Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/June 2017

Change of behavior of the editing tool edit

Since yesterday something radically changed in the behavior of the editing tool with respect to the handling of inline equations. The edit button normally calls the source editor. If this mode is switched to visual editing, then all inline formulas are put between lines. It is not possible to correct this decision. It is annoying because now it is no longer possible to put short formulas and special characters inline. I already found it annoying that I cannot select the start editing mode. The current behavior of the tool is unacceptable. Please change this faulty behavior back asap.--HansVanLeunen (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have no control over MediaWiki software, and only minor ability to request configuration changes. If you are having problems with the Visual Editor, you can always edit directly in Edit source mode. If you'd like, you can contact the Visual Editor development team. See mw:VisualEditor for more information. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or ping me. HansVanLeunen, can you tell me more about this problem? Is the formula wrong when you save it, or only when you insert it? Whatamidoing (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem only lasted a few days and then no longer occurred. So for me the problem is solved.--86.86.128.232 (discuss) 08:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to login. HansVanLeunen (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that it's working correctly now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading Quiz extension edit

Quiz extension is currently being upgraded while the bugs are begin fixed.Some features that were requested on Extension_talk:Quiz needs community consensus.

1.Upgrading feedback to be conditional.Currently feedback is shown for all questions in quiz and for all proposals/answer. More information at Phabricator - T166931

2.Color scheme for wrong and correct answers.Currently if a question is unanswered or incorrectly answered, the right and wrong options both are highlighted in same color(i.e red). It has been reported at Link and Help_talk:Quiz. The color scheme can be changed or the correct proposals/answers can be highlighted in green. More information at Phabricator - T165387 --Harjotsinghwiki (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, happy to hear that we are improving the Quiz extension! -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further interactive elements edit

Wondering what people think about the possibility of adding further interactive elements? Some possible examples here [1] Doc James (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The toggle is already implemented as {{Collapsible toggle}}. ~~Responsive~~ Dynamic columns are already implemented using {{Columns}}. But any of these examples that can be implemented as a template or template and module would likely be used by someone. Be bold! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Importing equations from Wikipedia edit

Representation theory of the Lorentz group is recently imported from Wikipedia. It is an important chapter of quantum theory (physics), adapted for undergraduate physics students. On Wikipedia, the no-content-forking policy disallows coexistence of "...theory for physicists" with "...theory for mathematicians", "...theory for undergraduate" with "...theory for graduate" etc. Thus, the future of this, very useful, resource on Wikipedia is problematic. Here is a quote from debates there:

I can understand that point of view, though it is a bit extreme. Take for instance understanding of Lie groups. This, by itself, comes with a considerable amount of prerequisites, like solid foundations in abstract algebra and smooth manifolds. In turn, smooth manifolds, by itself, requires grounding in, for instance, topology. Within a university curriculum for graduate students in mathematics, this can be arranged for. But the intended audience for this article is not only grad students in math. It includes undergrad students in physics and engineering. These do not have the required prerequisites available. If you look in a physics book, everything about group theory (including rep theory) is somehow "pulled out of the hat". This article attempts to make a connection to the underlying actual mathematics for those readers.

Even if a prerequisite like representation theory is available, there are enough odd features about the Lorentz group (non-compactness, non-simple connectedness) that warrants the discussion (strategy, step one, step two, Group reps from Lie algebra reps respectively) because they are usually ignored even in introductory graduate level mathematics texts. These texts focus almost invariably on compact groups and never on projective representations. The latter is heavily used in applications and has undoubtedly confused several generations of students. (Feynman: If we can't explain spin to our students, do we understand it?)

The article seeks to demonstrate how the general theory applies in this particular case. As I said, I understand your point of view, but it isn't the only one. Several sections have actually been proposed to me (on this page). Among these are the non-technical introduction and the strategy section. Explicitly, the article is written "one level down". It could be written as you suggests. This would reduce accessibility to a selected few, but quite possibly it would formally become an impeccable WP article. But in my view, it would have little value. YohanN7 (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not convinced at all by your reasoning here. Yes Lie groups requires a lot of things, that is because it is a very advanced subject in mathematics and a graduate level topic in many universities. I find the idea that there are no good texts on representations of non-compact Lie groups to be baffling (have you looked at Knapp's 800 page book??) also the Feynman quote doesn't apply here, there he is saying we really don't know what spin is, here we know all the math the problem is what is appropriate for this page. I would like to disabuse of the notion you have that assuming familiarity with the topics will lower the number of people using the page, nobody will learn about Lie groups and representation from the contents of this page alone. That is one of the points of the Wikipedia linking to its other pages.

The way you should think about it is this, your view means everything I objected to should be repeated in every Wikipedia page on a specific Lie group. That includes the exceptional Lie groups or simply SO(8) (which has its own page and it is not simply connected).

Thus, the resource should feel better here on Wikiversity. However, a number of technical troubles manifest themselves. For now I try workarounds; ugly and time consuming. If we like to import from Wikipedia content rich of equations, we should import/update a number of templates.

w:Template:Equation_box_1 types an equation in a background-colored box. I did not found such template here. Workaround: just remove the call to this template, getting equation with no box; still readable, but less nice and less emphasized. For example:

{{Equation box 1|indent=|equation=
 {{NumBlk|:|<math>
 E=mc^2 	
 </math>|{{EquationRef|G5}}}}
 |cellpadding=6|border|border colour=#0073CF|bgcolor=#F9FFF7}}

turns into

{{NumBlk|:|<math>
 E=mc^2 	
 </math>|{{EquationRef|G5}}}}

giving

E=mc^{2}

(G5)

Template:EquationNote works, but sometimes strangely. Example: the code

Just look how {{EquationNote|G5|(G5)}} makes troubles.

produces

Just look how (G5) makes troubles.

Workaround: whenever the next (after EquationNote) character is a space (rather than, say, a comma), remove the space. Example: the code

Just look how {{EquationNote|G5|(G5)}}makes troubles.

produces

Just look how (G5)makes troubles.

w:Template:sfrac types a fraction. I did not found such template here. Workarounds: sometimes, "{{sfrac|1|2}}" may be replaced with "½" giving "½"; "{{sfrac|3|2}}" with "3&frasl;2" giving "³⁄₂"; "{{sfrac|''m''|''n''}}" with "<math>\frac m n</math>" giving " ${\frac {m}{n}}$ ".

w:Template:abs types absolute value (like |x|). I did not found such template here. Workaround: "{{math|''x''<{{abs|''m''−''n''}}}}" may be replaced with "{{math|''x''< |''m''−''n''|}}" giving " $x < | m - n |$ ".

w:Template:sqrt types square root. I did not found such template here. Workarounds: "{{math|{{sqrt|2}}}}" may be replaced with "√2" giving "√2".

w:Template:supsub types a superscript and a subscript. I did not found such template here. Workaround: "{{math|''B''{{supsub|2|''j''}}}}" may be replaced with "<math>B_j^2</math>" giving " $B_{j}^{2}$ ".

Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried C&P and importing some Wikipedia templates here with mixed success! A couple of years back there was a movement to generate commons templates that every wiki project could use, but I believe that fizzled out.

{\sqrt {2}}

still works! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

${\sqrt {200}}$ works! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsirel: There are two options. You can post at Wikiversity:Imports and list templates that need to be imported / updated, or you can apply at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship#Requests and Nominations for Curatorship and request curator status so you can perform imports yourself. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter edit

Please take a look on my filter log. Thanks!

--83.31.45.24 (discuss) 16:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to recent and ongoing abuse, it has become necessary to restrict anonymous page creation. Please create an account and log in for greater flexibility. This would also help others contact you regarding your recent contributions to the Internet Protocol Analysis real-world course. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]