Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles.
Sign your posts with   ~~~~

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:


var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = ""; 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)

Wikidata integration and en.wp linking

I've been thinking about posting this for a few weeks and went back and forth until I saw today that YouTube is considered a high-quality learning resource. I went to check and sure enough, the link at the bottom of w:en:YouTube#External_links was added by me and the relevant Wikidata item did not have a link until I added it just now. It's valuable that we are deliberate about adding links to our sister projects for visibility and I think it's especially important to do so with our higher-quality resources. Am I on the right track here? Does anyone else have an interest in working withe me on this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend focusing on a combination of high-quality, high-interest resources. Perhaps start at the top of Wikiversity:Statistics/2019 and review for quality. Where appropriate, add Wikidata and Wikipedia links. I have interest, but not much time right now. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added WikiData links to all of my resources for years. For resources in general I use {{Sisterprojectsearch}} or {{Sisterlinks}}. I agree that it is also important to add these to additional resources here and noticed that User:Koavf added the WikiData link to YouTube, thanks! Generally, I've noticed that few of our resources have sister links especially to WikiData. Perhaps these can be added by a bot. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 06:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's fairly trivial to do a search on Wikidata for articles that have the same title as all of the titles here on this project. Since there are so few resources compared to the 6 million articles on en.wp, that wouldn't be terribly time-consuming. Of course, many resources are not going to have some one-to-one correspondence to en.wp but anything with the most basic name (e.g. Spanish) will. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I strongly oppose a bot making these decisions and in any case the bot would need to be authorized on WP. I doubt you will find consensus there to such a task. (I would !vote to oppose it) As I've explained below we should focus our community efforts on quality over quantity. The latter has been severely neglected in past efforts. --mikeu talk 15:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Did anyone propose a bot? I appreciate you removing extraneous and essentially misleading links but we should retain proper links even if our resource here an en.wv is pretty poor for data integrity purposes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a bot was proposed. And no, I agree with Mu301 that we should not have links to poor resources. Perhaps we should even Draft: the poor resources, but we certainly don't want to encourage Wikiversity being known for poor quality. If you believe that linking is necessary, that would accelerate my interest in pushing poor quality resources into Draft space. We do have a standing policy not to link to drafts. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
We should not choose to include or exclude Wikidata links because of quality. If we feel that a certain threshold is not met to be in the main namespace, then we should draftify or userfy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please have a look at my notice at Wikiversity:Notices_for_custodians/Archive/5#cross_wiki_disruption and the contribs.
Nobody60 (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) This participant's egregious self promotion of personal essays is the consequence of our negligence in curating the quality of wp links to resources here. Yes, we should be reviewing quality and culling those attempts. If draft or user moves are required I would accept that as an alternative. These are not AGF attempts at providing useful information to learners. This is spam and vandalism. --mikeu talk 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I've made some effort to curate the existing links there, see my blog post for a summary. I discovered quite a few article that had broken redlinks or pages that had been moved to draft space.[1] Ensuring quality works both ways: choose to link to our best featured projects, and also be vigilant about removing overzealous linking back here.
Currently, I see links to Arabic and Ada which are poorly developed local stubs. Historically there was an effort by participants here to "drive traffic" to new resources. IMO, this is misguided and counter productive. Despite a lengthy period of time with those links existing it resulted in no development of the local resources. I just removed a link from w:Drum to Category:Drums for example. I see little sense in linking w:Idempotence to Portal:Computer Science which doesn't even mention the word. Even more problematic are w:World peace linking to a personal essay Happiness/A World of Peace, Love and Happiness. (<- there were multiple examples of spamming to related essays) Then there's w:Refrigeration linking to an abandoned survivalist Underground refrigerated storage room resource. I just removed a half dozen such links. --mikeu talk 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


This refers to the discussion mentions here:

I think that a Wikiversity page should be added on LinkedIn. Please vote for support or lack thereof.


From [2]:

Wikimedia has its LinkedIn page; Wikipedia, too. But not Wikiversity. I tried to show my Swedish studies but could not choose Wikiversity as the Institution. Why not? Even when it is not a "granting degree" institution, is is still an Institution, right? When I contacted LinkedIn about this, they sent me the link so that I can create myself the Wikiversity page. But then there is box I must tick: " I confirm I am an approved authority of this Institution to create this page", which is not the case. But I think there are many Wikiversity experts on here that woud qualify as Wikiversity Linkedin page creators. I can create the page if someone here approves, but I would need some info: # of employees, etc.

The number of employees (volunteers is not an option but we are unpaid) for our Wikiversity I guess could be the number of active users 201-500. The current logo is File:Wikiversity logo 2017.svg. The website can be

Wikiversity is a community. None of us gets to insist that anything happen on behalf of the community unless there is consensus to do so. Because this request involves an outside organization, it may also require support from the WMF.

--Leonardo T. Cardillo (discusscontribs) 16:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looking at your request at Wikiversity:Help desk it seems that what you are trying to do is list Wikiversity as an educational institution that you have attended which is not quite the same thing as a "company" profile page on that site. Because Wikiversity is not a degree granting institution and has no formal enrollment requirements it wouldn't qualify as a school as defined by LinkedIn. Creating a company page is problematic as we would need to have volunteers to maintain the page and keep it up-to-date. We tried creating @Wikiversity on Twitter and it was not much used so it was abandoned many years ago. I see that there's a Wikipedia Users Group that barely gets one or two posts per year despite Wikipedia having a much larger base of participants. There is also a Wikipedia company page that appears to be managed by staff who are paid to promote the site. I can't see a compelling reason to create a Wikiversity presence on LinkedIn. I would also note that you can add a "project" to your profile that links to Wikiversity. That would seem to be the best solution to what you are looking for. I don't support creation of a LinkedIn page at this time. --mikeu talk 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project


The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I just filled out the survey. I think that it would be great if Wikiversity had a presence in this project. --mikeu talk 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until Feburary 20 to fund both experimental and proven projects such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Wikiversity and many other Wikimedia projects have been experiencing widespread server trouble. There are reports of slowness or timeouts from Europe and North America. I haven't seen any indication about why this happened. The en-wp twitter account @Wikipedia has confirmed the problems. The situation seems to be improving now. --mikeu talk 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Tracked in phab:T243713. —Hasley 23:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree nested templates and expansion depth limits

A phylogenetic tree in this article is causing expansion depth to be exceeded by nested templates. Is there a way to raise the recursion level for a specific page? Any ideas appreciated. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit. I am not aware of any way to alter expansion depth settings. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
First, I would argue that you shouldn't even try to raise these limits. If you are encountering problems like this - you're doing it wrong. Creating wiki pages that stress the mediawiki software increases the likelihood that you're going to encounter other negative outcomes like rendering pages that break mobile compatibility or cause excessive load on our servers.
Second, I see that the tree on the wp version of the page works fine w/o throwing an error. What's the difference here? There might be a local template which differs from the wp version in an important way. I would look into that.
I'm highly critical of the overly complex design of the wikijournal pages. Sure, it looks nice. But the depth of transclusion results in an experienced editor such as myself, who only casually edits these pages, having great difficulty in figuring out which subpage I need to click edit on to load the text that I want to change. This is very user unfriendly and the combination of the outer format complexity with the inner template expansion could be part of the problem here.
I approach wikis with a unusually minimalist philosophy where I rarely include any "fancy" formatting. I appreciate the desire to create a design that is more appealing. I realize that my approach is not suited to everyone's taste. But you should understand that there are consequences for implementing complex design formatting. It might results in rendering errors like you're seeing here or it might discourage participation from those who aren't experienced in wiki editing. I'd suggest that you give some thought to this cost/benefit analysis.
See Wikiversity:Mobile usability for more about this. I just checked and the wp page renders fine on a iPhone simulator. The addition of the wikjournal boilerplate makes the page here difficult to navigate and read at the top, though most of the body of the article looks fine. Please also have a look at the ~200 CSS/HTML errors this page throws due to excessive style markup.[3] The developers created a system for rendering pages on a wide variety of devices based on the assumption that page content uses standard wiki practices for formatting. The automatic conversion from desktop to mobile version might ignore, or worse, incorrectly interpret the style that you've designed. --mikeu talk 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, in this case it the phylogeny issue appears to be independent of any of the other templates in the page, since it also mis-formats on a page on its own. Must be related to the {{clade}} template. I'll try re-importing the clade template from Wikipedia to see if that fixes it (without breaking any of the other instances). Otherwise, a bodge will be to trim the phylogeny back a node or two.
Re Wikijournal pages in general: Several WikiJournal formatting templates should be replaceable with altered MediaWiki:Common.css items (e.g. {{fig}} and {{WikiJournal h2}}) so that standard ==heading_2== and [[File:name|thumb|caption]] can be used. Implementing that is still just beyond my abilities, but I'll work on it (unless anyone else has experience in that area). For the general instructional and descriptive pages, some simplification may be possible. Often the same text needs to be transcluded to multiple locations (e.g. /Editorial_guidelines). However I can endeavour to make sure that the source page for that contet is always WikiJournal_User_Group/XYZ and endeavour to make sure those pages are as easy to edit as possible. For article and review pages, the priority is probably VisualEditor-compatibility, since those contributors are most likely to be first-time users. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
A re-import of {{clade}} from en.wikipedia seems to have fixed the issue (the existing uses of the templates, e.g. Animals, also still all work after purging). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not very knowledgeable about advanced template coding so I don't feel qualified to help out with this. But checking on your sandbox the tree looked ok. Did you recently change a template?
I find trancslusion to be very helpful. I'm not discouraging use of these tools; just be aware that it can sometimes cause undesirable side effects. This colloquium page throws over 100 html validity errors, but most are not serious. The wikijournals throw double that number which could cause problems for some readers. Just something to be aware of. My employer requires that I review web and social media posts to ensure ADA compliance for text to speech synthesis, etc. So I'm in the habit of proof reading web sites on multiple platforms to make sure that it works well for everybody. I consider this a worthwhile goal even though it is sometimes not needed. --mikeu talk 00:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that checking site was extremely useful. I'm going to add a background task to go through and see which ones I'm able to fix over the course of this year. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

step by step

hello there, I'm a new member here, could you tell me step by step for a beginner like me?

--PutriAmalia1991 (discusscontribs) 04:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@PutriAmalia1991: See the welcome message on your talk page. I'm encountering the same message from you at many WMF projects and I'm wondering if there's a reason you're posting it everywhere. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: everytime I've joined one Wikimedia projects, I've always searching for help desks and posting the question because I wanna know the mechanism on the project --PutriAmalia1991 (discusscontribs) 06:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@PutriAmalia1991: Sounds fair. Each is certainly different in its own way. I've been on all of them since 2003 or later if they were founded later and they've all gone in different directions and have different cultures and that's just in English. The nice thing about this project is that it's still very small and doesn't have much in the way of fixed rules, so you have a lot of options but that can also be a bad thing if you need structure to give you guidance. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: what do you mean by 'can also be a bad thing'?, I don't understand --PutriAmalia1991 (discusscontribs) 06:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@PutriAmalia1991: When there isn't a lot of content or structure and only a small community of editors, it is hard to know what to do (as you yourself are asking): it can also be giving one enough rope to hang oneself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: I've guess I'll starting to get it now, thanks --PutriAmalia1991 (discusscontribs) 06:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@PutriAmalia1991: Again, happy to have you. I'm one of the very few editors who works across most WMF projects in English, so I can give my insite if it's ever helpful. If you want to dig into some simple minutiae, you can always go to Special:SpecialPages and work on the maintenance issues. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Preprint repository hosting invite?

The Center for Open Science has started charging hosting fees to preprint repositories, many of them English-language; some are unable to pay and are looking for new hosting.[4] We could invite them to move here; Wikiversity already hosts preprints. How do people feel about this? It would mean an initial burden in terms of helping new users, and of course the WMF would have to pay the hosting costs, but it could win us new users long-term. It might also help reduce cost barriers and systemic bias in academia. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 02:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It would seem to be within the Wikiversity:Mission for English-language resources, depending on original content license. They could look to the other Wikiversities for non-English content. The biggest burden will be the limitation on new users uploading files. Someone associated with this effort will need to take the lead in either coordinating the uploads or explaining to the new users the delays involved before they have upload rights. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up; I am not familiar with this limitation. I can't seem to find anything at Wikiversity:Uploading files or Wikiversity:User access levels that would prevent new registered users from uploading files; could you possibly link to the relevant policy, Dave Braunschweig? If the content is under a suitable open-access license, most of the images should be too, so they could be uploaded to Commons, which allows uploads by new users. Images that Wikiversity allows but Commons forbids (see here) should be fairly rare; if someone from each of the repositories has upload rights, they could take responsibility for doing it for the preprints they are accepting. Most of these repositories seem to be run by volunteers, who help the academics who write the pre-prints publish them. I'm willing to help the repository volunteers figure out wiki editing, though depending on the uptake I might need help. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know that there is a written "policy". It's the default software settings. See Special:ListGroupRights. I think the default settings are appropriate. If users want to upload files here, they need to spend a little time and become familiar with the Wikiversity community. Think about what you would want them to read, what edits you would want them to make (such as creating their user page), editing some page that describes and links to what they upload, etc. They also need to understand how to properly indicate the license for their files, or the files will be deleted after seven days. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The triggering of filters to prevent uploads by new users would be likely biggest barrier to uptake (considering many preprint servers handle hundreds of new uploads per week). With the rise of Wikidata and structured data on commons it'd probably possible to make the process of uploading the files and curating metadata sufficiently streamlined with a bit of effot (possibly using some of the same tools as the Wiki Loves X competitions). It's be a big task through to get the system as frictionless as current competitors then do the necessary outreach at scale (indeed, some of the same challenges that the WikiJournals are working with). It could be possible to reconfigure WikiJournal Preprints as a more generalised preprint repository (i.e. for items stored as PDFs as well as in wikimarkup). It's actually been a huge lost opportunity that Wikimedia hasn't been a key player in hosting green OA postprints and published PhD theses. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I can see that a four-day delay on new users uploading some types of content could be problematic, if not insuperably problematic, in this application. Thanks for the link; Wikiversity:Autoconfirmed users is also helpful. It seems like these repositories are facing a big task anyway; they are looking at moving to new servers, changing their operating structures, or in some cases shutting down. Can you estimate the proportion of the work needed could be done by repository volunteers with little Mediawiki experience, T.Shafee? This also seems like something the WMF might be willing to put resources into, or at least a press release. I'm going to ping Trizek (WMF) here, as he may have useful comments. Agreed on missed opportunities. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 01:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It depends on how rigid or flexible we want the structure to be and if files would be kept on commons or here. One of the things that all the current repositories do is force uploaders to include a certain minimal set of metadata. For example, for green OA postprints, you'd need at least the following:
  • date of publication for published version
  • doi link to published version
  • author names
  • choose from a controlled set of ~100 categories (e.g. FoR codes)
  • some tickbox to confirm that you've checked the journal's embargo policy on sherpa/romeo
Here's an example in figshare). Open theses would be similar, as would posters and presentations. For open data (supplementary datasets attached to publications or independent datasets unattached to any publication) our limited acceptable file types would be a more noticeable restriction. Indeed, things that standard repos enable but mediawiki system can yet do:
  • automatic embargoing (i.e. item only becomes visible and licensed after a set time delay) but I'd guess that a day's google hackathon could put something together
  • any file format accepted, especially for datasets (this would be an insurmountable issue and major drawback on any WMF server, where we can only host open formats)
  • mint DOIs automatically and at scale (one of the key benefits of figshare, osf etc) but that would not be impossible to get working with some APIs
Structured data on commons integration with wikidata, would be a key' 'unique selling point'. However, if files were on Commons, there could be a risk of over-zealous editors removing items if they didn't believe that the authors had copyright. I'd estimate that to make a service with 95% of OSF or figshare or Dspace functionality would only cost a few months of developer's time. Conceivably some wikiwand type visual interface could actually address many of the visual deficits of wiki displays. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Deletion from Commons is a real possibility but we can have local uploads if/when that happens. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please! If I can be in any way associated with promulgating open access, I'd be honored. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)