User talk:Evolution and evolvability

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My main Wikipedia usertalk page is here[edit source]

Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Template:Article info[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Template:Fig[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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


Error when transcluded in table:

Sobo 1909 639.png


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)Reply[reply]

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

Files Missing Information[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Curator Status[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
Done. Please monitor the page for questions and discussion. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Editor in chief[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Current reviews[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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).Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

Journal[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

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

"Article info" template[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

The goal of WikiJournals[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

An observation about mathematics and Wikipedia rules[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Radiocarbon dating[edit source]

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

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

CSS[edit source]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Editorial board tends to infinity?[edit source]

"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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
@Tsirel: I suggest that we change the bylaws and have at least 30 people - I'm on the Editorial Board for another journal and that is a very long list - the more the merrier! ( Jacknunn (discusscontribs) 13:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about misspelling your nickname[edit source]

I called you Evo^2, when the ampersand suggests the simpler 2Evo. See -Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Re~Guy vandegrift Heh, I missed this when you first posted it - Looks like the the untaken options are rapidly running out:

I have begun to seriously edit Draft: A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes[edit source]

I started with the comments from the third reviewer because their effort was the most meticulous. I spent a lot of time on the first paragraph and will take a 24 hour break and to other things while I ponder this. Feel free to comment if you have time. But if you are busy, do not hesitate to wait a bit. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guy vandegrift: Thanks for the note. I'll read through the comments as they stand this evening. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ShK toxin: history, structure and therapeutic applications for autoimmune diseases[edit source]

Should we include doi links in the references? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OhanaUnited: Yes, when possible. I think I citoid generated a few from the PMIDs and it doesn't always find the doi. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the author added some references[2] (including at least one that was identified as unused). And now it messes up the numbering of the reference names. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I've sent the authors an email to explain the cite function. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiJournal Main Page Representation[edit source]

Any thoughts on how to add WikiJournal to Wikiversity:Main Page? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: So currently articles are mentioned in the news section, but I'd love a permanent presence on the main page. Do you have an idea of how much real-estate on the mainpage you'd think appropriate? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a variety of options available. WikiJournals could be added to the banner. Individual WikiJournals could be added as Featured Projects and Educational Pictures. With some type of redesign, a separate block could be added for WikiJournals, similar to either the Wikipedia or Wikibooks main pages. I don't want to limit creativity. Something should certainly be done. What may depend as much on available time to redesign or add content as anything else. I've got a lot on my plate for the summer, so if it's up to me, I would just be able to add WikiJournals to the banner. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks! I'll draft a possible template later this week. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dave Braunschweig: I've been experimenting with a few possibilities at Main_Page/Journals. What to you reckon? I think it best to omit the journal logos, but perhaps include a random selection from a gallery of images? Maybe a link to random article from the back-catalogue? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can plug it into Wikiversity:Main_Page/Sandbox to figure out the layout. Visuals are good, something that changes every day is also good. At some point I'd like to switch the main page to a grid / flexbox design. Maybe this is a good excuse for doing that. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dave Braunschweig: I agree, flexbox formatting is amazing (I finally got around to using it for the menu tabs of {{article info}} so that they can be read on mobiles). There have also been some developments over at Wikipedia in automated templates for portals. I've done some experiments in Wikiversity:Main_Page/Sandbox. Still not certain over the best layout. probably 33% width or 50% width will be best. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: I've had a go at a flex box based implementation in the Wikiversity:Main_Page/Sandbox now that I've sort of got the hang of it from working on Template:WikiJMed formats. Have a look and see what you think. It's not perfect, but shouldn't need too much further tweaking! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if a two-column layout, similar to Wikipedia:Main Page would be better. There's something about the current flex design that isn't working correctly with image overlap. On my screen today, News is covering 15% of The Last Supper. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two-column seems better from a mobile perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia links[edit source]

I've created a preprint for ice drilling, just by pasting in the Wikipedia wikitext, but I can see a lot of tweaking is needed. For example, the links need to change from e.g. [[glacier]] to [[wikipedia:glacier|glacier]]. Is there a script for this, or does one have to tweak each by hand? And is there a checklist of other changes that need to be made? Mike Christie (discusscontribs) 12:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: One of our next projects is sorting out an automated way to convert wikilinks to and files into the {{fig}} format. Currently the figures have to be done manually, but the wikilinks are switched by find-replace with regular expressions:
  1. \[\[([^\|]*?)\]\] replace with [[w:\1|\1]]
  2. \[\[([^\:]*?)\]\] replace with [[w:\1]]
Would you be able to update the information in the article info template at the top and update the fig formatting (most important is the attribution paramter). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do; have had to work this weekend and am away next weekend so I will try to get it done one night this week. Thanks for the wikilink fix. Mike Christie (discusscontribs) 20:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I've submitted the authorship declaration; let me know anything else I need to do. Thanks. Mike Christie (discusscontribs) 10:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custodianship[edit source]

Congratulations! You are now a custodian! You should see more tools in Special:SpecialPages. See Wikiversity:Custodian Mentorship for a list of custodian skills you should become comfortable with. First up are the following:

  1. Edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice and clear the current site notice.
  2. Edit Wikiversity:Support staff and update your role.

Let me know whenever you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: The documentation is clear so far, but I'll message you if I've any questions. Thank you for your help so far, and as I said in the application, I aim to start out particularly cautious so as not to break anything. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image scaling[edit source]

Hello. Trouble with display of image at main WikiJournal of Medicine (COPE logo for WikiJMed) - it is displaying in too large a way despite specifying 80px in template. RubberBandHoot (discusscontribs) 02:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RubberBandHoot: Thanks for letting me know! The issue seems to be because the {{WikiJMed_right_menu}} is still built as a table, rather than using the more robust css div formatting. I've used a simpler type of image formatting, which seems to work better. Eventually, I'll update the template's formatting which should make it more future-proof. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability and T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo):. Thank you. RubberBandHoot (discusscontribs) 12:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

second peer review[edit source]

Hello Dr. Shafee, just wanted to let you know Ive done the second peer review[3] however WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles the 'stage' number doesn't reflect that yet, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 22:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: - updated! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 23:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

further reviews[edit source]

Hi Dr. Shafee, just wanted to let you know Ive done both reviews for Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Hepatitis_E and Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Dyslexia however WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles the 'stage' number doesn't reflect that yet, thanks (and Merry Xmas!)--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 21:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for letting me know! I've updated the tracking table. We are expecting 1-2 more reviews for each of the articles in January. Happy New Year! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you(Happy New Year to you!)--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 11:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Thomas and Ozzie10aaaa, and Happy New Year! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

final review[edit source]

Hi Dr. Shafee ,WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic..done, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 03:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[4]thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 12:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hep E, final review[edit source]

Dr. Shafee, sorry to bother you however I was going over [5]and aside from a modest(13) amount of circles(red), it gives little in the way of what the reviewer wants,I suppose I could assume to check references to the statements but upon looking at the section on classification there are 'two circles' in no particular area that don't seem to indicate anything at all?...please advise, thank you (I have 'clicked' each circle with my mouse, not certain how this works)--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 14:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Ozzie10aaaa: Good point - it's not immediately obvious to look for the annotations in a PDF. I've been trying to find a way to export them so that they can be pasted in the Wikimarkup as well, but I've not yet found a way. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr. Shafee, done (again)[6] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 02:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Hepatitis_E#Editorial_comments done--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 12:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ebola[edit source]

Dr.Shafee, done Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 05:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done [7], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 07:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks. One final minor thing: There are a mix of {{Cite_web}} and {{Cite_neews}} templates used used for WHO, BBC etc. Would it be sensible to distinguish different types of source with {{Cite_web}}/{{Cite_report}}/{{Cite_news}}? Not vital, but could be useful for distinguishing in the metadata. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The logical answer is yes, it would because they are different {{Cite_web}}/{{Cite_report}}/{{Cite_news}}, how should we proceed?--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 05:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per suggestion[edit source]

Dr Shafee per your email, Ive done the following:

1. have added the reference "Difference between revisions of "WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic" - Wikiversity". Retrieved 5 March 2019.

2. have gone thru the indicated 'media' references-

3. have trimmed 50 and 58 press release "Difference between revisions of "WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic" - Wikiversity". Retrieved 5 March 2019. and "Difference between revisions of "WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic" - Wikiversity". Retrieved 5 March 2019.

I want to thank you for your kind suggestions--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lint Errors[edit source]

See Special:LintErrors/misc-tidy-replacement-issues. There are issues in several of the WikiJournal templates. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks. I've tracked the div-span-flip error to the {{WikiJournal_top_menu}} template. Should be easy to fix once I root it out within that template. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dave Braunschweig: Fixed. It was a set of spans in the {{WikiJournal_top_menu_bar}} and {{Annotated_image_4}} templates. I've manually purged a few pages to check that it also fixes the downstream templates and pages. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting. There is an issue in Template:Editor's comments. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lysenin article[edit source]

Thomas, the article needs thorough copy-editing. Someone tagged it for citation style but it's not unclear, just not in any template. The article is written assuming considerable knowledge of cell biology and might need quite substantial glossing to make it easier to read. I've added numerous wikilinks and fixed a few bits of English that urgently needed attention, but much more is needed. Cheers, Ian Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 09:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Good point. Upon re-reading I see what you mean about the over-technicality - that is definitely something the author can address. Would you be happy to add a comment to the submission's talkpage? The language aspects often need assistance from others, since the author is probably working at the limit of their English skills. It would good to do at least a quick copyedit run before contacting peer reviewers. Otherwise I'll summarise and add to mine. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've added a comment and made a (very) preliminary copy-edit of the article. --Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 01:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final review[edit source]

Dr, Shafee I noticed that the Dyslexia peer-review has been indicated for sometime in February WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles, was wondering if there might be a difficulty with it since its almost the end of the month, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for the note. I'll check with its review coordinators (Eric Youngstrom, Jitendra Kumar Sinha). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you, Dr Shafee, I am watching the article in question for any updates that need to be addressed... thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 13:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tl:Cite book lua error[edit source]

I noticed that you imported newer revisions of {{Cite book}}. There is a "lua error" which is triggered by "coauthors=last, first" and the error goes away if the name is removed. I'm not sure what is causing the or how to fix it. The error is visible in Example 1 at the template page. --mikeu talk 18:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mu301: I've had a look at the relevant line of Module:Citation/CS1 and can't find what's causing the error, so I've asked for assistance over at the MediaWiki support desk (Topic:Uwduy1hmnz6taq9d). Will aim to get fixed ASAP. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed a similar error in {{coord}} which I have temporarily downrev'd to an earlier version]. I've brought up the topic of template imports at Wikiversity:Colloquium#template_import. I'll follow up there. I'm a little concerned about the long term maintainability of these imported templates. --mikeu talk 11:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiJournal preprints/Ice drilling technology[edit source]

Hi Evolution and evolvability!

Professor Taylor is mentioning in his follow up that the original title "Ice drilling" or another alternative suggested by the authors "Ice drilling methods" is okay. Should we give the authors time to reconsider? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Widgiemoolthalite et al.[edit source]

Hey Evolution and evolvability,

Thanks for all your work on the WikiJournal projects! I had a question about your edit to the Widgiemoolthalite preprint at WJS. I checked through the article's history and while it was imported from Wikipedia, I don't believe the >10% or 1 paragraph threshold for work contributed by other editors was met, which is why I left the link to the article's contributors in the Acknowledgements rather than as an et al. link. Was I correct in doing this?

Thank you kindly! Best, Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 03:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: Aha, thank you. You are correct, I had not noticed the attribution section. Thank you for checking. Please feel to remove the |et al= parameter. You already correctly added the |license={{CC-BY-SA work}}, so that should all be fine! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fabulous, thank you! Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Evolution and evolvability,

Is this review date "2015-12-31" correct for Robert Hazen's review? It appears to predate the article's existence on Wikipedia? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marshallsumter: Thank you for notifying me. For some reason the date parameter was omitted so the template put in a default. I've updated the date, and edited the template so that it doesn't do something so misleading! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewer credentials[edit source]

Hey Thomas, I got a question for you. While entering the credentials of the reviewer's institution, should we use the institution's native name or translated English name? That example is perfect as one is French and the other is German, yet both are easy to understand even if you don't know a single word in French or German. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OhanaUnited: I'd go for the original language when in doubt to avoid any possibly ambiguity from alternative possible translations (unless it is more well known my its translation e.g. "Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry"). The priority is for it to be unambiguously identifiable, so even putting the translation with the original in brackets could work when it seems useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paper[edit source]

Thomas, I tried replying by email but it bounced saying unusual spamming from my IP! I copyedited the paper as requested; I hope not to have changed any meanings, so perhaps your expert eye would be beneficial for a final check. Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 12:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Fantastic, thank you! I've had look through the new version and the diffs and it's a great improvement.I'll do an additional sweep through before confirming with the author that they're ok wth the edits. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 16:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiJournal of Medicine/Medical gallery of Mikael Häggström 2014[edit source]

I'm not quite sure how to troubleshoot the category error in question on this page. And I have not seen this kind of error before. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OhanaUnited: Very odd. I'll get on that - thanks for the note. It should just be placing it in Category:Articles_submitted_for_peer_review_in_2014 based on the |submitted= year. I'll dig into the {{Article info main}} code to find the error. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Super weird. there's some secret difference between the characters "2014‎" and "2014". I think some hidden zero-width space character? Should be fixed now anyway. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems more common than I thought. Here's another page with similar error. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OhanaUnited: Rats. The fix is to check if there's a zero-width space before or after the date and remove it. I'll go through to check some others. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OhanaUnited: I think I've found them all, so that should be fixed now. Thanks again for spotting the initial problems! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's one more: Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Medical gallery of Blausen Medical 2014#Second peer review - intracranial electrodes OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit source]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit source]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit source]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radiocarbon dating[edit source]

Hi Thomas. British Archaeology, the journal of the Council for British Archaeology, has a box in each issue recommending the Wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating for information on the subject. Last month, I wrote to the journal informing them of the WJS article and they have published my letter in the November/December 2019 issue and changed to recommending the WJS version. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Very interesting! Thank you for both contacting them and for your post here and on the wikipedia article's talkpage. It's an idea that might be cross-applicable to other journals and magazines on different topics. Would you be willing to send me the email text that you sent? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have forwarded the email to you. Dudley Miles (discusscontribs) 08:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

started an article[edit source]

heya I have started putting an article together user:Faendalimas/What_is_in_a_Name, it is based on a plenary speech I gave at an international conference in 2018, many people have been asking me to publish it. So I am writing it out, would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Faendalimas: In general, we've avoided opinion articles to prevent the risk of either a) the article can't really be peer reviewed or b) the journals look like just a blogging site which could undermine the other articles. However really the distinction is whether an article could be reasonably peer reviewed. I think if the article can be written as a case study and proposal then that probably can be put to reviewers as to whether e.g. the relevant background and related work is clearly described, the current issues are accurately put forward, the proposal addresses the issues raised and the case is convincingly made. It'd have to be put to the other board members since it is still different from anything previously published in the journals. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Maps via Wikidata[edit source]

Very nice. I was wondering if it can be loaded directly when user visits a page (kind of like my current sandbox). Another thing is if there's a way to manually specify the location. For instance, the map directly loads my employer's headquarter location (Ottawa) even though I'm in Toronto. And do you know why the map shows my profile twice in Ottawa? I couldn't quite figure it out. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I've asked over at Wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#Embedding_query_result_in_wikimedia_page, but there was no obvious answer. Maybe there's some location to ask over at wikivoyage, where they probably have more experience with such things? Otherwise, on other pages I've just included a screenshot that links to the live query (example). The way I'm c alculating location is to just use the listed location of the employer (easiest to see in the table output of the same query), but there might be a way to check whether a location is listed for the person themself. Your double listing on WikiJournal of Science (Q22674854) was an error that I've now fixed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit source]

Hi. Would you be willing to make me an account on I'd like to try some of the extensions there, and see if I have any ideas for user scripts that'll help the project. Thanks, --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 09:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DannyS712: Thanks! I think that should be fine What sorts of extensions are you thinking? Pinging Bryandamon who set the test wiki up. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just going to test what is installed already --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 11:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DannyS712: Sounds excellent. I've asked bryan to add you (currently beyond my knowledge). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DannyS712: Should be done now. Let me know if it's not working and I'll follow-up. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It worked, thanks --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 00:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit[edit source]

Hi. Please look at the above linked edit. I think you may have accidentally changed the words to be incorrect. Vermont (discusscontribs) 12:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italicizing title[edit source]

I understand that you added italics parameter to {{Article volume summary}}. I think we need a different approach. If we set italics=yes in the template, the entire title is italicized, including parts that should not be italicized.[9] If I use wiki markup directly in the title,[10] it breaks the link in the title and the full-text link. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at this page which might have a solution. The code below should work on the page. I'll add a |display_title= parameter to the relevant template that's used on the volume/issue page.
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-family:Century Gothic, Helvetica, sans serif; font-size: 10pt">{{BASEPAGENAME}}</span><span style="color:#DDD">/</span><span style="font-family:Century Gothic, Helvetica, sans serif;">Images of </span><span style="font-family:Century Gothic, Helvetica, sans serif;font-style:italic;">Aerococcus urinae</span>}}
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Information and Wikidata[edit source]

Something about the changes to Template:Information is incomplete. The three files you added are showing up in Category:Files with no machine-readable author, Category:Files with no machine-readable description, and Category:Files with no machine-readable source. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks! I've created a substitutable wrapper template {{InformationQ}} that seems to solve it! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a file in response to reviewer[edit source]

Hi Thomas, could I ask you to have a quick check at Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Beak and feather disease virus? The authors have made updates to the article based on the reviewer comments, and also provided a change-tracked document of these. I couldn't figure out an elegant method to attach that - the {{response}} template does not take a file argument. So I stuck it in as an image thumbnail, which is probably less than ideal. I suspect there's a better method? Cheers --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 16:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elmidae: No problem - I've added a |pdf= parameter to the {{response}} template, so that it can be added. Good point that it was a missing capability. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, most well crafted :) Thanks. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats![edit source]

Æthelfæd[edit source]

Hi Thomas. An editor has deleted an edit at [11] which I assume you made. I will leave you to deal with it if you wish as I do not know the rules on this. Dudley Miles (discusscontribs) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Aha, rats. Thank you for letting me know. I've also just been alerted to a related conversation all about it here, so will have a read through that now and respond. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Alternative_layout2[edit source]

As you seem to be responsible for a number of templates on which this depends , perhaps you can determine why this misrenders?

Also why {{Article info}} misrenders, generating unclosed DIV sequences... Thanks.. ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 18:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seem to be a lot of LintErrors generated despite attempts by me to fix the problem (as yet unsuccessfully).

ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 18:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail[edit source]

Hello, Evolution and evolvability. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Alaa :)..! 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...[edit source]

Well, that wasn't all that helpful, was it :/ Sorry, wasn't aware that there was an actual "response" template. Will keep it in mind for next time! Cheers --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 14:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now I realize that we talked about that very template before, on this very page, and I still didn't remember! I need a holiday... --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 18:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Testing out new reply to tool on my talkpage[edit source]


  • list
  • list
  • list

Comment T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

test reply T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Thomas, it works ... PS it's under "Beta features" on people's Preferences page. Ian Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 08:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works in Firefox on windows. J S Lundeen (discusscontribs) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update submitted article[edit source]

We would like to rework the submitted article

Can you please point to correct path to sandbox and then resubmit? Or we may edit it now until (before) we get peer reviewers assigned? We would like to make substantial edits. ---Maxim Masiutin (discusscontribs) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: Since we have not yet contacted the peer reviewers, you have two options:
  1. ask us to wat before contacting reviewers and update the article directly
  2. create a copy at that you can continue editing whilst reviewers comment
let me know what you prefer T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: Thank you, I have created the sandbox page at the URL that you have provided, so we can continue editing whilst reviewers comment ---Maxim Masiutin (discusscontribs) 09:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maxim Masiutin: Ok, and thanks for adding the link to the tracking table. To confirm, the peer reviewers will be asked to review the main article page and not the /sandbox. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: Thank you, I understand that the peer reviewers will be asked to review the main article page and not the /sandbox. ---Maxim Masiutin (discusscontribs) 16:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-closed tags[edit source]

There's a recent error in one or more WikiJournal templates that is generating 350+ lint errors. See Special:LintErrors/self-closed-tag. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: Aha, sorry about that. I've tracked the bug and fixed it! Was using a bit of html that I don't really understand to auto-number figures using template:WikiJournal/figure/styles.css. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COVID-19[edit source]

Dr Shafee, may submit by April (depending on vaccine[12])--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 14:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested citation format[edit source]

Hello, hope you are doing well. There's a problem on all "Suggested citation format", for example see WikiJournal of Medicine/Viewer interaction with YouTube videos about hysterectomy recovery. Best --Alaa :)..! 00:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@علاء: Thanks for spotting that! Now fixed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! --Alaa :)..! 12:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steps in WikiJournal of Science/Potential upcoming articles[edit source]

Are the steps/legends still applicable now that the table is auto-populated based on Wikidata and no longer shows which stage an article is at? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OhanaUnited: Good point. We probably still need to indicate the the general order of events, but that might be better as a schematic picture? Something like a process diagram, or a more focused, horizontal version of this. The one thing I've not worked out how to usefully automate via wikidata is when each review has been responded to, which would be needed to differentiate what was called '4,5,6'. Integration with OJS could solve that, so it's back up the priority list for next year! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, in the interest of openness, we can mention which stage it is on under the "Notes" section. Or maybe add one column to the table to describe which it is at (without the Wikidata linkage). OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

et al.[edit source]

According to Wikipedia:Category:CS1 errors: explicit use of et al., "et al." is no longer a valid author name. Instead, we are supposed to use |display-authors=etal. I'm not sure how this can be resolved using Wikidata entries, but it does need to be addressed at some point. See our own Category:CS1 errors: explicit use of et al. for affected resources. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: Yes, there was also some conversation about it over at this page. Currently I've made a workaround in {{Cite Q EtAl}} by including a hyperlinked 'et al.' which the software doesn't recognise (a temporary cheat), but ove the cite_Q template has stabilised (still lots of changes occurring) It should be possible to implement a |display-authors=etal-based solution. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License[edit source]

File:What are Systematic Reviews.pdf has copyright information but is missing a license. See Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Perhaps you can add a License or Permission value that would include the license. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks for catching that. Fixed (both via updating wikidata, and by adding the relevant template below)! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paper status[edit source]

Hi T.Shafee,

My submission to WJS has been sitting around for more than six months with no visible progress on refereeing. I e-mailed the assigned editor a week ago to inquire about the status of the refereeing process, but I have not received a response. I was hoping you could look into the matter.

Thanks, JayBeeEll (discusscontribs) 21:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JayBeeEll: Thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it and organise a change in editor if the current editor isn't available any more. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it. --JayBeeEll (discusscontribs) 13:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JayBeeEll: The final review is now in for the article (link). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! --JayBeeEll (discusscontribs) 00:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not find a button to push to indicate that I have completed my response to the referees (and accompanying article edits); I hope that leaving this comment here is an accepted method! --JayBeeEll (discusscontribs) 20:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JayBeeEll: Excellent, thank you. I'll notify any reviewers that asked to see the article again, and if they have no additional items, the board will vote in the coming weeks! We're hoping to make an easier to use back-end for making sure that authors, reviewers and editors can easily update an article's stage and be notified when they have the ball back in their court, but in the meantime, you're right that this not is as good a place as any! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Fig[edit source]

Please check your logic, It's leaking a DIV in certain instances.

such as in WikiJournal_of_Science/About ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 13:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: Did you actually want something more like the code in my sandbox where the possibility of a 'nil' or absent 1st paramater is considered? ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 16:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Thank you so much for your testing on this. I appreciate that the complexity of the structure makes it frustrating! I've been using this page as a test page. And your sandbox solution seems to make sense. I'd thought the leaky div was something to do with the guess it must be something to do with the <dl class="figure-n-counter-set-to-zero"></dl>. It had seemed to work fine for images inserted in the default [[File.example.jpg|thumb|caption]] format, so I also tried to implement it into the {{fig|...}} (which can act as a multiple image holding template) for when a page is going to contain a mixture of [[file:...]] and {{fig|...}}. It seems your solution does what I was thinking without leaking the div though. Thanks again for looking into it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stage-scripts..[edit source]

Over on English Wikisource I wrote some templates for formatting 'drama' scripts.

Would it be possible to get an import of the Stagescript template family over here on Wikiversity?

The reason is that I wanted to do a reformat on some material I wrote a while back.

It's the templates at the top of the list.

The way I wrote the template and styles, it should be straightforward to adapt for various script/screenplay formats, by writing appropriate style-sheets?

ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 01:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: That should be fine! I've imported those across now, so let me know if they look like they're working. Nice organisation of the template set. I would suggest also making a Template:Stagescript page as the main documentation page just so that there's a root page when people look. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to start documenting feel free. Whilst my format isn't exactly the same as a production format, I've based some aspects of the model on the examples here ( essentially the screenplay and US Radio Drama formats)- If you know CSS , you can add formats closer to those examples. Also I am wondering if for Wikisource purposes we need a /slide template in addition to /sdr1 and /fx. The template fammily can then be used to develop 'presentational' scripts, as well as drama. ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 12:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Barnstar for you![edit source]

Barnstar Speedy.png style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em; color: I can see you are already doing well here. Keep going and happy editing. --IamTheAstronomer (discusscontribs) 23:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)" | The Shootin' BarnstarReply[reply]
style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; color: I can see you are already doing well here. Keep going and happy editing. --IamTheAstronomer (discusscontribs) 23:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)" | The Shootin' Barnstar is awarded to editors who achieve over 1000 edits within 30 days of becoming active at Wikiversity. {{{1}}}Reply[reply]

You have earned the Wikiversitian Award![edit source]


May I present the Wikiversitian Award to this editor due to the fact that they have been an exceedingly outstanding contributor here. Believing they are an editor who has a huge level of competence, I decided to present this award to them for making Wikiversity the community it is meant to be. I wish this editor good luck with all their future endeavours. --IamTheAstronomer Talk 20:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying links[edit source]

Hi Thomas. Thanks for your help. I have copied the Wikipedia article to User:Dudley Miles/sandbox to work on it. I could easily create wikilinks by changing [[ to [[w:, but that leaves links as e.g. [[w:Mercia]]. Do I have to manually change every link to [[w:Mercia|Mercia]] or is there a way to automate this? Dudley Miles (discusscontribs) 12:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Yes, you can change all the links in the page to point to wikipedia using:
  • at the top of the section or page: {{subst:convert_links|
  • at the bottom of the section or page: }}
I've gone ahead and done so in your sandbox (after removing the w:currently present), so hopefully that worked, but let me know if any didn't link up correctly. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks for your help Thomas.
Am I correct in thinking that Template:Sfn only partly implements w:Template:Sfn? In Wikipedia hovering over the reference number in the text gives you an option to go straight to the source, including opening a web page, but in Wikiversity I only seem to be able to go to the citation and then manually find the source. Dudley Miles (discusscontribs) 09:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Hmm, check your preferences. I think it's the 'reference tooltips' gadget that's enabled by default on WP but still available on WV. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been working out how to manage editing in Wikiversity. I cannot get tooltips to work in my sandbox on either of my computers. However, I am not sure what is going on as it seems to work on my mobile phone and works for my computers on preprints.

I have also been bodging to get sfn working. It does not work correctly in Wikiversity with the cite encyclopedia template. I also find I need to use the harvid field in the sources for it to work correctly. In fact, it then works better than on Wikipedia. The great advantage of sfn used to be that it highlights reference errors and unused sources, but the latter function was removed on Wikipedia. Both functions still work on Wikiversity. Thanks. Dudley Miles (discusscontribs) 14:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit source]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

question[edit source]

Dr. Shafee I realize your busy, however I was wondering what the timetable might be for PDF [13] its been about 1 month and a half since 13 April (I of course, know there are several articles you deal with from WikiJournal). I want to thank you for your very valuable time as always, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 12:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for flagging, and apologies for the delay. I'm in the process of training new users on how to do the off-wiki PDF formatting, so will use it as an example (as you've noticed, we have a bit of a backlog!). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr Shafee, I completely understand and thank you as always, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 12:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files Missing Information[edit source]

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) 02:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of backlogged WJS submissions[edit source]

Hi Thomas, there are a few WJS submissions which listed you as the peer review coordinator. I was wondering what the status are for those submissions:

  1. WikiJournal Preprints/Induced stem cells (no records of having peer reviews submitted)
  2. WikiJournal Preprints/Moisture Content as a Proximate Factor in Nest Site Attractiveness for Temnothorax rugatulus (I will follow up with the author as he appears to be somewhat active on Wikipedia)
  3. WikiJournal Preprints/The effect of local millet drink (Kunu) on the testis and epididymis of adult male wistar rats (authors need to respond to third reviewers' second-round of comments; pinging Kaexer to transclude updated PDF manuscript and Agan56 to get ready for correspondence with this reviewer)

If you have additional information for any of these submissions, please let me know. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File name error[edit source]

Hi Thomas, one of the tech editor accidentally thought the authors' version was the accepted version and uploaded the file with that article's name with that assumption. Can you delete File:Perspectives on the social license of the forest products.pdf since I can't rename/move the file to another name? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I've moved it to File:Perspectives on the social license of the forest products - Author's response.pdf and deleted the redirect page left behind. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuing Email Discussion[edit source]

Hello T. Shafee,

I've sent you an email back in March regarding the WikiJournal Preprints/The Effect of Corticosteroids on the Mortality Rate in COVID-19 Patients, v2 medical paper. I'm assuming you might've missed it, which isn't an issue! I can ask the questions here:

  • I wanted to get a confirmation that the topic is suitable for a medical paper. I see that there are similar studies on the internet in regards to this as recent as December 2021--just wanted to make sure my efforts are being put into a useful field.
  • Is it an obligation to mention the number of studies incorporated in the medical paper?

EDIT: I also wanted to see if writing a WikiJournal of Humanities paper on meditation would be a perfect topic. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the guidelines for that book, but I figured it was worth asking.

Thank you! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tech editor's Wikidata entry[edit source]

Hi Thomas, would you mind taking a look at this conversation on Wikidata on whether our technical editors are notable enough to have individual Wikidata entries? I don't know what other backend uses there are that I couldn't see and what will be broken when their entries are deleted. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publication order for WikiJournalBot[edit source]

Hi Thomas, would it be possible to stop the bot from automatically updating the volume and issue number? I have been going on an edit war with the bot because it has a tendency to list publications out of order[14][15], removing published articles[16] or listing the same entry twice[17]. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OhanaUnited I'll look into this over the weekend, but in the meantime, @Octfx might be able to help if the bot is acting up (or throwin unexpected behaviours). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @OhanaUnited, @Evolution and evolvability. I've looked into it, and the bot seems to work as intended. The bot retrieves all data, ordered by publication date, from Wikidata based on the Journal, Volume, and Issue. The Wikidata list of articles is taken as is, i.e., no further filtering/cleaning/updating is done to the result. You can verify the ordering of articles here (by clicking the play button): Volume 6, Issue 1, Volume 7, Issue 1. As for removing a published article (Volume 9, Issue 1), the article Melioidosis is published in WikiJournal Preprints and not WikiJournal of Medicine, hence the removal. The wikidata of Volume 1, Issue 1 does indeed contain an error. The article Diagram of the pathways of human steroidogenesis has two publication dates, resulting in two listings. To stop the bot from updating a page, you can add the {{nobots}} template anywhere on the page.
How do you define the order of articles? Maybe we can update the Wikidata query to match the ordering you use? Octfx (discusscontribs) 12:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Octfx for your explanation. This does answer all my questions about the order. The preferred order is go by (in this order) journal, volume, issue and page number. But the simplest is sort by DOI number. Since there can be a delay between article acceptance date and page number being issued, sometimes submissions can be out-of-sequential order by its publication date (Volume 6, Issue 1 is the best example. We have 3 papers published in January 2019 but not fully processed until November & December 2019). Happy to hear what @Evolution and evolvability thinks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiJournal Preprints/COVID-19 pandemic[edit source]

The import seems to have glitched part way. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help[edit source]

I need help with my paper in the field of "Computer Science Applied to Social Research" because there is no reviewer assigned to it right now. I submitted the paper in 26 July 2021. The editor does not answer my contact. Please sse Bruno Braga Brunobraga (discusscontribs) 01:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]