those as well 👍) Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 09:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirects to Wikipedia

I have a doubt about certain redirects to Wikipedia you are creating, e.g. Wikiversity:Avoid self-references. They make it seem as if the Wikipedia principle applied to Wikiversity unmodified. E.g. for avoiding self-reference, I do not see this is really the case. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I intend to add a parameter to {{soft redirect}} which sorts potential policies and guidelines based on 'adoption by Wikiversity' for maintenance/administrative/editor use. With a better fleshed out list of irrelevant policies to WV, meaningful additions could be made to existing policies and guidelines.

One possibility is a helpful page for interwiki newcomers on the status of various prominent wiki standards (in a very similar line to WV:WWIN). For example, there could be a referenceable section addressing WV:Avoid self-references, with more elaborate guidance, or a simple WV:BOLD (which could itself further emphasize encouraging bold stylistic/structural experimentation, as opposed to just collaborative, in the name of improving the Wiki).

The intent is for most of the soft redirects to eventually become hard, with appropriate local _targets. (With a few exceptions typically _targeting MediaWiki-wide tutorials.)

I am cooking a proposal concerning interwiki compatibility, of which one portion is finding ways to systematize/streamline more explicit approval/denial of principles popularized on other projects - with particular emphasis on Wikipedia given the size of its userbase. These soft redirects are part of building some grounds for that unintrusively.

For example, in this particular case, we might use the Avoid self-references soft redirect as a jumping-off point for a discussion to confirm that it is acceptable/encouraged for learning resources to reference other Wikiversity resources and Wikiversity itself. That would make a nice FAQ entry! Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 08:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has too many bad essays, policies and guidelines. In any case, it has many more individual pages in these categories than reasonable. Lending them support in Wikiversity is, in my view, a very bad idea. Moreover, Wikiversity has special needs following from its lack of requirements of neutrality, no original research, etc. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying that I do not identify with Schmidtian theory. I think that there exist some codes of some degree of relevance to Wikiversity, if for nothing else, to clarify important differences that interwiki participants inevitably will carry over as de-facto unless we make front-and-center our differences. WV:POV and WV:OR are two central examples of WV clarifying its position respective to other WMF projects, hence "the default [as opposed to only] approach to conducting research is... [in accordance with the] conventional Wikimedia Foundation neutral point of view (NPOV) policy" and Wikiversity:Original research § Wikiversity is not Wikipedia. —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Splitting 2nd part because I'm not totally satisfied with it - the following pertains more to processes (which exist but are not formally identified as such on WV? e.g. a grab-bag of pages found in Category:Wikiversity development?) than policies and guidelines, and may bleed into the realm of WV:SNOW (the early arguments in WV history against many 'procedural' codes appear largely to have been that the project is 'just getting started' and had no basis to commit to them, whereas contemporary arguments express "there is no need for extraneous red tape and administrative burden" given the project size/momentum and smooth-running of already-existing systems?):

Another potentially useful high level example might be w:WP:Enforcement, which details the ArbCom/dispute resolution hierarchy (I believe the equivalents on WV are WV:RCA/WV:CR for participants and WV:CF/WV:CR for administration, both only after attempted direct resolution?), highlights editor involvement in warning other participants, softens WV:IAR (i.e. "its possible to convince others an exception [to codified policies and guidelines] ought to be made"; given WV has rejected WV:IAR, I'm not sure how that line would stand), and clarifies the enforcement action procedure (which I think was well-demonstrated with my case - a number of warnings on my talk page, which escalated to administrator action after continued failed adherence, subject to heavier enforcement (although WV has yet to codify WV:BLOCK, and rejected WV:BAN) given further violations).

Creating the clause for enforcement on WV would clarify the similarities and differences between the processes on other WMF projects, helping onboard participants.

Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this resonates with some parts of your reflections on common vs statutory law. The non-adoption of procedural codes appears to partially be a case of "the one thing worse than common law is bad statutory law" due to insufficiently constructed proposals. However, a consequence on non-adoption is the considerable time it takes for newcomers to identify and acclimate to the uncodified procedures (and potentially more labor for administrators in mediation and educating participants of local norms).

For example (heeding that extreme cases make bad law), I think my case demonstrates possible value in a codified Wikiversity:Importing policy (perhaps amended to an existing policy) - if that were written down it is quite possible I may have discovered that before beginning my importations-proper on October 1st (I believe I had run into WV:POLICY by that point, but can't remember anymore. I definitely found it very soon after). I am interested how early you noticed my activity (particularly on template/module imports) before #Deletion of redirects and templates (i.e. did you see them from the 1st through the 7th but they were not explicitly egregious enough yet/no previous cases helped inform more immediate intervention)? If there was a codified policy against mass imports, would you possibly have intervened sooner? (If the answer is no, this point is moot.) Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Another potentially mooting consideration - my case has established the precedent against mass imports, and thus going forward the benefits of such a policy is minimized by now-established administrator vigilance for this situation. Therefore, there may be no need to codify this commonly-established administrative function. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Policies

I moved Wikiversity:Policies back to this name, from the name Wikiversity:Policies and guidelines to which you renamed it. Your rename constitutes a scope change, which from what I can see you have not justified in any way. What is most customary as for interwiki is not decisive, I think. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Policies § Best practice guidelines and Wikiversity:Policies § Proposed guidelines are the primary destinations for Guidelines on Wikiversity right? Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 08:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see maybe Proposed guidelines should be merged to WV:Guidelines? Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Further it would be helpful to have a subpage dedicated to just approved and proposed policies (as opposed to the current combination of policies and guidelines). Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 08:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point: Wikiversity:Policies covers also guidelines to some extent, even if a small extent.

I do not favor subpages; they generally lead to confusion and making things harder to overview (since one can no longer overview things by mere scrolling).

Perhaps doing the renaming is a good idea, after all; I am unclear about that. Then, the page WV:Guidelines would redirect to the newly scoped page Wikiversity:Policies and guidelines. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed it is piped as such at Welcome, newcomers and [was] at Help:Contents. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this upon a few formatting changes to emphasize the shared scope of the page. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Administration

You redirected this to WV:Maintenance, but the _target says "anyone can get involved in maintaining Wikiversity" and that matches the "Ongoing tasks and taskforces" section content. I do not see why this is a good redirect. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Administration and Wikiversity:Organizing Wikiversity § Custodians and maintaining Wikiversity - the maintenance hub seems to be the closest to a summary of the processes of administration on Wikiversity.

Alternatives could be Custodianship or Organizing Wikiversity? —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Why should Wikiversity have a page called Wikiversity:Administration that contains no information on administration and links to a page that contains very little information on administration? What does Wikiversity care that it lacks a page that Wikipedia has? Wikipedia has a range of very bad pages, especially essays. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Note it was a custodian who marked the WV:Maintenance hub as the main article for the section describing administrative functions. Bumping this to WV:NOTICE for input from custodians. —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The 2008 edit you refer to (Special:Diff/206920) made to Wikiversity:Organizing Wikiversity set the section heading to "Custodians and maintaining Wikiversity"? Therefore, there is no implication in that edit that the main page for the subject of "Custodians" is WV:Maintenance? And what do we care what a 2008 edit did if the semantics of today's layout and distribution of material does not match any more? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects and templates

I started to delete redirects you are creating that I assess to be of no or very little value. By my assessment, it is not a good idea to duplicate Wikipedia infrastructure here in Wikiversity and to e.g. create redirects from singulars to plurals. You will find the deletions in recent changes.

I also started to delete templates you seem to systematically copy from Wikipedia. I do not see any demonstrated need for these to be in Wikiversity.

I am generally suspect of editors who show almost no interest in content creation but are happy to make large scale changes in infrastructure. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I ask you that, before you continue the process of systematic volume copying of templates from Wikipedia, you describe the plan in Colloquium and we will see what others think. I think that making undiscussed volume changes like that is problematic. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I will do my best to avoid large new templates until then, but I will continue to do so for minimal helpful maintenance means (I have many intermediary tasks I am unraveling - I am documenting as I go along). Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 04:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this activity of yours? Do you plan to create a learning resource and lack infrastructure for that? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

To improve the Wikiversity project in all manners, including organization and maintenance. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 04:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What specific need or problem are you trying to solve? The last thing Wikiversity needs is people more interested in large-scale low-value edits than in content. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

For example, as you are deleting the work to establish the {{nowiki}} template - I was in the midst of using that to help me easily format an edit request I was making. How is implementing this MediaWiki-wide functionality hurting the project? Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 04:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

1) The primary purpose of template nowiki seems to be metatemplating rather than replacement for the usual nowiki syntax. For your edit request, the usual nowiki syntax does the job just fine.

2) Large-scale copying of items from Wikipedia creates, at a minimum, a maintenance overhead/burden: once changes are made in Wikipedia, one would want to make the same changes in Wikiversity or assess the need for such changes. In a situation when the items are really needed in Wikiversity, fine. But when the only idea is, let's copy as much from Wikipedia as we can into Wikiversity since there will perhaps be some use, I see this as a problem. The more items one has, the more management overhead this creates. This creates a rationale for general item count minimalism: if one does not really need an item, one if better off not having it. The English Wikiversity is very human resource constrained, which adds urgency to this concern.

3) Other Wikiversity editors may not share my concerns. If you create a Colloquium discussion with a proposal to make the large-scale copying that you envision, perhaps others will disagree with me and agree with you. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Inaccurate edit summaries are one reason I am suspect of your activities. Example:

• Special:Diff/2666653: edit summary: "use for". In fact: no longer links to w:Category:Learning methods; no longer contains Category:Educational psychology. I have no idea why you made the change.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Practices ➝ psychology slipped by me. I thought it was just a red link alongside Category:Education by method, so I commented it out for future editors reference. —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 05:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

And such a slip easily happens when one engages in largely mindless low-value or zero-value volume changes in combination with relatively high edit rate. No real value is generated, mostly edits for edits. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Researchers

I deleted this redirect to Wikiversity:Research since I cannot figure out what it could be useful for. The _target does not list researchers. And when the user starts typing WV:Res into the edit field, the desired _target pops up. I do not expect users to enter VW:WORD for various words and find crudely approximately matching pages, and only very crudely. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

See WV:ROLE, which lists the Wikiversitan user roles. The page was marked with possibilities to draw attention to Wikiversitans to help construct that page, or find a more appropriate redirect _target. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 06:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wikiversity user roles was created by you. Category:Redirects with possibilities was created by you. I would delete Category:Redirects with possibilities as a poor idea, but it is now linked to from other pages, so I will pause and ponder. The idea will lead to creation of countless worthless redirects.

The project needs less management and meta pages, not more; the pages that exist are too many, inconsistent and confusing as they are. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop

I ask you to stop. I disagree with your activity and therefore you have no consensus for the large-scale imports from WP you are implementing. I may be a sole opposer, but we will see after we get input from others. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Does this include updating already existing templates and documentation? Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I generally disagree with copying from Wikipedia into Wikiversity unless there is a specific rationale for the copying. I therefore disagree with a volume non-differentiated process that assumes that whatever Wikipedia does is better and should be taken over. Since, there are too many bad things in the English Wikipedia. Wikiversity does not need most of these changes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Bumping RCA —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 06:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me add that I am a sole quasi-admin/curator with rights to delete and I am new to this role. It is quite possible that I am making communication and action mistakes. It is quite possible that other editors will think that volume non-differentiated imports from Wikipedia are a good thing; I do not know. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Wikiversity essay

Let me specifically explain why I deleted this draft and template. Replicating the Wikipedia concept of essays in Wikiversity is, by my assessment, a very bad idea. Wikipedia would do well to move all or most these essays out of Wikipedia space; they are used to manipulate the Wikipedia project without consensus. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Adapting changes to Wikiversity

In Category:Wikiversity maintenance, it says "This category is for Wikipedia pages and categories that list other pages that need maintenance (cleanup, expansion, etc.)", stating "Wikipedia". I have now removed the verbiage and gaudy box. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Tule-hog/Wikiversification

Not really my business since it is your page, but it says "This page is currently being developed and will be proposed as part of possible future Wikiversity policy, guideline, or processes for dealing with original research within Wikiversity." Really? Really dealing with original research? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The 'original research' clause does seem a little too specific for {{Policy planning}} IMO Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I now deleted the template producing the text since it was almost unused. You can create an ad hoc text (perhaps in italics) that fits your purposes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit into the userspace of another user

I noticed this edit, which emptied a user's page since the user has since acquired a new account. I do not recall ever seeing anyone do such a thing. Is this customary in Wikipedia? I have some doubts about whether this kind of intervention in user space is appropriate/generally accepted (without the user's agreement), although the substance of the edit seems fine as for the outcome (the user does not need to duplicate the same content between two accounts). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at a search it does appear I am the only non-administrator to have performed that action for the ~enwikiversity redirects. I had never run into the whole account migration fiasco before, and it looked like a standard fix that had slipped by. I found the page looking at 'What links here' for Differential Logic : Introduction so I could fix references rather than reinstating the redirect. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As for "I am the only non-administrator [...]": does it mean an administrator did such a thing somewhere in Wikiversity? Or in Wikipedia? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Usernames

I deleted your redirect from Wikiversity:Usernames to Wikiversity:Username. I find such redirects worthless since a user searching for the topic would enter something like WV:Usern into the search field, which would lead to completion. I do not see a user entering the full plural. Similar reasoning applies to redirects from singulars to plurals. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving my post around

In Special:Diff/2668641, I have restored the original location of my response, which you previously moved into a separate section. In my view, you should not be moving my posts into new sections. My post was a response to your post and that relationship should have been maintained. Moreover, my post was not only about essays: it started with "Wikipedia has too many bad essays, policies and guidelines", but you moved the post to new heading "Wikiversity:Essays", and the heading did not match the topic. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Stub chain

I deleted this template you created since it only contained the top line from Category:Stubs and I could not figure out why this top line should be repeated in other pages via transclusion. I am using something like an analogue of Occam's razor: if a task/job can be handled by fewer items, it should be; proliferation of items of low value should be prevented. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Emptying a page when nominating it for deletion

As a follow-up on #Deletion nomination, I find it inappropriate to empty a page when tagging it for speedy deletion, unless in rare circumstances where this is justified. The deleting admin has to review the content to see whether the rationale matches, which is made harder by the empyting. This is in reference to Special:Diff/2667867 from 8 Oct 2024 concerning IMHA Research Archives/IMHAR Integrated early diagnosis, prognosis, follow-up and prevention guidelines. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah sorry thats a nasty habit, I don't know where I picked it up and I disagree with it as well. Hopefully second reminder is a charm. —Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Signing notifications

As regards this edit and this edit, the usual practice is to sign notifications, as far as I know. I would think signing is mandatory or strongly recommended but do not have a link to policy handy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm used to WP's version, thanks for pointing that out. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Guidelines

You created this page at 20:15, 10 Oct 2024 with the edit summary "cp from Wikiversity:Policies". At 20:36, 10 Oct 2024, you tagged the page for speedy deletion. I can speedy delete the page but I can also move it to User:Tule-hog/Guidelines if that helps anything. What should I do, delete or move? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Policies and guidelines

I moved Draft:Policies and guidelines that you created on 10 Oct 2024 to User:Tule-hog/Policies and guidelines. I saw Koafv move Draft:Wikiversification to User:Tule-hog/Wikiversification, so I am following in the same vein.

Subpage list:

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Classification of redirects

I started to delete redirect classification templates you created, like Template:R from alternative hyphenation (not deleted yet), but I want to make a pause. My rationale for deletion is similar to one mentioned above, something like Occam's razor: items should not be multiplied beyond what is essential, especially on such an undermanned project as Wikiversity. Once we start to classify redirects, this creates a systematic overhead, an implied expectation that one who creates a new redirect should also classify it by figuring out the appropriate template.

What is the classification of redirects good for? I can perhaps see some value for a large-scale project such as Wikipedia, but what do we need that for in Wikiversity? What kind of redirect-relating activities are supported by such classification? I think a simple guide for redirects could give a guidance on what kind of redirects are being created without the overhead of bothering to classify all individual redirects into categories? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Addition: I checked W:Template:R from alternative hyphenation to see whether other projects have it; it does not even seem to have a Wikidata entry, so the only project having it seems to be the English Wikipedia (no other project in no other language).

Following on this, I found W:Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_15#Template:R_from_alternative_hyphenation, where a comment says: "Comment. There are many {{R}} templates which can be difficult to tell apart or to decide which to use. There's also the problem that many redirects are uncategorised, undercategorised, or miscategorised (I find a lot of them while DABfixing.)." This matches my concern voiced above. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Today, I went ahead and deleted Template:R from alternative hyphenation as well as similar templates created by you as copies from Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)