Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/March 2024

mediawiki2latex

Hi, mediawiki2latex exports Wikiversity to Pdf, Epub, Odt and LaTeX. I suggest to add a new link to the tools in the in the section Tools. You may try this out yourself just now by copying User:Dirk_Hünniger/common.js to common.js in your user namespace or by using the link above. I did a very similar proposal five three years ago, but some work has been done on mediawiki2latex, so I propose it again. Yours Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the educational perspective the export feature of Wiki Book Creator makes a lot of sense, because teachers can create a tailored Wiki Book for each student, matching requirements and constraints of the learner. E.g. to support in more detail in specific topics and give more advanced learning activities in others. Technically the Wiki Book Creator had already the feature years ago, so the mediawiki2latex makes that usable again for the community. Maybe it make sense for other teachers as well. Thank you, Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 07:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right Wiki Book Creator had these features before. But for many years Wiki Book Creator has disabled any possibilities to download books in any downloadable format. In Wiki Book Creator it is today only possible to order printed copies for a fee. In mediawiki2latex you can still download PDF, EPUB, LaTeX and Odt for free. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we allow custodians to use mass-delete?

At special:permalink/2609683#Does_anybody_know_how_to_delete_all_pages_by_a_single_user?, there was a related discussion about this matter. I'm bringing this agenda here for the community's attention. As can be seen at Special:ListGroupRights, only bureaucrats are allowed to use mass-delete under current settings, but many Wikimedia projects allow this to admins (equal to our custodians). Global sysops can also use mass-delete. What does our community think about this? Should we keep the current settings, or should we grant mass-delete to our custodians as a new standard? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore Sounds like a good idea to me - I can see value in Special:Nuke being available to custodians on en.wv. Consider starting a proposal at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a proposal at Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship#Proposal_to_allow_custodians_to_use_mass-delete per suggestion. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Integrating University Knowledge into Wikipedia

Hello! I share with you this proposal, it is still not very mature, I would appreciate ideas and suggestions to carry it out. Any opinion is welcome. Thanks

The aim of this proposal is to compile and share all academic content from universities on Wikipedia. This involves adding the syllabi of all subjects from all university degrees to the platform, providing free and open access to university knowledge for anyone or any artificial intelligence.

Implementation:

1. Acquisition and Digitalization of Notes:

Students are encouraged to digitize their notes and publish them under the CC BY SA license for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Participation from students can be promoted through annual awards for the best notes in each degree, whether in the form of monetary incentives, meal vouchers, or transportation grants. It is crucial to avoid plagiarism and respect copyright.
Collaboration with student delegations and the involvement of professors in this task are encouraged.

2. Uploading Content to Wikimedia Commons:

Students can upload their notes to the Wikimedia Commons repository with their full name, which enhances their visibility on Google and improves their curriculum vitae.

3. Distribution of Content on Wikipedia:

The notes are reviewed and understood, and the information is distributed across related Wikipedia articles.
To achieve this, two options can be considered:

Hiring specialized editors.
Requesting the collaboration of Wikipedia volunteers, possibly establishing a Wikiproject dedicated to organizing tasks and coordinating content contributions.

This proposal aims to enrich Wikipedia's content with verified and accessible academic knowledge, benefiting students, researchers, and learning enthusiasts worldwide.

In commons there are already uploaded notes for several subjects, see Lecture Notes Uni4all (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to start small. Go on Wikiversity and start a small project. Focus on quality versus volume. We are a community that shares your goals, but we live in a much larger and more diverse world that is not ready for your plan.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO to my knowledge, lecture notes could simply be added to this wiki. If there is a better way to think about that please LMK. Bless up! Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive namespace?

What about an Archive namespace? ... Its not exactly for drafts... but this could be utilized to sort of wall off Creative Commons content created in good faith from the main namespace that might otherwise be deleted? Or maybe Draft can serve this function, if such a function is desired? bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you already know about an informal version of this I started a few weeks ago at Draft:Archive.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that until today. That is awesome!! thanks and limitless peace! now I know! thanks. Bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 08:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Ten: I hate to bother you about this, but now that you know about Draft:Archive, I presume you are willing to change your vote so that WikiService and be moved to Draft:Archive/2024/WikiService. You can change your vote at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Voting_on_WikiService simply by deleting and rewriting. Equivalently, you can affirm right here that we should move WikiService to Draft:Archive/2024/WikiService, and I will report that affirmation and close the discussion over there. The page has had no significant edits since 2008, and the significant authors have been dormant for a decade (BTW I am OK with deleting something this old.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age and dormant are not deletion criteria per WV:Deletions. A valuable page can be dormant and that is fine per WV:Deletions, unless I have overlooked something. The problem with the page is that it is worthless and will not help readers learn anything; if the page were excellent since 2008 and without further changes, it would be kept. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem with the page is that it is worthless and will not help readers learn anything [...]" I ultimately consider this a subjective value judgement if content (on this wiki that relates to learning, teaching, and/or research) was likely created in good faith and is not spam. Hence I think the proposal modification i noted here (Wikiversity:Colloquium#Expanding_WV:Deletions_with_Moving_to_Draft_archive) may be fruitful. I think "One man's trash is another man's treasure" quite much applies to Creative Commons educational content created in good faith. Suggested Google search which might have some relevant content (as food for thought) in the 3.8 million results I see per Google is as follows, "subjective value educational content site:.edu" (without quotes). Regardless, I appreciate your constructive good faith contributions and perspectives! bless up! Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Draftify

I created Template:Draftify today. Does a template like this already exist? I applied this template to Metadata. bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template should be deleted. Instead, I propose an alternative in #Expanding WV:Deletions with Moving to Draft archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding WV:Deletions with Moving to Draft archive

I propose to expand WV:Deletion with the following:

"==Moving to Draft archive==

"A page that meets the criteria for deletion can be moved to Draft:Archive instead, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, etc. Rationale: The database storage is not saved by deletion and there is generally no harm in being kind to those who hone their writing and wiki editing skills in Wikiversity."

This matches the practice launched recently by Guy Vandegrift.

This presupposes there will be consensus for this practice.

As a result, we may still use speedy delete and/or rfd process, and handle pages by moving them rather than deleting them. By contrast, this template Draftify introduces a new implied process with unclear rules for what can be moved to Draft space.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky and Michael Ten: As I understand it, the plan is to have three options: Delete, Draftspace, or Draft:Archive. If we have three templates, the person who selects the template will have made a de facto vote on the question. This could speed up the voting process.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My questions would be these: do you agree with the wording I proposed above? Do you agree that the wording matches the recent practice concerning Draft:Archive or do you think changes need to be made to the wording I proposed? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proposing this, and this seems quite fruitful. I suggested the following amendment or something to this effect (this is just a suggestion and open to constructive changes, unless what you originally proposed is most ideal unmodified).

"==Moving to Draft archive==

"A page that meets the criteria for deletion from the main resource namespace that was most likely created in good faith and is not blatant spam should be moved to the "Draft:" namespace instead of being deleted, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, spam, and/or so forth. The rational for this is as follows. Not deleting Creating Commons Content created in good faith is fruitful to the Creative Commons as a whole, database storage is not reduced by deleting content, and there is generally no harm moving good faith content to the Draft: namespace. Additionally, whether someone created good faith Creative Commons content (related to teaching, learning, or research) to hone their writing and wiki editing skills, simply to plant the seed of an idea for others to build off of later, or so forth, moving such content to the "Draft:" namespace can give others an opportunity to develop the content later, use the content as food for thought that might spark new, useful, or novel ideas, and/or possibly another creative fruitful intellectual processes related to Creative Commons content creation not described here.

Bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped we can agree on something simple, brief and to the point rather than get sidetracked into a discussion about one rationale or the other. And I do not see any substantive defect in my proposal that the above solves. Oh well. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to choose between the two versions, I would go with the one by User:Dan Polansky. But I have great respect for the judgement and vision for Wikiversity expressed by User:Michael Ten. Also, Dan is fully aware of my personal distaste for the chaotic nature of discussions on all WMF wikis. For that reason, I copied both Dan's and Michael's proposals to Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024, and refuse to further discuss it on this insanely long Colloquium page. Please go to Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024 and lets see if we can work this out!--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits were made. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ADeletions&diff=2611619&oldid=2605804 Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Jtneill took out some of my sarcasm, which is a good thing to do. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to become paid editor?

Many of them edit wikiversity.But is it possible to earn money by editing ? Musesscab (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that I will move this thread once my response is posted. We don't have a local policy page about being a paid editor, but see w:en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which references the Wikimedia Foundation's requirements. So that is how to comply with being a paid editor, but how you could logistically make money editing Wikiversity is an open question. Frankly, I don't think you can. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Musesscab: I moved this from Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making a Discrete Math course + how can I clean up the math portal?

Hi all, I'm considering creating a course on discrete mathematics. I see in the math portal (https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics) that there are a number of sub-topics related to discrete math, but none of them is really a course on discrete math, as in a unified and sequential presentation like one would get in a university course or textbook on the subject.

I tried digging through the source code to see how things are organized and I got kind of lost in a forest of links and imported content. I never managed to actually figure out where all the data comes from to make the table of contents. So I am not clear about how one should go about inserting a new course in the table.

Moreover, a lot of the stuff that's currently in the table of contents looks kind of disorganized. I'm not sure if it is intended that single isolated topics would have a whole page dedicated to them -- if not, should they somehow be placed under some kind of larger category? I'd do it myself, but as noted, I don't see how the organization is built from the source.

To give a few specific examples: (1) Group theory is under discrete math but that seems like it should get its own high-level category, at least parallel with things like "Geometry". (2) Under "Applied mathematics" is "Functional analysis" which seems more than a little wrong (not that Functional Analysis can't be "applied", but it is very far from what one would typically call "applied".). (3) If anyone wanted to just learn "Discrete mathematics" it's not clear where in that category they should go or start. Clicking on some things doesn't even really take you to a page but a list of sub-topics, where again one would be naturally confused as to where to start.

So I don't know if there is a page that I haven't found which would explain this, or if anyone can explain to me how to reorganize the page, or if anyone has other ideas about how to make progress there. Or, the least effort solution, maybe someone can just make a discrete math course page in whatever way they think is best and then I can fill it in?

Anyway, I don't want to be a bother but I do look forward to contributing, if anyone would be willing to clear this up! Thanks.

Addemf (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikiversity! I never dealt with the math portal, but looked at it and made two observations: (1) The portal averages an astonishing 3,000 pageviews per month, and (2) it hasn't been edited since June 2021. So improving it should be a high priority.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just develop the course in userspace from scratch and then worry about where to put it rather than try to refurbish the existing content like Introductory Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science, which is a bit of a mess and includes dead links. It's somewhat a pet peeve of mine when course material belabors simple points but covers more complicated things only superficially. For instance, why have separate pages for AND, OR, etc, but just a single video (whose link is apparently now dead) about "Proving Programs Correct"? Anyone who's cut out for computer science or math will grasp AND, OR, etc. pretty quickly after glancing at their truth tables and can probably move right along to covering the remainder of propositional logic and working out some exercises. Conversely, most undergrads are probably not going to come away really understanding things like Cantor's diagonal argument or how to apply Floyd–Hoare logic unless significant time is spent on those subjects. A decent discrete math course should spend a good chunk of time on logic (starting with the grammar), sets, proofs, induction, etc and provide a thorough set of exercises. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 06:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree: Userspace is for individual efforts and draftspace is for collaborative efforts. Perhaps we need to modify {{Welcome}} to emphasize this fact. An exception might be made for individuals working solo on a project, but wish to seek collaborators. Unfortunately, collaborative efforts are rare-to-nonexistent, unless a classroom instructor is assigning tasks for students to complete on Wikiversity. Seeing non-students to collaborate on a project seems like an unlikely dream.... Incidentally, I cannot ask someone to work in draft-space when we have a regulation stating that draft-space projects get deleted after being dormant for 60 days.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: @Addemf: It is best to get all your work under one top page: In my field, I do everything as a subpage to Physics (when I first came here it was Physics equations, which I used in the classroom.) That way, when it comes time to move your pages, they all can be moved together. There are so many nut-case pages under Physics that I created Physics/A, which is an unorthodox solution to the problem. Unfortunately, very few people on Wikiversity are trying to keep their efforts confined in this manner.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There are so many nut-case pages under Physics". Why not flag them for deletion? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent (though obvious) question! I have two reasons, both involve the same nut-case article:

Collapsed by author Guy vandegrift. The two reasons are bold-faced

Many years ago, I noticed a page that presented an alternate theory of General Relativity (GR), a theory that uses mathematics so complicated that most people with a Ph.D. in physics never encounter during their education. Keep in mind that this is not computer science, where old software becomes obsolete: Curvilinear coordinate systems are used to this day, not only in GR, but in plasma physics (where one of the coordinates follows the magnetic field line.) A Wikiversity article on GR attracted my attention because I used my knowledge of curvilinear coordinates to construct a "derivation" of GR that is only a weak field approximation. I couldn't understand it, but it looked OK (and thankfully wasn't the same as mine.) So the first reason for letting the nut-case pages stay is that (1) Wikiversity is not equipped to referee scientific journals. If you look it up, it turns out that the established scientific journals are not very good at refereeing scientific journals. My second reason for leaving the nut-cases alone, is that a Wikipedia editor contacted me about the same article on GR that I looked at. This editor told me that the GR article I looked at but did not understand was impossible. I was able to google this Wikiversity editor and learned that he had published one or two articles on weak-field GR, so I took their word for it and deleted the article. This caused a long discussion on RFD that finally got the page sent to the author's userspace... Then, about the time when Dave was semi-retiring from Wikiversity, I noticed the same page on Wikiversity. I put it up for RFD (I now realize that I should have unceremoniously deleted it.) The RFD has recently become so bogged down that only two people responded, namely the nut and I. So, I put it into Physics/Essays and went on to find easier tasks. So my second reason for not deleting it is (2) I gave up on trying to remove low quality pages (there are simply too many of them on WV.) I once read (but no longer believe) that most of the internet is devoted to porn. But except for the fact that porn might harm children, porn does not prevent the internet from being useful. We have search engines to find the good stuff. I do delete scientific articles that promote well-known fringe theories because like porn, they are potentially harmful. The bottom line is that I guess Wikiversity should be the place where anything goes. It's a place where students can write anything that is harmless. ~~Our~~ My job is to delete the harmful and separate the harmless from what may or may not (probably the latter) be useful.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. If you come across an article that you're sure is bogus you get rid of it (or at least move it to the author's userspace), right? A meaningful contribution to theoretical physics would presumably be a welcome submission in some or other traditional journal, so in any case the stakes seem quite low for theoretical physicists and anyone else doing legitimate work in the hard sciences. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AP295: I don't know whether to remove the cot/cob template or not. But to address (not answer) your question, I was only a participant in introduction of draftspace, and the practice of allowing low quality material to remain in namepage-subspace under titles like Student Projects and Physics/Essays. I was focused mostly on using Wikipedia to develop course materials. Now I find myself to be the only active custodian on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. I created What-goes-where 2024 and am waiting for a consensus to form regarding what the community wishes to do.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree, I think there's good stuff in that course that I don't want to disturb, but certainly dead links are always a bad thing. It's also not exactly how I'd design it, so I'm making my own.

I do think I have different sensibilities about things to focus on. There are a lot of very fast and technical "reference" books on discrete math and logic, so I don't think anything is really gained by making yet another one. At least I have nothing to contribute to that.

I do think there's value in developing the subject, in some sense, "out of necessity". First present a need for something, which a completely uninitiated student can understand the need for. For example, rather than jump into boolean operators, first present what use they have, and then develop the theory to fit the need.

That may mean that I emphasize some things, which a professional will think is trivial. But it is meant as an introduction to the uninitiated and not a reference. Addemf (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Addemf: The worst-case scenario is that you are a student learning to teach mathematics.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not about emphasis per se, just that one should give each topic the attention and detail it's due. Really just common sense, but more than once I've seen someone make hard work of presenting simple ideas yet omit detail and emphasis where they're needed. Consider also that most undergrads (at least in my limited experience) will quickly forget any non-trivial concept if it's just presented as a one-off. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 06:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
June-August 2024: Campaign period
End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on whether to allow pages in draftspace to remain indefinitely

See Wikiversity_talk:Drafts#policy_and_page_change_suggestion. I have been spending a great deal of time attempting to get consensus on deleting articles in mainspace. Your approval of this change in the policy regarding draftspace will make my life much easier. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I voted as input for consensus. This seems like it can be a win-win for all interested parties - clean up main namespace, and also preserve good faith content indefinitely in draft namespace until it can be developed enough to be in main-namespace, serves as component of future Creative Commons content, and/or be a catalyst of ideas for future good faith Creative Contributions in Draft namespace and/or main namespace. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support allowing pages in draftspace to remain indefinitely.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I created Should Wikiversity allow pages in Draft namespace to stay there indefinitely?, a format that I love. There is no voting there, only arguments/reasoning. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky: I had mixed feelings about Wikidebates, but perhaps that was because most debates don't interest me, either because I don't care or because I already made up my mind. But on this topic, I care and I am still a bit undecided. Now I see the value of the Wikidebate, and even added an "objection". Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More on the draftspace proposal

First, a heads-up on two other places this proposal is being discussed.

Also, I started a flowchart to think about, regardless of how this vote goes. The issue of draftspace is connected to userspace and deletions in general. The flowchart is one of many ways one might think about this problem: User:Mr. Foobar writes the page Foobar. If it is not deleted, it can be moved into either (1) subspace as Foobar Plus/Foobar, (2) userspace as User:Mr. Foobar/Foobar, or (3) draftspace as Draft:Foobar (suitable if there are multiple authors, such as User:Mrs Foobar as shown in the flowchart.) There is a compelling reason for creating a draft-archive space, with pages like Draft:Archive/Foobar. Unfortunately I forgot to document that reason and cannot recall it.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) n Status report: Counting the three polling places, I get the impression is that 4 lean towards the proposal to allow draft-space pages to remain indefinitely, while 2 lean against. I am happy to report that not one of these 6 seem to be stubbornly digging in to defend their positions. One of the 4 in favor openly admits that they are not qualified to have an opinion. I respect that: He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is the fool.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the flow chart in two ways: (1) A suggestion to include "soft-deletions" is included, and (2) draft-space items will be purged of incoming links, category statements and template use, but in a way that permits readers to see the unpurged version in the page's history. For more information, visit Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a nice chart design. What software or tool was used to create the chart? Is the chart still indicating that good faith Creative Commons contributions/creations that are in the draft namespace will remain there indefinitely as long as they relate to learning, teaching, research, and/or education (i.e. within the scope of this wiki)? limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two answers: (1) I used the free Inkscape download, (2) the chart makes no promises; it's a way to look at the problem and contemplate the options we have and what decisions we need to make. The image also explains why our RFD process is dysfunctional: We have too many options. I am constructing a place to discuss all this. People who participate in Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024 even get a free gift: For some reason pages with the "Wikiversity:" prefix don't offer visual editing. What-goes-where is under construction, but if you go there now you can create your own subpage where visual editing is allowed. I created a "Guest" page where people can try it out before they take the plunge and create that private subpage. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do with this proposal to allow draft-space articles to remain indefinitely?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 20 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 March 2024.
If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF), 00:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:Chart not operational - CSV2Chart

The template Template:Graph:Chart in Wikipedia and thus the template Template:Graph:Chart in Wikiversity is not operational at the moment. So it does not make sense to use CSV2Chart and Template:Graph:Chart in Wikiversity in Wikiversity under the current status. SVG files are also editable (e.g. with Open Source tools like Inkscape) for multi-language use of diagrams, so that diagrams can be used with SVG format in mathematical learning resources again. Hope that is a feasible workaround for the current status of the template Graph:Chart. Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the best thing we have and the best thing we will have for quite a while. See phab:T334940 and mw:Extension:Graph/Plans. This is a multi-year issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we keep the syntax of the graphs as they are (maybe wrapped as a comment) in the learning resource and temporarily use the SVG until the diagram problem is solved? Alternative could also be to add a parameter as "svgfallback" to the Graph template and in case of template maintenance or temporary deactivation the SVG fallback image is shown. Not sure if that is a better choice to fix, so that deactivation and activation of a template does not need authoring activities in the learning resources in Wikiversity and in Wikipedia at all? --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no perspective on that; I can just support whatever makes sense to others. I just wanted to give the context that this will not be resolved any time soon. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added SVG export feature to CSV2Chart WebApp. CSV2Chart was initially created to generate Graph:Chart diagrams from CSV data for wikiversity learning resources. Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia templates using the graph extension show some kind of warning box that the function is disabled. It would be good to have a similar warning box in the English Wikiversity as well. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done post-importing {{Graphs disabled}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have no effect on e.g. COVID-19/All-cause deaths/Albania, where I would expect warning boxes to show up in the places where graphs should be. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry--you are looking for something inline that displays with the content of the article? There is an equivalent at en.wp f

that as well.r —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is this: in W: COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#Statistics, there is an information box stating "Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org." And that box seems to be generated by a template that would plot the graph if the extension were functional. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded Template:Graph:Chart with a notice that graphs are disabled; the notice now appears e.g. in COVID-19/All-cause deaths/Albania. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something of an aside, I am using Python's matplotlib plotting library instead of the Graph extension, creating SVG files, and it works reasonably well. The data can be embedded in the Python source code. A disadvantage is that one has to upload the SVG file to Commons as a separate editable entity; it is far from as convenient as the Graph extension. On the other hand, the Python code can do additional calculation based on the data and plot the results, e.g. a moving average. A basic use of Python's matplotlib seems to be simple enough for non-programmers; several very simple examples are at Wikibooks:Python Programming/matplotlib and more are at https://matplotlib.org/stable/tutorials/pyplot.html. Ideally, one places the Python code (with the data embedded) to the Commons-uploaded SVG file so that non-programmers can change the embedded data later without having to significantly touch the non-data part of the code. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]