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)

Template:Fig[edit]

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)

Journal[edit]

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)
@Tsirel: You make a good point that Wikipedia typically has a single article on a topic that is supposed to cater to all audiences simultaneously. In reality this is extremely difficult, and articles often tent towards begin highly technical (as the discussions you linked to described well). The "introduction to" or "simple English" articles are one possible solution. Another solution that I've seen is to have a non-technical summary section (e.g. in the Higgs Boson). Your idea of also having attached explanatory notes is a also good one, and could be done in WikiJournals in a step-by-step textbook style article. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"Introduction to" idea was discussed on w:WT:WPM several times, and rejected as content forking that can be tolerated only as a rare exception (namely, only for Intro to General relativity and Intro to Quantum mechanics).
"Simple English"? Hmmm... I do not know what is considered "simple English", but I doubt that it can be something like "Every point of the affine space is its intersection with a one-dimensional linear subspace (line through the origin) of the (n+1)-dimensional linear space. However, some one-dimensional subspaces are parallel to the affine space; in some sense, they intersect it at infinity." or "Away from the origin, the quotient by the group action identifies finite sets of equally spaced points on a circle. But at the origin, the circle consists of only a single point, the origin itself, and the group action fixes this point." Or can it?
"Non-technical summary section"? Probably it may contain something like "The type of space that underlies most modern algebraic geometry was introduced by Alexander Grothendieck and is called a scheme. One of the building blocks of a scheme is a topological space." but hardly these not-so-simle-English phrases above.
Also, look (again) at my w:Conditioning (probability). It is an explanatory essay, but it consists mostly of formulas. Surely not a simple English, nor a non-technical summary. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 11:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Another well-known hard problem with math on WP is, examples. It is impossible to explain mathematics without many examples. But on WP an example is, almost inevitably, either Original Research, or Copyright Violation (since only rarely a single example appears in many textbooks). Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 11:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Tsirel: Very good points. I think for the Spaces in Mathematics article, the decider for its final style and format is your preferences for whether you want it to be an updated and improved version of the Wikipedia article that is then re-integrated into Wikipedia (like Rotavirus, etc), or whether you'd prefer it to be a companion piece to the Wikipedia article that is a teaching or explanatory aid. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely prefer "a companion piece to the Wikipedia article that is a teaching or explanatory aid". Here is why.
What really is to be re-integrated? Ozob's contribution (mostly inspired by the anonymous referee) is already there. My "Spaces and structures" and "Mathematical spaces in science and engineering" (mostly inspired by Marshall Sumter)? Yes, these could be added to WP, which however would be far not a historic event, anyway.
In contrast, "a companion piece" precedent, if gets traction, has a chance to be a historic event. Here is why.
Wikipedia's goal "to inform, but not teach, wide public" is definitely unattainable in mathematics, and maybe in hard sciences. You cannot inform wide public that "a continuous function on a closed interval is bounded" without teaching the meaning of these words in this context, with informal explanations of the intuition, examples etc.
For now, mathematical articles on WP either violate the rules, or rightly revolt people; usually do both, as a compromise.
If "Spaces in Mathematics" will become a companion piece linked from "Space (mathematics)", let the latter be challenged, the "types of spaces" section removed, etc. I could be the first to attack it, though I'm afraid others would revert me. Anyway, then the tight knot could begin to unravel, globally. And the expertise of authors, referees and editors of WikiJSci could be used in full strength. Verifiability in the (very restrictive) WP sense need not hold for articles, lectures, textbooks, essays etc (since these are not something that "anyone can edit"). Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 07:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

An observation about mathematics and Wikipedia rules[edit]

There are very few featured articles on mathematics in Wikipedia. Taking the list from w:WP:WPM#Recognized content, excluding biographies, history, and articles that are more physical than mathematical, I got about 9 articles (out of about 16,000). Now, looking at one of most interesting to me of these 9, I see "citation needed" 3 times, and "clarification needed" once. Well, others are "clean" (probably); but two of them are very elementary. Anyway, generally, mathematicians prefer not to pursue the almost infeasible goal of being featured. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 21:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Wiki Journal of Science[edit]

I will delete all reference to WJS in How_things_work_college_course/Quantum_mechanics_timeline, after your decision to decline it. I have had many article submissions declined in my life, but this is the first time I immediately concurred with the journal's decision (although it is not uncommon for me to agree with such decisions after pondering things a bit.)

I copied the format for what is now the WJS from the WJM because I strongly believe in the importance of such journals. But I teach full time, and need to pursue a slightly different track, which is to give students graded credit for improving a course. OpenStax college has provided OER textbooks most of my courses, but unfortunately without that labor-saving exam bank, I expect that only a limited number of instructors will be adopting these textbooks. To see an example of how we can fix this, see this student effort. When I see a student effort appropriate for WJS I will certainly recommend that they submit an article. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Thank you for your message. I realise that the project has evolved significantly from its original inception. Although the journal aspect ended up matching more closely to WikiJMed, I see the value of what you're working towards. Very best of luck with your courses, and I look forward to any student works that get submitted. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating[edit]

Have you or Brian Whalley found a second reviewer? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Sadly not. Jack Nunn has also offered to ask a suitably qualified contact of his, but any additional referees that you're able to gather would be very helpful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I've sent an email via ResearchGate to Professor A. J. Timothy Jull, Editor-in-Chief, of Radiocarbon to ask if he or one or two of his Editorial Board members would be willing to submit a review or two, or suggest possible reviewers. I'll let you know the results. I also gave him the url here for your talk page. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

CSS[edit]

Just FYI. When you imported the Wikipedia versions of Template:Navbox, Template:Navbar, Module:Navbox, and Module:Navbar, it broke the local display of those items. I didn't figure out why or how until this week, and I wasn't able to fix it until this evening. Those templates depend on custom CSS styles that were in Wikipedia:MediaWiki:Common.css but were not included here.

I copied the Wikipedia Common.css file in it's entirety and loaded it as the first thing in our MediaWiki:Common.css file. Any local styles that come after will override Wikipedia settings. There's obviously going to be redundancy, but unless someone is willing to go through and clean up local styles we don't need, this is the best we can do.

I had never encountered this before, but it's now something to be aware of. When replacing local templates, we need to be sure to use something that transcludes the template and view before and after import to make sure it doesn't break anything or miss styling.

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for notifying me. So sorry that it messed up some of the existing CSS. I'll check more carefully whether imported templates and modules overwrite existing elements from now on. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board tends to infinity?[edit]

"Section 3. Appointment
(a) The number of Editorial Board Members of Wiki.J.Sci. should be kept at a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20."
(From Bylaws#ARTICLE_III). Nevertheless I see 25 members. Do I miss something? Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 09:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tsirel: Thank you for notifying me! It had completely escaped my mind that we'd put size limits in the bylaws. I shall absolutely bring that up for discussion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)