User talk:Evolution and evolvability

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

My main Wikipedia usertalk page is here[edit]

Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure[edit]

Hi Evolution and evolvability!

Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure has been apparently completed as of 20 January 2017 and published in the WikiJournal of Medicine! Would you like this announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: That would be fantastic! Is there anything that I would need to do to facilitate that? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Article info[edit]

There is an error in Template:Article info demonstrated on WikiJournal of Medicine/Diagram of the pathways of human steroidogenesis and Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Diagram of the pathways of human steroidogenesis, where "expansion depth is exceeded. The error is specifically related to the |accepted = 27 March 2014 parameter. If that line is removed, the error goes away. Please investigate. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dave Braunschweig. I'll look into what's going on. It's evidently calling too many templates within templates. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


There's an issue in Template:Fig with too many closing curly braces in a [[File:]] tag somewhere. I can't find it, though. See Special:LintErrors/bogus-image-options. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll see if I can find it. A quick search indicates that there are 886 opening and closing braces, so at least there's a matched number! I'll see if I can find an example where the template misformats, which might give a clue as to where the braces have been misplaced. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It's also possible that there's a bug in the reporting tool. There may be so many curly braces there that it got lost / confused. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
See [1]. Alt needs to be conditional, and use {{!}} to include the separator only when present. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you! Sadly, one problem remains. The {{!}} expands to a space in stead of a pipe when transcluded into a table (including in multicolumns layout. This is a problem because the multiple column layouts (like {{col-begin}}) are useful for making columns that reflow into a single column on mobiles. See below for what I mean (note the link destinations):
{{fig|1|Sobo 1909 639.png|capn|size=100px|link=main}}

Correct transclusion:

Sobo 1909 639.png

Figure 1 | capn

Error when transcluded in table:

Sobo 1909 639.png

Figure 1 | capn

You can force the separation in a table. See above. Also, I've been working on a better columns template. It's not fully tested yet, but try {{Columns}}. It's better for mobile column display. We need to start moving away from tables for layout. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Champion, thank you! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Files Missing Information[edit]

Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing {{Information}} and/or Wikiversity:License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Wikiversity:Uploading files for more information.

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 00:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I added {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. If that is incorrect, please update. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Have edited to CC-BY-4. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Curator Status[edit]

Would you have any interest in Wikiversity:Curators status? I'd be happy to nominate you. It provides extra tools that can make some of the editing you do easier. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for your suggestion. I'll read up more on that. It seems that many of those tools would be very useful. My only hesitation is that I've only contributed to a very specific corner of Wikiversity! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: I've now lodged my application for Probationary Custodianship. If you'd consider being my mentor in this, I'd greatly appreciate your technical expertise and wiki experience. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Please monitor the page for questions and discussion. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You are now a curator. Congratulations! Please visit Wikiversity:Support staff and add yourself to the list. Then visit Special:SpecialPages and individual page menus and check out the new tools. Let me know whenever you have questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for your original recommendation to apply, and for the subsequent support. It's good to be aboard. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor in chief[edit]

Hi Thomas! I recently took on a new full-time job that is leaving me little time for wikis. I was trusting that sooner or later I would find the time and energy to catch up with all the changes going on in the WJS, but truth is I'm not seeing that moment coming any time soon. Therefore, I'd like to offer you the title of "editor in chief". I also considered User:Marshallsumter, but although he's been the most active reviewer, you've been the most active editor, so I think that you're the most appropriate person for "editor in chief". Let me know if you want to take on this responsibility, and I'll be happy to update the board accordingly. Kind regards, --Felipe (discusscontribs) 00:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Felipe: Thank you for your message. I Would be very happy to be Editor in Chief. Once the journal gets going and bylaws have been ratified we can hold a formal vote for Eic and assistant EiC roles. I hope that you'll stay involved, even if you can't devote the time you used to. Similarly, reaching out to potential contributors may be an effective 'time investment' if you happen to know people who might be interested in being involved. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for relieving me Thomas, I just updated the board. I'll definitely stick around and contribute when I can. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 03:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Current reviews[edit]

Hi Evolution and evolvability!

As editor-in-chief, please feel free to review my reviews and make what ever changes or contacts you believe are necessary or appropriate to move a submission to acceptance!

Also, I believe WikiJournal of Science could allow submission of original research as well. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Thanks for your great work on those! Could I check if there were any other reviewers for Dialectic_algorithm or Space_(mathematics)? If there's only one, would you mind contacting as few other people to ask them to be an external reviewer (here's an example email template)? A good way is to look at the contact addresses for corresponding authors on cited papersm and/or ask the author for suggestions. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: "Could I check if there were any other reviewers for Dialectic algorithm?" Of course! Depending on your point of view, if you check out the discuss page, you'll read constructive reviewing by Justin (koavf)TCM prior to submission to WikiJournal of Science. This user may also be willing to add an additional review if you ask or believe more is needed. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: "Could I check if there were any other reviewers for Space_(mathematics)?" The Wikipedia version has been reviewed on w:Talk:Space (mathematics) also prior to submission. The expanded version per my review is here. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC).
@Marshallsumter: Excellent work, thanks. In order to be thorough I've also contacted a set of external academics to review them. I've used authors who have published in the relevant field (G-scholar search) and authors of references in: w:Logic_and_dialectic, w:Argumentation_framework, w:Argumentation_theory and w:Logic_of_argumentation, as well as the various categories of w:Space_(mathematics)#Types_of_spaces. I've emailed you the list so that you have them on file. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


I did an edit to the page about the journal related to humanities that you created. You stated that review would be done by medical experts. I inserted 'recognized' rather than medical. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (discusscontribs) 13:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Thank you for picking up the oversight! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem. Barbara (WVS) (discusscontribs) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Article info" template[edit]

As far as I understand, nearly all the talk page to a submission is now just one parameter "review" to this template; and probably this is why we cannot edit sections (such as "Second review" or "Editorial comment") separately; a bit inconvenient. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 07:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right. It's an artefact of the way I first built the template. It should be solvable so I'll put some time into fixing it tomorrow. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tsirel: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think I've addressed the issue now, but please let me know if you notice any strange behaviours or errors! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The goal of WikiJournals[edit]

It seems, I misunderstood the goal of this movement. I believed that, born on Wikiversity, it intends to create learning resources. But now I see that it intends rather to create encyclopedic articles (and put them on Wikipedia). Hmmm... Wikipedia is already successful; Wikiversity is not. I rather wait for something like that but Wikiversity integrated. Sorry. Really, I do not understand, who needs peer reviewing for creating collections of excerpts from already existing reliable sources. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 12:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: Hi, I completely sympathise with the confusion. The whole concept of WikiJournals is still finding its feet. There are articles that have been published focused primarily on providing wikiversity teaching resources (example), and some that are published as basically stand alone papers that don't yet integrate into any wikimedia project at all (example). However, I think that there is a useful place for peer review of encyclopedic articles (example). Like writing an academic review article, even summarised information can benefit from having independent experts. For example:
  1. It ensures that the article is up to date and hasn't missed developments in the field
  2. Non-wikipedian experts can be engaged as external peer reviewers, when they otherwise would have never contributed to wikimedia content
  3. It gives readers a stable version of record to check that has an additional level of authoritativeness
Wikipedia still suffers from a lack of credibility and this form of academic peer review is one way of improving it. I think that the space in mathematics article is ideal for re-integrating into Wikipedia as well as being a standalone teaching item. If you would like to also create more wikiversity-focused content, you could also create a second, textbook/course-material version for teaching the topic in a more step-by-step manner. Indeed, the journal would be be compatible with additional versions targeted at specific audiences, e.g.:
  • "Introduction to spaces in mathematics" - similar to Introduction to viruses on wikipedia
  • "Spaces in mathematics (in simple english)" - similar to Virus in simple-english wikipedia
  • "Spaces in mathematics (for secondary school students)"
I'll attempt clarify a bit better tomorrow! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I am glad to know that different kinds of articles are allowed in WikiJournals (at least, for now).
Yes, I see: the problem of credibility (of scientific Wikipedia articles) can be alleviated by WikiJournal articles included into Wikipedia.
However, the problem of inaccessibility (of scientific Wikipedia articles) needs another approach (I think so). It cannot be solved inside Wikipedia. But it could be solved (well, alleviated) by attaching explanatory articles, published in WikiJournals, to Wikipedia. I mean, not including them into Wikipedia, but linking them from relevant Wikipedia articles.
This option is rarely used, but here is a recent example: the Wikipedia article "w:Representation theory of the Lorentz group" contains (in the end of the lead, and again in Sect. 3.2 "Technical introduction to finite-dimensional representation theory") a link to Wikiversity article "Representation theory of the Lorentz group". The reason is mostly "the blue link hell" problem, see arguments of the most active contributor there. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 18:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)