Portal talk:European History

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Faculty"[edit source]

I'm making a list of active participants here. I hope we can work together to establish a strong departmental curriculum. If you get involved, please list yourself below. I hope to eventually make a list of active, contributing faculty, including credentials and area of expertise. Jade Knight 09:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subjects[edit source]

What kinds of courses/subjects/learning projects would people like to see? List them here, and we'll do our best to come up with something!

  • French Revolution
  • From Fascism to Communism - Political Groups in European History
  • British Isles
  • The European Union
  • The Balkan countries and their histories
  • Feudalism and The Middle Ages

Goals*[edit source]

Icon apps query.svg This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the Department of European History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken. Error: no shortcuts were specified and the |msg= parameter was not set.

What should the goals and structure of this department be? Jade Knight 09:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same goal as any history department - to study the human condition and develop the skills that historians require to complete the task (research, critical analysis, and developing cohesive arguments/documentations). --Kfitton 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of short-term goals, but yes, that's good as a general overview of what we're after. The Jade Knight 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Policy proposals*[edit source]

Icon apps query.svg This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the Department of European History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken. Error: no shortcuts were specified and the |msg= parameter was not set.

Department Policy*[edit source]

I suggest that we adopt a policy that encourages new users to be bold when developing new content (=lessons/learning projects), but to be less bold when changing the nature of this Department; in other words, discuss all major changes, proposed policies and systems, etc., before adopting them here. Don't just say "This is how things are run here in the European History Department." What do you think? The Jade Knight 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there is always going to be resistance, due to the nature of wiki. There are always going to be people that want to jump into the deep end and start upending everything. However, there needs to be at least some consensus between participants, otherwise no one is going to understand the format. I'm all for having a wide and varied content base, but there has to be some sort of structure with which to organize it all. As historians, we should be taking the long-term view to this by not moving too fast at the department level. A forum style approach might serve us well in this regard and generally agreeing to keep edits to a minimum on the main page. --Kfitton 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, too. Shall we make that "official policy" of the department, then? The Jade Knight 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red-linked courses/departments*[edit source]

Icon apps query.svg This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the Department of European History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken. Error: no shortcuts were specified and the |msg= parameter was not set.

I think we should avoid listing sub-departments here until they actually exist… I'm removing the red-linked departments for now. The Jade Knight 01:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I think department is the lowest level of organization on wiki...I don't think there is an extreme complexity in wiki that would require a sub-department, or enough large-scale participation to warrant such a need. --Kfitton 14:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't particularly care if we have "lower levels of organization", but I don't think there's any point in creating links to things that don't exist here unless they're requested materials. There probably isn't much point in creating sub-departments at this point, either. Perhaps when this Department gets much larger there will be a point, but for now… The Jade Knight 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. --Kfitton 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think keeping it simple is the best approach, especially in the early stages we are in now. You want to connect people to resources in as quick a manner as possible. When we get bigger, we may have need for further breakdown to keep the pages manageable and readable, but not yet.
I like redlinks for courses, as it shows participants where people would like to go, and can inspire visitors to create content for a course. Often once the first few paragraphs are there, more people jump in and add/correct with an easier feeling. Historybuff 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For content pages I don't mind so much, but the creation of a department is more of an administrative thing—someone could go and create a link for "Topic:The History of Slavery in Wales", for example, but if there's not much interest in that (and would there ever be enough to justify a department, in that case?), it really doesn't do much good to have a redlinked department like that. My thoughts are that subdepartments should only be listed when they actually exist. And then, when there's interest, new departments can be created. In the meantime, people are certainly welcome to contribute content and keep it under the Department of European History. The Jade Knight 08:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Course Names and Titles*[edit source]

Icon apps query.svg This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the Department of European History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken. Error: no shortcuts were specified and the |msg= parameter was not set.

I have taken the liberty to suggest several Course Name/Numbers for these courses. I have implemented the basic number system I have found on other department sites, basically it is a four digit code which the first two refer to level. A 1000-2000 level course is a basic course which could be taken in the first two years at a university. 3000-4000 are more specific classes that must require a higher level of intensity. The course names are based off the country or major title. Specifically, World War I becomes a WW class (World War) and the Title should reflect the exact subject at hand. Any thoughts? Gabriel Spiro 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we can effectively start organization coursework into numbers (or that we should try) until we have a context to do this in. What is the purpose of the numbering system? How does it tie in with the goals of the Department? The Jade Knight 08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was my belief that we should start as soon as possible with the course numberin so we wouldn't have any issues later. We can go back to no course numbers but I wouldn't do that. The G 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the discussion above under "Department Policy". Before we adopt a numbering system, I really think it should be discussed. So, can you please tell me:
  1. What is the purpose of the numbering system?
  2. How does it tie in with the goals of the Department?
The Jade Knight 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: To give a unified standard to the department before we become too big to fix the problem later.
B: I made my original comment in December; I think there has been enough of a time delay that people really didn't find it too strange. Besides, I ended my comment with "Any thoughts?"; I didn't call it a policy or a law, if you don't like it then let's talk more about it and possibly you're right.The G 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A total of 3 people have ever commented on this page, including you. Out of the other 2 people on this page, 50% of them seriously questions your decision, and the other 50% hasn't said anything here since October. There just aren't many of us here in the European History department, and we get busy from time to time; if people don't much respond, or it takes them a while, that doesn't mean they necessarily agree with something. 'tany rate, I've given my opinion. I really think we need to think through and discuss the particulars before adopting anything. I don't expect we'll see 100s of European History courses coming out in the next few months. We can afford to deliberate, at least as far as "before we get too big" is concerned. Right now we have, what, 1 functioning course?
So, you think we should have a numbering system "to give a unified standard to the department['s courses]." Well, that's an interesting thought. Let's discuss it. What kind of a standard do we want? How does it tie in the departments goals? What are the needs of the department? Feel free to give your opinion on the other department-related issues raised above, as well. The Jade Knight 08:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question is, do you want the numbering system or not?The G 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I'm trying to figure out why we'd have one, before we decide what to have. Feel free to answer my questions and engage in discussion. The Jade Knight 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The system of course names/numbers used here should be documented in a section on the page.Nannus 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can tell, there is no particular system right now (what does 15th century Britain have in common with WWI or Farming in Britain?). This is what I was trying to discuss. The Jade Knight 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I think we should try and resist the urge to "number" courses. It's much better to give the course a descriptive title, and explain what _level_ the course is aimed at. "2000" may mean one thing in one country, and something completely different in another. "2nd year University level" is more bang on, and people can relate better. Historybuff 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lean towards your opinion—I'd rather not adopt a numbering system unless we have a really good reason to have one. The Jade Knight 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no one objects, then, I'll go ahead and remove them for now. What do you folks think of my structuring proposal, below? The Jade Knight 06:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done The G 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Mind adding your opinion on the other various proposals floating around? The Jade Knight 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structuring Proposal*[edit source]

See European History/Class Structure

This topic has been moved to another page to keep this talk page clean and tidy. Class Structuring Proposal The G 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tasks[edit source]

I've added a page of Tasks for the department where Projects can list stuff they need/want help with in a very user-friendly manner to help encourage new contributions. What do you think? The Jade Knight 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested Courses/Projects[edit source]

We need to have a better way of marking interest in certain subjects—as it is, people can just currently add links to anything they would like to see, but that's all based on one individual, and gives us no idea how popular said courses would be. Can anyone come up with a better way of finding out/showing the interest in various European History topics that may exist? The Jade Knight 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we need to start to flesh out those pages and make them more like what I did over at the American History department... I made a page for every major part of American History can others can add others but its a start. The G 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to create pages until we have some sort of content to put on them. But I'm asking more how we can gauge where the interest in the School lies—right now, you can't really tell if 10 people want a project on Scottish History, or just 1, you know? Actually, I may have an idea.The Jade Knight 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jade Knight, look at the American History Section, there are three "active" members and we just made pages for every major parts of American History so that there is no confusion as to what a class is about. The G 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how that relates to my question. While a project currently does not exist, how do you gauge interest in it? My test above didn't work—people can't leave comments with their signatures. I guess we could create a blank page with nothing but "if you're interested in seeing this project, leave your name below" or something like that. I'm not sure if I like that idea, but at least it would help us to gauge where the interest lies. The Jade Knight 07:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to just expand the possible class lists to encompas all major parts and start to invite people to add to them.The G 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like quite a project. Perhaps we should create a survey class, perhaps broken into two Chunks? Like, European History to 1600, and European History after 1600, and use that as a starting point, and an introduction to the major themes in European History for new learners? I don't think we should create blank projects, though—but if people request a project, we could made create an "interest" list there so that we could get an idea of how popular something is. The Jade Knight 18:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or we could just create the general course (European History) and then as we work on it, then divide it into the two or more sections. That way we can have some quality work.The G 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's actually not a bad idea. The Jade Knight 21:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me see if I can create one as it is a subject (general European history) that I have taught 100s of times.Dilos1 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courses offered[edit source]

Why is "Life of Alexander" being offered here? Not that I'm against it, its just not our area (or is Greece a part of Europe?)The G 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greece is indeed a part of Europe. The Jade Knight 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake. The G 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European History Page Organization*[edit source]

I suggest a better organization for the main European History page. I noticed that in the Courses/Project Currently Offered section, some course have a lot more material that others. I suggest we move the courses that are in preparation in the next section entitled Planned Courses/projects there where I have placed my Survey course in preparation.

For the time being I have rearranged in chronological order the titles of all sections. Any objections? Dilos1 08:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This comment almost certainly belongs on the European History talk page. Mind if I move it there? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do. I was a bit confused with the talk and discuss pages of the European History page at the beginning.Sorry. Dilos1 16:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chronological order how? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]