(Redirected from Wikiversity:C)
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!";

"On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées." — Victor Hugo (discuss)

VisualEditor default for new users?Edit

What are out current settings on whether VisualEditor is the default? I've had a few new users tell me that they've often had source editor seem to come up as their default editor unless they specifically change it. Therefore:

  1. Is it possible to make VisualEditor the default interface for new users?
  2. Would people like to activate this?
  3. Are there other useful VE settings options to consider?

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the users. People that edit/author learning resources with much workload to create mathematical formulas in LaTeX might prefer source editor in comparison to visual editor. I would recommend, that user answer a checkbox in the registration/login process if they prefer visual or source editor. The link includes a wikiversity link to help page, that shows/explains PROs and CONs of visual and source editor, so that new users can make sound decision about editor default settings.
But my opinion is not representative in the community --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 12:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Visual editing is still a beta feature (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures). It is not on by default (mw:VisualEditor/Rollouts), and not widely adopted (1,500+ users at present). We have to request that it be enabled. The last time I tried, it only got one vote. People need to engage if we're going to improve the Wikiversity experience. And, if there's any support for this, I also recommend that we enable the mw: UploadWizard. Most file uploads to Wikiversity are deleted due to incomplete or improper licensing. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Definitely also agree with activating mw: UploadWizard. Uploading files to wikiversity is still pretty clunky, and I've found often trips up users that are used to commons or wikipedia. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had a couple of additional new editors struggle with source editing (especially tables, example). Several have expressed frustration at the multiple steps required to find out that visualeditor exists and how to activate it. Is the request process particularly long? Does it need to be done here or over at MW? All wikijournal contributors who weren't already experienced wikipedians that I've spoken to have expressed a preference for visualeditor (especially for pages with tables and references). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: See the item below on the Discussion Reply Tool. We have to have a discussion and vote. Once there is consensus, we submit a Phabricator ticket. How long it takes for that to be processed depends on who accepts the task and what's involved. Some things can take a week or two. Others have stalled out after months of waiting. Sometimes, we can ping someone and get it picked up again. But for now, we need a discussion and vote before we can initiate the ticket. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig and Bert Niehaus:: What would be the next steps to implement this? I think it's reasonable to say the consensus is to activate VE as the default, with the option for experienced editors to switch to editing source code if they prefer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: Create a Phabricator request and include a link to this discussion. Then wait. If it takes more than a month, ask them what additional information they need or how we can help the request move forward. Then wait some more. Sometimes it goes very quickly, sometimes not. They're all volunteers, too. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Done (link). All welcome to review and edit the request. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
phabricator request marked as implemented and ticket closed as resolved. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


We have a proposal to make the VisualEditor the default editor. We need to determine whether this is for all users or only for all logged-in users. Please discuss and vote. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(From VE and Source Code Editing) The VE will be good for newbies. The source code editor will be necessary to move on to more specific modification of learning resources e.g. editing of quizzes, mathematical syntax and or specific interactive elements of learning resource in the future. If people are taught to use VE only, they might have difficulties to change to source code editing later, e.g. for mathematical expressions the authors might not be able to edit the syntax because they were never exposed mathematical expression or mathematical syntax in general, that is needed in computer science, chemistry, physics, ... . The VE will reduced possible obstacles for beginners and shift those obstacles to a later phase of advanced authoring, in which the source code editing might be without alternative. It would be of advantage to guide authors from the VE to source code editing or visualize changes within the VE simultaneously in a source code editing window or visualizes source code for cross-checking before saving, ....? --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 13:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bert Niehaus: Regarding training, My understanding is that we've minimal training material currently. One possibility is specific training material on wikiversity on what can't be done in VE but can be done in source editor. Alternatively, is this information already already on another wiki's help pages that we can simply point to? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe just an additional button/checkbox "Show Wiki Source before publishing" next to "Publish Change" could be one option to increase visibility of source syntax, so that switching to source code editing runs smoothers. May also advanced users may change their workflow, e.g. writing the text and sections with VE and then finally before publishing the authors add the mathematical expressions source code for the learning resource.--Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 10:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


  •   Support making VisualEditor the default editor for all users. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - experienced editors are experienced enough to switch to source code, but new editors find it challenging to work out how to switch to VE. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - I know people struggle with the html so anything to make things easier Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 12:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - What year are we in? Of course a visual editor should be the first thing anybody sees . . . we already have enough problems with attracting new editors, and having a clunky code editor as the first thing people see is not exactly welcoming. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 13:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support for the same reasons as Shafee - significantly more welcoming to new folks and not a problem for experienced editors Zeromonk (discusscontribs) 14:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support As a trainer (working mainly in Wikipedia) I've seen that VE can be really helpful in getting new editors on board, so supporting here for the same reason. Lirazelf (discusscontribs) 14:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The VE is much less intimidating and may encourage more participation. Smvital (discussSmvital) 16:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    Testing the new discussion option Smvital (discusscontribs) 16:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    testing again to see how the indent works Smvital (discusscontribs) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support VE easier for newbies --Alaa :)..! 10:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support mainly because selecting the right tools is hard at first. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Attracting new users would be a good result of switching to the visual editor --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 14:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. SelfieCity (discusscontribs) 20:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Just applying common sense, and I'm personally in high praise of VisualEditor despite some irritating aspects of it. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I know I'm quite late but...: Sooo much easier to edit through VisualEditor vs. Source. Definitely a strong yes! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion Reply ToolEdit

There is a new discussion reply tool. It automatically indents and signs replies. See Wikiversity:Newsletters/VisualEditor#Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools for more information. If we want it enabled on Wikiversity, we need to request it. Please discuss and vote.


  • Technically, that will work, but could I encourage a little more patience, and a little more testing? Maybe try putting that into your own common.js files (or your global.js page at Meta; that's what I did) and seeing whether there are any problems. It's only been used here six times in the last month, and if it wrecks a page with odd formatting, then you really don't want a new contributor to be the one who discovers that. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 04:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


  • Support enabling as a beta feature. I've tried it out a bit, and it would be helpful to have, even while its still being developed --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 21:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, easy and user-friendly. Looks better than Structured Discussions extension. See mw:Talk pages project/replying#What did we find?. —Hasley talk 21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support I've never had a problem with talk pages (at least since the introduction of {{ping}}) but it seems like others want it so if nothing else, I'm willing to support the fact that others want to opt-in. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support For sure! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The reported tests seem promising. I'd be keen to see it implemented here, even if we reassess in 12 months based on how it affects new users. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --Alaa :)..! 10:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 05:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support wpuld be useful on any wiki. Serial Number 54129 (discusscontribs) 12:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support enabling as beta feature and it is good to have source editing still available on discussion pages. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply tool updateEdit

The team has agreed to add the English Wikiversity to tomorrow's list. The Beta Feature should be available (but turned off for everyone) in ≤24 hours. Once it arrives, each person who wants to try it out will need to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn on "Discussion Tools".

A few requests:

  • Check out mw:Help:DiscussionTools/Why can't I reply to this comment?, so you'll have quick answers to some common questions.
  • You and Meta-Wiki are the only non-Wikipedia getting this Beta Feature now. Please ping me or leave notes at mw:Talk:Talk_pages_project/replying (which is a Flow board, not the Reply tool) about anything that seems bad/strange/whatever.
  • I don't know when the team will next enable this tool for all users. Maybe there will be an opportunity in a couple of weeks; maybe it will be a month or two. The big deal about enabling it for everyone is that new contributors are less likely to enable Beta Features, so that's the step that really helps your new recruits. If you want to be in that next group, then please try to use it at least 100 comments (all of you together, not just one person) and then talk about whether you want it. A show of community interest can go a long way towards convincing the team that your group is a good one for the next batch.

Happy editing, Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 21:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Beta Feature is available now in Special:Preferences. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Excellent, thank you! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712, Hasley, Koavf, Atcovi, علاء, Guy vandegrift, Serial Number 54129, and Bert Niehaus: Pinging to notify, it'd be useful for people to turn it on in order to test and send any feedback in the devs' direction. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been using mw.loader.load( 'ext.discussionTools.init' ); for a while now, so there isn't really much (anything?) that changes for me when I enable the preference DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 02:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You might get it in additional namespaces. One of the two mw.loader approaches works on a smaller subset of pages than the Beta Feature. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping... I'm seriously loving this so far! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
So am I, @Atcovi. A volunteer put together a script that counts who uses it the most. I have used it more than a thousand times. It's just so quick and easy. Also, in the "visual" mode, there's a toolbar that lets you ping people or make links without having to remember how to spell their names (but unforunately, not to add templates, which requires some technical work that won't happen for at least another month). Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks T.Shafee, already tested. Best --Alaa :)..! 04:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the conversationEdit


Hello I am new to wikiversity, I am just trying to define a new field (Neurocryptoeconomics), and someone deleted the page. Also reposting results in error as the page is harmful (while it is not). This is a new field, and I sincerely believe to allow may definition and as the field grows, other can come in and edit the definition and add to the page accordingly( ref of def: @NeuroCryptoEcon). Kindly please help,

This definition is only a plus and can be edited later by anyone and describes a nascent field.

Thank you for your consideration, (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurocryptoeconomics (talkcontribs) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

@Neurocryptoeconomics: Did you talk with the person who deleted it directly? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


Yes I emailed him twice but he did not reply. I just would like to post the definition to introduce a new field that is growing, and can the post can be edited later anytime by anyone as the field grows. I hope Wikiversity reconsiders its decision. Thank you very much (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurocryptoeconomics (talkcontribs) 10:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

@Neurocryptoeconomics: I have temporarily restored this page, but with a notice that the content provided belongs at Wikipedia, not Wikiversity. If you want to add definitions, that's an encyclopedia article and belongs there. There are four other important points that will prevent further development on this effort at the moment.
  1. The topic is so new that there is apparently only one author in the world who has any information on this subject, according to Google search.
  2. Your choice of user name and self reference for the definition suggests that yours is a single-purpose account focused on self-promotion.
  3. When people bring new ideas to Wikiversity first that no one else has ever heard of, it is almost always fringe science resulting in net-negative effects on Wikiversity and the user ends up being blocked.
  4. Your approach thus far has ignored a variety of standard Wikiversity cultural norms, indicating you have much more interest in your topic than you do in our community. Refer to the item above for how this typically turns out.
If you are truly interested in providing learning resources (not encyclopedia content) regarding Neurocryptoeconomics, I recommend that you create a Draft:Neurocryptoeconomics page and provide sufficient content that a respected Wikiversity editor supports your efforts to move that content to become a main space resource. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dave for the details

Yes, at this point I just want to provide the definition.

Thanks a lot for all the explanation (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurocryptoeconomics (talkcontribs) 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

Do I have the right to ask for funding of my research project?Edit

Do I have the right to ask for funding of my research project at its Wikiversity pages? --VictorPorton (discusscontribs) 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You may not use Wikiversity to personally profit from your contributions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@VictorPorton: If you have work that will be published here or if you are doing research that could improve Wikiversity as a resource, you may consider applying for a grant. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This project was seeking to generate direct financial benefit to the contributor in violation of Wikiversity:Deletions. It has been deleted. This is the second or third attempt by this user to use Wikiversity to generate direct financial benefit to the contributor. The user's account has been blocked. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a very weird, very desperate position to see someone using this site to try to get money. To anyone else reading this, you have a 0% chance of that: please get a real job instead. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New feature: Watchlist ExpiryEdit

Hello, everyone! The Community Tech team will be releasing a new feature, which is called Watchlist Expiry. With this feature, you can optionally select to watch a page for a temporary period of time. This feature was developed in response to the #7 request from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey. To find out when the feature will be enabled on your wiki, you can check out the release schedule on Meta-wiki. To test out the feature before deployment, you can visit or testwiki. Once the feature is enabled on your wiki, we invite you to share your feedback on the project talk page. For more information, you can refer to the documentation page. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! --IFried (WMF) (discusscontribs) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Global ban RFC for Nrcprm2026/James SalsmanEdit

Nrcprm2026, better known as James Salsman, has an active discussion regarding a possible global ban.--GZWDer (discusscontribs) 07:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Related user accounts are:
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki of functions naming contestEdit

21:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubricEdit

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language.

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.

Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk page archiving questions/requestsEdit

I recently tried to set up a Talk page archive using the standard Wikipedia method. The Talk header template recognizes that there are archive pages, but the links to them are broken, because it looks like it's missing Wikiversity versions of some of the sub-templates (specifically, Wikiversity:ARCHIVE and Template:Archive_list. Here is the page in question if you'd like to see what I mean:

Portal talk:Irish

I noticed the Colloquium archive is hard-coded in the Colloquium header template. Is there any alternative template scheme I should be using? Or is someone more comfortable with these templates than me interested in setting them up? It is a useful system, especially in the situation I find myself in (reworking an orphaned set of pages).

--Chapka (discusscontribs) 11:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chapka: I've imported the template and module, and redirected back to Wikipedia for the Help: page. Please note that automated archiving won't work, at least as far as I know. The required bots don't run here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Important: maintenance operation on October 27Edit

-- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)