Open main menu

User talk:Evolution and evolvability

Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structureEdit

Hi Evolution and evolvability!

Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure has been apparently completed as of 20 January 2017 and published in the WikiJournal of Medicine! Would you like this announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: That would be fantastic! Is there anything that I would need to do to facilitate that? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Article infoEdit

There is an error in Template:Article info demonstrated on WikiJournal of Medicine/Diagram of the pathways of human steroidogenesis and Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Diagram of the pathways of human steroidogenesis, where "expansion depth is exceeded. The error is specifically related to the |accepted = 27 March 2014 parameter. If that line is removed, the error goes away. Please investigate. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dave Braunschweig. I'll look into what's going on. It's evidently calling too many templates within templates. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:FigEdit

There's an issue in Template:Fig with too many closing curly braces in a [[File:]] tag somewhere. I can't find it, though. See Special:LintErrors/bogus-image-options. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll see if I can find it. A quick search indicates that there are 886 opening and closing braces, so at least there's a matched number! I'll see if I can find an example where the template misformats, which might give a clue as to where the braces have been misplaced. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It's also possible that there's a bug in the reporting tool. There may be so many curly braces there that it got lost / confused. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
See [1]. Alt needs to be conditional, and use {{!}} to include the separator only when present. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you! Sadly, one problem remains. The {{!}} expands to a space in stead of a pipe when transcluded into a table (including in multicolumns layout. This is a problem because the multiple column layouts (like {{col-begin}}) are useful for making columns that reflow into a single column on mobiles. See below for what I mean (note the link destinations):
{{fig|1|Sobo 1909 639.png|capn|size=100px|link=main}}

Correct transclusion:

 

Figure 1 |  capn

Error when transcluded in table:

 

Figure 1 |  capn

You can force the separation in a table. See above. Also, I've been working on a better columns template. It's not fully tested yet, but try {{Columns}}. It's better for mobile column display. We need to start moving away from tables for layout. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Champion, thank you! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Files Missing InformationEdit

Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing {{Information}} and/or Wikiversity:License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Wikiversity:Uploading files for more information.

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 00:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I added {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. If that is incorrect, please update. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Have edited to CC-BY-4. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Curator StatusEdit

Would you have any interest in Wikiversity:Curators status? I'd be happy to nominate you. It provides extra tools that can make some of the editing you do easier. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for your suggestion. I'll read up more on that. It seems that many of those tools would be very useful. My only hesitation is that I've only contributed to a very specific corner of Wikiversity! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: I've now lodged my application for Probationary Custodianship. If you'd consider being my mentor in this, I'd greatly appreciate your technical expertise and wiki experience. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Please monitor the page for questions and discussion. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You are now a curator. Congratulations! Please visit Wikiversity:Support staff and add yourself to the list. Then visit Special:SpecialPages and individual page menus and check out the new tools. Let me know whenever you have questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for your original recommendation to apply, and for the subsequent support. It's good to be aboard. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor in chiefEdit

Hi Thomas! I recently took on a new full-time job that is leaving me little time for wikis. I was trusting that sooner or later I would find the time and energy to catch up with all the changes going on in the WJS, but truth is I'm not seeing that moment coming any time soon. Therefore, I'd like to offer you the title of "editor in chief". I also considered User:Marshallsumter, but although he's been the most active reviewer, you've been the most active editor, so I think that you're the most appropriate person for "editor in chief". Let me know if you want to take on this responsibility, and I'll be happy to update the board accordingly. Kind regards, --Felipe (discusscontribs) 00:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Felipe: Thank you for your message. I Would be very happy to be Editor in Chief. Once the journal gets going and bylaws have been ratified we can hold a formal vote for Eic and assistant EiC roles. I hope that you'll stay involved, even if you can't devote the time you used to. Similarly, reaching out to potential contributors may be an effective 'time investment' if you happen to know people who might be interested in being involved. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for relieving me Thomas, I just updated the board. I'll definitely stick around and contribute when I can. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 03:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Current reviewsEdit

Hi Evolution and evolvability!

As editor-in-chief, please feel free to review my reviews and make what ever changes or contacts you believe are necessary or appropriate to move a submission to acceptance!

Also, I believe WikiJournal of Science could allow submission of original research as well. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Thanks for your great work on those! Could I check if there were any other reviewers for Dialectic_algorithm or Space_(mathematics)? If there's only one, would you mind contacting as few other people to ask them to be an external reviewer (here's an example email template)? A good way is to look at the contact addresses for corresponding authors on cited papersm and/or ask the author for suggestions. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: "Could I check if there were any other reviewers for Dialectic algorithm?" Of course! Depending on your point of view, if you check out the discuss page, you'll read constructive reviewing by Justin (koavf)TCM prior to submission to WikiJournal of Science. This user may also be willing to add an additional review if you ask or believe more is needed. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: "Could I check if there were any other reviewers for Space_(mathematics)?" The Wikipedia version has been reviewed on w:Talk:Space (mathematics) also prior to submission. The expanded version per my review is here. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC).
@Marshallsumter: Excellent work, thanks. In order to be thorough I've also contacted a set of external academics to review them. I've used authors who have published in the relevant field (G-scholar search) and authors of references in: w:Logic_and_dialectic, w:Argumentation_framework, w:Argumentation_theory and w:Logic_of_argumentation, as well as the various categories of w:Space_(mathematics)#Types_of_spaces. I've emailed you the list so that you have them on file. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

JournalEdit

I did an edit to the page about the journal related to humanities that you created. You stated that review would be done by medical experts. I inserted 'recognized' rather than medical. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (discusscontribs) 13:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Thank you for picking up the oversight! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem. Barbara (WVS) (discusscontribs) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Article info" templateEdit

As far as I understand, nearly all the talk page to a submission is now just one parameter "review" to this template; and probably this is why we cannot edit sections (such as "Second review" or "Editorial comment") separately; a bit inconvenient. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 07:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right. It's an artefact of the way I first built the template. It should be solvable so I'll put some time into fixing it tomorrow. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tsirel: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think I've addressed the issue now, but please let me know if you notice any strange behaviours or errors! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The goal of WikiJournalsEdit

It seems, I misunderstood the goal of this movement. I believed that, born on Wikiversity, it intends to create learning resources. But now I see that it intends rather to create encyclopedic articles (and put them on Wikipedia). Hmmm... Wikipedia is already successful; Wikiversity is not. I rather wait for something like that but Wikiversity integrated. Sorry. Really, I do not understand, who needs peer reviewing for creating collections of excerpts from already existing reliable sources. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 12:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: Hi, I completely sympathise with the confusion. The whole concept of WikiJournals is still finding its feet. There are articles that have been published focused primarily on providing wikiversity teaching resources (example), and some that are published as basically stand alone papers that don't yet integrate into any wikimedia project at all (example). However, I think that there is a useful place for peer review of encyclopedic articles (example). Like writing an academic review article, even summarised information can benefit from having independent experts. For example:
  1. It ensures that the article is up to date and hasn't missed developments in the field
  2. Non-wikipedian experts can be engaged as external peer reviewers, when they otherwise would have never contributed to wikimedia content
  3. It gives readers a stable version of record to check that has an additional level of authoritativeness
Wikipedia still suffers from a lack of credibility and this form of academic peer review is one way of improving it. I think that the space in mathematics article is ideal for re-integrating into Wikipedia as well as being a standalone teaching item. If you would like to also create more wikiversity-focused content, you could also create a second, textbook/course-material version for teaching the topic in a more step-by-step manner. Indeed, the journal would be be compatible with additional versions targeted at specific audiences, e.g.:
  • "Introduction to spaces in mathematics" - similar to Introduction to viruses on wikipedia
  • "Spaces in mathematics (in simple english)" - similar to Virus in simple-english wikipedia
  • "Spaces in mathematics (for secondary school students)"
I'll attempt clarify a bit better tomorrow! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I am glad to know that different kinds of articles are allowed in WikiJournals (at least, for now).
Yes, I see: the problem of credibility (of scientific Wikipedia articles) can be alleviated by WikiJournal articles included into Wikipedia.
However, the problem of inaccessibility (of scientific Wikipedia articles) needs another approach (I think so). It cannot be solved inside Wikipedia. But it could be solved (well, alleviated) by attaching explanatory articles, published in WikiJournals, to Wikipedia. I mean, not including them into Wikipedia, but linking them from relevant Wikipedia articles.
This option is rarely used, but here is a recent example: the Wikipedia article "w:Representation theory of the Lorentz group" contains (in the end of the lead, and again in Sect. 3.2 "Technical introduction to finite-dimensional representation theory") a link to Wikiversity article "Representation theory of the Lorentz group". The reason is mostly "the blue link hell" problem, see arguments of the most active contributor there. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 18:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tsirel: You make a good point that Wikipedia typically has a single article on a topic that is supposed to cater to all audiences simultaneously. In reality this is extremely difficult, and articles often tent towards begin highly technical (as the discussions you linked to described well). The "introduction to" or "simple English" articles are one possible solution. Another solution that I've seen is to have a non-technical summary section (e.g. in the Higgs Boson). Your idea of also having attached explanatory notes is a also good one, and could be done in WikiJournals in a step-by-step textbook style article. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"Introduction to" idea was discussed on w:WT:WPM several times, and rejected as content forking that can be tolerated only as a rare exception (namely, only for Intro to General relativity and Intro to Quantum mechanics).
"Simple English"? Hmmm... I do not know what is considered "simple English", but I doubt that it can be something like "Every point of the affine space is its intersection with a one-dimensional linear subspace (line through the origin) of the (n+1)-dimensional linear space. However, some one-dimensional subspaces are parallel to the affine space; in some sense, they intersect it at infinity." or "Away from the origin, the quotient by the group action identifies finite sets of equally spaced points on a circle. But at the origin, the circle consists of only a single point, the origin itself, and the group action fixes this point." Or can it?
"Non-technical summary section"? Probably it may contain something like "The type of space that underlies most modern algebraic geometry was introduced by Alexander Grothendieck and is called a scheme. One of the building blocks of a scheme is a topological space." but hardly these not-so-simle-English phrases above.
Also, look (again) at my w:Conditioning (probability). It is an explanatory essay, but it consists mostly of formulas. Surely not a simple English, nor a non-technical summary. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 11:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Another well-known hard problem with math on WP is, examples. It is impossible to explain mathematics without many examples. But on WP an example is, almost inevitably, either Original Research, or Copyright Violation (since only rarely a single example appears in many textbooks). Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 11:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Tsirel: Very good points. I think for the Spaces in Mathematics article, the decider for its final style and format is your preferences for whether you want it to be an updated and improved version of the Wikipedia article that is then re-integrated into Wikipedia (like Rotavirus, etc), or whether you'd prefer it to be a companion piece to the Wikipedia article that is a teaching or explanatory aid. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely prefer "a companion piece to the Wikipedia article that is a teaching or explanatory aid". Here is why.
What really is to be re-integrated? Ozob's contribution (mostly inspired by the anonymous referee) is already there. My "Spaces and structures" and "Mathematical spaces in science and engineering" (mostly inspired by Marshall Sumter)? Yes, these could be added to WP, which however would be far not a historic event, anyway.
In contrast, "a companion piece" precedent, if gets traction, has a chance to be a historic event. Here is why.
Wikipedia's goal "to inform, but not teach, wide public" is definitely unattainable in mathematics, and maybe in hard sciences. You cannot inform wide public that "a continuous function on a closed interval is bounded" without teaching the meaning of these words in this context, with informal explanations of the intuition, examples etc.
For now, mathematical articles on WP either violate the rules, or rightly revolt people; usually do both, as a compromise.
If "Spaces in Mathematics" will become a companion piece linked from "Space (mathematics)", let the latter be challenged, the "types of spaces" section removed, etc. I could be the first to attack it, though I'm afraid others would revert me. Anyway, then the tight knot could begin to unravel, globally. And the expertise of authors, referees and editors of WikiJSci could be used in full strength. Verifiability in the (very restrictive) WP sense need not hold for articles, lectures, textbooks, essays etc (since these are not something that "anyone can edit"). Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 07:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

An observation about mathematics and Wikipedia rulesEdit

There are very few featured articles on mathematics in Wikipedia. Taking the list from w:WP:WPM#Recognized content, excluding biographies, history, and articles that are more physical than mathematical, I got about 9 articles (out of about 16,000). Now, looking at one of most interesting to me of these 9, I see "citation needed" 3 times, and "clarification needed" once. Well, others are "clean" (probably); but two of them are very elementary. Anyway, generally, mathematicians prefer not to pursue the almost infeasible goal of being featured. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 21:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Wiki Journal of ScienceEdit

I will delete all reference to WJS in How_things_work_college_course/Quantum_mechanics_timeline, after your decision to decline it. I have had many article submissions declined in my life, but this is the first time I immediately concurred with the journal's decision (although it is not uncommon for me to agree with such decisions after pondering things a bit.)

I copied the format for what is now the WJS from the WJM because I strongly believe in the importance of such journals. But I teach full time, and need to pursue a slightly different track, which is to give students graded credit for improving a course. OpenStax college has provided OER textbooks most of my courses, but unfortunately without that labor-saving exam bank, I expect that only a limited number of instructors will be adopting these textbooks. To see an example of how we can fix this, see this student effort. When I see a student effort appropriate for WJS I will certainly recommend that they submit an article. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Thank you for your message. I realise that the project has evolved significantly from its original inception. Although the journal aspect ended up matching more closely to WikiJMed, I see the value of what you're working towards. Very best of luck with your courses, and I look forward to any student works that get submitted. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Radiocarbon datingEdit

Have you or Brian Whalley found a second reviewer? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Sadly not. Jack Nunn has also offered to ask a suitably qualified contact of his, but any additional referees that you're able to gather would be very helpful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I've sent an email via ResearchGate to Professor A. J. Timothy Jull, Editor-in-Chief, of Radiocarbon to ask if he or one or two of his Editorial Board members would be willing to submit a review or two, or suggest possible reviewers. I'll let you know the results. I also gave him the url here for your talk page. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

CSSEdit

Just FYI. When you imported the Wikipedia versions of Template:Navbox, Template:Navbar, Module:Navbox, and Module:Navbar, it broke the local display of those items. I didn't figure out why or how until this week, and I wasn't able to fix it until this evening. Those templates depend on custom CSS styles that were in Wikipedia:MediaWiki:Common.css but were not included here.

I copied the Wikipedia Common.css file in it's entirety and loaded it as the first thing in our MediaWiki:Common.css file. Any local styles that come after will override Wikipedia settings. There's obviously going to be redundancy, but unless someone is willing to go through and clean up local styles we don't need, this is the best we can do.

I had never encountered this before, but it's now something to be aware of. When replacing local templates, we need to be sure to use something that transcludes the template and view before and after import to make sure it doesn't break anything or miss styling.

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for notifying me. So sorry that it messed up some of the existing CSS. I'll check more carefully whether imported templates and modules overwrite existing elements from now on. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board tends to infinity?Edit

"Section 3. Appointment
(a) The number of Editorial Board Members of Wiki.J.Sci. should be kept at a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20."
(From Bylaws#ARTICLE_III). Nevertheless I see 25 members. Do I miss something? Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 09:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tsirel: Thank you for notifying me! It had completely escaped my mind that we'd put size limits in the bylaws. I shall absolutely bring that up for discussion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tsirel: I suggest that we change the bylaws and have at least 30 people - I'm on the Editorial Board for another journal and that is a very long list - the more the merrier! (https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/about/editorial-board) Jacknunn (discusscontribs) 13:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about misspelling your nicknameEdit

I called you Evo^2, when the ampersand suggests the simpler 2Evo. See https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikiJournal_of_Science&type=revision&diff=1859146&oldid=1859076 -Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Re~Guy vandegrift Heh, I missed this when you first posted it - Looks like the the untaken options are rapidly running out: https://www.biosculpture.com.au/products/evo2/ https://www.evosq.co/

I have begun to seriously edit Draft: A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholesEdit

I started with the comments from the third reviewer because their effort was the most meticulous. I spent a lot of time on the first paragraph and will take a 24 hour break and to other things while I ponder this. Feel free to comment if you have time. But if you are busy, do not hesitate to wait a bit. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Thanks for the note. I'll read through the comments as they stand this evening. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ShK toxin: history, structure and therapeutic applications for autoimmune diseasesEdit

Should we include doi links in the references? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Yes, when possible. I think I citoid generated a few from the PMIDs and it doesn't always find the doi. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe the author added some references[2] (including at least one that was identified as unused). And now it messes up the numbering of the reference names. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I've sent the authors an email to explain the cite function. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal Main Page RepresentationEdit

Any thoughts on how to add WikiJournal to Wikiversity:Main Page? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: So currently articles are mentioned in the news section, but I'd love a permanent presence on the main page. Do you have an idea of how much real-estate on the mainpage you'd think appropriate? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
There are a variety of options available. WikiJournals could be added to the banner. Individual WikiJournals could be added as Featured Projects and Educational Pictures. With some type of redesign, a separate block could be added for WikiJournals, similar to either the Wikipedia or Wikibooks main pages. I don't want to limit creativity. Something should certainly be done. What may depend as much on available time to redesign or add content as anything else. I've got a lot on my plate for the summer, so if it's up to me, I would just be able to add WikiJournals to the banner. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks! I'll draft a possible template later this week. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: I've been experimenting with a few possibilities at Main_Page/Journals. What to you reckon? I think it best to omit the journal logos, but perhaps include a random selection from a gallery of images? Maybe a link to random article from the back-catalogue? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You can plug it into Wikiversity:Main_Page/Sandbox to figure out the layout. Visuals are good, something that changes every day is also good. At some point I'd like to switch the main page to a grid / flexbox design. Maybe this is a good excuse for doing that. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: I agree, flexbox formatting is amazing (I finally got around to using it for the menu tabs of {{article info}} so that they can be read on mobiles). There have also been some developments over at Wikipedia in automated templates for portals. I've done some experiments in Wikiversity:Main_Page/Sandbox. Still not certain over the best layout. probably 33% width or 50% width will be best. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: I've had a go at a flex box based implementation in the Wikiversity:Main_Page/Sandbox now that I've sort of got the hang of it from working on Template:WikiJMed formats. Have a look and see what you think. It's not perfect, but shouldn't need too much further tweaking! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if a two-column layout, similar to Wikipedia:Main Page would be better. There's something about the current flex design that isn't working correctly with image overlap. On my screen today, News is covering 15% of The Last Supper. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Two-column seems better from a mobile perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia linksEdit

I've created a preprint for ice drilling, just by pasting in the Wikipedia wikitext, but I can see a lot of tweaking is needed. For example, the links need to change from e.g. [[glacier]] to [[wikipedia:glacier|glacier]]. Is there a script for this, or does one have to tweak each by hand? And is there a checklist of other changes that need to be made? Mike Christie (discusscontribs) 12:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: One of our next projects is sorting out an automated way to convert wikilinks to and files into the {{fig}} format. Currently the figures have to be done manually, but the wikilinks are switched by find-replace with regular expressions:
  1. \[\[([^\|]*?)\]\] replace with [[w:\1|\1]]
  2. \[\[([^\:]*?)\]\] replace with [[w:\1]]
Would you be able to update the information in the article info template at the top and update the fig formatting (most important is the attribution paramter). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Will do; have had to work this weekend and am away next weekend so I will try to get it done one night this week. Thanks for the wikilink fix. Mike Christie (discusscontribs) 20:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. I've submitted the authorship declaration; let me know anything else I need to do. Thanks. Mike Christie (discusscontribs) 10:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

CustodianshipEdit

Congratulations! You are now a custodian! You should see more tools in Special:SpecialPages. See Wikiversity:Custodian Mentorship for a list of custodian skills you should become comfortable with. First up are the following:

  1. Edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice and clear the current site notice.
  2. Edit Wikiversity:Support staff and update your role.

Let me know whenever you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: The documentation is clear so far, but I'll message you if I've any questions. Thank you for your help so far, and as I said in the application, I aim to start out particularly cautious so as not to break anything. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Image scalingEdit

Hello. Trouble with display of image at main WikiJournal of Medicine (COPE logo for WikiJMed) - it is displaying in too large a way despite specifying 80px in template. RubberBandHoot (discusscontribs) 02:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@RubberBandHoot: Thanks for letting me know! The issue seems to be because the {{WikiJMed_right_menu}} is still built as a table, rather than using the more robust css div formatting. I've used a simpler type of image formatting, which seems to work better. Eventually, I'll update the template's formatting which should make it more future-proof. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo):. Thank you. RubberBandHoot (discusscontribs) 12:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

second peer reviewEdit

Hello Dr. Shafee, just wanted to let you know Ive done the second peer review[3] however WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles the 'stage' number doesn't reflect that yet, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 22:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: - updated! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 23:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

further reviewsEdit

Hi Dr. Shafee, just wanted to let you know Ive done both reviews for Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Hepatitis_E and Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Dyslexia however WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles the 'stage' number doesn't reflect that yet, thanks (and Merry Xmas!)--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 21:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for letting me know! I've updated the tracking table. We are expecting 1-2 more reviews for each of the articles in January. Happy New Year! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thank you(Happy New Year to you!)--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 11:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Thomas and Ozzie10aaaa, and Happy New Year! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

final reviewEdit

Hi Dr. Shafee ,WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic..done, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 03:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

[4]thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 12:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hep E, final reviewEdit

Dr. Shafee, sorry to bother you however I was going over [5]and aside from a modest(13) amount of circles(red), it gives little in the way of what the reviewer wants,I suppose I could assume to check references to the statements but upon looking at the section on classification there are 'two circles' in no particular area that don't seem to indicate anything at all?...please advise, thank you (I have 'clicked' each circle with my mouse, not certain how this works)--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 14:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • have figured out, downloaded on PDF and then comments appear, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 18:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ozzie10aaaa: Good point - it's not immediately obvious to look for the annotations in a PDF. I've been trying to find a way to export them so that they can be pasted in the Wikimarkup as well, but I've not yet found a way. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll let you know when the next steps are done on our end. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Dr. Shafee, done (again)[6] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 02:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Hepatitis_E#Editorial_comments done--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 12:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

EbolaEdit

Dr.Shafee, done Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 05:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Done [7], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 07:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks. One final minor thing: There are a mix of {{Cite_web}} and {{Cite_neews}} templates used used for WHO, BBC etc. Would it be sensible to distinguish different types of source with {{Cite_web}}/{{Cite_report}}/{{Cite_news}}? Not vital, but could be useful for distinguishing in the metadata. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The logical answer is yes, it would because they are different {{Cite_web}}/{{Cite_report}}/{{Cite_news}}, how should we proceed?--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 05:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

per suggestionEdit

Dr Shafee per your email, Ive done the following:

1. have added the reference "Difference between revisions of "WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic" - Wikiversity". en.wikiversity.org. Retrieved 5 March 2019.

2. have gone thru the indicated 'media' references-

3. have trimmed 50 and 58 press release "Difference between revisions of "WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic" - Wikiversity". en.wikiversity.org. Retrieved 5 March 2019. and "Difference between revisions of "WikiJournal Preprints/Western African Ebola virus epidemic" - Wikiversity". en.wikiversity.org. Retrieved 5 March 2019.


I want to thank you for your kind suggestions--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Lint ErrorsEdit

See Special:LintErrors/misc-tidy-replacement-issues. There are issues in several of the WikiJournal templates. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Thanks. I've tracked the div-span-flip error to the {{WikiJournal_top_menu}} template. Should be easy to fix once I root it out within that template. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Fixed. It was a set of spans in the {{WikiJournal_top_menu_bar}} and {{Annotated_image_4}} templates. I've manually purged a few pages to check that it also fixes the downstream templates and pages. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

See Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting. There is an issue in Template:Editor's comments. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Lysenin articleEdit

Thomas, the article needs thorough copy-editing. Someone tagged it for citation style but it's not unclear, just not in any template. The article is written assuming considerable knowledge of cell biology and might need quite substantial glossing to make it easier to read. I've added numerous wikilinks and fixed a few bits of English that urgently needed attention, but much more is needed. Cheers, Ian Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 09:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Good point. Upon re-reading I see what you mean about the over-technicality - that is definitely something the author can address. Would you be happy to add a comment to the submission's talkpage? The language aspects often need assistance from others, since the author is probably working at the limit of their English skills. It would good to do at least a quick copyedit run before contacting peer reviewers. Otherwise I'll summarise and add to mine. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've added a comment and made a (very) preliminary copy-edit of the article. --Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 01:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Final reviewEdit

Dr, Shafee I noticed that the Dyslexia peer-review has been indicated for sometime in February WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles, was wondering if there might be a difficulty with it since its almost the end of the month, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for the note. I'll check with its review coordinators (Eric Youngstrom, Jitendra Kumar Sinha). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thank you, Dr Shafee, I am watching the article in question for any updates that need to be addressed... thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 13:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

tl:Cite book lua errorEdit

I noticed that you imported newer revisions of {{Cite book}}. There is a "lua error" which is triggered by "coauthors=last, first" and the error goes away if the name is removed. I'm not sure what is causing the or how to fix it. The error is visible in Example 1 at the template page. --mikeu talk 18:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mu301: I've had a look at the relevant line of Module:Citation/CS1 and can't find what's causing the error, so I've asked for assistance over at the MediaWiki support desk (Topic:Uwduy1hmnz6taq9d). Will aim to get fixed ASAP. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed a similar error in {{coord}} which I have temporarily downrev'd to an earlier version]. I've brought up the topic of template imports at Wikiversity:Colloquium#template_import. I'll follow up there. I'm a little concerned about the long term maintainability of these imported templates. --mikeu talk 11:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiJournal preprints/Ice drilling technologyEdit

Hi Evolution and evolvability!

Professor Taylor is mentioning in his follow up that the original title "Ice drilling" or another alternative suggested by the authors "Ice drilling methods" is okay. Should we give the authors time to reconsider? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Widgiemoolthalite et al.Edit

Hey Evolution and evolvability,

Thanks for all your work on the WikiJournal projects! I had a question about your edit to the Widgiemoolthalite preprint at WJS. I checked through the article's history and while it was imported from Wikipedia, I don't believe the >10% or 1 paragraph threshold for work contributed by other editors was met, which is why I left the link to the article's contributors in the Acknowledgements rather than as an et al. link. Was I correct in doing this?

Thank you kindly! Best, Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 03:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: Aha, thank you. You are correct, I had not noticed the attribution section. Thank you for checking. Please feel to remove the |et al= parameter. You already correctly added the |license={{CC-BY-SA work}}, so that should all be fine! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Fabulous, thank you! Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Evolution and evolvability,

Is this review date "2015-12-31" correct for Robert Hazen's review? It appears to predate the article's existence on Wikipedia? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Thank you for notifying me. For some reason the date parameter was omitted so the template put in a default. I've updated the date, and edited the template so that it doesn't do something so misleading! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer credentialsEdit

Hey Thomas, I got a question for you. While entering the credentials of the reviewer's institution, should we use the institution's native name or translated English name? That example is perfect as one is French and the other is German, yet both are easy to understand even if you don't know a single word in French or German. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I'd go for the original language when in doubt to avoid any possibly ambiguity from alternative possible translations (unless it is more well known my its translation e.g. "Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry"). The priority is for it to be unambiguously identifiable, so even putting the translation with the original in brackets could work when it seems useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

PaperEdit

Thomas, I tried replying by email but it bounced saying unusual spamming from my IP! I copyedited the paper as requested; I hope not to have changed any meanings, so perhaps your expert eye would be beneficial for a final check. Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 12:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Fantastic, thank you! I've had look through the new version and the diffs and it's a great improvement.I'll do an additional sweep through before confirming with the author that they're ok wth the edits. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 16:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine/Medical gallery of Mikael Häggström 2014Edit

I'm not quite sure how to troubleshoot the category error in question on this page. And I have not seen this kind of error before. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Very odd. I'll get on that - thanks for the note. It should just be placing it in Category:Articles_submitted_for_peer_review_in_2014 based on the |submitted= year. I'll dig into the {{Article info main}} code to find the error. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Super weird. there's some secret difference between the characters "2014‎" and "2014". I think some hidden zero-width space character? Should be fixed now anyway. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems more common than I thought. Here's another page with similar error. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: Rats. The fix is to check if there's a zero-width space before or after the date and remove it. I'll go through to check some others. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I think I've found them all, so that should be fixed now. Thanks again for spotting the initial problems! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
There's one more: Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Medical gallery of Blausen Medical 2014#Second peer review - intracranial electrodes OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Radiocarbon datingEdit

Hi Thomas. British Archaeology, the journal of the Council for British Archaeology, has a box in each issue recommending the Wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating for information on the subject. Last month, I wrote to the journal informing them of the WJS article and they have published my letter in the November/December 2019 issue and changed to recommending the WJS version. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Very interesting! Thank you for both contacting them and for your post here and on the wikipedia article's talkpage. It's an idea that might be cross-applicable to other journals and magazines on different topics. Would you be willing to send me the email text that you sent? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I have forwarded the email to you. Dudley Miles (discusscontribs) 08:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

started an articleEdit

heya I have started putting an article together user:Faendalimas/What_is_in_a_Name, it is based on a plenary speech I gave at an international conference in 2018, many people have been asking me to publish it. So I am writing it out, would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: In general, we've avoided opinion articles to prevent the risk of either a) the article can't really be peer reviewed or b) the journals look like just a blogging site which could undermine the other articles. However really the distinction is whether an article could be reasonably peer reviewed. I think if the article can be written as a case study and proposal then that probably can be put to reviewers as to whether e.g. the relevant background and related work is clearly described, the current issues are accurately put forward, the proposal addresses the issues raised and the case is convincingly made. It'd have to be put to the other board members since it is still different from anything previously published in the journals. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: Maps via WikidataEdit

Very nice. I was wondering if it can be loaded directly when user visits a page (kind of like my current sandbox). Another thing is if there's a way to manually specify the location. For instance, the map directly loads my employer's headquarter location (Ottawa) even though I'm in Toronto. And do you know why the map shows my profile twice in Ottawa? I couldn't quite figure it out. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So I've asked over at Wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#Embedding_query_result_in_wikimedia_page, but there was no obvious answer. Maybe there's some location to ask over at wikivoyage, where they probably have more experience with such things? Otherwise, on other pages I've just included a screenshot that links to the live query (example). The way I'm c alculating location is to just use the listed location of the employer (easiest to see in the table output of the same query), but there might be a way to check whether a location is listed for the person themself. Your double listing on 3 was an error that I've now fixed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

wikipediajournal.comEdit

Hi. Would you be willing to make me an account on wikipediajournal.com? I'd like to try some of the extensions there, and see if I have any ideas for user scripts that'll help the project. Thanks, --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 09:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thanks! I think that should be fine What sorts of extensions are you thinking? Pinging Bryandamon who set the test wiki up. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I was just going to test what is installed already --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 11:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Sounds excellent. I've asked bryan to add you (currently beyond my knowledge). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Should be done now. Let me know if it's not working and I'll follow-up. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It worked, thanks --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 00:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Evolution and evolvability".