From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Colloquium)
Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles.
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:


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!";

"Knowledge grows when shared." — Bhartrihari (discuss)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Filmmaking" courses[edit]

I can contact Robert Elliott to await his response, but he hasn't been active since 2008. Meanwhile, pages related to Filmmaking, like "Filmmaking Basics" and "Film editing" pages, look very dated because it tells a student to obtain a free disk after completing other courses. Also, the "Film editing" page still retains a dead external link, i.e. Template:Star Movie Shop. What to do with the pages? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 10:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC); edited, 01:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to update these resources! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 12:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not a filmmaking expert or anything like that. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 06:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried emailing Robert Elliott twice, but I received an error message saying "550 Rejected". In other words, his email is not working anymore. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 01:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Change of behavior of the editing tool[edit]

Since yesterday something radically changed in the behavior of the editing tool with respect to the handling of inline equations. The edit button normally calls the source editor. If this mode is switched to visual editing, then all inline formulas are put between lines. It is not possible to correct this decision. It is annoying because now it is no longer possible to put short formulas and special characters inline. I already found it annoying that I cannot select the start editing mode. The current behavior of the tool is unacceptable. Please change this faulty behavior back asap.--HansVanLeunen (discusscontribs) 08:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We have no control over MediaWiki software, and only minor ability to request configuration changes. If you are having problems with the Visual Editor, you can always edit directly in Edit source mode. If you'd like, you can contact the Visual Editor development team. See mw:VisualEditor for more information. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Or ping me. HansVanLeunen, can you tell me more about this problem? Is the formula wrong when you save it, or only when you insert it? Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 00:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem only lasted a few days and then no longer occurred. So for me the problem is solved.-- (discuss) 08:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to login. HansVanLeunen (discusscontribs) 09:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that it's working correctly now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 16:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about using Wikiversity[edit]

So I've been trying to find ways to get students in class to collaborate, and to get more materials online and freely accessible. After setting up several servers running mediawiki (with varying degrees of success), I began to realize that the best thing to do was to just add content directly to mediawiki itself. (It's far easier to merge/split pages than trying to move entire databases.) I'm trying to get other students comfortable with the concept of using a wiki. So, Here's an example, and a question:

  • Mathematics Class, Discrete Mathematics.
  • To benefit the class: A temporary area to add content relevant to the class (doesn't need to be protected in any way, but needs to be started from scratch.)
  • To benefit the rest of the world: Categorized (or split apart into the individual subjects) - this could happen after the class ends.

Is this the sort of thing that Wikiversity is already doing? Personally, I don't mind doing categorization and integrating material into the rest of wikiversity, but there would need to be a temporary "blank canvas" in order to benefit other students (and not confuse/overwhelm them). Anybody have thoughts on this? Popcrate (discusscontribs) 10:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikiversity hosts a fair number of courses for colleges and universities from around the world. I'd suggest coordinating your efforts with @Dave Braunschweig:. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 11:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! Regarding student collaboration efforts using Wikiversity, start with Collaborative Learning. There are a variety of successful models. You can develop templates and have the students fill in the details, you can do part of the work, have them do some, and then you clean up, or you can have them do everything. You can also choose to have them work in teams, or individually toward a collaborative product. It has as much to do with how you envision being able to support the students as anything else. If you believe in it, it will work.

You are welcome to start from scratch if you wish. See Editing Internet Texts for a current example of how this could be set up. But, if Discrete Mathematics is the subject, I would encourage you to adopt Discrete mathematics or rename it to Discrete Mathematics and make it your own. There's very little effective content there, so there's not much need to create something else instead. Just clean it up and dive in.

Regarding the overall concept of having students develop OER, there was a presentation in March on replacing textbooks with OER and engaging students in content development through Illinois (US) Community Colleges Online. The recorded session and others are available at After reviewing some of the available resources, let us know what additional questions you have.

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks for the great response (possibly one of the best responses I have received on MediaWiki in awhile)! I really enjoyed reading through Collaborative Learning, (also the layout was very approachable and easy to navigate) <- something I RARELY find myself saying on Wikipedia. If you're interested, I found a link from Discrete mathematics to Introductory_Discrete_Mathematics_for_Computer_Science, which actually looks somewhat similar to what I had in mind. Thanks for the great info!
On a slightly unrelated note... I Personally think Wikiversity has a lot of potential, due to the connection to Wikipedia + ability to use in real courses + more freedom to have one's own space. Since I'm new, I will offer my perspective of what I first saw when I looked at Wikiversity (this can be taken with a grain of salt, but I can only have a "first time perspective" once, so I might as well record it. It may or may not be valuable.)
  • I couldn't really tell what Wikiversity was at first sight, and I mainly just interpreted the words "Wiki" + "University" and imagined what that meant. =)
  • I was not aware of this:
    "we are open to new ideas about the use of the Mediawiki environment for learning and Research."
    (which is on Wikiversity:Main_Page under 'development')
  • Everything is a bit disorganized (now I understand why)
Of course, now that you have shown me some of these examples, I have begun to dug a bit deeper into wikiversity and think about the potentials... Not only can this be used for teaching courses, but it could result in students/researchers being more involved in Wikipedia, purely based on the fact that they will be more experienced with the real MediaWiki. If past/present/future resources were more organized, and/or if there was some peer review going on, MediaWiki as a whole could turn into something even more incredible.
(takes a deep breath) Okay, NOW that I've said all that, How can I get more involved in Wikiversity and/or MetaWiki as a whole? -- Popcrate (discusscontribs) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Popcrate: Be bold! If Introductory Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science is similar to what you had in mind, start there. It's been abandoned for seven years, so you're welcome to adopt it and improve it. I'd say it should be renamed to Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science, as people searching for Discrete won't currently find this course unless they do a full search. Start small. Set a simple goal of what you want to accomplish or what you want your students to accomplish. Try it, and then build on your success. Ask questions whenever you have them. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

21:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections[edit]

21:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra "Purge" gadget?[edit]

I saw that we already have "Purge" button without clicking the "Add purge tab" option. When I clicked it and then enabled it in the Special:Preferences page, I see an extra "Purge" gadget at the "More" menu, i.e. two "Purge" buttons saying "Purge" each. Why is that? Meanwhile, Wikiversity doesn't have the clock/purge button. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 02:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 02:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Could you please clarify?
I'm confused. I see a "Purge" button that says, "Purge cache". Is this the button to which you refer? Whether yes or no, what does this "purge cache" button do? And if no, to which "purge" button do you refer? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 02:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and the "purge cache" resets the page to the current revision, i.e. most recent revision, of a page, like this one. Hmm... while two "Purge" buttons are similar, one "Purge" button resets and redirects to automatically the current revision while the other "Purge" redirects to the "Purge this page" page with the "OK" button before going to the current revision. Have you enabled the gadget in your Preferences page yet? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 02:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: "Find" on this page finds for me only one "purge" button and other uses of that term in this section.
I can't find "purge" on Special:Preferences, either -- even after I click "More language settings".
I don't understand what any of the "purge" features you describe do, but they sound slightly dangerous. Why would someone want them? DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 11:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's under "Gadgets" tab and the "Enhance your browsing experience" section. Find "Add purge tab" and you'll see that option. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Purge for an explanation of the purge option. We had issues with the gadget, so Purge was added to More menu as a Wikiversity-wide setting. This past week, someone with global rights modified the gadget code so that it loads correctly. If you had the gadget enabled, you currently see two Purge options. I haven't had a chance to investigate the differences in the code yet.

Does the community want to have Purge automatically on the menu for everyone, or do we want it only as a gadget enabled by the user? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral (but don't need it personally)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It is very rare that I need to purge a page and I've never done it on this project, so I certainly can't imagine needing it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I already started discussing the "Purge" button at meta:‎Tech#"Purge" button in Wikipedia's sister projects. Feel free to comment there. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 09:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 09:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
– Actually, that discussion was more about the "Purge" thing in sister projects. Hmm... Somehow here, the extra "Purge" button is gone, leaving the other "Purge" remaining. The kept "Purge" button is the automatic refreshing/reloading of a page. How was it fixed? :S --George Ho (discusscontribs) 09:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: See MediaWiki:Common.js. If Guy and Koavf don't use it, it's clearly a special use tool. I use it all the time for testing templates, modules, category changes, and verifying wiki cleanup. But I can enable the gadget now that it is working again. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Upgrading Quiz extension[edit]

Quiz extension is currently being upgraded while the bugs are begin fixed.Some features that were requested on Extension_talk:Quiz needs community consensus.

1.Upgrading feedback to be conditional.Currently feedback is shown for all questions in quiz and for all proposals/answer. More information at Phabricator - T166931

2.Color scheme for wrong and correct answers.Currently if a question is unanswered or incorrectly answered, the right and wrong options both are highlighted in same color(i.e red). It has been reported at Link and Help_talk:Quiz. The color scheme can be changed or the correct proposals/answers can be highlighted in green. More information at Phabricator - T165387 --Harjotsinghwiki (discusscontribs) 13:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, happy to hear that we are improving the Quiz extension! -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Further interactive elements[edit]

Wondering what people think about the possibility of adding further interactive elements? Some possible examples here [1] Doc James (discusscontribs) 01:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The toggle is already implemented as {{Collapsible toggle}}. Responsive Dynamic columns are already implemented using {{Columns}}. But any of these examples that can be implemented as a template or template and module would likely be used by someone. Be bold! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Importing equations from Wikipedia[edit]

Representation theory of the Lorentz group is recently imported from Wikipedia. It is an important chapter of quantum theory (physics), adapted for undergraduate physics students. On Wikipedia, the no-content-forking policy disallows coexistence of "...theory for physicists" with "...theory for mathematicians", "...theory for undergraduate" with "...theory for graduate" etc. Thus, the future of this, very useful, resource on Wikipedia is problematic. Here is a quote from debates there:

I can understand that point of view, though it is a bit extreme. Take for instance understanding of Lie groups. This, by itself, comes with a considerable amount of prerequisites, like solid foundations in abstract algebra and smooth manifolds. In turn, smooth manifolds, by itself, requires grounding in, for instance, topology. Within a university curriculum for graduate students in mathematics, this can be arranged for. But the intended audience for this article is not only grad students in math. It includes undergrad students in physics and engineering. These do not have the required prerequisites available. If you look in a physics book, everything about group theory (including rep theory) is somehow "pulled out of the hat". This article attempts to make a connection to the underlying actual mathematics for those readers.
Even if a prerequisite like representation theory is available, there are enough odd features about the Lorentz group (non-compactness, non-simple connectedness) that warrants the discussion (strategy, step one, step two, Group reps from Lie algebra reps respectively) because they are usually ignored even in introductory graduate level mathematics texts. These texts focus almost invariably on compact groups and never on projective representations. The latter is heavily used in applications and has undoubtedly confused several generations of students. (Feynman: If we can't explain spin to our students, do we understand it?)
The article seeks to demonstrate how the general theory applies in this particular case. As I said, I understand your point of view, but it isn't the only one. Several sections have actually been proposed to me (on this page). Among these are the non-technical introduction and the strategy section. Explicitly, the article is written "one level down". It could be written as you suggests. This would reduce accessibility to a selected few, but quite possibly it would formally become an impeccable WP article. But in my view, it would have little value. YohanN7 (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Not convinced at all by your reasoning here. Yes Lie groups requires a lot of things, that is because it is a very advanced subject in mathematics and a graduate level topic in many universities. I find the idea that there are no good texts on representations of non-compact Lie groups to be baffling (have you looked at Knapp's 800 page book??) also the Feynman quote doesn't apply here, there he is saying we really don't know what spin is, here we know all the math the problem is what is appropriate for this page. I would like to disabuse of the notion you have that assuming familiarity with the topics will lower the number of people using the page, nobody will learn about Lie groups and representation from the contents of this page alone. That is one of the points of the Wikipedia linking to its other pages.
The way you should think about it is this, your view means everything I objected to should be repeated in every Wikipedia page on a specific Lie group. That includes the exceptional Lie groups or simply SO(8) (which has its own page and it is not simply connected).

Thus, the resource should feel better here on Wikiversity. However, a number of technical troubles manifest themselves. For now I try workarounds; ugly and time consuming. If we like to import from Wikipedia content rich of equations, we should import/update a number of templates.

w:Template:Equation_box_1 types an equation in a background-colored box. I did not found such template here. Workaround: just remove the call to this template, getting equation with no box; still readable, but less nice and less emphasized. For example:

{{Equation box 1|indent=|equation=
 |cellpadding=6|border|border colour=#0073CF|bgcolor=#F9FFF7}}

turns into







(G5 )

Template:EquationNote works, but sometimes strangely. Example: the code

Just look how {{EquationNote|G5|(G5)}} makes troubles.


Just look how (G5)

makes troubles.

Workaround: whenever the next (after EquationNote) character is a space (rather than, say, a comma), remove the space. Example: the code

Just look how {{EquationNote|G5|(G5)}}makes troubles.


Just look how (G5) makes troubles.

w:Template:sfrac types a fraction. I did not found such template here. Workarounds: sometimes, "{{sfrac|1|2}}" may be replaced with "&frac12;" giving "½"; "{{sfrac|3|2}}" with "<sup>3</sup>&frasl;<sub>2</sub>" giving "32"; "{{sfrac|''m''|''n''}}" with "<math>\frac m n</math>" giving "".

w:Template:abs types absolute value (like |x|). I did not found such template here. Workaround: "{{math|''x''<{{abs|''m''−''n''}}}}" may be replaced with "{{math|''x''< &#124;''m''−''n''&#124;}}" giving "x< |mn|".

w:Template:sqrt types square root. I did not found such template here. Workarounds: "{{math|{{sqrt|2}}}}" may be replaced with "&radic;<span style="text-decoration: overline">2</span>" giving "√2".

w:Template:supsub types a superscript and a subscript. I did not found such template here. Workaround: "{{math|''B''{{supsub|2|''j''}}}}" may be replaced with "<math>B_j^2</math>" giving "".

Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 18:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tried C&P and importing some Wikipedia templates here with mixed success! A couple of years back there was a movement to generate commons templates that every wiki project could use, but I believe that fizzled out. still works! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: There are two options. You can post at Wikiversity:Imports and list templates that need to be imported / updated, or you can apply at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship#Requests and Nominations for Curatorship and request curator status so you can perform imports yourself. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter[edit]

Please take a look on my filter log. Thanks!

-- (discuss) 16:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Due to recent and ongoing abuse, it has become necessary to restrict anonymous page creation. Please create an account and log in for greater flexibility. This would also help others contact you regarding your recent contributions to the Internet Protocol Analysis real-world course. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

New student[edit]

Hello, im a user from various wikimedia projects and now I want ti join the university as a student, Can you help me? --Neurorebel (discusscontribs) 21:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! Wikiversity isn't a traditional university. There's nothing to join. Participate wherever you like, learn what you can, and contribute what you know. Let us know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I Want to take a course on musicology if possible, where can I start? --Neurorebel (discusscontribs) 22:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest starting with Portal:Music and Category:Music. You might also connect with User:Jon michael swift, as he often contributes to music pages. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help User:Neurorebel in any way I can. Jon Michael Swift (discusscontribs) 13:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I got your email, but I can't respond directly. Can you shoot me a direct email so I can answer? User:Neurorebel Jon Michael Swift (discusscontribs) 20:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jon michael swift: It is not necessary for anyone on-wiki to release their private email address to others. Instead see Special:EmailUser/Neurorebel. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Main page learning project[edit]

What to do about Main page learning project and Talk:Main page learning project? The banner at top of Wikiversity talk:Main Page says to go there for redesigning the Main Page of Wikiversity. However, the talk page was last commented in 2010, seven years ago. Also, what to do about the banner itself? BTW, I made a comment at Wikiversity talk:Main Page#Needing language box. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 08:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Marshall and Dave about this. Pinging Atcovi if that user is interested. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion? The whole page could use a redesign, in that most of the content doesn't appear on mobile. See [2]. I don't have any time to work on this currently, but it might be something we can do between now and the end of the year. Does anyone else have suggestions for improving the main page? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear... I initially thought about redesigning the desktop design and thought about redesigning the colors. However, I never thought that the mobile version was worse. What are reasons for features not appearing on the mobile version? If tested on WV:Sandbox, hmm.... --George Ho (discusscontribs) 20:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: I dealt with this for the portals a year and a half ago. See Portal:Agriculture for a design that works (is effectively identical) for mobile. The main page needs to be switched over to a responsive div design rather than using tables for layout. If we're redesigning anyway, we could look at what other changes we think should be made. Based on the response rate, I would condense the Community and Development boxes. They don't add sufficient value as measured by views or engagement. We need a better way to draw participants. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The Development box has had the same image for a long time. I'm willing to try a portal approach that at least changes images, but I don't use a cell or mobile phone so have no ready way to check effect of changes. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter: I don't think changing the image by itself is going to have much impact, but for testing, try the Mobile view link at the bottom of the page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Tried the Mobile view link at the bottom of the page. Wow! It only shows the Main Page top image and blue-bannered Welcome section! All the others are not shown! Bummer! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... How about going to either mw:Project:Support desk or wmf:Staff and contractors#Technology to contact any member about the mobile view? Would that help? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 09:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a software problem, per se. It's a content design issue. The combination of the code used to manage the layout (tables) and the (unnecessary) depth of transclusions prevents proper display of this content. Tables have been discouraged in layout design for at least a decade now. We just need to replace the design. If we're going to go to that effort, the question is what to replace it with. Do we want something more modern, like the portal templates, or do we want something more traditional, like the Wikipedia look? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I figure, Dave, that some (X)HTML coding like <div></div> and <table></table> should help make the Wikiversity Main Page more mobile-friendly. Well... not full transclusion. How about merging Wikiversity:Main Page/Layout into the Main Page? Ooh, I found Main Page/Concept/2006/August and others. Maybe we can create Wikiversity:Main Page/sandbox and do some good testing, or create our own personal sandboxes. Thoughts? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 22:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikiversity:Main Page/Sandbox and let me know what you think. So far, all I have cleaned up is the top banner. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The content of the Main Page is also here and the Mobile view link at the bottom of the page shows everything. It may have to do with the exec file running the Main Page rather than the page's content. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • mw:Project:Support desk user AhmadF.Cheema pointed out: "When you take a look at the source code for the Main Page/Layout, you will find the tag ids "mf-" being used. These tags allow Wikis to serve entirely different main pages to mobile users. This is done by marking certain elements for display with id attributes "mf-" or "mp-". When an element is marked in this way it will be shown and all other elements will be hidden. [...] Note that the use of these tags is deprecated (T32405). Alternate ways should be used for mobile versions of the main page. Take the example of how this is done on Wikidata [Main Page]." I believe Dave intends to change Wikiversity:Main Page/Layout, which, hopefully, will solve the problem. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter[edit]

-- (discuss) 20:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikiversity:Why create an account. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Good and bad news about cross-wiki search results in English Wikipedia[edit]

Good news: The cross-wiki search results from other projects are now live in English Wikipedia. Bad news: The search results from English Wikiversity are suppressed via RfC discussion in English Wikipedia, meaning users won't see those results there. Feel free to share your thoughts here. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The end of that discussion indicates that searches for Wikiversity would be title-only rather than full-text. I'd be okay with that, but I don't see title-only working at this time. Was there more discussion elsewhere or am I not understanding what a title-only search is? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Dave. Another discussion indicated that the developers planned to include search results from all projects, but the RfC discussion concluded as not to include all. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 00:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
When I search, for example, "X-rays" a, the results are only from Wikiversity with files from commons which have proven very helpful for adding to lectures. Have these RfCs prevented crossWiki searches from being included here? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for being unclear, Marshallsumter and Dave. I meant search results at English Wikipedia, not at Wikiversity. One example is "X-ray", like you said. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 03:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Cross-wiki results into other projects are considered. Currently, only Wikipedia does that. Thoughts? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It would be great to have that here! While a popular subject on Wikipedia could yield too many results to be useful, I'm pretty good at adding a second word or quotes to get a focused search! How do we specify it and get it here? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Before doing that, Marshall, besides Wikipedia, we should discuss as the community which other projects should be included in the search results. Should Commons, Wikispecies, Wikibooks, etc. be included? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 08:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Chris Koerner about this. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 00:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Uh, Hi? I'm not 100% sure what is being asked of me in this discussion. Apologies if this answer is off the mark. The search team is looking to expand the sister search results feature to other Wikimedia projects, including Wikiversity. By default the search results include all Wikimedia projects (expect for Wikidata at the moment). When we're ready to expand the feature to Wikiversites, we'll mention it here and ask for feedback. That will, assumedly, include a discussion if projects should be excluded. Hope that helps! CKoerner (WMF) (discusscontribs) 15:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I've just created {{Footer}} which could replace {{Prevnext}} because it's fully automatic: no need to respecify the previous and next chapters which are already listed into the table of content. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@JackPotte: {{Prevnext}} isn't in use at Wikiversity. I like the idea, but wanted a different design, and the implementation was difficult to follow. I created an alternative set of templates as {{subpage previous}}, {{subpage next}} and {{subpage navbar}}. There's no documentation yet, but everyone can see the effect at Lua/Introduction at the bottom of the page. It's designed intentionally to match the category bar. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I can follow your Module:Navigation but it's not designed to be exported in the other languages. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 00:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


With the same Lua module as the template above, I could create Lua/Print version. It's a dynamic alternative to Special:Book which can fail during its encoding sometimes. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, we should import {{Print version}} from Wikibooks to link towards these pages. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 08:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@JackPotte: Special:Book is being completely rewritten and should be available soon. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Newer proposal to merge Beta Wikiversity into Incubator[edit]

Hello again. The four-year proposal (meta:Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator) was closed as "rejected". Soon, the newer proposal (meta:Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator 2) is made. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 19:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal proposed as a sister project[edit]

The ongoing proposal to make WikiJournal the spinoff of Wikiversity, i.e. the free academic journal project is discussed at Meta-wiki. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 07:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Open Collaborative World Building – Asking for go or nogo[edit]

Hello everyone,

concerning a discussion earlier this year, I think I can't do much more, than: m:Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2017-04#Opinion needed concerning licencing in Wikiversity and m:User:HirnSpuk. Additional Information here: User:HirnSpuk (though extremely rough).

I tried my best to search for the relevant information, discussed or linked in the link(s) above. I wasn't able to gather more information or to get more comments.

I'd like to ask kindly for a go/nogo (meaning you would/would not support this kind of action) for the project, under the following conditions: If information (not direct text itself or parts, just the given ideas/information) is used by an external creative to do a creative work (video/audio/comic/text/image/whatsoever) it is sufficient to adhere to the CC-BY-SA License of Wikiversity by incorporating a line into the work stating “This work is a derivative work and based upon a Collaborative World Building Project on Wikiversity, see »link« for Details. I assure that this original work is licensed with respect to the CC-BY-SA terms.” The precise wording could be changed, the main thing: A link to Wikiversity is sufficient as credit.

As more than once supposed by me, I think this is absolutly necessary for the project. I won't start the project, if you think this is to much of a compromise or even not within the license terms (which I think it is), because I'm not willing to take the risk, that anyone is so unsure about the license, that they do not start any work based on it anyway. But this would be one of my primary goals.

So in conclusion, I'd like to hear a go/nogo and/or any comment, especially pinging the initial people talking about the idea: Justin (koavf), Michael Ten, Atcovi and User:Dave Braunschweig (I would count in a veto for Dave; if, as a "head" custodian like I'm told, he would be against it, this wouldn't make any sense, even if everyone else says "do it", would it?).

Maybe further discussions will bring more ideas and change the idea even more, than it already did. So, please be so kind and tell me your opinion. If you have any questions, please ask, I'd be happy to talk. Thanks a lot, regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 19:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@HirnSpuk: We cannot approve or deny your request. See for current Wikiversity licensing requirements. Contact WMF Legal or regarding any legal questions you have.
Regarding what you have written on your Meta user page, you seem to have issues with both the BY and the SA parts of CC-BY-SA. Any derivative works must give appropriate credit and must be released with the same licensing. You need to decide whether you believe in and are committed to open source content, or whether you are focused on other options. Rather than trying to negotiate this, I encourage you to either accept CC-BY-SA licensing or move on to another venue. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, I have the impression, that you interpret my questions as rude and not appropriate. I'm sorry, that I fail to explain. I don't want to ask for approval or denial, I don't want to negotiate, I'd liked to ask for support or no support and if we interpret the CC-BY-SA the same way. I won't contact WMF, because I don't think this is of their business.
Please let me add: I believe in open source content and I am committed! That's exactly, why I'm proposing, let's make it easy (easier) for others to reuse and build upon the content and as specified in Section 4(c) CC-BY-SA 3.0 to clearly state a “party” as requested in “…or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties […] the name of such party or parties;…”.
That said, with your assumption I would have a problem with BY and SA (which is not the case) and with not having your support, I won't start the project.
Thanks for your time and advice, regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 22:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@HirnSpuk: I must respectfully disagree with your stated position. If you believe in open source and CC-BY-SA, you can develop your project here without worrying about reuse, as reuse is already built into the published license. Whether or not someone else chooses to reuse the content is up to them, and meeting the license requirement is their problem. Because you continue to seek workarounds to a perceived licensing problem, you would seem to have an ulterior motive or intent that goes beyond supporting Wikiverity CC-BY-SA content. From that perspective, it would be best to develop the project somewhere else. Best of luck to you. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig:, respectfully too, there are no ulterior motives, and I will strongly oppose that assumption. I sure know I can develop, because it's “their problem”. But if I do and don't think about the future beforehand and the time comes, hundreds of people contributed, nobody will ever use the content, because it would be too much effort to fulfil the attribution part of the license regarding “everyone who contributes is entitled to attribution”, ignoring, that the License gives a possibility to handle this case. Or, if the content is used, there will most likely mistakes be made, which is a License violation. There are examples of how licensors ensure reusers what is expected of them, see for example. As you said yourself “A hyperlink may be used for attribution, according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content. You should check for a similar link somewhere on meta: to ensure that policy applies across Wikimedia projects.” I did, and this does not seem to exist, if I'm correct. I tried to talk about the topic. Nothing happened. So I think it's up to Wikiversity not Wikimedia to handle this. That's why I asked for support. But please, I will stop arguing about the case and leave but I expect you to stop supposing even the slightest ulterior motives that I want to work around the license in some way. Best of luck to you too. --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 15:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)