User talk:Leutha/e4D Project 1


 * Yorick's World Hempel etc.]
 * Constructivist Community] Karl Müller
 * Synthese
 * Departmentalisation of Science Otto Neurath, 1938 In: Erkenntnis VII, pp.240-46
 * Survey Graphics in the Thirties
 * Marut and Seiwert
 * Augustin Tschinkel

The Legacy of the Vienna Circle: Modern Reappraisals by Sahotra Sarkar

E4D?
This resource appears to be a study of the work of Otto Neurath. Great. What does "E4D" have to do with this? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * e4D.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The open text of your response, Leutha, provides no explanation at all. The Wikitext shows E4D as being sort-of an acronym.
 * International [E]ncyclopedia of Unified Science
 * 4 with reference to "for"
 * D is unexplained. The link has a reference to a presentation of Neurath that begins with "Das." The German definite article, equivalent to "The." So ... "Encyclopedia for the" ... or what? The only references I could find for E4D are here on Wikiversity, this resource.
 * My opinion is that non-notable Neologisms are improper as mainspace resource names, unless strong justification is shown. Scholars here may create neologisms for subpages, if they are explained in the link to them from the higher-level page. Otherwise, we can expect low readership and low participation. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. With such a view perhaps you should concentrate on contributing towards resources which you conisder more suitable.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider a resource on Neurath highly suitable for Wikiversity, and the actual resource you have created, so far, while only a start, is useful and the place to develop such content. It should not be forked unless it becomes a subpage. The title is not useful. At all. It will be a mystery to anyone coming across it, especially given that it is still not explained. It will not make any sense in Recent Changes. Etc. In order to have an opinion about this, I did some research into Neurath and may contribute. Is this welcome? Neurath had high interest in epistemology. So do I. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to reuse any of the material here on the Neurath page you are considering. However this is a managed resource project and so you should not alter the page here. Thanks Leutha (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You just invented the "managed resource" concept, -- actually "managed research" -- and just placed the template that you just created, on the page, but it's invisible at first. You did not put it in the correct place if this is to be seen by anyone contemplating editing the page. And, of course, you just demanded that I not edit the page, so I can't fix it.


 * I could explain much more, but you don't like detailed explanations.


 * The name is utterly inappropriate. I suggest you choose an explanatory name. If you want to create a subpage, an essay called E4D, you can do that, and the essay name can be explained in the link to it.


 * The situation you have set up is unsatisfactory, designed to avoid a problem that has not arisen (problematic editing of the resource), and the example you are setting (and proposing for another) is disruptive. Hence, and based on recent failures in discussion -- including this, you did not explain the name in response to a simple and polite question -- I intend to broaden discussion, using standard process. Request for Deletion often results in satisfactory solutions (I hate deletion, personally, but closes there are often based on page moves that resolve issues.) If I do file there, of course, I'll need to tag the page. Any other ideas?


 * What I'm talking about has been our practice for years, but it's not documented in policy, so this process could be useful. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for testing the new template. I am glad you found it OK. It would not be appropriate to tag this page for deletion as this research project is an ongoing project that is still at a very early stage of development. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not "test the template." Nor did I find the new template "OK" as applied to this resource. Perhaps you should look at it! Template:Managed research project, ([ permanent link to current version]). As to deletion, I would not speedy tag this resource, nor would I use a proposed deletion tag. I do not want the resource deleted, I want it renamed, to a name we can agree upon. If we cannot find agreement, I might use Template:Merge, perhaps. I might "escalate," that is, solicit broader comment, perhaps by asking for a third opinion, or by posting to the Colloquium. Or WV:RFD remains, and the "early stage of development" argument is irrelevant. At this point, only the name is in controversy. We should not have a resource on E4D." But we can have a resource on the topic you have declared, with the content you have created, all except for the Management tagging, which is, again, a content issue. I am temporarily respecting the request, all except for necessary process. You have objected to extensive comments, and obviously don't read them. You may not be carefully reading brief comments. Are you? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Response:
 * 1) Well, as you commented on the Research management talk page, this means that you were succesful at finding it. If you found it by following my contribs or where they appear on recent changes, then this gives me concern that you are harassing me. That is why I assumed that you actually used (and de-facto tested) the template.
 * 2) There is no point in merging this with anything else and I would be grateful if you would respect
 * "Wikiversity is a wiki and, in general, anybody can edit the pages of a research project. Others may offer alternative analyses of your results, which may contradict your conclusions. This is to be encouraged, and Wikiversity supports research that is open to be edited by all. If you do decide to limit editing of wiki pages to a select group, expect that other will make copies of your work and edit those copies in compliance with the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy." Research_guidelines


 * This research project has been marked as having such restrictions and has been set up with a specific title (which has been revised but not in a substantial way). The research project includes the title, resource management aspect, and all related templates. There is no need to trouble yourself about editing any of these.
 * 3) You have asserted that you have an interest in Otto Neurath and I look forward to you initiating a resource in line with the approach you would like to adopt and would be happy to provide a link to it, if you would be kind enough to alert me that you have started it on my talk page. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)