Wikiversity:Colloquium

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Marburger-Religionsgespräch.jpg
Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles.
Sign your posts with   ~~~~
Welcome

Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking a question, you can find some general information at:

Shortcut:
WV:C

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = "http://en.wikiversity.org"; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

"Education [...] is a process of living and not a preparation for future living." — John Dewey (discuss)


Draft: namespace[edit]

What is the Draft: namespace for on this wiki? Where is it documented, and what are the criteria for moving a page from draft to mainspace?

I ask because of this discussion on Wikidata, where the policy of linking to Wikiversity draft pages is being reviewed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The relevant discussion is here: Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16#Draft_namespace with some more here: Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/May_2018#Bot_moved_lots_of_content_pages_to_draft_namespace?_OK?_Good?_Not_helpful?. As far as a policy, I don't think we've done much to document that. Whatever you can glean from those two conversations is probably all there is. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
To put a finer point on it, Wikiversity:Namespaces doesn't even mention it (other than in a table). Another discussion is here: Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/Archive/21#A_candidate_for_our_first_use_of_draft_space. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we should try to document some best practices, at the very least. FWIW, my input to the creation of a draft namespace discussion was based on the understanding that the draft space would be used similar to WP to review resources before publication. As I noted at wikidata I don't think that en-wv should be treated differently from sister projects which do not get links to draft space resources. I encourage all interested parties to contribute to the wikidata discussion. --mikeu talk 20:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment above. Just wanted to mention that Draft: ns on WP is entirely voluntary, not mandatory as here. I requested peer review by academics offsite of some of my lectures and received Nada. Peer review on a site this small is unworkable, plus peer review for lectures or courses is requested and needed to receive accreditation which we're not allowed to have. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Another discussion occurred here Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion#Draft_ns_discussion. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Three comments from Guy vandegrift: (1) I share mikeu's view that all resources should start in draft space and be moved to mainspace only after a proper review. (2) I also agree that we need to discuss how to accomplish this because a current policy is effectively nonexistent. (3) Here is my proposal: Instead of getting into another chaotic debate/discussion, let us instead break up into small groups of like-minded people to create a collection of coherent proposals. I believe the best path for Wikiversity is to diverge from the other wikis in some way. We don't need to be like Wikipedia or Wikibooks because those entities already exist. I propose something that resembles our Wikijournals because they have obtained some degree of success. For those of us who supported draft space in the first place, we need to find a mechanism by which decisions can be reached in a reasonable amount of time. Finding such a mechanism is no easy task. In the spirit of dividing ourselves into small "think tanks" of like minded philosophers, I suggest these discussions take place in userspace, with the user serving as a moderator. For my group I nominate three people: My first choice is mikeu. My second choice is User:Dave Braunschweig. My third choice is a tie between myself and anybody affiliated with the WikiJournal User Group who might be interested.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I support this suggestion as a preliminary effort and look forward to reading your thoughts and also Dave's. I'm not familiar with who is active at WikiJournal, so I can't recommend another nominee. But, I'd like to see a broad range of contributions and welcome recommendations. I'll draft something over the weekend in my userspace. To prevent another "chaotic debate/discussion" I intend on adopting the convention that is defined at Wikiversity:Community_Review_Policy#Recent_amendments_to_this_policy in my userspace discussion, namely: "Have statements by individual contributors about the topic, under their own headings, not to exceed 700 words." {emphasis added, not in the original) I feel that this step is necessary to prevent the discussion from becoming unwieldy. --mikeu talk 16:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Everyone is invited to express an opinion at this preliminary discussion. --~~mikeu
Whatever we do needs to be consistent with the Wikiversity:Mission, including the note about empowering and engaging people. It also needs to be sustainable. Review of every resource may be desirable, but may not be practical. There's also currently a technical problem with Draft: space in that the VisualEditor is not enabled there. That prevents new users from being able to easily contribute to draft resources. For me, that needs to be addressed before we can go further. I'll start a separate discussion for voting so we can create a Phabricator request and get it updated. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to repeat here a comment that I made at wikidata: "However, the local community can't conduct an informed discussion if we are unclear about wikidata notability policy. We are asking for clarification on the issue of wikidata linking to our draft namespace pages." A great deal of my thinking on these topics is dependent on the outcome of the decision there. I can't really articulate a suggested course of local practice until I know more about how the cross-wiki link policy will be implemented. --mikeu talk 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
My current effort is at Special:Permalink/1995046#Quality_control_on_Wikiversity_in_280_words. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

VisualEditor Active Namespaces[edit]

According to mw:Extension:VisualEditor#Changing_active_namespaces, the VisualEditor is only active in the "Main", "User", "File" and "Category" namespaces. Our full list of namespaces is:

  • main / Talk
  • User / User talk
  • Wikiversity / Wikiversity talk
  • File / File talk
  • MediaWiki / MediaWiki talk
  • Template / Template talk
  • Help / Help talk
  • Category / Category talk
  • School / School talk
  • Portal / Portal talk
  • Topic / Topic talk
  • Collection / Collection talk
  • Draft / Draft talk
  • Module / Module talk
  • Gadget / Gadget talk
  • Gadget definition / Gadget definition talk

I recommend that we enable VisualEditor for the following namespaces:

  • main
  • User
  • Wikiversity
  • File
  • Help
  • Category
  • School
  • Portal
  • Draft

This change requires a configuration change (not available in MediaWiki:) and therefore community support and a Phabricator request. Please indicate your support or lack thereof below.

Discussion[edit]

  • Enabling VisualEditor on the Wikiversity, Help, School, Portal, and Draft namespaces would make it easier for new editors to contribute to these resources. For me, enabling VisualEditor on the Draft namespace is a requirement for moving forward on other Draft proposals. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually no longer use the VisualEditor, too cumbersome. Which works best for mobile phones? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • See mw:VisualEditor on mobile. "best" is a user decision. We have to enable the feature in order for users to have the choice. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the ref. According to this mobile users get wikitext by default yet save more edits using VisualEditor. But overall, users take longer to save on either platform when using the visual editor. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
      • If I'm understanding the MediaWiki extension description correctly, "By default, MediaWiki-VisualEditor does not enable itself for users. To make it available, add the following lines to your wiki's LocalSettings.php after you have downloaded the extension:" we or Dave can already make VE available. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
        • This isn't a discussion about enabling the VisualEditor, and none of us have access to .php settings. The discussion is which namespaces will permit use of the VisualEditor if a user wants it, and whether we file a Phabricator request for changes. By default, the supported namespaces are "Main", "User", "File" and "Category". This discussion is regarding whether to extend that capability to Wikiversity, Help, School, Portal, and Draft. To not extend it means discouraging users who prefer the VisualEditor from contributing to those namespaces. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
        • In response to comments under voting, community consensus is required for configuration changes. See meta:Requesting wiki configuration changes. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - As proposer -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Seems like a reasonable proposal. --mikeu talk 04:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Yes, please do it. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I found what and why your asking though I don't see the need to request a consensus. I still tentatively oppose until VE works better for now. I'm not sure activating these is helpful since wikitext already works everywhere. From the March report, perhaps we should revisit this again in a month. The problem of the longer save edit time is why I stopped using VE. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
See my last comment above! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Outcome[edit]

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April[edit]

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request[edit]

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Drafts...[edit]

... should have first a place on portals, then reaching madurity in the categorical-tree.

--Cloud forest (discusscontribs) 09:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The world of templates[edit]

{{Life-Tree Project}}

Frohe Ostern! Felices pascuas! --Cloud forest (discusscontribs) 07:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Space between title and content[edit]

As I noted some time ago, for some reason the space or margin between the title and the content is gone. After some investigation, I found out that the cause seems to be the CSS in MediaWiki:Common.css/Wikipedia.css because when I comment it out from MediaWiki:Common.css and preview the changes, the space seems to be back. However, for some unknown reason, if I go into MediaWiki:Common.css/Wikipedia.css, delete all the content and preview the changes, the space is not back!!! So I'm not quite sure what part of the CSS causes the issue, but I'm pretty certain that it's there. Perhaps someone with more skills than me can figure it out? Thanks! Felipe (discusscontribs) 12:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia (English) As Textbooks of Wikiversity - cannot be used in local[edit]

Report a case: Currently, Wikipedia as the main teaching Textbooks for Wikiversity and some local practices, in a local - an opening city of China - Dalian, cannot be used again - since 23rd April, 2019. Voices from certain channel said: It's disordered by the DNS pollution of certain organization. Is it true? What is DNS pollution? Why did it happen? How to solve it? Specific teachers and contributors working hard in their own subjects were concerning about those questions, especially the last - waiting for the solution. Hopefully, it can get over soon... Jason M. C., Han (discusscontribs) 12:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2[edit]


The six questions are listed below. Please comment under each section and share your perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of the proposed product direction?[edit]

Context: The Wikimedia Foundation proposes building a new, clearer design on top of existing wikitext talk pages. It will offer simpler tools for replying, indentation and signatures. You could continue to use wikitext on talk pages, if you prefer that. It should also be possible to participate in a discussion without using wikitext.

Question: What do you think of this product direction?

Marking separate discussions[edit]

Context: People want to watch individual sections on the talk page. They want better notifications, archiving, and search. To do any of this, we may need to create a more structured definition of what counts as a single discussion. This may mean making changes to the wikitext conventions on a talk page. For example, we may create a new way that discussion headings look in wikitext, or a new link that you need to use to create, rename or split a thread.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach?

Helping newcomers find the talk pages[edit]

Context: Newcomers have difficulty finding talk pages. During user tests, only one person out of ten found the <tvar|Talk1>Template:Int</> tab. Most testers looked for a <tvar|Talk2>Template:Int</> tab on the opposite side of the page, where all of the other tabs and links are. Many people also expected to see links to discussions about specific sections in the article. We may want to move the link to the talk page to the opposite side of the article page. We might add discussion functionality connected to individual sections.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of making the connection between article content and discussions more visible?

Where to show discussion tools[edit]

Context: Currently, many wikis have community discussion spaces in the project namespace (<tvar|ns4>Wikiversity</> or Wikipedia:), rather than in a talk namespace (<tvar|ns5>Wikiversity talk</> or Wikipedia talk:). The project namespace is often used for village pumps/cafés, noticeboards, and some workflows, such as Articles for deletion. The system will need to know where discussions happen, so that it can display the new tools in those discussions, and not display them on other pages. There are several potential ways to do this. One of them is to move all discussions to a talk namespace.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?

History tradeoffs[edit]

Context: Sometimes, you need to see the history of the entire page. Other times, it would be more helpful to see the history of only a single discussion thread. It would be ideal if we could provide both, but we're not sure how to do that.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a complete page history or a specific thread history?

Metadata location[edit]

Context: Some wikis place templates at the top of article talk pages. These may show instructions, warnings, or FAQs. They may hold page quality information, link to relevant WikiProjects, or identify past activities. Many new users are confused by finding non-discussion material at the top of an article talk page. It would be helpful to move some or all of that content somewhere else on the page, or under a different tab.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? Which templates are crucial for the proper use of a discussion page, and which could be moved somewhere else?

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project[edit]

I suspect that most users on Wikiversity have already seen this Proposal for WikiJournals as a new sister project, however for those that haven't, please see the current discussion and support/oppose/comment. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Cite journal template and PubMed Central (PMC)[edit]

I am editing a WikiJournal of Medicine (WikiJMed) article submission (preprint) - Dyslexia - and it seems that the cite journal template, {{cite journal}}, is creating (rendering) the incorrect URL for PubMed Central (PMC) articles.

For example:

<ref name="Lancet2012">{{cite journal|last1=Peterson |first1=Robin L. |last2=Pennington |first2=Bruce F. |title=Developmental dyslexia |journal=Lancet |volume=379 |issue=9830 |pages=1997–2007 |date=May 2012 |pmid=22513218 |pmc=3465717 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60198-6 |url=}}</ref>

The "pmc=3465717" should produce this URL:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3465717/


The following URL will also work, although it is 10 years out-of-date:α

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=3465717


Instead, the cite journal template produces:

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=3465717


which resolves to a 404 page. ("This site cannot be reached.")


The domain name alone ( http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/ ) also does not work.


Am I missing anything or is the template not working correctly?

Thanks!


Footnote

α. Fogelman, Maria, "PubMed Central® (PMC) — New URL Format", NLM Technical Bullentin, no. 371 (November–December 2009): e12. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/nd09/nd09_pmc_urls.html

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE - Apparently there is a problem with the core citation template. Please see Template talk:Citation/core.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

projects[edit]

What are examples of mathematical projects which have worn during fairs in the past? --Nonofo jautse (discusscontribs) 18:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment on my proposal: Lessen rules about external references[edit]

I've put Proposal: Lessen rules about external references.

Please comment on this proposal

--VictorPorton (discusscontribs) 18:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)