Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/December 2012

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Events Template and Project Boxes

I've been looking at Help:Resources_by_type and trying to figure out what happened to the {{Events}} template. It appears that it was originally designed to be a calendar icon, but was then perhaps deleted and replaced with something entirely different having to do with actual event details rather than a resource type.

No one who made the major changes appears to be a current user, but the original creators User:Darklama and User:McCormack are here, as is User:Jtneill, who apparently updated the template with content from the equivalent Wikipedia template.

Since there's no discussion on the template itself, I wanted to ask here (since I didn't know a better way to get input from all three knowledgeable experts) what the history is behind this template, and if it should be removed from Help:Resources_by_type or if it should be returned to its original intent as a resource type. Almost all uses of the template appear to be as a resource type.

But, this also leads me to a bigger question. What is the current collective view regarding project boxes (education level, completion status, resource type, subject, language)? Were these a fad from 2008 that was very popular then but not used much since, or are they still a recommended best practice because they do indeed help with the organization of Wikiversity content?

I'm not trying to stir up a big debate, but rather just want to understand the history and current status of both this template in particular and project boxes in general. I'd like to clean up the Event template one way or the other, as it currently seems caught between two different worlds of usage.


-- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I decided that having the {{Event}} template match the Wikipedia template as it does now is probably the best approach. So I retrieved the old {{Event}} code and pasted it into a new {{Cal}} (short for Calendar) template. I updated the few pages that used {{Event}} in the old context so that they now use {{Cal}} instead and updated Help:Resources_by_type to match. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


Also, I think portals should be exclusive to wikiversity since it is the learning resource (or its own userspace, which is too much to ask for or unfeasible). Having portals on many wikis seems like overdo: too many interwiki pages doing the same purpose from many wikis, then too much similar copy and editing to keep information synchronized among wikis. I'm not asking for action on this idea, since it is far fetched.

--Sidelight12 Talk 11:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect template, conditional interwiki

Is there a way to automatically make the links direct in order of first wikiversity availability, second wikipedia, without having to do it manually. Once the wikiversity page is made, the link won't have to be changed. Letting w: or v: be an override. Or a way to make a template for this to be used per page or per link.

It looks like it would be possible to create a template that could do this. See I'm willing to try to develop a template like this if it doesn't exist already. Are there suggestions for the template name? -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"Ifnov", "wif" or anything short and to the point. Its up to you. Thanks for the respond. Sidelight12 Talk 15:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at User:Dave_Braunschweig/Sandbox. I'm temporarily using the Template:Sandbox template for testing. I've got one link displayed that exists on Wikiversity and one link displayed that doesn't. Is this all it needs to do? I'm inclined to name it Link-w, because it generates either a normal link or a w: link. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
That's good for inline, and that's its purpose. If possible a green color instead of w: for wikipedia use in paragraphs. Anything two letters 'lw' 'iw' '-w' or 'ifw' for inline to make it short for repeated manual entry. Once the resource becomes available the wikiversity link will automatically become available.
'Link-w' is good if its per page, or even whole wikiversity (except userspaces). Then [[ ]] without namespace links to wikipedia as green (whether the article exists or not there) instead of redlinking. (Checking the link may be too much on server resources) w: or v: overrides it. This may add an extra step to creating a page, but it saves way more problems than that. Sidelight12 Talk 02:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been reviewing w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking and w:Help:Link_color and I'm not finding any consensus support for using green inter-wiki links. The Wikipedia sister links I've seen are blue, and include the letter prefix to let the user know where the link directs to. I created a template Template:Lw and included the code Sidelight12 added that hides the w:, but I have to say I'm not in favor of this approach. I just included it because I figured Sidelight12 would add it again anyway. I personally would prefer to see more discussion and consensus on whether inter-wiki links should appear as native links or whether they should indicate the destination wiki if it isn't Wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
That will work. I didn't realize the shades of blue were different for wiki-links. The one without the w: was for w:paragraph insertion to not disrupt reading flow (example). It wouldn't hurt to have two w:templates one with the w: if that's what you prefer, and reasonable for lists. Thank you for your helpfulness. Sidelight12 Talk 03:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

NEW COURSE! ENG 099 Conversational American English for EFL/ESL Students!

On the evening of Monday, December 21st, I'll be starting ENG 099 Conversational American English MOOC and the MOOC's official Wiki will be here on Wikiversity! Students looking to join, please help out here! (EFL/ESL teachers are also welcome if they'd like to contribute! --Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP classroom project pages for import

I've been alerted to a discussion at Wikipedia regarding a series of new articles created as part of a class project that do not appear to be within the scope there. See: w:User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Curious_about_some_new_articles. The pages look similar to our The Crafting Freedom Project and I've suggested that we would be interested in importing any articles that are in danger of deletion. They would probably require some organization before they could be useful as a learning resource. --mikeu talk 19:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a long discussion at W:en:Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Student_papers_in_mainspace_-_is_that_really_a_good_idea.3F which has emerged from the Wikipedia Education Program about some of the problems they have encountered. I feel we should encourage their involvement on Wikiversity. Leutha (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Some requests are posted in the wrong place. Please do a search for where your comments and suggestions fit. School:Electronics, Wikiversity:Import, Sustainability. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep institutions separate from general topics. I think organizations and government agencies should get their page under the School: user-space, then link to projects, since many pages associate a general topic only with the organization. School: can include combined or individual pages for activities, assignments, colleges, government agencies (nasa, agriculture department, health departments, accreditation departments), quizzes, institutions, and collaborative teacher pages. Then let the user page be where they have their own page, if they'd like. This way the School user-space doesn't overlap with the Topic user-space. General subjects are not specific to any organization or agency. This is a Wikiversity wide topic, so I brought it up here. Sidelight12 Talk 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Resources last modified in December 2012

I started this category four days ago and am finding resources being listed that have been last modified in months before December, but not yet in December. Does anyone know how to fix this? --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's due to the presence of certain templates, such as {{0%done}}, which automatically put the page in the category for the current month. That's really a daft idea, and I'd be happy to amend the templates if others agree.--Collingwood (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. Let me know if there's some way I can help. --Marshallsumter (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Me too!Leutha (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree - worth changing. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've isolated the problem to template StubDateSort and deactivated the template.[1] Please let me know if there are any further problems.--Collingwood (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a couple of examples of the problem that still exists:
  1. the resource Astrophysics was last modified in September 2012, is listed in that category but also in the one for December,
  2. the resource Classical planets was modified in October 2012 and is listed also in December,
  3. Blue astronomy was last modified in November 2012 according to its history yet the bottom of the page shows "This page was last modified on 13 December 2012, at 14:04." and it's in the December 2012 category. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see an obvious explanation. Can you please try taking out all the templates and seeing if that solves the problem. If so, put them back one at a time to isolate which one is responsible. Of course, it could be more than one of them.--Collingwood (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Found it! I inadvertently caused this myself by adding an "External links" section on "Template:Principles of radiation astronomy" which included the category to indicate the last month the template was modified. This apparently transferred the Category to every resource that included the Template. So apparently Template modifications cannot be included in "Resources last modified in ...". --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It can be done, using the "noinclude" and "includeonly" parameters, but I don't think templates should be in such categories.--Collingwood (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Living self-sufficiency in London

I am interested in learning to grow my own food, milk my own cows, weave my own cloth, build my own shelter, produce everything I need and use everything I produce in Bush Farm, Fryent Country Park, Kingsbury, London, NW9, UK. I would be grateful if someone can advise me on how I can do that.--Karanodakasayi (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

well, you need soil and seeds first.--Juandev (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nearly complete resources

Does anyone know why the Category:Nearly complete resources has a __HIDDENCAT__ in it? This is the category behind the Template:75%done template. The other templates (0%, 25%, 100%) are all visible, but for some reason 75% is hidden. Would it be okay to remove __HIDDENCAT__ from this category? -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know. See the history and ask originator.--Juandev (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked on the originator's Discuss page. No response. So I've removed __HIDDENCAT__ from this category. If anyone objects, they can revert it back. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


How a small transistor can do a lot of work? what is the content of it? R.vigneshr (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know. Have you red Wikipedia? Juandev (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Electrons don't take up much room while traveling at high speed Brett Johnston (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Research Project: All of the ways that corporations have hampered or killed great innovation for the sake of profit

Hi Wikiversity friends,

I would like to start a research project/wiki that would endlessly list all of the ways that corporations have hampered or killed great innovation, ideas and breakthroughs in fields from technology to medicine to education. etc. for the sake of profit. I am new to Wikiversity, but I imagine that this would be the environment to begin crowdsourcing this kind of research. 1. Are there others who would be interested in working on a research project like this? 2. Does anyone know if such a blog or wiki exists? 3. <--- Here is the page --K

-- 10:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think this needs a different perspective. There are different corporations with different agendas. Companies and individuals can also get ahead by breaking the stalemate of suppressing breakthroughs, that others may impose. It can also include how corporations have innovated or pushed technology. (Apple: pushing innovating and pushing technology). Sometimes this comes at a cost (businesses at risk of going under), or lack of effort. Organizations and government agencies can be on either side of this. Digitizing the patent process, of making it easier for originators of work to be credited and compensated, and easier for their work to be used. Open source as a way of advancing innovation also is a subject that fits here. Sidelight12 Talk 15:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think your aim is a bit to broad. Perhaps if you start looking at one or two case studies which deals with the How? question, providing referenced sources and an analysis that might prove ore interesting than an endless list - particularly if that list is not referenced. Leutha (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a no-brainer, this is a well researched topic. In management studies it is already noted that innovation is commonly switched to only incremental product improvements. For law this is commonly discussed for patent trolling, morality, and thousands of other civil and criminal matters. Academics under study has revealed excessive manipulation from the private and public sector as part of an ongoing drama. Many other studies complete a fuller picture of all human activity: counter-intuitive results, cause and effect, business intelligence, the cons of marketing, crime, and thousands of other factors that are known to be detrimental factors caused by business posturing and activity. Just starting with known convictions would be enough to fill volumes! Brett Johnston (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Colloquium image

I just chanced to look at the discussion about the Colloquium image (above) on the talk page and it made me wonder how appropriate it is. On the one hand it features an image of a particular discussion amongst a certain religion - in this case protestants at the Marburg Colloquy- and also it does not just feature an image of solely men, but is an image of an event in which that only men could participate. The question I would ask is this: is such an image a useful representation of our community. Are there any alternative images which might be more suitable? Leutha (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with Leutha. Also, the image at the top of the home page depicts just three men. We need to depict as much diversity as possible. The trick is to find a suitable image that is PD or CC.--Collingwood (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I also agree with both of the above. And, I will start looking for a couple. --Marshallsumter (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add to gallery

I found several images on Commons, but none of them are really striking. However they are all wikimedia events! Leutha (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm new here so I hope that I'm not out of line or editing this wrongly. Leutha, I can't conceive of a better image than a bunch of Wiki type folk to illustrate a Wiki Colloquium. Who better? Scritterz (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)