User talk:Heartwarming

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Heartwarming! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon Insert-signature.png above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi o/[edit]

Thanks for the warm welcome, Atcovi! Heartwarming (discusscontribs) 03:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem! ^_^ ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Schools[edit]

We're actually in the process of consolidating school content right now. We were up to more than 120 schools, most of which weren't even in the top 1,000 visited pages. After much consideration of different options, I think that the Wikipedia: Library of Congress Classification makes the most sense as a basis for Wikiversity Schools. I'm not quite sure on a couple of parts, but less than 30 schools is much better than 120. Take a look at Category:Contents for the current vision. The idea is to have each of those as schools (perhaps minus a couple), and everything else represented with a three-tabbed portal that will cover school, topic, and portal needs. I don't have a good portal example yet. I'm still working on the schools. Please let me know what you think of this.

Regarding moving content from one page and putting it on another, to be consistent with CC-BY-SA licensing, we need to reference the source. The easiest way to do that is probably in the edit summary with a link back to where it came from. If you're moving the entire content, it is better to move pages than move content. Moving the page retains the edit history. That's why I was doing the history merges on the two chemistry pages. If you find you need to do a lot of moving and/or merging, let me know. I have a bot I can use to move / rename many pages at the same time when necessary. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Hi thanks for informing me! Alright, after looking at the scope of the project I definitely see your point. That is a very good idea, it really reminds me of how Universities are organized and then you also have specialties/majors within that school. So just to be clear, the structure goes from School>Topic>Portal with Portal being the most specific? I can definitely help with that. Although you don't have a portal example, do you have an example of a School that most closely resembles the structure you described? I'll try to follow that and consolidate the other schools, if Wikiversity is still doing that.
Regarding moving content, as you said, how would I reference the source in the edit summary and also do you mean source as in the original page? Should I put a link of the original page in the summary during the move to a new page? Also thanks for another heads up with the bot! Thank you for your time, Heartwarming (discusscontribs) 03:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The idea is to eliminate Topic. It confuses everyone. Some people think topics are for content, but Topic pages don't appear in a default search. School and Portal don't, either, but some of the School pages are popular, so keeping some of them makes sense for now. Portals are consistent with Wikipedia use of the same name, so that has benefit. The Topic namespace also causes problems because the mw:Flow project uses the Topic namespace. So school pages would list multiple portals. The portal pages would include the current school, topic, and portal content for the minor categories.
Yes, to reference a source (original) page, the easiest option is just putting a link in the edit summary. It can be done as an internal [[title]] link. It can also be done as an https: diff link. If you view page history, you can access diff links, or use the Permanent link option on the left side of the history view. For example, [1] for a previous version of your page. You can also put a comment on the Talk page using {{Copied}}, but that separates the content and the comment.
You're welcome. Ask any questions you have. The more high-quality editors we can get involved, the better Wikiversity will be. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean about retaining the edit history now. Is implementing the new structure currently officially? I'm looking at Wikiversity:Schools right now, and it definitely does look like a lot of reorganization to achieve to method. Just let me know where I can start helping, in terms of organizing, and I'll follow. I can attempt to restructure the schools of sciences as a start if that works for Wikiversity. @Dave Braunschweig: Heartwarming (discusscontribs) 04:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've mentioned the reorg several times. There was one approval and no objections. I've been making changes in that direction for about two weeks now and still no objections. For official, it would be better to have positive agreement rather than a lack of opposition, but for now it is what it is. The questions I have remaining are on the following:

  1. The Library of Congress does not have Engineering or Mathematics as top-level categories. But they are quite popular here. School:Engineering is #85 and School:Mathematics is #162 for December. Numbers are at Wikiversity:Statistics. It seems to me that having those two as schools is worthwhile, compared to burying in them in Technology and Science, respectively.
  2. The Library of Congress has Anthropology, History, Political Science, and Psychology separate from Social Sciences. In the past, Wikiversity had them combined at Portal:Social Sciences. Anthropology, Political Science and Psychology aren't in the top 1,000 here. History is 823. I'd be okay with combining them, if it would be logical to a new user that these would be under Social Sciences. You're a new user. What do you think?
  3. For the new tabbed portal, I'm thinking of something like User:Dave Braunschweig/sandbox. The first tab is the name of the portal. The second tab is Learn. The third tab is Participate. It might be good to look at something like School: Philosophy and Topic:Philosophy to see how existing content could be covered with a portal. Most portals have interest-generating content on the home page. Learn would be things like Courses, Learning Projects, Books, See Also, External Links, and Related Portals. Participate would be current participants, things to do, active learning projects, and discussion/collaboration. As a new user, would this make sense? Another way to look at it would be to think about Chemistry, which would be demoted to a link under School:Science, which would link to Portal:Chemistry. Would a portal of with tabs of Chemistry, Learn, and Participate make sense with what you have already seen of Chemistry and where you'd like to go with it?

If the vision makes sense, the next steps are to change schools that aren't the top categories to portals, add those portals to the schools that are in the top category, and then start cleaning up the portals with a consistent design. If you'd like to help with sciences, that would be great, but I do want to be sure it makes sense first. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 06:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm originally a Wikipedia contributor so when I want to scout for information I enjoy writing about (or have some sort of interest in like computers / gaming / animation), I usually always look for a portal and then click any articles listed that seem to pop to me. I think having the schools organized at the top level, as you said, would give Wikiversity the organization one would expect when going to website dedicated to learning. Depending on the scope of the project in the future, it may give the website greater control over organization as well.
  1. So considering your first point, I agree that Engineering and Mathematics should be top level. From the perspective of an Engineering / Mathematics student, I would first look at the highest level of organization to search for information I need. Mathematics is such a huge field, it should definitely be its own school. Engineering also has a multitude of other specialties.
  2. Considering the circumstances now, I think it is difficult for me to decide whether or not those social sciences should be combined. The first things I think of when I search for things in something called Wikiversity is more of a College structure. Social / Behavioral Sciences would be things like Psychology / Neuroscience etc. Humanities / Liberal Arts would hold the categories of Language / Anthropology / Maybe even History. For Wikipedia, I would think of a library or some sort of catalog.
  3. As for the template and layout, that definitely makes sense. It really helps to understand it coming from Wikipedia as well, so it's not like a completely new website where I would have trouble navigating about. But Chemistry has all sorts of specialties like Physical, Organic, Inorganic, Biochemistry etc. So would those specifics have their own Portal within the Schools? Or would they branch out under the Portal:Chemistry? To me I feel like it could work either way, but again the sense of College still comes into mind. So I would probably look for the specialties branching out from Portal:Chemistry.
Let me know what you think, thanks! @Dave Braunschweig: Heartwarming (discusscontribs) 17:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at Portal:Agriculture as a template for new portals. Is there anything else you would want or expect to find in a subject portal? Any changes you would make to the existing layout? Otherwise, I'll work on a template that can be used to generate a similar layout for other subjects. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it has everything I would expect. Nice layout as well, it's organized nicely. The only change I would make, just for aesthetics, is probably have a text box for the introduction under the tabs just like the other text areas. Also, Happy New Year! @Dave Braunschweig: Heartwarming (discusscontribs) 02:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)