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:


Wikiversity admin mop.png
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!";

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." — Albert Einstein (discuss)

Wiki Mural project[edit]

I have long been fascinated by mural at: Inspired by this mural, Big History projects, the book Evolution of Everything, and the book consilience I am struggling to create an analogous mural, in a similar style illustrating the causal chain, as we best understand it, beginning from the big bang and particle physics in the lower left-hand corner and spanning toward the human condition in the upper right-hand corner. I am currently using PowerPoint, because I am familiar with it, but it is not a Wiki Media compatible tool, and it does not invite collaboration in the style of a wiki. I would like to see a Wiki Mural project created that would invite editors to collaborate in creating, refining, editing, and updating large graphics. A simple, but rather unsatisfactory, approach would be to create a large, many-celled table and place text or images in cells at the appropriate location. This would be tedious and rather ugly. What ideas do you have? What might be developed? How might a "canvas" be implemented that would allow editors to place text, hyperlinks, and images in a way that can be shared and collaboratively edited? Thanks!--Lbeaumont (discusscontribs) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a project for Inkscape, which create editable svg files.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 04:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting Inkscape; it is a very powerful tool. I used it to create a mural, now available at: I uploaded only the pdf of the mural because it is compact and accessible. I have the svg version and I am willing to share it, however it is quite large (more than 31 m) and I'm not sure there is a receptive repository for it. Although Inkscape is an excellent graphics tool, I'm not clear how to use it as a wiki. Specifically, the wiki features we are so familiar with, including a history log, comparison capabilities, roll back capabilities, etc. are missing from Inkscape. Perhaps this sort of history tracking is more an attribute of the resulting file, e.g. the svg file, than it is the tool. None the less, I don't yet see a clear path to multi-user wiki-style editing of a mural. I welcome suggestions for a next step to take here. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discusscontribs) 18:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You say the size is 31 m. Is that meters? If so, the size in of the *.svg file kilobytes is all that matters. If it was made in vector form, the svg file might not be that big. The svg format also hosts bitmapped images, and if your mural is a bitmapped converted into svg, there might be no reason to upload it as svg. Do you know how to upload images to Commons or Wikiversity files?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

WOW! 23.000 ARTICLES![edit]

Wow! English Wikiversity has 23.000 articles! Now, at the moment has 23,307 articles. Well done to us!--Πανεπιστήμιο (discusscontribs) 14:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite an accomplishment! Wonder if we can hit 30,000 articles by 2018! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

New way to edit wikitext[edit]

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) --19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Research/Science in Wikimedia[edit]

Hallo everyone! I would like to know if it is possible develop here a research project between phd students from different countries. The idea would be define the goals of the project and write the development, conclusions and tests in Wikiversity. Is it possible? Or it is necessary create a kind of "wikiresearch" or "wikisciende" project of wikimedia? Thanks! --PolStark (discusscontribs) 18:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "tests in Wikiversity"? Write the development, conclusions and tests about what? -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@PolStark: Yes, you can develop a research project between Ph.D. students from different countries here, assuming that the project is being developed in English. If test refers to a protocol for testing the research, that should be fine. If test refers to a type of quiz or exam about the research, that functionality is available, but quite limited at the present time. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

technology harmful for our nature and nature means all of us? how can we consider it as progress ?[edit]

--2405:204:810D:6694:D8BC:BD86:6C:8B18 (discuss) 06:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

At Wikiversity you are free to explore your first assumption either in userspace and/or later as resources for learning by doing! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

PanDocElectron, Open Educational Resources and Wikiversity[edit]

PanDocElectron is currently in the beta phase of testing. It is basically to store Open Educational Resources in Wikiversity, maintain them on Wikiversity and create e.g.

  • a webbased presentation
  • office documents and
  • serveral other formats

PanDocElectron Example:

The webbased presentation is directly download and generated from Wikiversity content. (10/2016) Length of text should be short enough, that the slides are not overpopulated. As a general pilot demo pages for math lectures at the university Koblenz Landau were created to check usability of Wikiversity maintained webbased presentations.

(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bert Niehaus (talkcontribs) 21 December 2016‎)

Enable subpages on the Template namespace[edit]

Currently, all template documentation pages aren't subpages, but pseudosubpages. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 20:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A possible project on world-building[edit]

See our sister/parent project here Over at b:en:Wikibooks:Reading_room/Projects, someone asked about making a handbook to a fictional world of his own. While maybe some guidebook to Oz or Narnia would fit (as a kind of annotated text), making up your own fictional universe is out of scope there. I thought about it and encouraged him to give it a try here. This could actually be an instructive exercise in what it takes for world-building, designing a constructed language, etc. If there were a critical mass of participants devising a little world in public, that might be a suitable enterprise, don't you think? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea! Many universities offer degrees in creative fiction, right? This could be about learning along those lines. (= Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 04:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Justin, hello Michael Ten, as the user who asked initially, Michael please take a look at the discussion Justin linked. As far as I think about it, it should not be about creative writing or the like. I sketched out the ideas and limitations over there, so, if you can think about a possibility to do the project here, I would think about it. But as far as I understand the scope of Wikiversity it's not something, that would be within projects rules, wouldn't it? Maybe... Without knowing anything about Wikiversity, do you have a course about creative writing or the like? Maybe it's suitable as an exercise? On the other hand, I would need time to specify the basics until I open up the universe to play in. I appreciate your input and motivation, thanks a lot. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 12:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Michael Ten It's learning if there is some type of build-up. We had an elementary school kid back in 2011 who used to edit around here. Was pretty chaotic, and all of them were nearly blocked/locked, but thankfully Wikiversity was a patient place... So that elementary kid is currently a very valuable contribute @globalwiki. That's the beauty of this wikimedia project, you won't find true help (editing-wise) unless you're here. :) So similarly, I think HirnSpuk could find this project best as to what he is wanting to do.
HirnSpuk I say, Be Bold! If there are no resources that hold as a placeholder for what you're searching ("sci-fi setting to play a RPG in"), then make one here. I don't see a problem with this, but I think it'd be better to get User:Dave Braunschweig's input just to make sure this is alright - (he's the "head" custodian, you could say). -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot everyone. To be bold: This is the warmest welcome I had in any WM-Project this far. I'm not into being bold anymore, because of the experiences I made in other (let's face it: german :-)) projects. Thanks for the advice, so at least I'll wait for an opinion by Dave. If he is positive I'll try to sketch out some basics on my user page, let's say for the next 6 months or so to prepare for launch. Or is there something like a "project-incubator" here? Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 15:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@HirnSpuk: Just your userspace. I'd recommend sketching out some things there. And also possibly recruiting other users who are interested in fiction writing, science fiction, world-building, constructed languages, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiversity's mission is to create and host free learning materials and activities. This project certainly appears to be within the Wikiversity mission. As HirnSpuk suggests and Koavf supports, a personal project should probably be hosted in user space until it is ready for participation by others. When participation by others is welcome, the project should move to main space and then clarify in the project introduction what type of participation is encouraged. There have been incubator projects from time to time, but user space seems to be a better choice until the project is ready for participation by others.

Note that there is no leadership hierarchy at Wikiversity. Everyone is encouraged to lead by example. Let us know if you have any questions or need any assistance. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks for the opinion and the explanation. @Koavf: Yes, right. Brainstorming for a possible project path include for me at the moment: Try and match the Scope to Wikiversity and write a meaningful project-description, sketch out Project-Guidelines and a Project-timeline, start fleshing out the details to build, let's say, a skeleton to work with. After that I would ask for additional input and try to recruit other users. Do you think this could work? I understand Dave's opinion in that way. In the future I would like to actively promote the idea to creative users, maybe, say deviantart, for starting direct content-creation. Hopefully, if everything works out as hoped for, viral marketing will do the rest (sadly at the cost of probably more vandalism). @Atcovi: Maybe I was to reluctant, so please forgive me, I'll be happy if you're watching the progress, giving input.
After you all favour the idea, my next step will be: waiting for more opinions, and, if no strong objection appears, start in above described way in my user space within this month. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 16:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@HirnSpuk: I think the educational value is two-fold: one of them is the process of fiction-writing and the other is the ability of others to view how this process comes together. Like so many of the projects here, if there isn't a critical mass of eyes, then it's not a success but we can't have any successes without trying. It would be interesting if you deliberately devised a lot of characters explicitly for reuse and free culture like w:en:Jenny Everywhere. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Yes I already have those two points in mind (process of writing and viewing the process). These are probably the two most important things to think about while sketching the project. Additionally I'm thinking about training creative processes, creative cooperation, decision making, improvisational theatre and the like. I'm thinking about a multi-level-project, that may have value in more than one field. I think the idea of simply a "canon on a fictional world" needs to be expanded to be of truly educational purpose as a course or training material. Thanks for the link to w:en:Jenny Everywhere and the idea. I didn't know about this. This is such a valuable resource especially in this context. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 17:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, a few questions, to help me thinking. Probably there will be more, but as far as I understood, I'm in the right place?! Thanks for your time. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The project would be mainly classifiable as original research, is there any other starting point, I should be aware of, than Wikiversity:Research? --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the following scenario conceivably possible: The Project is a success with let's say 100 participants, the process is running, a canon is built, research thrives, creative works are build in multiple ways, tracked here with a link-list; now let's suppose somebody makes a classical movie for movie-theatres out of the canon-information (earning money). Can the "Project-Manager" (or how do you call it? Or who else could, if anyone?) specify that in the credits of derivative works not all participants need to be mentioned? Can one specify, that mentioning participants is only mandatory for a specific list of participants, that is a subpage of the project, when reusing the information? The reason behind this question is, that I think it's pretty tedious to extract all participants from version history, to cover the CC name-mentioning thing (this is a really big concern and strong argument e. g. on de.wikibooks). Even more with a diversity of subpages. So to not stop content creators from using the information on this behalf I would like to provide an easy to use, self-servicing (meaning anyone who wants his or her name mentioned in connection with the work need to sign the list) copy-paste-template for this purpose. I think it's worth thinking about this prior to anything else. If every user who just changed orthography has to be extracted from Version-History it would probably get next to unusable. (By the way, without using search engines, can anyone point me to some good english orthography, typography and grammar sources, for I'm not a native speaker?) --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's suppose any creative work is build upon the project and it is a monetary success, would it be appropriate to ask the creatives for donations from the revenue for Wikimedia (not on a case by case basis, but generally in the project)? --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Good questions. I encourage you to review . All Wikiversity written content is currently contributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. The short answer is that everyone who contributes is entitled to attribution (BY), and any derivative works must be shared the same way (SA). It is not possible to limit attribution. You could encourage donations, but there is no way to require it.
I suspect the bigger challenge in creating a movie would be the SA requirement. It would be possible to distribute a movie, but anyone would be free to copy the movie as open content, meaning that there would be little support in terms of a profit model. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the hints! I do know the license and reviewed it again. As far as I understand it: "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner" of your provided link does not contradict the idea of relieving content-creators to research all and every author, if and only if this is clearly stated, before any author contributes to the specific part. I'm thinking about giving wikiversians (do you call them like this?) a hint like: If you edit Section X you agree that attribution of reproductions and adaptions is done as specified in Section Y. Where in Section Y are copy-paste-formulations to adhere to attribution say something like: "If you base any creative work on the information given in Section X it will be, according to "reasonable manner" of Section 4(c) of the CC-BY-SA 3.0, sufficient to state "within the work" in a place of your choice: "This work is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 based on a community-driven World-building-Project of Wikimedia. The Project itself and all contributing Authors can be found online at URL, including subpages." I would be more precise, separating a few more cases in the actual document, but to show, what I'm thinking about. Do you agree?
So no rule is against asking for Donations. That's good. The challenge of making an Adaption financially beneficial will fall into the responsibility of the respective creative or team of creatives. If they don't manage to make it profitable it's not likely, they are going to donate, sure. But actually I think this is a good thing, because on the other hand it keeps people from maximising profit by marketforclosure. It is probably a good idea to add this possible thinking as a research topic into the project, let's say, a research-branch, something like "Structures to profit from open-license content" or the like. Actually I'm thinking about asking contributors not only to create a world, but think about implications and boundaries, e. g. if the original trigger of this project generates or destroys value, profit and benefit and if so, for whom.
Next question: If I understand it correctly, page protection is not limited to Administration? So research papers can be protected by users (which even is considered normal, if I understand the help pages correctly). I suppose, to be granted the right to protect, you need to be active a specific period, I just tried on my user page and suppose, the reason I'm not allowed to at the moment is, because I'm not active long enough.
Thanks for input and advice. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 12:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
My personal recommendation would be to not mention licensing. Anyone who contributes will "irrevocably agree to release [their] contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License" when they save their changes. Adding your own wording just gives attorneys something to argue about.
Special:ListGroupRights lists the group membership required for specific rights. Protection requires curator or custodian membership. Research papers cannot be protected by regular users, and Wikiversity does not protect content unless it is subject to repeated vandalism. There is a "Permanent link" option on the left side of each content page that supports capturing specific versions if this capability is required.
I am somewhat concerned that your line of questions has less to do with how to create free and open content than it does in making the content less free and less open. Please consider carefully whether CC-BY-SA is the way you want to go. If your intention is to share whatever you are creating freely with everyone, this may be the right place to do that. If you feel it is necessary to place limits on the content, this probably isn't the best place to develop this effort. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for telling your concerns. I will definitively think about them. But please let me clarify some points:
  • The question about protection arose around this page: Wikiversity:Original_research#Page_protection. And it (the protection) is on my behalf clearly and foremost thought about for original research papers published on and within the scope and terms of Wikiversity. Therefore it can be reviewed in a fixed state and stays that way for further work to build upon it.
  • Additionally one could think about protecting other pages but not to block people from using it freely under CC-BY-SA 3.0, just to limit the process of change. I mean, where would be the purpose in creating a world and the world changes always. In an extreme, to me, this would be the same as everyone creating his/her own world, but not creating cooperatively one world, wouldn't it? The project, as I see it, should be about the creation of the world and freely using this "ressource" creatively in external creative works, but not changing it constantly. But I suppose protection in this regard would neither be necessary (only temporary in case of extended vandalism) nor reasonable (because minor edits for improvement would be locked out, too). On the other hand, I see – as mentioned above – a strong necessity for protection of research and process pages, not that I want single contributors to see it as mandatory.
  • But obviously I got the protection thing wrong, so I apologize. How is this process then handled around here? How will a review be possible at all, if an original research paper could be subject to constant change? I'm not quite sure how to interpret the according pages, any help and advice will be highly appreciated.
  • Generally I see quite the opposite: More free, more open. Instead of hindering creatives using the information in asking for a tedious process in filtering out all the contributors and listing them, I'd like to ask for a small compromise on both sides (which wouldn't violate the license, as far as I understand it), so everybody can dive hassle-free into their respective field of interest. I would think, if you think it's not possible to ease the process of attribution, the project won't be possible, will it? I'm open for suggestions, how to tackle the problem in a way I did not think about until now.
  • For that purpose I add a little example of the process, as if I understand it at the moment:
    • We are 5 years in the future. Some artist want to draw a comic about the "universe". For this purpose he needs the Information of 12 Race-Pages, 2 Planet-Pages, 8 Technology-Pages (i'll keep it with this amount for the moment but suppose it could be even more). He/she than has to generate a list of all contributers for 22 Pages, let's say 5 per page, meaning he needs a list of 110 Names to add to his comic-book, because of the attribution. This means: Learning and using a techtool to extract and tidy up 22 Lists from Version history (I don't think anyone would do this manually), combining them to a document, that fits his purpose and adding this to his comic. I suppose the author won't do something like this. Let alone if more compilation is needed in case of more information used. Did I get anything wrong? Does anybody possibly have a clever idea to "solve" this problem?
Hope that clarifies it a bit. Thanks and best regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Original_research#Page_protection is nothing more than adding a template at the top of the page that, in effect, says, "Please don't change this page without discussing with the primary author first." It doesn't actually protect the page. If anything, it just warns users that edits are likely to be reverted if not discussed first. By convention, we typically no longer use even this type of protection on a main page. It would generally either be a subpage of a main page or a user page / subpage. And with that, the pages are left alone unless it's vandalism, and most of that is cleaned up pretty quickly. But more help checking vandalism is always welcome.

A review of a particular page version is always possible using Permanent links. For example, see [1] for this page as of your last edit, and [2] for the change (diff) you made.

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. But please don't ask us for compromise on this. It is not something we control. You would need to work with Wikimedia itself rather than Wikiversity on any licensing concerns you have. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help and clarification, then I misunderstood. I intended to use the template only on subpages for sure. But it's not that important, it could be handled anyway. I was aware of permanent links, but did not think of the opportunity to use them in that way. Maybe it's worth combining permanent links with the mentioned template, but that are details, that could easily be worked out later.
More important to me is the attribution-problem. Because, as I said, I want to encourage people outside wikimedia – especially in other media forms like print, audio and film – to use the information, not leaving it, just because they are unsure how to attribute in a proper manner. My understanding was, that every project handles this in their own fashion, but I did not think about checking it with meta. I'll do that. When I found a sufficient solution I'll begin sketching out the project, inform you about the process and presenting the final version here, for you to review. Then you all will probably better be able to judge if it's a fit here, or not. I didn't want to ask for a general compromise, but for the contributors to the specific project, but I'll get to that in more detail, after I thought more about it and reviewed all the information you gave. It will hopefully be much clearer within the project-sketch.
Thanks a lot again and have a nice weekend. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 00:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What World University and School would like to develop in Wikiversity[edit]

Hi All (and Lydia :),

Nice to chat at WikiDev SF just now -

To begin, CC World University and School would like to develop CC MIT OpenCourseWare in its 7 languages and CC Yale OYC to Wikiversity.

CC WUaS seeks to accredit on CC MIT OCW in its 7 languages - & & - to create major universities in all countries' main languages to offer free CC Bachelor, Ph.D., law, M.D. and I.B. high school degrees in all ~200 countries' main and official languages - the "Harvards/MITs/Stanfords of the web". WUaS also seeks to develop in all 7,097 living languages as wiki schools for open teaching and learning.

World University and School's main areas for growth re Wikiversity, furthermore, lie in the ~ 10 main areas here -

How best to develop this?

Thank you! Scott WUaS (discusscontribs) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you plan to administer exams? If not, how will you assess student competency?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some options available and several conflicts with this proposal. Wikiversity's mission is to create and host free learning materials and activities. Free and open courses and learning projects may be developed and hosted here. However, Wikiversity is explicitly not a degree-granting institution and no mention of degrees would be accepted in relation to these courses. Wikiversity also does not accept solicitation for external organizations or websites, so there could not be any content or links promoting CC WUaS. Most importantly, according to, WUaS appears to be designed to generate revenue based on free and open courseware. This is in direct opposition to the Wikiversity goal to "set learning free".-- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Guy_vandegrift World University and School is planning to accredit on CC MIT OCW in its 7 languages and CC Yale OYC with WASC senior to begin, emerging from Wikidata potentially with Wikiversity as a front end. In the accreditation process, WUaS will seek to build on the exams in MIT OCW in English itself, as well as hire graduate student instructors to lead interactive sections in group video in the process of becoming faculty; graduate students in sections will do some of the grading. Graduate students teaching sections also gets accredited, for example, at Stanford and UC Berkeley (which WASC also accredits. The WUaS faculty for accreditation will therefore initially be the MIT and Yale faculty in video in the CC OpenCourseWare. Scott WUaS (discusscontribs) 03:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dave_Braunschweig CC WUaS will host only free CC OCW with potentially Wikiversity as a "front end" and in a WUaS-planned template in which to embed the course parts only of CC MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC. This will potentially emerge from Wikidata, and MIT OCW and Yale OYC themselves, into the front end of Wikiversity. This Wikiversity conversation emerges from this Wikidata conversation - . As you'll see here, CC WUaS donated itself to CC Wikidata in October 2015, and began developing in CC MediaWiki from January - March 2016 ... Scott WUaS (discusscontribs) 03:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scott WUaS: I want to reiterate. You are welcome to create open content at Wikiversity. That content cannot refer to degrees and it cannot mention or link to WUaS. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: CC WUaS (accrediting on CC MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC) will explore this and other options. Scott WUaS (discusscontribs) 04:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lua module/template request[edit]

Hi! This looks like it could be the right place to ask about getting a Lua module (and template) added to Wikiversity, and if it's not I bet folks here can point me in that direction. Smiley.svg

I'm helping out with the pages about Evidence based assessment, and we have a reference list that will also serve as a resource for students working on Wikipedia articles about individual assessment measures (e.g., health questionnaires), including some of the first sources those students will need to cite. Since this reference list almost certain to become a de facto referencing cheat sheet, we'd like to take advantage of that and display the code for citation along with the rendered result. We could use {{Markup}}, but it's bulky and puts as much (or more) emphasis on the code than the rendered result.

We'd like to use Wikipedia's {{Demo}} template because the style parameter provides some control over the <pre>...</pre> block, and perhaps use Demo Lua module to create a new template that would hide/collapse the code block for users who don't need it. Is it possible to get this template and Lua module added to Wikiversity?

Thanks! ShelleyAdams (discusscontribs) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Templates and modules are imported, but you're going to need to test them carefully to see if anything is missing. Also, please review the /doc pages for these templates and clean them up for Wikiversity use. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShelleyAdams: It's completely fine to import something from en.wp (especially if you use the Special:Import tool but even copy/pasting is technically fine). Just note that w:en:Template:Demo relies on all of the following modules and templates, which will also have to be imported:
  • Template:((
  • Template:))
  • Template:=
  • Template:Asbox
  • Template:Demo
  • Template:Demo/doc
  • Template:Documentation
  • Template:Documentation subpage
  • Template:Done
  • Template:Escape
  • Template:Fail
  • Template:Lua
  • Template:Para
  • Template:Red
  • Template:T
  • Template:Tag
  • Template:Tl
  • Module:Arguments
  • Module:Asbox
  • Module:Buffer
  • Module:Category handler
  • Module:Category handler/blacklist
  • Module:Category handler/config
  • Module:Category handler/data
  • Module:Category handler/shared
  • Module:Demo
  • Module:Documentation
  • Module:Documentation/config
  • Module:Escape
  • Module:List
  • Module:Lua banner
  • Module:Message box
  • Module:Message box/configuration
  • Module:Namespace detect/config
  • Module:Namespace detect/data
  • Module:Navbar
  • Module:No globals
  • Module:RoundN
  • Module:TableTools
  • Module:Yesno
Certainly not impossible, just more complicated than at first blush. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help @Dave Braunschweig! Also, FYI @Koavf: looks like there are permission restrictions on Special:Import. —ShelleyAdams (discusscontribs) 20:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShelleyAdams: Yes, sorry--you have to be an importer to use it. I can import or you can copy and paste them and provide attribution. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
If you decide to C&P, please provide a hyperlink or in your edit summary put resource title and source! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Cleaned up the Template:Demo/doc, but when I checked on {{Escape}} it's got errors because Module:Escape/testcases is missing. —ShelleyAdams (discusscontribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShelleyAdams: Module:Escape/testcases is available at Wikipedia:Module:Escape/testcases. But it may have bugs in it. I am unable to open it there. Perhaps I didn't wait long enough. Anyway, thanks for your efforts! You might want to take a look at Wikiversity:Curators. The additional rights may be of interest to you. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Languages resources and Wikilang[edit]

Good day all, as you may have seen, I have created the Wikilang learning resource recently. It stemmed from a proposal for a new project that has been declined, but I feel the content fits with Wikiversity's mission. Wikilang's role is to teach, record and document languages, including dead languages. The Wikilang project already has documentation and lessons on some languages. I propose to revamp the existing School:Language and Literature and School:Linguistics that need some love to be better organized and to merge them with the Wikilang project. Under it, I would create a portal for the Literature section and keep the existing departements/portals for the individual languages and I would re-work the existing language portals currently under Wikilang to better fit the department model of Wikiversity and be better integrated, it would also include the Portal:Foreign Language Learning that is already well organized. Basically, I propose to merge School:Language and Literature and School:Linguistics that are not very well organized to become School:Wikilang with three main departments : Languages, Linguistics and Literature. What do you think about that? Here is how it would look like: School:Wikilang. Thanks, Amqui (discusscontribs) 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome Amqui! Thanks for taking on this project! First, some background perspective. Schools, Topics (Divisions and Departments), and Portals were all part of the original vision for Wikiversity, and were popular among some of the early contributors. However, they were always intended only as a place for contributors to work with each other to organize content. They were not intended to be a place to develop that content. Default searches do not include school, topic, or portal content.
Fast-forward six to eight years and everyone who was involved in developing the School and Topic models had moved on, Portals were under-developed, and no one was maintaining any of these. Then Wikimedia implemented Flow, and used the Topic: namespace to do so, breaking Wikiversity for a day or two until they turned the feature off here. About a year ago we started cleaning up the School and Topic namespace, reducing the number of schools by maybe 70%, eliminating topics (departments), and moving any semi-useful organizational content to Portals. Actual content was moved to the main resource space. Interestingly, during that review, it became apparent that most users who contributed to the School or Topic (department) pages never actually contributed any content. They typically created empty placeholders. Most users contributing content were busy working on content, and didn't invest time in the school or department approach. Wikiversity development is currently content focused, and a review of Wikiversity:Statistics shows that effort is consistent with user interest. Most schools and portals are well-down on the statistics list, or not listed at all.
I agree that the schools of Language and Literature and Linguistics could be combined and reworked. Wikilang is a fine name for a portal or learning project, but I wouldn't recommend it as the name of a school covering language or linguistics. A search for either language or linguistics won't find Wikilang. Perhaps Language Studies could be used for the school name, and this school could prominently highlight the Wikilang portal and make the connection that way. I like the new page design you have. I think relabeling Divisions and Departments to Learning Resources, Language Resources, Wikilang Resources, Language Portals, Wikilang Portals, or similar would be more consistent with your vision. There's no need to maintain a school or department perspective, as they are not maintained and generally do not draw user interest.
The only other recommendation I have so far would be to consolidate and simplify wherever possible. Portals with high user interest are fine. Portals that aren't well-maintained and don't draw user interest can be combined or eliminated. Move useful content into the main resource namespace and go on. If there's a list of statistics that would be helpful in deciding how to organize, let me know. See Wikiversity:School Review for an example of what I used as a basis for part of last year's efforts. Perhaps a Wikiversity:Portal Review page would be helpful now. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the feedback. I had started building the framwork with "Departments" and "Divisions" by looking at other schools, but what you say make plently of sense. I have already consolidated the "main" pages for every languages present on Wikiversity (I think so) : Portal:Wikilang/List of languages. Most are portals and some are just a page in the main page (or both) while some are just the first pages of a lesson since they do not have a main page whatsoever, others are just a mess or an empty shell, and some are just some portals that I imported from Wikilang on Meta. I will go back to Wikilang being a portal, and having the School:Languages Studies combine the existing two schools mentioned, I will start organizing each language with a portal for their main page, and avoid the Topic namespace for the languages. Would you have a couple of good examples of schools' pages that are well organized? Thank you again, Amqui (discusscontribs) 23:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's a couple of schools that may be considered better organized:
  1. School:Physics and Astronomy,
  2. School:Chemistry,
  3. School:Computer Science,
  4. School:Biology,
  5. School:Economics, and
  6. School:Medicine. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have created the School:Languages Studies and updated the Portal:Wikilang. I am waiting for you feedback before transforming School:Linguistics and School:Language and Literature into redirect pages. Also, I have a question: what are the "streams"? Thanks, Amqui (discusscontribs) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, the School:Linguistics is part of the Portal:Social Sciences, whereas School:Language and Literature is part of the Portal:Humanities! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Portal:Linguistics and the School:Classics are both a mess. Perhaps putting the School:Classics into the School:Language and Literature, and combining the School:Linguistics with the Portal:Linguistics is a better idea. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There is also the Portal:East Asian languages and civilizations that perhaps should be included into either the School:Languages Studies or the School:Language and Literature. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The difference between Portal:Humanities and Portal:Social Sciences is very slim. The Portal:Humanities says that Humanities study human culture while the Portal:Social Sciences says that Social Sciences study human society. If I use the definition in the Wiktionary, Humanities are the study of language, literature, philosophy, and the arts, and Social Science is the science that studies the society and human behavior in it, including anthropology, communication studies, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, psychology, social studies, and sociology. If the intent is to keep School:Linguistics under Social Sciences, then I propose to just keep it separated and just merge the School:Language and Literature with the School:Languages Studies that I just created; basically it would only be a renaming then. And I will remove the linguistics part under School:Languages Studies and just add a link to the School:Linguistics and vice-versa. There is no point in keeping both School:Languages Studies and School:Language and Literature, we just need to decide what is the best title.
My proposition is to merge School:Languages Studies and School:Language and Literature under the name School:Languages Studies that would be part of Humanities and to merge School:Linguistics and Portal:Linguistics under the name School:Linguistics that would be part of Social Sciences.
As for the Portal:East Asian languages and civilizations, it is already included in the School:Languages Studies on the Portal:Wikilang. Thanks, Amqui (discusscontribs) 15:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
From your comment on the talk page of School:Languages Studies about renaming it into School:Language Studies, I changed my mind. I think the best solution would be to include Linguistics under the same school dans name it School:Language Studies as you proposed. I don't see any problem with this school being part of both Humanities and Social Sciences at the same time. In real life, there are university department that fall under more than one faculty. It would be too complicated to separate what is "linguistics" and what is "languages" if the schools are separated as they are now. So my proposition is now to have the School:Language Studies that where all the three current schools (School:Languages Studies, School:Language and Literature and School:Linguistics) would be merged. Under it, the Portal:Wikilang will be kept for the "languages" part, the Portal:Linguistics will be kept and a Portal:Literature will need to be created. I think it is the best solution, especially with the limited manpower, I think we should avoid division as much as we can. What do you think?
Also, while the School:Linguistics was under Portal:Social Sciences, the Portal:Linguistics was categorized as a portal of Humanities. Amqui (discusscontribs) 16:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


Regarding streams, see Stream. It's not a particularly common usage of the term in my experience. Recommended sequence might be more clear. I support your approach to Humanities and Social Social Sciences. I came to similar conclusions when identifying the major subject Portals last year. We have many examples of things which fall under multiple major "containers" (schools, portals, categories). If including Linguistics makes sense to you and you're interested in putting in the effort, be bold! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I like School:Language Studies into which all the four current schools (School:Languages Studies, School:Language and Literature, School:Classics and School:Linguistics) would be merged. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Portals and other in the search[edit]

I do not know what is the background history about not having the portal, school and topic namespaces in the search, but from my newbie point of view I think they should be. For example, the Breton language was a recent featured resources and it is recognized as a quality learning resources, but when I search "Breton language", I find absolutely nothing, the resources being Portal:Breton. I see the main namespace as being as space for the educational content itself like the lessons and the portals/topics as being a "hub" page to organize all those resources and lessons about a subject/topic and present them to the readers in an well organized fashion. The portal themselves are not "learning resources", so they shouldn't be in the main namespace, but they are very useful to the readers, not only to the contributors as a working space, but they a way to present all the information available to the readers in a structured way. What do you think and what is the background story? Amqui (discusscontribs) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Everything about Wikipedia:MediaWiki software and the wiki environment must be viewed from a Wikipedia perspective. It is designed to support users creating and reading (encyclopedia) content. The administrative aspects are tangents not directly related to the end-user focus of the software. One implication of that is that the search feature focuses on content rather than administration. Breton language content is currently at Breton. It should probably be renamed Breton language or Breton Language, since there is almost no Breton location content and almost all language and literature instead. I would ask whether Breton needs a portal. It averages less than one view per day. I would redirect Portal:Breton to Breton, incorporate any useful content into the Breton project itself, and move on. Content and portals attracting less than one view per day don't merit too much effort from my perspective. I'd much rather see us spend time on the content that generates tens or hundreds of views per day. I think WikiLang has the potential to do that. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, my understanding was that the portal pages would be the starting point to start learning about each languages, but it should be a page in the main namespace that do that, with a link to the portal that will serve as a directory for all learning resources about that language. I will start implementing that approach then. Thanks, Amqui (discusscontribs) 18:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Portal Review is now available with statistics on portal content and usage. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


I would like some feedback on the lesson I just created: Mi'kmaq language, since it's my first one here on English Wikiversity. Thanks, Amqui (discusscontribs) 23:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading through the lesson! My attempts at pronunciation fell short though. I usually have trouble with pronunciation guides that use phonemic characters. At least for me, an English word that's close helps, though I know some sounds require inflections an English speaker might not make. Spanish has several! Thanks for preparing the lesson! And, I have heard of the Micmac! If I may ask, do the Micmac have a word or phrase comparable to "dominant group"? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not know, but I may ask around to my Micmac friends. I am not Micmac myself. Amqui (discusscontribs) 17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Enable Labeled Section Transclusion[edit]

The Labeled Section Transclusion extension enables us to transclude sections rather than whole articles. I'd personally like this extension enabled so that I can transclude definitions from the formal glossary of philosophy to my first-order theory of causality. I'm sure many other users will find uses for this functionality. Should we request it? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 13:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Version. mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion is already installed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Aw, my bad! Thanks... --Felipe (discusscontribs) 10:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help


Hi, there's a proposal to do an update of the Wikiversity logo at betawikiversity:Wikiversity:Babel#Update Wikiversity logo, check it out! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 21:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Need advice from Wikiversians with computer skills[edit]

I write code in MATLAB and perhaps soon in PYTHON that creates wikitext for my exams in Quizbank. I would like to post that code on Wikiversity using the <pre>...</pre> tag. Unfortunately the code contains numerous usages of the <nowiki>...</nowiki> tag, which interferes with the markup whenever I attempt to post the my Quizbank-rendering programs on Wikiversity. I see three ways to do resolve this problem:

  1. Write a MATLAB/Python code that replaces all instances of > by &lt; (the latter renders as > to the reader). The contributor would paste the text into a Wikiveristy resource in "edit" mode, and the user could copy the rendered code from the "resource" window, and past it into a textfile or MATLAB edit window.
  2. Post the code directly into the "edit" page of a Wikiveristy page. It would be viewed from Wikiverity by clicking "edit".--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Find a host outside Wikiversity to host code text. The hosting service needs to be universally user-friendly to novices. The code would not be used by programmers, but by educational content people who might not be familiar with such services. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd recommend the first option. The code then correctly displays on Wikiversity and can be copied and used directly. Note that this doesn't require a program. The source editor includes find and replace, and you could replace <nowiki> with &lt;nowiki&gt; quite easily. Requiring the user to edit in order to copy seems ripe for user error.
Putting the code somewhere else seems unnecessary. But there are one or two options. It is common to use Github for open source code sharing. That's a reasonable alternative. I personally use Bitbucket rather than Github, because Bitbucket allows private repositories for up to five users. This is more effective for student assignments, which I want to be private with only the student and instructor having access. Github is free for public use, but only has paid private options.
One other point on code highlighting. <pre> is generic. There is specific MATLAB And Python syntax highlighting available. See Computer Programming/Introduction/MATLAB and Computer Programming/Introduction/Python3 for examples.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I realized the first option was best when it occurred to me to just use the replace feature in Wikiversity's edit mode to replace <nowiki> by &lt;nowiki&gt; whenever it's required (most subroutines won't even need this)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody know anything about the Python library "Wikipedia"?[edit]

I found a student with knowledge of Python that I hope to fund this summer to upgrade Quizbank. It might be convenient to use the Wikipedia python library. Does anybody know about it: ???20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: You may have more luck posting on Wikipedia. I know that User:Dan Koehl is active at Wikispecies and has directed me to a Python solution before, so he may have some knowledge. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Guy vandegrift, Koavf:, you may take a look here. (And I may as well, sounds interesting) Best regards, Dan Koehl (discusscontribs) 02:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I must say though, that the documentation and instructions are very confusing; as to for what purpose is this, when and where to use it etc, Theres lins to download Wikipedia I get the feeling this is a tool to search through Wikipedia when downloaded on your own computer? Dan Koehl (discusscontribs) 02:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Use Pywikibot. Very well supported, and reasonably well documented. Note that our Pywikibot documentation is quite old. mw:Manual:Pywikibot is current. If anyone needs to learn Python first, see Computer Programming and Python Programming. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)