From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search


Wow guys, this Esperanto department... well, it kind of stinks. Just saying. Someone come and rejuvenate this page!

Haha, I'll do what I can! I'm new to Esperanto, though, so I won't be able to do much on my own. Spock of Vulcan 03:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
On it. Kraŭs 09:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Proficiency test[edit]

What about creating some tests? Maybe for checking what level of Esperanto you have.MEuliĉo (discusscontribs) 12:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. It would take a good deal of effort to develop something that measures one's level of proficiency accurately, but would be great addition. --JorisvS (discusscontribs) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Page names[edit]

First of all, I wonder if there’s a good reason to use page numbers instead of page names? For instance, why use Esperanto/Lesson 7 instead of Esperanto/Family? If anything, using page numbers makes it harder to rearrange the contents, should it ever become necessary. (Just think about inserting another page between Esperanto/Lesson 3/ and Esperanto/Lesson 4/ — one’d need to renumber all the lessons from 4th onward.)

The other issue is why both the course and the department use the same Topic:Esperanto page? One of the conveniences of using a dedicated Esperanto page for the course is that it’d enable one to use shorter [[/Section/]] links instead of the current and verbose [[Esperanto/Section|Section]] ones.

So, unless there’d be objections, I’d like to volunteer to rearrange the contents as described above.

Ivan Shmakov (dc) 19:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The course is arranged in lessons, which are simply numbered. This is the normal arrangement for courses. The topic of lesson 7 won't be exclusively family. It's theme vocabulary will be that, but relevant grammar that hasn't been covered so far will also be covered. On top of that, an additional topic of the grammar could be covered if it would be good. So it will be a very bad idea to call that "Family". If rearrangement is required, it is a simple matter of copying part of the source code (it will never be required to move all of it) to another page and removing it from the original one.
If at some point in the future it would be good to move the course overview to its own page, it is a simple matter of copy-pasting the source code. In the meantime, however, it makes much more convenient browsing to keep them together. Longer links is not much of a problem. --JorisvS (discusscontribs) 16:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Seeing some of your edits to this resource, JorisvS, I see that the Lessons are properly placed as subpages of Esperanto. However, Answers is a single subpage, with specific exercise answers on that page as sections. As the course is expanded, this page will get quite long. I have not researched the history, but it appears that some exercises may have been changed, creating a bit of a mess. It will be easier to maintain if the answers are subpages of the page where the exercise exists. I'll take a look at this later. I do not know Esperanto, but intend to insist with page organization, as I'm doing in many places on Wikiversity. Thanks for your participation on Wikiversity, and your attention to this resource. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have the intention to split the answers page into corresponding subpages. I think it would be better to have the answers at distinct pages for educational purposes. All answers currently correspond to the exercises. What kind of page organization do you insist on? --JorisvS (discusscontribs) 19:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
While I might have strong opinions, I don't insist, as such, on anything. What you state is exactly what I suggest. It is easier to show you than to describe the process. Here is what I'll do, though: I will move the Answers page, as it is, to a subpage of the first Lesson page, thus preserving the history, giving proper attribution. I will copy this text to each new answers subpage, and, on all of them, now-irrelevant material will be deleted. I will then edit all the Lesson pages to point to the subpages (each link will become [[/Answers/]]). At that point, I'll check for any other incoming links and will request deletion of unneeded redirects. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've done the move, copying, and editing. There are some oddities, please check my work. I did not get, when I wrote the above, that there were section links. (i.e., to #2b, for example). I thought of creating separate subpages for each section, decided against it. So all the subpages are named Answers. However, there is what seems like a bug in the display of subpage names with a section tag. There would be a workaround to make the display explicit, however, it is harmless as displayed. (Normally, one can suppress the display of the slashes with an extra slash at the end, but that gets read as part of the section header, so the subpage section link doesn't work.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The "bug" is just the normal way the links will display for that syntax. I've fixed it (yes, by piping). I've made the section headers of the answers more meaningful, too. --JorisvS (discusscontribs) 08:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, JorisvS.
Ivan was correct about the course name, however. The Lessons should not be linked from the Topic page. I see a proper use of Topic as linking to resources on ... the topic. Basically, the redirect from Esperanto to Topic:Esperanto will be replaced with the top level course material. Links to the individual lessons would be removed from the Topic page, which would only link to the course, (plus it will have other links to relevant pages or external sites, as it now does), but would you prefer to put together the course page?
Wikiversity never seems to have settled on an organizational structure. Rather, we have a total mish-mash of techniques, as relatively isolated individuals created whatever seemed like the thing to do at the time. I have a personal concept, but haven't obtained more than an operational consensus for it. What I have in mind would not restrict users, but channel efforts to create an ... online free university, with interwiki links to and from Wikipedia. Wikipedians, seeing Wikiversity, often run screaming from the mess. Some of that is natural; the universe of possible free educational resources and learning opportunities is vast, compared with the universe of possible encyclopedic articles.
Suppose there are two users here, and they have different ideas of how, say, an Esperanto course should be presented. We can have both courses. The users may cooperate to improve each course, or they may decide not to interact. That kind of flexibility is impossible for Wikipedia. We handle neutrality through having a top-level page that links to what I'll call "sections," after university practice. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I have thought about that. In case that happens, it does seems natural to move the links to the lessons to a distinct page, but, at least in the current state, what would be the added value of doing that? --JorisvS (discusscontribs) 18:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed Sections 1-10, and noticed that Sections 11-15 are still Red Links, as is obvious to most Authors, Editors, etc, this means that the Pages, to which I am referring, have yet to be created.

Upon reading the History of the Wikiuniversity Page on Esperanto, it appears as though the Authors indicated that the coursework was completed, I believe some time in 2016. Am I correct that this is still an open project, or are those Course Links for future learning reference only? Please advise, thanks. Markhalsey (discusscontribs) 00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Markhalsey - be bold! All projects on wikiversity can taken up, except obviously on those very specific circumstances (school projects designed for a specific instructor... don't think an instructor would like "irrelevant" edits, you could say...). If there are red links, then go ahead and turned them into blue links! As for the note about the authors claiming that the coursework is completed... if you are referring to the userbox that states: "Been started, but most of the work is still to be done.", to show that the page is completed... it's obviously not completed, and the message probably being driven here is that the project has its basic fundamentals started, but is still in need of great expansion, as you can tell with all the red links.
But, overall... this course is still in need of work. That's the main point... and if something is in need of work, then we fulfill that need! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atcovi I was actually referring to to this specific mention below, which I apparently misread, understanding that the Author was likely referring to Lesson 1 only, not Lessons 1-10. As stated by the Author: “15 January 2014 — First lesson fully completed.” I would recommend changing to “Lessons 1-10 Fully Completed,” however I do not want to make the Edit, as I want to ensure this is a valid interpretation. As for completion of the remain8ng Lessons, 11-16, I would be glad to help in “being bold.” My only concern is that I am unsure if the Author is going by a particular guideline, or is already working on these elsewhere, making for a duplication of efforts. Please let me know how I can assist.Markhalsey (discusscontribs) 19:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Mark Halsey

The author has been inactive for nearly 2 years. I don't think there will be a problem in you taking up this project. If a problem were to arise, then I bet there will be an easy resolution. Nothing is "owned" here. This is not "JorisvS's page", where he dictates everything that goes around on this page. Wikiversity is a collaborative wiki. If you have work you'd like to add in, add it in! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)