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.

What are we suppose to do with accounts with the name "bot" when they aren't even a bot?[edit]

I found one: - in the recent changes pretending to be a bot. Aren't we suppose to block accounts that have the name "bot" in it when it isn't even a bot? --Goldenburg111 14:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it isn't a bot? Or is it just that the edits weren't correctly tagged as bot? But besides that, there was a long debate here several months ago regarding the blocking of bots. It was the community's consensus that we only block bots operating at faster than sixty seconds per edit without prior approval. In other words, we only block bots based on their activity, the same way we only block users based on their activity. So far, Csdc-bot appears to be an opportunity for education rather than a need to block. Would you like to leave this user/bot a message explaining your concerns? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I'll leave one as soon as I can. I also have another one with this problem as well: I've already left a notice. And in response to your "So far, Csdc-bot appears to be an opportunity for education rather than a need to block", I'm assuming we leave bots like this alone? What action should we normally take when this happens? Thanks! --atcovi (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It was the community's consensus that only bots operating faster than one edit per minute would be blocked simply for being a bot. So, other than that, treat bots as you would other users, and focus on the edits rather than the status. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright. --atcovi (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review[edit]

Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Adambro (administrator)
  2. Historybuff (administrator)
  3. Jade Knight (administrator)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, Rschen7754 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(If anyone's wondering, the notice from a month ago was for 2013, and this is for 2014... yes, we are a bit behind). --Rschen7754 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
But, why en.wv is considered to be a smaller wiki?--Juandev (discusscontribs) 04:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity vision 2015[edit]

After the mass deletion of 5000 pages in 2014 I have found the energy to start a new learning project on the Dutch wikiversity. This time I'm going to involve the Dutch community to prevent a deletion. When I posted a request for help in the Wikipedia-pub, I got a lot of reactions. Some of the Wikipedians suggested to start a wikibook to create learning material. Creating a book is not my aim at the moment I now want to facilitate the learning proces of a small community around programming language Scratch. I think what the Dutch community needs is a clear vision. To get inspiration I had a look at the following page: Wikiversity:Vision. What I cannot find in this vision is how wikibooks and the wikiversity differ and what is and is not allowed when creating learning projects? Are there some best practices? Lessons learned, etc.? Thanks for helping! Cheers, Tim, Timboliu (discusscontribs) 19:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think of textbooks as one-way information sources. Learning projects are more interactive, and should address more learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic), through reading, media, and hands-on activities. What is or isn't allowed depends on the community. It's up to the Dutch Wikiversity community to define what is allowed there.
There are many best practices available. Take a look at Instructional Design for a very in-depth review of best practices. The courses I've designed attempt to follow those best practices by including objectives, reading, multimedia, activities, a lesson summary, key terms, review questions, and assessments to validate that the learning meets the objectives. For an example that addresses a programming topic, take a look at Windows PowerShell. For a less formal approach, see Lua.
Rather than either of these approaches, it sounds like you want to have a small group of learners and create a 'community of inquiry' for a particular topic. That also can work, but you need to have the community of learners to participate. Historically, Wikiversity had that. Currently, a community of learners tends to come from real-world communities already studying a topic, rather than people who meet here to begin their study. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
>What I cannot find in this vision is how wikibooks and the wikiversity differ and what is and is not allowed when creating learning projects?
Did you start also a thread at Wikibooks to get their opinion?
see also Wikiversity:FAQ (section: What is the difference between Wikiversity, Wikibooks, and even Wikipedia?)
When I was activate as bureaucrat and custodian here my vision of Wikiversity was, in short (1), this:
Wikiversity is a place where anything can happen
So, in terms of "I now want to facilitate the learning proces of a small community around programming language Scratch"
This can happen here at WV, you guys can start a book here (or on Wikibooks)
If here: you can at anytime (let it) import to Wikibooks. ----Erkan Yilmaz 14:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (1) no time to gather all links now

Where are Wikiversity's warning templates and IP Welcome template? (resolved)[edit]

Hi. So I'm looking for Wikiversity's warning templates. I can't seem to find any of these templates and would like to warn IP user's edits that are vandalism. As well as the IP Welcome template, can't seem to find them either. Are these templates been created or not yet created? I'll be more than happy to make these templates if they have not been created at this time. Thanks! --atcovi (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Atcovi, for the most part, we don't warn IP vandals, not for blatant vandalism. We may or may not block the IP. Warning them just creates a new page that usually does not apply to the next user of that IP. Rather, look at what to do about IP vandalism. First of all, revert it. Look at contributions. Check any older contributions for vandalism, I've found a lot of old undetected vandalism that way. If local vandalism continues, put a note on WV:RCA. Look at global edits. If there is a cross-wiki pattern, report this on meta:Steward requests/global for global blocking.
If it is a registered user, then warn the user. If it is gross vandalism, I suggest not welcoming, otherwise you may welcome for something minor or mysterious. Also look at other edits. Again, if you find a vandalism-only account, report it, here or on meta, as appropriate.
You may certainly make templates. However, do try to respond to the individual. We do want to be open and welcoming here, but IP users have nothing invested, and there is no reliable way to communicate with them. *Usually* they won't even see a talk page notice, unless they are still on-line and active with that IP when you place the notice. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Honestly with a 2nd thought and Abd's comment I don't think Warning template's is a good idea, I mean back in 2010 I was unwelcomed and i couldn't talk to the users since the user's who warned me just put templates on my talk page, I didn't care to read it. I'd rather have, at least, Wikiversity to be welcoming. I'm scratching out the idea of having warning templates. And I think Abd has a very good point on the IP Welcome. Thanks. --atcovi (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

VisualEditor News #1—2015[edit]

18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright rules question[edit]

I found a website with steam tables copyrighted under (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US). Donolobo and I would like to write quizzes for them. Is it legal to copy these tables and put them on a Wikiversity page? We have two reasons to copy the table instead of referencing to them:

  1. We want only a small portion of the table for a given wikiquiz
  2. We want to ensure that the site is not taken down or moved, especially just before a test.

Thanks --guyvan52 (discusscontribs)

This gets ugly. See the background information at Wikipedia: Creative Commons#License proliferation and incompatibility. The issue is that CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA are not compatible. That means you can't take any existing content here and add it to the page you create, as that would violate the license it was originally created under. You could create a new page of CC-BY-NC-SA content, but when you save the page you agree to release the contribution under CC-BY-SA, which would violate the agreement of the content you're using. The page you create couldn't be included in any other content here, as it would violate the license of both the page it comes from and the page it gets added to. The only thing I can think of that might work would be to capture the content as an image or file of some type and then upload the file here. Tag that upload as CC-BY-NC-SA. Link to the uploaded file, but don't include it in any pages. The intent would be the same as our use of Fair Use copyrighted content.
The other option would be to ensure that the Wayback Machine at has a copy of the content you want. Reference it in the original source as long as it is available, and switch to the copy if the original ever disappears. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If the goal is permanence then I'd agree with Dave, archive the original and don't include more than small quotations from it in Wikiversity. Another good web archiving tool is Webcite: Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I never understood copyright law when it comes to posting small excerpts. Both tables that Donolobo and I posted at User:Donolobo/Sandbox 01 are already small portions of these tables:
Does this change anything regarding the legality of using this material?--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 17:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Short quotations from copyrighted sources are generally allowed under two rules: fair use and de minimus. In this case the license is "almost good" for usage of the whole. The problem is that it's an NC license, non-commercial usage only. There is no question about legality, if the terms of the license are followed. The question is WMF policy.
The point is that we copy copyrighted content frequently in resources, quoting for purpose of commentary or criticism. It is commonly done on Wikipedia. No copyright tags are used. It's de minimus, not something that would impact the value of the copyright. We do not have to stand on our heads to do this.
There is another issue here. These are tables, basically the output of a program using a formula. The "work" is copyrighted, the presentation perhaps, but that's a bit iffy. Anyone watching Commons for a while, as I've been, can get how incredibly complicated copyright can be, and can understand what a task the WMF took on to provide "free content," freely copyable, because that task serves for profit re-users, who may not be protected by fair use and who are not Non-Commercial. Why this was done, I'm not sure. "Free" sounds good. In fact, what the policies do is to harness the volunteers to save for-profit users the work, and the projects, to some extent, suffer a loss of quality. But it is what it is, and is established WMF policy. ::::Commons Home says "a database of 24,711,839 freely usable media files." That lies. It is really a database of so many files that nobody has yet successfully tagged as having a problem, and the problems can be quite obscure, and often files are hosted for years before anyone combing obsessively over that huge database, finds that, say, the image includes some other copyrighted image, such as a toy in a photo, and therefore the image is a "derivative work" and therefore subject to the original toy copyright. Delete. Or in some countries a photo of a building is covered by the copyright of the architect, and for 70 years after his or her death. It can get insanely complex. And, of course, decisions are being made by volunteers, some of whom become expert, some of whom merely become opinionated. --21:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy on copyrighted text: w:Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. How much is "extensive" is a judgment call. If you use too much, but not egregiously too much -- don't copy the whole table! -- you might be warned. Nobody is going to beat you up. Wikipedia doesn't contemplate what we call "educational resources," and you might have a need to copy more than Wikipedia would allow. My general advice: consider the welfare of the project. Do not sacrifice resource quality for obsessive compliance with copyright. Just be reasonable about it, be appropriately careful, but also put the students first. And then be responsive if someone has a problem with it. Be sure to attribute. However, you could also create your own tables, using formulae and a spreadsheet, and put them up freely. Be practical, be fair, be nice, be happy! --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I will place small portions of the table into the questions and probably use less precision. The tables are unlikely to be used for commercial research and I don't think textbook writers are likely to "steal" questions that are in a public database. If anybody complains we can just change the numbers slightly and include a warning that this isn't "real" steam...And of course, I will attribute.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 02:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Is there a reason to host images here at Wikiversity? Why not to use Commons depositories. Others can use them if they are on Commons and there are more people, who can handle them.--Juandev (discusscontribs) 13:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair use images must be hosted here, as they will be deleted at Commons. There have also been past issues where free images have disappeared at Commons, with no source for recovery and no cooperation there to transfer the deleted images back here. Those who have been bitten before post images here instead. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I presume "fair use" would include images of small excerpts from tables with that persnickety CC BY-NC-SA license, right? (By the way, I found an open source matlab code that circumvents all this by allowing us to construct our own steam table).--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 20:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Technically, Fair Use only addresses copyrighted materials. It doesn't really apply to open, non-commercial work, as almost all of the court decisions regarding Fair Use have to do with impacting the market value of the copyrighted work. An option for content here is probably to upload the images, tag them as CC-BY-NC-SA, and link to them where needed. Better would be to leave it on the original source and link to that if you can. Using an open tool to generate similar content is even better. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is what is called "non-free use." The CC-BY-NC-SA license, if I'm correct, restricts commercial usage. It *is* copyrighted. WMF policy requires a non-free use rationale, which boils down to fair use. Here is the situation: a commercial user cannot use that work without permission, except if they can claim fair use. Some could. The WMF, however, wants all content to be 'free use" allowing commercial re-use. However, it recognizes that this could damage content, so projects are allowed to have their own non-free use policy. The critical interests of the WMF are satisfied by having machine-readable tags that point to all fair use content, so that a commercial re-user can find it. However, the policy is designed for images, and the tags are on the images. They don't actually contemplate fair use *text*. Where would the tag go? Is there fair use text on Wikipedia? Yes, certainly, and there is on Wikiquote. There are no tags. An example: [1], a whole page of quotations. The whole site is like that, for modern authors. Marshallsumter may be amused seeing that. He was banned on Wikipedia for creating collections of quotations, allegedly it was copyvio. Wikipedia went completely insane over this.
The Wikiquote page on copyright has this: "much of the content on Wikiquote is derivative of copyrighted material and is used under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law." When I proposed more liberal fair use standards here, years ago, there were screams that this violated WMF policy, even though the WMF clearly allowed the wikis to write their own policies. So now I notice that the entire site of Wikiquote (and apparently all language editions) is claiming fair use for text,[2], and without any Non-free Use Rationale tags. But note: though Wikiquote content is licensed under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, much of the content on Wikiquote is derivative of copyrighted material and is used under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law. And then there is a section covering Fair Use, and this appears to apply here, easily: [3]. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK.--Juandev (discusscontribs) 23:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I embed Google Maps of historic and scientific events on Wikiversity?[edit]

My web site,, has over 150 free Google Maps of historic and scientific events I am willing to share with Wikiversity that can be embedded directly on Wikiversity pages if the coding would allow it. My maps have been recognized and linked to by universities, libraries and government agencies for their quality and educational value. And I have a page on my site that shows how teachers and university professors are using my maps in the classroom.

The maps are referenced and linked to high quality resources on a placemarker basis to universities, Jstor, government agencies, Wikipedia, and the media. So you won't find a citation for the map because the citations are in each placemarker.

Many of the maps combine issues not normally associated together in a map. For example showing the topography of the Thermohaline Circulation, combining the American Revolution with the early years of the U.S. Industrial Revolution to how each affected the other and how they related to the unavoidable Civil War, the geography of the Koppen climate classification system, plate tectonics where you can zoom in on volcanoes, surmounts, hydrothermal vents, submarine fracture zones and mid-ocean ridges on the plate edges. The topics cover geology, paleontology, ancient ruins, migration due to climate change, sunken ships, disease outbreaks, war, and more.

If I cannot embed the map, can I add an external link that goes to the original Google Map on Google's server? Thus avoiding my web site. Like the over 30 external links I have on Wikipedia. For example the external link on Wikipedia's Plate Tectonics page that states:

Google Map of the Topography of Plate Tectonics that enables you to zoom in on submarine mid ocean ridges, fracture zones, ocean trenches, thermal vents and submarine volcanoes.

Which goes to:

Unfortunately, I cannot allow the maps to be edited by just anybody because I need to control the content and the safety of these maps because they are embedded on my web site and on school web sites across the country by teachers who trust me for the content. Teachers I have found distrust Wikipedia due to the ability of just anyone making edits and questioned why I link to Wikipedia so much.

While at lunch I thought of a way users can edit on Wikiversity without altering the original map. Place a image of the map on the original content page with a link to an embedded map page. Then under the embedded map would be a place for users to add their text content with their own external link to their own Google map containing their placemarkers and addtional in depth information.

Pragmaticstatistic (discusscontribs) 18:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think linking to the source Google maps would be a welcome addition to our various learning projects, similar to what you have done with Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the very issues of control that you mention regarding your own site would make linking there less effective for us. We prefer to 'set learning free', and find that control isn't typically necessary when there are alternative approaches for everyone to share their knowledge. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So I am allowed to add external links? Your control issue discussion seems to hedge on an answer. Yes or No? And, is there a limit before some editor considers it spam? Sorry for being so specific, but a few Wikipedia editors considered my maps spam, while most welcomed them as educational. I actually had more than 30 but many were removed, while the 30 that are still there were not considered spam. Their policy is totally inconsistent. If there is no external section on a page can I add one?
My intent here is not so much to drive traffic to my site. My site does fine on its own (over 413,000) and by submitting the Google URL it avoids my site. However the maps do contain a link to my site because many visitors found the original version in without knowing who created the map. So if they want to see more of them they need to go to my site.
My main intent is to solve the problem that according to US News, 30% of the first year college students drop out due to lack of commitment and being ill prepared, while half of the college students never graduate. Also studies show that in general online courses have a poor retention rate and suffer from poor reading comprehension. While other studies indicate digital education fails without an emphasis on pedagogy. That means brick and mortar schools, online courses, and likely Wikiiversity are not effective. I believe my maps will help to solve that problem by drawing on their natural fascination for maps, and creating maps that are a directory to multiple issues that link all over the web from within a personalized Self-Learning Environment (SOLE). And, teacher response to my maps demanded I switch from being a 250 page blog to being a .com site so it won't be blocked by their school servers Pragmaticstatistic (discusscontribs) 22:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you can link to Google Maps. Please don't link to your personal website. That would be seen as promotional. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
For your approval, here is my first map placed on Plate tectonics and the structure of the Earth's crust page. Pragmaticstatistic (discusscontribs) 02:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That looks good. Many pages with an external link like that will separate the link from the description with a hyphen or colon. Also note that internal links are created using [[ page ]] syntax. See the correction to your entry in the paragraph above this one. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I added a lot, check them out. Many of them make a perfect match to the course presented and in some cases is the only significant content on the page.Pragmaticstatistic (discusscontribs) 12:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Check out a page I am working on that promotes MyReadingMapped's sharing of maps with Wikiversity in order to drive traffic to Wikiversity in order to acquire course materials. Please let me know if you have a problem promoting the relationship and if the wording is acceptable. the page is as preview pafe that is not yet published.
  • Except it's published here, of course, if it worked, which it doesn't. ("Invalid security token"). Pragmatic, if this were Wikipedia, you'd very probably be blocked by now. The whole concept of "driving traffic" and "promoting the relationship" is making me edgy. It would drive Wikipedians clean up the wall. Back up. Slow down. You've added some maps. Great! Learn to work with the community, and you'll be fine. If you want to promote your site though, as distinct from using it, you are going to run into problems. This is not the place to do that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:37, 26 February 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)