User talk:Marshallsumter/Craters by radiation

Dispute the compulsory move of lectures to Draft namespace
See Section on Consensus. See Section on Draft namespace opinions. There is no consensus for compulsory moves of resources of any kind to Draft ns! Also, see Keeping lectures as main space pages was opposed by consensus? was itself opposed 16:1:0! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Dispute the speedy deletion request
Per Deletions: "Deletions and undeletions are discussed at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion."

To begin, by RFD Violation, I assume RFD Violation = "Request For Deletion Violation".

Using Search Wikiversity, Search results using "Request For Deletion Violation": "There were no results matching the query."

In Policies there is no policy regarding "Request For Deletion Violation".

In Proposed policies there is no proposed policy regarding "Request For Deletion Violation".

Additionally, seven other resources have recently been so tagged. These are (1) Neutron radiation astronomy, (2) Cosmic radiation astronomy, (3) Theoretical radiation astronomy, (4) First astronomical sources, (5) Astrophysics keynote lecture, (6) Satellites for radiation astronomy, and (7) Telescopes for radiation astronomy.

In examining the Principles of radiation astronomy Fall syllabus, each of these eight resources is mentioned as either a keynote lecture such as Astrophysics keynote lecture, a Quiz section lecture such as Craters by radiation, or as a Lecture like Telescopes for radiation astronomy.

Deletions
1. Per Deletions: "A non-exhaustive list of possible reasons custodians may speedy delete resources [does not] include" RFD Violation. Therefore, I would ask Custodians to refrain from speedy deletion of any of the eight resources so tagged and mentioned here. I will put a message on the Discuss page of the others directing Custodians or Curators here.

2. This explanation is not finished, but none of the non-exhaustive list of possible reasons custodians may speedy delete resources applies because each of these resources are part of an educational course entitled "Principles of radiation astronomy" which provides educational objectives or discussion in its history. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

3. From Colloquium/archives/December 2006: "If we each assume good faith then we have to open our minds to a very wide range of possible methods and approached to learning. When a page is not doing obvious harm there should be no rush to delete content. Take the time to discuss questionable content with the editors who created it." User:JWSchmidt 17 December 2006.

4. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section Initial Discussion: "The same problem exists in Russian Wikiversity, there are a lot of pages which look like a Wikipedia article. I think that these articles should be transformed to be a part of some course in Wikiversity during some time (for example, articles should be transformed during one month). Else they should be deleted." user:Andrew Krizhanovsky, AKA_MBG 4 January 2018.

5. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section Delete (for good faith efforts): "Oppose Delete is too harsh for good faith efforts by cooperative editors." user:Guy vandegrift 5 January 2018.

6. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section Biology discussion: "Unfinished courses, imo, should be deleted from WV as they serve little-no valuable knowledge." user:Atcovi 5 January 2018.

7. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section Delete (for good faith efforts): "Neutral if we adopt Draft: namespace proposal." user:Mu301 5 January 2018.

8. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section Delete (for good faith efforts): "Oppose per Guy." user:Atcovi 5 January 2018.

9. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section Delete (for good faith efforts): "Oppose - Good faith edits are an important key concept of the wiki movement." user:Marshallsumter 5 January 2018.

Apparent summary: 8 Keep (1) no precedent, (2) educational objectives, (3) no obvious harm, (4) not like Wikipedia article, part of course, (5) cooperative editor(s), (6) finished course, (8) AGF, (9) good faith efforts important, 0 Delete, 1 Neutral (7).


 * Delete - Delete the resource. - option removed by consensus, from Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16.

Naming conventions
Previous titles for each of these resources are
 * 1) Craters by radiation: Astronomy/Craters as of 29 July 2018 and Crater astronomy as of 8 April 2015 from 29 March 2013.
 * 2) Neutron radiation astronomy: Radiation astronomy/Neutrons as of 3 August 2018 and Neutron astronomy as of 8 April 2015 from 27 March 2012.
 * 3) Cosmic radiation astronomy: Radiation astronomy/Cosmic rays as of 3 August 2018 and Cosmic-ray astronomy as of 8 April 2015 from 28 March 2012.
 * 4) Theoretical radiation astronomy: Radiation astronomy/Theory as of 31 July 2018 and Theoretical radiation astronomy as of 7 April 2015 from 24 November 2011.
 * 5) First astronomical sources: First astronomy sources as of 30 July 2018, Astronomy/Sources/First as of 30 July 2018, and First astronomical source as of 25 April 2018 from 3 November 2012.
 * 6) Astrophysics keynote lecture: Draft:Astrophysics as of 30 July 2018 and Astrophysics as of 21 March 2018 from 16 December 2011.
 * 7) Satellites for radiation astronomy: Radiation astronomy/Satellites as of 30 July 2018, Radiation Astronomy/Satellites as of 8 April 2015, Radiation satellites as of 8 April 2015 from 26 March 2012.
 * 8) Telescopes for radiation astronomy: Radiation astronomy/Telescopes as of 29 July 2018 and Radiation telescopes as of 8 April 2015 from 12 March 2012.

From Naming conventions: "You can help develop this proposal, share your thoughts, or discuss its adoption as a Wikiversity policy, guideline, or process. References or links should describe this page as a "proposal"." See also Wikiversity talk:Naming conventions. It's still a proposal!

Per suggestions by former user:Abd and current user:Dave Braunschweig I renamed several resources to subpages around April 2015. See above for examples.

From Policies: "Naming conventions (rejected by 3:2 in August 2006; 1 abstention); (As of August 2009, it is rejected 7:3:3 on its talk page; the policy is clearly unacceptable in its current form)".

The title of this resource has been changed to Radiation/Craters as radiation produces craters in some solids. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Subpages
1. From Subpages: "You can help develop this proposal, share your thoughts, or discuss its adoption as a Wikiversity policy, guideline, or process. References or links should describe this page as a "proposal"." and Wikiversity talk:Subpages. It's still a proposal! 2. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section: Main Page "Lectures", So probably this is where new votes go [regarding draft namespace]: "Oppose on technical grounds: I don't have much of an opinion about how WV classifies articles as draft, research or whatever (so I did not take part in the discussion). But I don't think it's a good idea to move things around between namespaces. Breaking links is bad, however good the intention. Initially there would be a redirect page - but the discussion above sounds like that will often be absorbed by someone who wants the "good" name for something else. I suggest to generally keep pages where they are created (unless the name is really bad). The reasonable way to express the status of a page in a Media Wiki system is with templates. [...] Obviously the name of a whole science should be a TOC like entry point to the topic, and not "someones" page. I wrote unless the name is really bad. If Biology is currently kind of owned, then I agree that it should be renamed. But I think it should be renamed because Marshallsumter apparently chose too broad a name - and not just because it is in the mainspace. People who choose reasonably specific page names should be spared the hassle of broken links. PS: I also think the way WV uses subpages is terrible. MW has a perfectly fine category system, where topics can be placed under all the appropriate parent topics. (E.g. "Glaciers" under "Rocks" and "Ice".) And what does WV do? Put a tree structure in the page names that is parallel to the category system! (Where "Glaciers" is only under "Rocks".) The namespace proposal is ill advised in a similar way: The MW tools to add information dynamically are ignored, and instead the information is hard coded in the page name." from user:Watchduck 14 January 2018. 3. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: ""POV fork" is a valid argument for deletion (or merge) on Wikipedia, not here. We actually and deliberately create attributed POV forks here, as subpages, if scholars cannot agree on a single mainspace page. It is how we avoid most conflict. Wikipedia is neutral by inclusion, not by exclusion. We are not an encyclopedia. [...] When personal opinion is expressed in a top-level resource, we have often forked it, moving the opinion to a subpage (or sometimes to user space). We don't delete it, unless there is simply no educational purpose. Discussion, including discussion of opinion is highly educational." from former user:Abd 23 December 2017.

4. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, Section: All other options (e.g., move to subspace X): "I would oppose sub-pages in any name space (excepting user space.) Main space sub-pages are indexed and searchable just like any other main space (or school &c space) pages. Pages that include multiple repetitions of a search term flood the top of the results effectively burying all our other content." from user:Mu301 5 January 2018.

Apparent summary: 0 Mandatory subpages, 3 Voluntary subpages (1), (2) and (3), 1 No (4), 0 Neutral.

Consensus
Per Consensus
 * 1) "This page documents a Wikiversity guideline that participants recommend you follow with occasional exceptions and common sense."
 * 2) "The consensus process within the Wikiversity community is meant to be a guarantor, not an inhibitor, of academic freedom."
 * 3) "Consensus does not function as a way to disrupt Wikiversity or hinder the work of Wikiversity editors. Wikiversity participants who are productively editing content development projects and learning resources do not have to justify their work by demonstrating that community consensus exists supporting the pages they create and their editing of those pages. Wikiversity participants are free to create new pages and new educational content as long as their efforts support the educational mission of Wikiversity. There might only be a single Wikiversity participant who is interested in a particular topic or only a minority of discussion participants who will speak in favor of having a page for a particular topic, but there is no requirement to establish consensus before learning resources about such a topic can be developed."
 * 4) "Consensus is not established just by counting votes. Wikiversity is guided by ideas that are in harmony with the education-oriented mission of the project. In judging consensus, it is the responsibility of all community members to give the most weight to rational arguments that support positions and points of view that are in harmony with the Wikiversity mission. Community members should assign less weight to discussion comments or votes that provide no rational argument to justify a point of view or that disrupt the project."
 * 5) "Consensus is not evaluated by any one person - evaluating consensus is also a discursive (and contestable) process - meaning that someone can propose consensus has been achieved, and someone else can disagree, meaning that the discussion continues. In certain circumstances, a particular person is given the responsibility for evaluating consensus - for example, the conferring of custodianship status, which is given to a bureaucrat. However, this decision, as with anything in Wikiversity, is up for discussion and/or debate."

To my knowledge of Wikiversity policies and proposed policies, no discussion has subsequently occurred to change this guideline. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus (accidentally tagged as official; now proposed)" user:McCormack 12 September 2008 Policies.

"General: we've been treating this [Consensus] as Official Policy for over a decade,; that looks like strong consensus to me" Revision as of 02:07, 14 January 2018 user:Mu301, per "View history" of Policies.

Best practice guidelines:

"These policy-like documents contain guidelines which have not been voted on or which have not achieved formal consensus in a poll, but which have become established in practice." per Policies. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeping lectures as main space pages was opposed by consensus?
From Requests for Deletion/Archives/16: "There are many stand-alone main page resources at Wikiversity apparently designed and/or designated as lectures. Examples include Sciences, Fringe sciences, Art, History, Humanities, etc. The and quality of these resources is being questioned. Potential solutions are:

1. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "Independent of the location in the wikiversity content tree e.g. students subpages belong to that category. These pages can be in the category "work in progress" should be marked as those e.g. with new "Student page" Logo. In this case "Student Page" markers can attract more guidance of more experienced wikiversity authors, e.g by adding learning tasks that addresses the needs for improvement in the Student work. So the content development becomes part of the learning process and it is visible that this is "work in progress" and needs perhaps some guidance." user:Bert Niehaus 4 January 2018. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

2.From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "I think Keep as is is a poor choice. I like the idea of using subspaces of the specific main page." user:Guy vandegrift. By context this opinion appears directed to "The and quality of these resources is being questioned." and "No changes are necessary." user:Guy vandegrift 1 January 2018. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

3. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "Modifications to the first three Sciences, Fringe sciences, Art, in line with those suggestions in have been completed so these as modified are Keep." user:Marshallsumter 2 January 2018. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

4. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Draft namespace: "Support Draft: namespace. With such pages in their own space, our mainspace will be of higher quality." user:Mikael Häggström 14 January 2018. This is an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

5. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "Wikiversity is a much more ambitious project where editors are exploring how to use wiki technology to support learning. If we each assume good faith then we have to open our minds to a very wide range of possible methods and approached to learning. When a page is not doing obvious harm there should be no rush to delete content. Take the time to discuss questionable content with the editors who created it." user:JWSchmidt 17 December 2006. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

6. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "Encouraging people to see how something could be improved, or the benefits of free content etc, is pretty much always a better option than nerve-twitch deletions. If it's clear that the person isn't listening, or nothing is happening to improve the situation, then we can go ahead with taking measures, like deletion. However, the development of friendly templates, encouraging people to see how they can help, is a good step, I think." user:Cormaggio 18 December 2006. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

7. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "The interlinking of dissimilar content becomes especially jarring when you compare fringe science and fringe science. These pages have nothing in common except the title. Numerous pages here are damaging to the wikimedia foundation's attempt to cross-link similar resources. Even pages like plants are damaging to this effort because wikidata incorrectly identifies wikiversity as a site that hosts a learning resource on this topic when we don't. For these reasons I am going to strongly advocate for the deletion of minimal stubs and a policy that "prime" page titles (those found in a library subject classification system) be required to adhere to a neutral point of view and present the material from a mainstream perspective. Minority POV interpretations should not be given such prominence to cross-link to mainstream counterparts at wikipedia and elsewhere. The "prime" titles should treat the subject consistently across the world wide wikiverse as wikidata sssumes. For these reasons I feel that it is a poor choice to "keep as is" or "subpages" in mainspace." user:Mu301 3 January 2018. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages". FYI: on Wikidata fringe science fringe science is (Q1140308) and fringe sciences V:Draft:Fringe sciences is (Q46779707).

8. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "The same problem exists in Russian Wikiversity, there are a lot of pages which look like a Wikipedia article. I think that these articles should be transformed to be a part of some course in Wikiversity during some time (for example, articles should be transformed during one month). Else they should be deleted." user:Andrew Krizhanovsky, user:AKA_MBG 4 January 2018. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

9. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16: "Do nothing" user:Dave Braunschweig 5 January 2018. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

10. From Things you can make on Wikiversity: "Components / stand-alone resources: Lessons - Articles - Lesson plans - Discussions - Events - Essays - Glossaries - Lectures - Papers - Quizzes - Blogs - Media". user:McCormack 15 June 2008, user:Jtneill 12 November 2009, user:Gaidheal1 28 June 2011, and user:WOSlinker 30 April 2017. See also Template talk:Things you can make on Wikiversity: "Why is this template called Rtnav? Is it supposed to be a right-hand navigational bar throughout the whole Wikiversity?" user:Boud 18 June 2012 and "I agree, this name is pretty strange. It's not used in all that many places. But it's a very useful thing! Just needs a bit of tweaking, perhaps." user:Sam Wilson 7 March 2013. These opinions are not equal to opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

11. From Help:Lecture: "Use a subpage for your lecture - i.e. entitle your lecture "name of course/name of lecture" or "name of course/lecture 1" (with a slash in the middle). [...] Category:Consensus requested" user:McCormack 14 June 2008. This is not an opinion of opposition to "Keeping lectures as main space pages".

Apparent summary (opinions must be literal): 16 Not opposed to "Keeping lectures as main space pages", (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10M), (10J), (10G), (10W), (10B), (10S), (11), 1 Opposed to "Keeping lectures as main space pages" (4), 0 Neutral. 17 opposed to no changes necessary.


 * Keep as is - No changes are necessary. - option removed by consensus" user:Dave Braunschweig.

According to Policies and Proposed policies, there are no policies regarding lectures.

All research articles that have not been successfully peer reviewed by a journal deemed acceptable by Wikiversity should "live" in draft space?
1. See Draft_talk:Fringe_sciences. So why is Fringe sciences still in Draft ns?

2. The History Discuss page shows peer review where the apparent concerns brought up above were not mentioned or discussed. So why is History still in Draft ns?

3. From Wikiversity_talk:Research_Namespace: "What benefits will come with new ns? If none, its not neeed than." user:JuanDev 25 April 2016.

4. From Wikiversity_talk:Research_Namespace: "I am not convinced of the need for a cordon sanitaire around unreviewed research. Many law reviews in the US, such as the Harvard Law Review, don't have peer review, and are still perfectly respected, and we don't know if our volunteers are qualified to do peer review, as we don't know who they are. You might also like to read "Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals" by Richard Smith, or similar literature. [...] I am afraid I am going to have to move to very strongly oppose. Even if there was a case for loudly indicating that research is unreviewed, there is no case whatsoever for trying to hide it by making it unsearchable with the default settings of our internal search engine by excluding it from the mainspace." user: James500 9 May 2016.

5. From Wikiversity_talk:Research_Namespace: User:JackPotte opinioned in favor of a research ns but did not do so here.

6. From Wikiversity_talk:Research_Namespace: "If the research namespace would not be searchable, is it a choice or a technical restriction ? I think it should be searchable, as it is on the french-speaking Wikiversity. However, that does not address the problem of the valid peer review..." user:Thierry613 10 May 2016.

7. From Wikiversity_talk:Research_Namespace: "The proposal effectively states that peer-reviewed research will not be in the research namespace! To have a separate research namespace and then keep original research in the main resource space, on condition that it is (by whatever means) refereed is surely absurd. Moreover it invites further argument over what constitutes valid peer review." user:Alkhowarizmi 9 May 2016.

8. Review board for peer review is a proposal.

Apparent summary: 7 Peer review not accepted (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), 0 peer review accepted, 1 neutral (5).

Journals do not peer review "stand-alone main page resources at Wikiversity".

Draft namespace opinions
1. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Initial Discussion: "Wikipedia has a Draft: namespace. Draft: is more generic, and easier for others to understand. User space works for individual efforts. Team efforts either need subpages or a separate namespace. I think any approach taken should be as simple as possible for all to understand, implement, and manage. [...] Is the Wikipedia Draft: namespace approach something that might work here? User space is fine for single-contributor resources, but it doesn't delineate well when there is a collaborative effort to develop content. According to Wikipedia, their Draft: namespace is not Google-indexed." user:Dave Braunschweig 3 January 2018.

2. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section All other options (e.g., move to subspace X): "Given Mikeu's insight that hanging pages under namespace pages confuses the wikidata indexing, then we have no choice but to use a Draft space, although perhaps we should give it a more dignified name, like Project:. user:Guy vandegrift 5 January 2018."

3. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section All other options (e.g., move to subspace X): "I enthusiastically support a Wikipedia style Draft: namespace." user:Mu301 5 January 2018.

4. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Draft namespace: "Support +1 for "Draft:" user:Atcovi 5 January 2018.

5. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Draft namespace: "Support OK, let's will be Draft: namespace." user:Andrew Krizhanovsky (AKA_MBG) 5 January 2018.

6. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Draft namespace: "Support a “Draft” namespace. As Dave says, it is quite clear what it’s meant for and we have an existing template that can be adapted." user:Green Giant 5 January 2018.

7. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Draft namespace: "Support Draft: namespace. With such pages in their own space, our mainspace will be of higher quality." user:Mikael Häggström 14 January 2018.

8. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Draft namespace: "Oppose - [...] The 'draft' namespace is a good idea but must be voluntary for the resource creator(s) and principal contributors. They are free to ask for peer review but should never be controlled by it. An author who submits a manuscript to a journal always has final say. If the editor-in-chief and authors can't reach agreement the author takes the MS elsewhere. But, if there's disagreement here, the author has a high probability of losing. There's no perceived pressure to cooperate on the reviewers or 'draft' namespace enforcers." user:Marshallsumter 6 January 2018.

9. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section Draft namespace: "Oppose The Draft namespace is where content goes to die on en.wp and that project is much busier than this one. The idea of a Draft namespace on a project with 25,000 content pages (many of which are not usable already!) is pretty ridiculous, honestly." user:Justin koavf 6 January 2018.

10. From Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16, section So probably this is where new votes go: "Oppose on technical grounds: I don't have much of an opinion about how WV classifies articles as draft, research or whatever (so I did not take part in the discussion). But I don't think it's a good idea to move things around between namespaces. Breaking links is bad, however good the intention. Initially there would be a redirect page - but the discussion above sounds like that will often be absorbed by someone who wants the "good" name for something else. I suggest to generally keep pages where they are created (unless the name is really bad). The reasonable way to express the status of a page in a Media Wiki system is with templates. (Imagine a "disputed" or "proposed for delition" namespace! Wouldn't that be great?) user:Watchduck 14 January 2018.

11. From Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion: "Well, I havent studied the programe to the depth, but it started with lectures. I havent find out, why lectures in main ns are problem. Thats why, we have categories to sort them out, or sort them as lectures. So I can just guess, what was the problem with lectures. If the problem is that they occupy certain page name, there are more solutions, how to fix it. The solution of its own namespace, should be used as the last one. It important to notice, that if something recive new namespace, we can set a special property to that namespace. e.g. on Czech Wikipedia we also have lectures and the creater created for them two different skins, or modes: presentation and desktop. Desktop mode is the normal look of wiki page, presentation mode is the look as PowerPoint presentation. The disadvantage is, that every person, who would like to use presentation mod, should firstly copy to his namespace the script, which handle such mod. So if cs.wv would have ns for lectures, its ns could have an advance characteristic mods for special way of presenting/display. But maybe it was all about the completition status of the lecture pages, but I havent find out more about it. Just a link to Wikipedia and what it does with Wikiversity. Non completed pages are all around, why it is a problem now?" user:JuanDev 13 March 2018.

12. From Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion: "Support [a voluntary rather than mandatory move to Draft namespace] user:Andrew Krizhanovsky (AKA_MBG) 21 March 2018.

"At 6:5 there is no consensus for moving Main Page "Lectures" to Draft: ns!" user:Marshallsumter 22 April 2018.

13. From Colloquium/archives/May_2018: "The Draft namespace had a lot of pages from the main namespace moved to it by MaintenanceBot. Was this intentional? It seems a lot of the pages that were in the main namespace seemed just fine in the main namespace. Is it the consensus that these are better moved to draft namespace? Should most or all of them be bulk moved back into the main namespace? What do you think?" user:Michael Ten 12 May 2018.

FYI: from w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals/Archive_4: "The only requirement for creating a page on Wikipedia is clicking the "edit" or "create" tab. The same thing applies to draft space and WP:AfC: they're optional." user:The Transhumanist 3 May 2018.

Apparent summary: Compulsory draft ns (2), (4), (6) and (7), voluntary draft ns (1 Wikipedia-approach draft ns ?), (3 Wikipedia-style draft ns ?), (5), (8) and (12), opposed (9), (10), (11), and (13).

Literally, 4 compulsory draft ns, 4 Wikipedia optional draft ns (5) = (12), 4 opposed. Or, 6 Wikipedia-like, but compulsory draft ns (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) and 6 opposed compulsory draft ns (5) = (12), (8), (9), (10), (11), and (13). --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Subpage status
The resource is currently a subpage and not thereby the subject of the RFD. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)