From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Sign your posts with   ~~~~

Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking a question, you can find some general information at:


Wikipedia Administrator.svg
Organization of Wikiversity

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = ""; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 18 days old.

Should we have our own inactive administrator policy?[edit]

User:Rschen7754, a steward, came here on November 2014 to leave notices on inactive administrator's talk pages about their demotion if they do not respond within a month. Most of them are most likely demoted, but shouldn't we have our own policy about inactive administrators instead of having a steward come here and run that? Thanks. --atcovi (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We only need our own policy if it were to differ from global policy. What differences do you propose? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
And that is a global policy? I thought there is a custom not to demote inactive admins and it is even written somewhere.--Juandev (discusscontribs) 04:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Admin activity review on meta. "Inactivity" is defined as two years with no edits or logged actions. Stewards review periodically and if they find an admin with that condition, the process initiates. It then requires community action. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
See meta:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we have a policy. We have never removed for inactivity. It was tried once, a disaster. However, if we don't establish a policy, stewards will follow the global policy. The global inactivity standard is very low, i.e., no edits or logged actions for two years. However, there is a problem. Once a user has been notified, the stewards may interpret the policy as requiring local consensus to keep the rights, even if the user responds. That can create a disruptive discussion.
  • It is clear that the intention is that local community wishes be followed. So we need to develop a policy on this. If rights happen to be removed while the local community wants to keep them, any bureaucrat may restore them. They are not claiming authority over Wikiversity. However, it would be much cleaner to have a policy. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think having a local policy would be preferable. (I'm one of the admins who had his rights removed.) The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The stewards have always said that removal of rights is not a big deal because they may be restored by a 'crat. So, we have choices here:
  • Define a policy. It is likely, my opinion, that if we do define a policy, it will be stricter than the meta policy, not looser. Two years is a very long time with no activity at all. Such an admin will not be familiar with current community standards and practice. To make it clear, there are also arguments for keeping all administrators. Maybe, someday, they will make that crucial block of a vandal. Defining a policy will take some substantial discussion, site-notice. I don't recommend it.
  • Advise our crats to restore the admin bit for any admin desysopped for inactivity, on 'crat talk page request by the admin. In the absence of clear advice, any 'crat may use their discretion.
  • Suggest that a desysopped admin state a candidacy at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship. Any permanent admin may then mentor, and a 'crat would set the bit. This would create the community review that the global community wants. If a sysop has received the notice but has not been desysopped, they may still create that candidacy page, and obtain a mentor, who would then notify the stewards of our community process, so that they do not desysop. If a sysop cannot obtain a mentor, for some reason, that could indicate some sort of problem. The community will decide.
Sorry if this bit you, Jade Knight, but doing something else for two years is not an offense, merely a possible cause of losing the bit, which doesn't mean all that much anyway. The real loss for us, was your absence, not anything to do with admin buttons. So welcome back! We are working on cleaning up the mess created from years of lack of overall organizational concepts, and we do this generally without deleting things, like a real custodian, who will put things in their place and who won't usually trash papers that he or she doesn't think are useful, unless maybe they are crumpled up on the floor.... All hands are useful, and one doesn't need admin privileges to work on this. One admin could handle all the deletion requests for this wiki in a few minutes, because we have made the process non-controversial. Usually. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel like the proposed policy should be more strict than the Global One, what'd you say? -- (discuss) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Volcanoes, list[edit]

I would like to take a great organization of our volcano resources: Volcanoes, list one step further if this meets with approval of the various contributors. The lecture/article Volcanoes already mentions several directly. Each of the volcanoes mentioned in the resource: Volcanoes, list can be extensive resources themselves about the geology and volcanology of each volcano with more images.

Here's my suggestions.

  1. For each individual volcano, for example, Volcanoes, list/Mount Vesuvius can be moved to Volcanoes/Mount Vesuvius.
  2. Volcanoes, list has geographic classifications of these volcanoes that can be resources of their own. For example, Volcanoes, list#Ring of fire would be great as Volcanoes/Ring of fire. As a separate resource, the planetology and volcanology of the ring of fire can be discussed.
  3. When I bring the resource Tephra layers online, it will involve chronologically significant volcanic eruptions. These volcanoes (each) can then be described as another subpage of volcanoes.
  4. Tephra layers could also be a subpage of volcanoes as Volcanoes/Tephra layers even though many of the oldest ones are not yet correlated with specific volcanoes.
  5. This may mean that the redirects to Volcanoes, list have to be changed and it may be better to have Volcanoes, list moved to Volcanoes/Geography or Volcanoes/Planetary science.

Suggestions, comments, criticisms welcome! What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Perhaps User:Pragmaticstatistic would be willing to add a Google Map of volcanoes as well. We should also set up redirects from Volcano and Volcanos to the project's main page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Structurally, I'd see the top level resource being Volcano (a resource about the phenomenon) Then there would be Volcano/List, with subpages with lists of volcanoes organized in various ways. There would be a master list of all volcanoes, by name. Under that list would be individual volcano studies. So .... Volcano/List/Vesuvius. Some lists might be simply category displays.
I think of a top-level resources as being a topic on which there might be a class in a university. Various resources used in the class are then organized under that, as subpages. There are, of course, cross-links where appropriate. Notice that the subpage link allows linking to a "sister subpage," that is, another subpage of the same page supra. Ultimately, Wikiversity resources may become Wikibooks, and the page structure described allows easy re-use and export and renaming of an entire structure, which, if made with care, will not require editing individual pages to avoid broken internal resource links. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason why I never made a volcano specific Google Map is because one already exists. See the following map:
The map can be adapted by downloading it as a kml file and then importing the kml file into your own Google map and add to it and edit it. However, the map contains way to few volcanoes.
There are other volcano maps on Wikipedia, for example List of volcanoes in Costa Rica that have a box in the upper right corner for Google Maps that go to a map like this one below.
But if you check out the map you will see that the volcanoes are numbered rather than named and there is no content or link that goes to a page about that volcano. Also many of the placemarkers miss their target. This seems to me to be a situation where an automated procedure that took a spread sheet the Wiki list coordinates that had little involvement by a human to see if it hit its target. The links in the individual volcano placemarkers all go to the same list of volcanoes rather to content about the mountain. Wikipedia has lots of these and they seem to be set up for Wikipedia users to edit, but I do not know how they did it. Also, as you can see from this sample, no one ever participated in editing or contributing to it, and this map has been online for over two years that I am aware of. So all the concern about being able to edit my maps is totally unfounded since no one ever edited those on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only began doing this after I had placed several of my maps on their site and got into discussions with editors who wanted to edit my maps.
As for many of the maps I have made on, I obtained coordinates from Wikipedia lists on various subjects and created a better organization via a Google Map than the list. If Marshallsumter can assist in collecting the data, I am willing to assist with the project.
It might help me if we set up a Wikiversity Google Map account that can be accessed by a team of collaborators because already having 160 Google Maps for MyReadingMapped might limit making maps for my needs. I have no idea how many more maps Google will allow me to make using my account. If someone from Wikiversity can contact Heather Folsom, product manager at Google MyMap at maybe we can set this up so that I can help without affecting my account. She and I have a rocky relationship because I criticized the MyMap rollout on my blog when their upgrade on my maps nearly destroyed my web site and maps and then I ended up assisting her with their problems when she contacted me. Pragmaticstatistic (discusscontribs) 01:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia prohibits role accounts, like what you have suggested. We might consider one, but I don't see the need, and it creates security risks.
  • Nobody officially represents Wikiversity, to make a request like that. Any user may assist you, and I assume that any user may do what you have done with Google. If Google Maps are being used here, it might help. I highly recommend that you avoid irritating the Google person! Help, yes, constructive criticism, okay, complaint, not so good, anger, almost guaranteed to cause problems with anyone.
  • Wikipedia may have problems with original research, but we won't. (Notice, a problem will exist if someone thinks that a map is original research. Even if you think it's just a compilation of data from reliable sources, like a wiki article.) There also may be problems with many off-wiki links. (There, for sure, here, it's possible.) Just be nice, if any problems come up. Ask for assistance, don't thrash about. Good luck! --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If Marshallsumter wants me to assist, please have him contact me so I understand criteria he is seeking. However, I would rather collaborate by email rather than via these public talk pages. As for getting upset with Google, I helped them by showing them all the things they got wrong that caused errors in 160 maps and 250 pages on my site due to their MyMaps upgrade, and I assisted by offering solutions. What I got for helping is another round of errors that required correcting. The 2 month correction process cut my web site visitors in half.--Pragmaticstatistic (discusscontribs) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding 'I would rather collaborate by email rather than via these public talk pages.', please note that a wiki is public collaboration. It doesn't work to just communicate privately with a single contributor, because it isn't a single contributor's project. The project belongs to everyone, which is why Marshallsumter asked here before embarking on restructuring it. If you'd like to contribute, please work with all of us to do so. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll try it, but I would prefer to do it on a page solely devoted to the project. Not here. Please have someone contact me.-- (discuss) 21:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend using Talk:Volcanoes to continue the discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to try to conclude this discussion with some observations about naming Wikiversity resources in competition with Wikipedia for hits, when the hit counter comes back on line. Here are some examples from the Volcanoes Discuss page and some extras in hits per month:
  1. Resource title - Wikiversity: Astronomy, hits per month 368, Wikipedia: Astronomy, 58,120.
  2. Radiation astronomy, 2,123, Wikipedia Radiation astronomy, zero, no such title.
  3. Dominant group and subpages, for 2014: 93,361, Wikipedia Dominant group, zero, no such title.
  4. Motivation and emotion and subpages, for 2014: 416,127, Wikipedia Motivation and emotion, zero, no such title.
  5. X-ray astronomy: Wikiversity - 193, X-ray astronomy: Wikipedia - 3,315.
  6. Astrophysics: Wikiversity - 165, Astrophysics: Wikipedia - 27,988.
  7. Mathematical astronomy: Wikiversity - 749, Mathematical astronomy: Wikipedia - 0, entry does not exist.
  8. Radiation detectors: Wikiversity - 764, Radiation detectors: Wikipedia - 0, entry does not exist.

While this is probably not statistically significant and Motivation and emotion is a course with a large number of subpages, a definite advantage of Wikiversity over Wikipedia in attracting readers or scanners at the least, it appears to be the case that the more unique a resource title is to Wikiversity vs. Wikipedia the greater the number of hits per month.

For resource titles such as Volcano vs. Volcanoes this may be insignificant because Volcanoes just redirects to Volcano on Wikipedia so having either one or both may not bring in many readers or contributors, but having both allows us greater flexibility for more informative content. Volcanic activity might be great here as well, but Volcanic activity on Wikipedia redirects to Volcano. An advantage of having Volcanic activity as a top level resource and Volcano as a subpage is the apparent greater generality. On the other hand, potential readers may search Volcano more often than Volcanic activity. Either one is fine with me.

With respect to lists, I have a tendency to put lists under lists, e.g., Volcano/List as a master list of volcanoes, where Volcano/Lists or Volcanoes/Lists is a list of lists. If there are no objections to Volcano as the top resource with all other resources as subpages, even Volcanoes moved to Volcano/Volcanoes or Volcano/Volcanic activity, then I'll start doing this. Further suggestions, comments, or criticisms are welcome! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate this analysis and observations. I personally think of Wikiversity resources as learning projects. Wikipedia has a long-standing policy of singular titles for encyclopedia entries. Wikiversity titles translate better as courses or lessons. I'm unlikely to sign up for a course on Volcano or even complete a lesson on Volcano. A course would certainly cover the plural, and a generic lesson on the subject would as well. Only specific lessons on a particular named volcano are likely to use a singular name. Therefore, I would create Volcano as a redirect and use Volcanoes as the learning project title. If we have a learning project on Volcanoes, having a list of them as a subpage would be a great addition, unless the list is made part of the main page and individual volcanoes become subpages as they are researched. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Searching musicians[edit]


I'm a regular contributor of the french version of Wikiversity. Since a few months, I try to write some music lessons, especially for jazz improvisation :

I would like to know if there is here musicians who are interested in the same way and I hope to begin a collaboration with some others jazz-players, ideas exchange, bit of scores, tips, etc.

You can answer here or on my own page of discussion :

Thanks a lot.


PS Please excuse me for my poor english...

csc in trigonometry?[edit]

Hi ,

When I was editing the Trignomentry project , I stumbled on an odd issue. What is csc? To me , it is cosec. This is the first time I have seen this ratio being used. Here , csc is unrecognised. We always use cosec(1/sin) instead.

Now , when I was replacing instances of csc with cosec , I got parsing errors. It looked like this:-
Failed to parse (unknown function "\cosec"): \sec(90-\theta)=\cosec\theta

Failed to parse (unknown function "\cosec"): \sec(90-\theta)=\cosec\theta .
It seems that the parser does not recognise cosec.
Can someone enable cosec for this type? Or , explain what could I do instead? Should I use /operatorname instead? --Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

csc(\theta) = \sec(90 - \theta). Hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That's what is already specified. But I want to change csc to cosec(see above). How? It breaks if I try to do so.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 02:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You can check Math markup language for alternatives but I think it only handles cosecant as csc rather than cosec or cosecant, for formula or equation evaluation. For entries only you could just write:
cosec(\theta) = \sec(90 - \theta). --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Tables of OLMS (US government) data suitable for project?[edit]

It was suggested that I use Wikiversity for my project, but by someone who isn't a Wikiversity editor. The project is for the most part simply collecting data from the US Office of Labor-Management Standards on unions, including membership and financial data, graphing it, and preparing it for charts on respective Wikipedia articles. Essentially, most of the content would simply be tables, paired with basic instructions on keeping them updated. The data is primarily intended not to be interpretive, aside from very rare and obvious corrections.

My main motivation for this project is that I have a folder full of spreadsheets that I'd like to divorse myself of. :) However it's also a question of maintainability if I'm the only one with the prepared intermediary data. Alternately, if anyone knows a superior way to collect this information online in a Wikipedian-friendly manner, please let me know. Djr13 (discusscontribs) 04:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! Interpretive isn't an issue here. We accept original research, as long is it is indicated as such. But it doesn't sound like that's a primary concern for your project.
I see three possibilities. One would be to upload the content directly to Commons. If Commons won't accept it, the files could be uploaded here and tagged as Fair Use (if need be). A third option would be to use Wikidata. Wikidata may be the best choice for the data itself, and then a learning project could be established here for any analysis or summaries you'd like to have. But I say that never having created any Wikidata myself, so i'm not sure how that will work.
The only real caution I have for you is to make sure that any content developed here will be welcomed back at Wikipedia once you're done. Some Wikipedia editors discourage the use of Wikiversity as a source. They tend to be more willing to link here using the Wikiversity template than to use content there from here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be able to upload the spreadsheets as files here or on Commons. Copyright is not a concern though, it's all public domain. I don't think Wikidata can hold arbitrary statistics, only relations, but I could be wrong.
The project would merely be an intermediary, basically a place to stick data pulled from the OLMS database, and organize it so that it can be maintained and subsequently fed into charts. I suppose this might be considered a Collection(?), and any references to it would be supplemental to the direct citation of the OLMS data. The OLMS data is pretty much a primary source, but it's usually the only source of certain vital information and is legally submitted to a government body under threat of perjury. Djr13 (discusscontribs) 06:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you know exactly what you want / need. Be bold. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking to beta projects[edit]

The Dutch wikipedia has a new starting page ( At the bottum of the page you can find links to the sisterprojects. For wikiversity there's a link to the English wikiversity because the Dutch is still in beta. I tried to convince the Wikipedia community to make a link the Dutch version. Unfortunately without success. Can I do something? Because in this situation it will be more harder to get the Dutch wikiversity out of beta. Timboliu (discusscontribs) 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content[edit]

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Music and dance department(s)[edit]

Hi !

There is something strange with the music and dance department. We have 3 differents pages now :

OK with that.

But there is another page :

So, what is the right page for Dance department ?


--Thierry613 (discusscontribs) 21:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Departments are in the Topic: namespace. School:Dance should have been Topic:Dance. It started that way, but someone moved it. I just moved it back. Go ahead and clean up both School:Music and Dance and Topic:Dance as necessary. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot ! --Thierry613 (discusscontribs) 03:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Aw, gee, I'd have thought a Department belonged in a School. But the whole organization of Schools and Topics wasn't well-developed. I'd have thought that Topics would be areas of interest, much less formal than Schools. A Department indicates a group of people organized for some purpose. Schools are that on a larger scale.
As long as resources keep moving toward better organization, it is okay if they are not uniform. Until we have an overall organizational structure, we will just keep getting more organized, in fits and starts. Gradually, scattered resources are being pulled together.
Mostly, I have ignored Schools and Topics -- and Portals, we have them, too. I've just worked on resources. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's ok with me. I'm new here (and, worse, I'm french... :-) ) and I'm not yet comfortable with schools, divisions, departments, topics, portals, and other stuff. I have tried to re-organize a little bit the School of Music and Dance which seemed to me to be a little bit confused, but I think I have to practice... --Thierry613 (discusscontribs) 22:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[edit]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Resources favored by women[edit]

To contribute to the Inspire Campaign, I have submitted an idea at this website and a proposal to the WMF (see full idea). It is entitled, "Resources favored by women". The proposal seeks ideas for resources to be added to Wikiversity to encourage contribution to and creation of further learning resources. Suggestions, comments, and criticisms are most welcome! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting an new project/course called All Connections[edit]

Hi guys,

I am a newcomer. I come here from AdministrativeAssistance#All Connections on Wikibooks:Readingroom.

I have been guided by Pi zero. I am just an old Wikipedia editor, never being an administrator there, just a regular small editor.

Here is and excerpt from what I wrote there, and there reason I am here.

I have started a Quora blog one year ago, where the project got some interest there. AllConnections on Quora.

The most important to read is this: We write a book.

It would be a book about connections that I would write it by myself, but the book gets so massive that I need external help.

I create my own wiki at but it had been attacked by a spam bot from a server in Moscow.

I have one collaborator. He will help me starting and organizing the pages. I will be the peron that brings the content. I expect a third persons or other person to be able to organize the material better than me and our collaborators. If not, the course will keep it's original structure.

Cheers, TudorTulok (discusscontribs) 22:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I am waiting from you, if you have any start up tips regarding my course. What things I should avoid. I read some of the Wikiversity rules, but some of you with more experience might give me some useful tips before I start. Thank you!

Subcategory naming conventions[edit]

I want to verify this is consistent with our conventions:

I understand that our naming convention calls for subcategories like (a) Category:Engineering thermodynamics instead of (b)Category:Engineering/Thermodynamics. That created a problem when I wanted to put a lot of data-type pages into a sub-sub category. Note the two ways of creating sub-categories. In (a) the category is a proper category that becomes a subcategory only after declaring it with a statement; in (b) we import the Wikipedia way of using subpages into the category structure.

I needed a "data" category for several pages intended to help students verify the Steam Tables. These pages will give students the opportunit to do useful research as we gauge the accuracy of Wikiversity's Steam Tables. Once the various pages have been used in this way, they will become almost useless. I needed a way for us to keep track of all these data pages.

My solution was to adopt the more conventional (a) method and with Category:Engineering thermodynamics declared as a subcategory of Category:Engineering, but to adopt the (b) method for the more obscure data: Category/Engineering data/Steam tables Is this OK?

I might add that we don't need to worry too much about organization. Wikipedia and commons are both very disorganized, yet both highly successful. On both systems I just use Google, employing one of many methods to restrict the Google search to a wiki-sister. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

YesY Done Everything is explained on the "main" category page Category:Engineering data


I've modified the {{Subpages/List}} template to hide redirects and strip prefixes (show subpage name only, not full title). In most usages this seems to be a better display than listing the full title and redirects. If anyone objects, let me know and I will revert and figure out how to add these as template options instead. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Will this cause problems with some browsers?[edit]

I am only vaguely aware of how different browsers interpret Wikitext. But the box to the right seems like a quick and simple way to conveniently display all the resources on Wikipedia/Wikiversity/Wikibooks. Will there be any "bugs"?

In the case of this particular topic "Optics", there may be so many resources that we need an entire page for the links. But in most cases, a half-dozen links are all we need. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Browsers don't interpret Wikitext. Only the wiki server does that. It generates dynamic HTML that must be interpreted by different browsers. There's less risk of a problem with the dynamic HTML than there is with a user having a NoScript add-in so that dynamic HTML is disabled on their browser. What if, instead of having a collapsed list (that I suspect most users won't expand), you have a list of items below the image, something like on the right. A template could be developed to generate the content so that users don't have to manage the HTML details. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In the future I will refrain from using the collapsible list. I did it mostly for fun. Regarding the template, I think we need one. I believe that the wiki-sisters will grow, and if nothing is done clutter of signs will look those billboards you see when driving along highways. Also, the logo will need to be changed to either a generic logo for all sisters, or to a switch that turns the individual ones on and off. If you make a switch, make the simplest option a generic image. And, it would be nice to have simple options for the oft-used combinations (e.g. Wikibooks-Wikipedia-Wikiversity). With the image method I am using, there is no rush to get this done.

Also, a nice convention would be to place this either at the top, alongside the contents, or at the bottom near external links. I want no part in the arguments that will ensue as Wikipedia editors argue which option is more appropriate for a given article. As I said, there is no rush to get this done.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This system is a reason to sometimes keep the convention of using the letter (e.g. v or c) instead of the keyword (Wikiversity or Commons) in the address of the wikilink. In prose, I do much prefer the keyword, e.g. Wikipedia:Optics is better than w:Optics.

Create a link for a special section of a page[edit]

Hello , i checked the wikipedia Tutorial but still i can't do it correctly


أ --Ruaa Elias (discusscontribs) 20:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

When linking to Wikipedia from Wikiversity, there's an extra Wikipedia: in front. The link would be Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links#Categories. But I don't think you were trying to link to Wikipedia. The other part of linking to a section heading is that there must be a matching section heading. For example, to link to this section here, you can use either Wikiversity:Colloquium#Create a link for a special section of a page or just #Create a link for a special section of a page if it's on the same page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the Wikipedia Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikiversity project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks! ResMar 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I see, 2 people contacted you already. w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-09/Wikiversity interview might also be helpful, ----Erkan Yilmaz 11:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a "fair use" of an image?[edit]

Two questions: One: Is it permissible to add this diagram] to the Wikiversity collection of image files? Two: Is it worth the bother? I ask because it would be no trouble to simply link to the image. The only advantage to showing the actual image in a Wikiversity resource is cosmetic.

According to , considerations for "fair" use include:

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

It seems to me that 1 and 4 are clearly satisfied. We endorse the lab, except for portions of the lab manual that we found confusing. Pasco should be delighed that we are using their image. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how you use the image. Can it simply be added as a file? No. That's not fair use. But if you create a resource about how to use the Pasco device and then add an image of it to support the article, yes, that would be fair use. It wouldn't diminish the value of the work, because they aren't selling the image, they're selling the product. When you add the file, include a Fair Use tag and the source, and indicate that it is being used for an article about the product.
Is it worth it? It certainly could be, if the image would enhance the description you intend to provide. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Stewards confirmation rules[edit]

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015[edit]

19:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Projectmanagement tooling[edit]

One of my customers is in the selection process of a project management tool. On the following page I would like to discuss some solutions. Who has knowledge about project management tools? Timboliu (discusscontribs) 07:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Description Lists[edit]

Hey! I was wondering if there is any wiki markup for description lists. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! --I8086 (discusscontribs) 22:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Use ; and :


Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --I8086 (discusscontribs) 01:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg


I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at-

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help


Special:Statistics says we have 20,077 content pages at the moment. Towards the end of March of this year, about a month ago, we had nearly 28,000 pages: [1]. Have more than seven thousand content pages been deleted recently? James500 (discusscontribs) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The deletion log Special:Log/delete shows just less than 500 deletions for the past month. It would take about 230 deletions for 30 days to account for the difference. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
According to, the previous count up to 23 August 2014 was 26,930. I do remember seeing some 26,000 fairly recently. Something may be up with the special statistics all pages counter. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If the number of deletions is too small to account for the apparent reduction in the number of "content pages" by 7,888 since March 21, could it be explained by pages being moved out of the mainspace to another namespace, or by mainspace pages being blanked and redirected? James500 (discusscontribs) 02:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Something like that I believe is occurring. We host a number of courses from several colleges and universities. The students create files and content pages that may remain outside our content space while in use. Then when the course is over a bot (I'm guessing here) returns them to mainspace. The files that do not have proper licensing appear in Category:Pending deletions. These have been showing up at about 50 a week for awhile now. I usually delete as many as I can. Dave may know more about this. If the bot has removed some content pages as if in a course it may have a bug in it. But, I'm just guessing. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The total number of pages has remained consistent (162,593 -> 163,338). It would seem that content pages is no longer counting some namespace that was included in the past. We would need access to the variable indicated at mw:Manual:Article count to know what is included. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Following up on Dave's suggestion I found this: "MediaWiki 1.26 is currently being developed. Consult the RELEASE-NOTES file for the full list of changes. It is currently deployed on Wikimedia Foundation wikis through incremental "wmf"-branches starting April 08, 2015." MediaWiki 1.25 was deployed last year in September and doesn't come online fully until May 25, 2015, which is too soon to be responsible for the change in content pages. I'll look at mw:MediaWiki 1.26 release notes to see what's going on. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
MediaWiki 1.26 implements a content page search using whether a resource page contains at least one link versus earlier version(s), still checking on this, that look for commas. 1992 Cuba earthquake contains commas but no links. It may not be counted as a content page currently. So I will test that. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a time sequence:

  1. 20,087 at 15:32
  2. 20,087 at 15:38
  3. link edited to 1992 Cuba earthquake at 15:40
  4. 20,087 at 15:41
  5. 20,087 at 15:50
  6. 20,089 at 15:57
  7. 20,089 at 17:01

Problem: looking through Recent changes, it appears all the other changes involve adding links to pages that already have links and commas. I can't account for a change of two. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)