User talk:Sophivorus

Rights

Could you please disclose your membership / group rights that allows you to edit Mediawiki: pages? There's nothing in Special:UserRights/Sophivorus_Schenone, and it's not clear from your user page what roll you have in WMF that supports this ability. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Extension:WikipediaExtracts

It looks like there's enough support that you can put in a Phabricator request to have Extension:WikipediaExtracts added to Wikiversity. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Done, see phab:T148848, cheers! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Files Missing Information

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.

• File:Wikidialectics demo.png

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Wikidialectics demo.png is currently a candidate for speedy deletion. If you want to keep this file, please supply the missing license information. If you are not sure how to do this, please let me know and I can help. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki.J.Sci

Hi, Given your interest in Wiki.J.Sci, I was wondering if you'd consider listing yourself on its editorial board and helping find peer reviewers if an article in your area is submitted? I've also made a couple of suggestions on its discussion page in case you've any opinions. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Definitely! It's just that I'm on holidays until February, I will resume work on the journal when I return, cheers! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sophivorus:, Great to hear. Enjoy the rest of your break! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 22:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Whenever you decide to put together the issue 1 for Wiki.J.Sci, let me know. I wrote the majority of the Catalytic triad page from scratch and I'm happy to submit it for peer review. No worries if your focus is on the domain discussion first though. Let me know if you want help with any of the formatting templates. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Wow!!! Awesome article Evo, I'd definitely like to have it in the first issue! As you very well predicted, I'd like to sort out the domain and structural issues before getting into the first issue, but rest assured, it'll happen more sooner than later. Thanks for contacting me!!! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science/Submissions: Physics/Essays/Moreno/Demostration of the No Relativity of Time has been given a brief review on its Discuss page, and Life/Irrefutable Truths of Life has been given a longer review on its Discuss page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidebate

Hi Sophivorus! Wikidebate appears to be ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: But of course! Do I need to do something? --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Does God exist?

Hi Sophivorus! The Wikidebate Does God exist? appears to be ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Hi, sure! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Formal glossary of philosophy

Hi Sophivorus! The resource Formal glossary of philosophy appears to be well developed and ready for learners! Would you like it to be also announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Yea ok XD --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Should suicide be legal?

Hi Sophivorus! This Wikidebate appears to be ready for learners and participants. Would you like it announced on our Main Page News?

This may not be applicable to the debate, but many who attempt suicide usually are not proficient or well-trained in killing so their attempts when unsuccessful often worsen their medical or psychological state. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Sure, go ahead. Regarding your comment, it's interesting, but it doesn't seem like an argument for or against. --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I like to think of it as an argument in favor of legalization like of currently illegal drugs by analogy. If its legal an individual might seek medical or psychological help. If its illegal and they survive, but get caught, they may go to prison or a psychiatric ward. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we go vegan?

This Wikidebate appears to be well-developed and ready for learners and participants. Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Sure, go ahead! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Another WikiJournal of Science submission

Hi Sophivorus! There appears to be another submission to the WikiJournal of Science, namely WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Location Hypothesis of Atlantis in the Azores. Has it actually been submitted or is it in limbo somewhere? Cheers! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Fixed, thanks! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Space - Movement - Matter and Relativity of Time

Hi Sophivorus! Is Space - Movement - Matter and Relativity of Time still a submission to the WikiJournal of Science or has it been withdrawn or rejected? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Space - Movement - Matter and Relativity of Time has had two reviewers and two reviews. Usually, we give the author(s) a month or two to respond, including fixups and if needed re-submissions before putting the submission in the rejection section for not responding. What would you like to do with this submission? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Hi, and a trillion thanks for your review and help with the WJS. I think we both know what will happen with this submission, but I also think there's no rush. Please be patient now, if after a month of my review we had no answer, we'll move it to the rejected list.

Space (mathematics)‎

Hi Sophivorus!

I restored WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Space (mathematics) so that any Wikiversity reviewer is free to review w:Space (mathematics) here. I suggest keeping these WikiJournal of Science/Submissions for this purpose. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Sophivorus!

May I ask you for a comment at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Argument

Without the associated styling and collapsing that this template used to have, it's now no different than indentation. Why did you remove this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Fixed! The problem was that someone mistakenly deleted the JS and CSS files in Commons. I restored them now, thanks for letting me know! By the way, I'll let you know in advance that I'll bring some changes to the wikidebate syntax in a couple of days. I favor the new syntax because it's a bit cleaner and more importantly, it allows to edit wikidebates from the VisualEditor. Below I leave you a sample of the new syntax, which will also make the Template:Argument and Template:Objection unnecessary. Hope you like it! Cheers, --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

<div class="debatetree">
Argument about something
* Objection to the argument
** Objection to the objection
* Second objection to the argument
</div>

Score. Thanks as always. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Actually, now it makes the first argument "Refuted" no matter what. See Should we go vegan? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thanks for letting me know, I'm on it. Rather than fixing it, I'm updating to the new version that doesn't have this bug. Cheers! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 03:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: I have updated the debate on veganism to the new syntax, check it out! I'll go ahead and update the rest of the wikidebates now, but it may take a while. Hopefully I'll finish today though. Cheers! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 03:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me try with w:en:WP:AWB. Give me a moment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thanks a lot Justin! I updated all the documentation to match the new syntax while you worked, as well as the debates in the Spanish Wikiversity. I'm going to sleep now, bye and thanks again! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 05:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Igual. Buenos sue~os. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A first-order theory of causality

Hi Sophivorus! Your logic resource A first-order theory of causality appears well-developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science

Hi Sophivorus! Here's a likely line up of articles for Issue number one:

1. Space (mathematics), ready for publication and may need common language introduction
2. The Eikonal Approximation, ready when principal author finishes revision
3. Introduction to quantum mechanics, same as above
4. Quantum mechanics timeline, same as above
5. Alpha Centauri, revision stalled, may need to be imported here, or accepted without further improvement.

--Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Hi! You've done some amazing work so far, thanks!! Your list seems adequate, lets give the authors a bit more time to review their articles. Have you had any answer from them? I'm also thinking in submitting my article Dialectic algorithm, it's pretty short and concise so it should be easy to review, but I may still add some content so I haven't submitted it yet. Cheers! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift has #2 on his to do list, I've contacted w:User:Chetvorno about #3 but no response (may be on summer break), #4 I left a message with Guy, I've contacted w:User:Exoplanetaryscience and w:User:Huntster about #5 and some revisions (updates) have occurred, I contacted w:User:Aldebarium about Astronomical spectroscopy but no response and may be on summer break, w:User:Primefac is the principal contributor 75 % to Astronomical spectroscopy, and no interest shown since 18 March 2014. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of possibilities with "Astronomical spectroscopy": (1) change the title to "Optical and radio astronomical spectroscopy" and clean it up after importing it here, or (2) import it here and improve on it here to make it conform to its title "Astronomical spectroscopy". --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your awesome work! Then I'm afraid I cannot think of much else to do until these people respond. Most of these submissions come from way back, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the authors lost interest. I can do the second review once the authors respond, but I can only check for things like coherence, syntax, clarity, etc, cause my formal training is on philosophy. Also, I think you'll agree there's no point in doing a second review to an article until there's a response to the first review. However, if any of the articles would benefit from a second review right now, let me know and I'll take care fast. Cheers! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 00:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Dialectic algorithm‎

Hi Sophivorus! I am currently peer reviewing Dialectic algorithm. This is an open process. Please add any comments you wish to make to the talk page for the resource being reviewed only! Thanks! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: I just replied to your review, thanks a lot for your time! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidirectoire

Bonjour Sophivorus, j'aimerais avoir votre avis sur ce que j'ai réalisé à partir de votre contribution sur le projet francophone fr:Wikiversité:Requêtes aux contributeurs#Wikidirectoire. Merci beaucoup pour votre aide, cordialement. FrankyLeRoutier (discuss • contribs) 09:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Should abortion be legal?

Hi Sophivorus!

The Wikidebate Should abortion be legal? appears to be well-developed and ready for learners and additional participants! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: Absolutely, thanks! --Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Technical MediaWiki stuff with WikiJournals

Hi. I thought I should just update you on a couple of relevant tech bits in WikiJournals:

• I've been moving closer to being able to format {{Article infobox}} by splitting {{Article info}} into sub-templates so that its behavior is a bit clearer for each section. Getting there!
• A next step will likely be to start storing bits of info on wikidata to make the synchronisation easier rather than the system of section transclusions currently used!
• There have been a number of discussions brought up about technical aspects of MediaWiki in the Sister Project Proposal talkpage that you might be more informed on than me so if any of them are of interest definitely weigh in!

All the best, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Modified excerpt function to pull a parameter for a page's template?

Hi Felipe, Would it be possible to write a short function to specifically pull a parameter from a page's template? I guess it's likely be similar to module:excerpt's checkimage function. Use case: pull out the |abstract= of WikiJournal of Science/Beak and feather disease virus: biology and resultant disease to use on some other page WikiJournal_of_Science/Volume_3_Issue_1 (via the {{article volume summary}} template). Thanks in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Yes! I updated the local version of Module:Excerpt and Template:Excerpt to the latest, which uses Module:Transcluder. This module is able to transclude template parameters, like I just did on your sandbox. Let me know of any issues or further requests! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Champion! That's exactly it. The other aspect would be some sort of |plain= parameter to omit all wikilinks, refs and inline notes to just be the plain text. I suspect some sort of series of gsub commands to the output? For example, this one. Thanks again! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I just added a noLinks parameter to Module:Transcluder that should do the trick. Setting references=0 should take care of references, see your sandbox and let me know, cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. It's working as planned. I've also tried to implement a noRefs parameter in the sandbox copy, which correctly removes anything in ref tags, but the line to remove footnote templates (refn, sfn, efn-la, notetag) doesn't seem to work:

-- Remove any refs and footnotes
function removeRefs(text)
	text = mw.ustring.gsub(text, '<%s*[Rr][Ee][Ff][^>]*>.-<%s*/%s*[Rr][Ee][Ff]%s*>', '')
	text = mw.ustring.gsub(text, '<%s*[Rr][Ee][Ff][^>]*name%s*=%s*["\']?([^"\'>/]+)["\']?[^>]*%s*>', '')
	text = mw.ustring.gsub(text, '{{%s*([Rr]*[A-Za-z][Ff][Nn](-[A-Za-z]{2})*|[Nn]otetag)[^}]*}}', '')
	return text
end

Any ideas? as to what I'm missing? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 05:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Hi! Your request actually revealed a much deeper issue that was lurking in the module so I spent all morning fixing it. I think I got it right now, but check out your sandbox and let me know of any further issue or request! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. - now functioning exactly as expected! Another edge case: for long pages it times out (example below).

{{#invoke:Transcluder|main|WikiJournal of Medicine/Western African Ebola virus epidemic|only=parameters|parameters=abstract|references=0|noLinks=true|files=0|templates=-efn,efn-la,efn-lr,sfn,refn,notetag}}

Would it be possible to specify the section to look in first (in this case the zeroth section) before then applying the functions to avoid the timeout? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ignore the above request! I just noticed the option to include just the hash to restrict to the lead section. Actual last request (I think?): It's possible to request all instances of a named template, and it's possible to request the nth instance of a file. Is it possible to request the nth instance of a template (e.g. ...| only = templates | templates = fig |template_n = 2-4}}). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Hi! I'm afraid not. However, Module:Transcluder is meant to be used by other modules that can receive and further process the data for more specific uses (like Module:Excerpt does). Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 02:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Has already been hugely useful. Would yo be able to help write a temporary workaround version of getFiles to pull filenames out of the {{fig}} templates by just looking for:

matchAny(file, fileNamespaces, '%s*:.-%|') then
			name = mw.ustring.match(file, '[^:]-:([^]|]+)')

either as an option within Module:Transcluder or a separate module? Eventually, I'll have to learn how to use mediawiki:common.css to format up images in wikijournal pages so that we don't have to use the {{fig}} template! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 05:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Here you go my friend: see Template:Abstract, Module:Abstract and your sandbox. As to MediaWiki:Common.css, you'll probably be better off by looking into what mw:Extension:TemplateStyles can do (it's already enabled here on Wikiversity). Cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki exerpt/transclude

I know you've answered something similar for me before, but I've lost the response! Is there a way to excerpt a parameter from another wiki (specifically commons)? E.g. to return the author of an image based on the |author= within the template {{Information}} on the commons page. E.g.e.g. the author of this file is Lucas Vieira. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Unfortunately no, cross-wiki transclusion is not currently possible (see phab:T254102). Cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Useful to have confirmed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 22:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tanscluder idea that I can't quite implement!

I've been thinking about a transculsion feature where long transclusions get collapsed/truncated. Basically:

• If transclusion <600 characters -> show in full
• If transclusion >600 characters -> show first 600 characters, rounded to nearest full stop or paragraph break, and show rest upon click.

You can see my attempt at Template:Collapse_paragraph, but I've only been able to crudely truncate to the first paragraph, even if that paragraph is very short (example in action).

Do you think you'd be able to implement something like that in Lua? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability Hi! Yes, I think I can repurpose Module:Abstract for the task, since it seems its original purpose is no longer useful, correct? Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That'd be ideal! And yes, repurposing Module:Abstract would make sense, sine it's no longer used (instead replaced with module:transcluder for its old purposes). Thank you! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability Hi, good news! Today I did the first version of the module, check out Module:Abstract! There're still some minor issues to resolve, but I thought you may want to take a look already, test it on some abstracts and let me know of any issues I may have missed. Cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! I've done a few tests. I have a couple of observations:

• Each toggle will need a unique identifier so that clicking one for expansion will only expand that section
• Templates seem to be spelt out rather than transcluded (e.g. "{{w|TBSA}}")
• Links still seem to be present, even though |references=0 is set.

Looks like it's getting close! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability Done! Check out your sandbox and Template:Abstract and let me know of any further issues! There's an annoying little bug with [...] appearing in short abstracts where it shouldn't, but I can't seem to fix it and it's getting late. I'll get to it eventually, cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic! The [...] issue was also the only one I could find where an abstract is longer than the limit, but removing a single sentence doesn't get under that limit. If you're able to think of a way to fix it, I'll implement it into template:article volume summary for showing items journal issues. Thank again for all this. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability Fixed! Let me know of any other issues or requests, cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A new issue: using module:WikidataIB in the page anem parameter causes the "The time allocated for running scripts has expired" error (see sandbox permalink). I'm not sure of the exact cause, but would including a local wikidataIB within the module fix it, or is there something more fundamental at issue? Bascially, eventually I'd like to use something like:

{{#invoke:Abstract|main
|{{ROOTPAGENAME}}/{{#if:{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |qid={{{Q|{{PAGEQID}}}}} |P1476 |fetchwikidata=ALL |onlysourced=no |noicon=true |maxvals=1 }}
|{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |qid={{{Q|{{PAGEQID}}}}} |P1476 |fetchwikidata=ALL |onlysourced=no |noicon=true |maxvals=1 }}
|{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getLabel |qid={{{Q|{{PAGEQID}}}}} |linked=no}}
}}
|toggle={{{Q|{{PAGEQID}}}}}
|limit=600
}}

Any ideas on this one?

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability Hi! I tried changing Module:WikidataIB for Module:Wd and it seems to work now (see here). Maybe it's just that WikidataIB is inefficient, but even with Module:Wd it takes several seconds to save, so you might run into the same issue if you plan to add many more calls in the same page, and especially if you implement that if-else logic, since it requires two calls each. The bottom line is that excerpts and querying wikidata (for any page other than the current one) are both expensive, since each requires a web request, so there's a limit to how much of that we can do. Cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Aha, I see, thanks for looking into it! Intersting how different those modules' speeds are. I'll do some more tests to see if it's viable. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 05:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your experimental vote sections on Wiki debates

I noticed your effort to encourage reader participation by encouraging them to vote in wikidebates. Have you ever considered encouraging the submission of essays using the following template:

I tried it on what was little more than a stub on Socialism. Two essays were contributed:

• Socialism/Marxism-Leninism
• Socialism/Origin of socialism.

Two essays in five months is not spectacular, but WV needs more active editors, and essay writing is an essential skill.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Who is Shakespeare’s most evil person?

A draft at Draft:Who is Shakespeare’s most evil person? is up for deletion. If you don't want it removed, leave a message on my talk page. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New Wikidebate styling with vertical bars

I for one find the old styling preferable over the new one with vertical bars. However, I greatly appreciate your role in creating the Wikidebates and do not want to push my will over yours. (This could be numerically emulated by, say, counting your vote as three votes in a discussion about this or the like.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Hi! I too think I prefer the old style, specially because it works well with the visual editor. It was an overnight experiment, but reverting now, cheers! ;-) Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

New structure in Wikidebate

I for one find the old structure preferable, that is, not repeat the title of the motion in two forms, an affirmative and denial, and use different icons for "argument for" and "argument against". An example recent changes is in Is a world government desirable? Thus, I prefer the headings in Would the web be better without JavaScript? over those in Is a world government desirable?.

As before, I do not want to push my view hard over you, the initiator of Wikidebates project. Best wishes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Hi! Maybe you're right. The new structure was meant to account for the fact that as debates grow, more numerous and refined "stances" seem to appear. See for example Should cannabis be legal? Perhaps a middle ground would be to wait for these stances to appear before converting a debate to the new structure, and not convert them preemptively? Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Outdent) The old/current structure can accomodate multiple motions, like this:

• L2: motion 1: A is B
  • L3: Pro
  • L3: Con
• L2: motion 2: C is D
  • L3: Pro
  • L3: Con

This is done e.g. in Which is the best religion to follow?, except that, above, I used "Pro" and "Con" instead of "Arguments for" and "Arguments against" since I like the brevity of it, and it should still be easy to understand.

The new structure is more compact, but does not make it immediately obvious that each motion has a corresponding counter-motion:

• L2: motion 1: A is B
• L2: motion 1: A is not B
• L2: motion 2: C is D
• L2: motion 2: C is not D

An important principle is that the debate author should ideally consider possible cons for each motion, and this principle seems better emphasized in the current setup. Moreover, in the current setup, one can see more quickly how many motions are being debated. The new format does not guarantee that for every motion someone has entered a heading for the counter-motion, and indeed, it is not the case in Should cannabis be legal?, where we see this:

• L2: Cannabis should be legal
• L2: Cannabis should be illegal
• L2: Medicinal cannabis should be legal
• L2: Male cannabis should be legal
• L2: Cannabis shouldn't be decriminalized
• L2: Cannabis should be legal but regulated to discourage recreational use

This would have to become this:

• L2: Cannabis should be legal
• L2: Cannabis should be illegal
• L2: Medicinal cannabis should be legal
• L2: Medicinal cannabis should not be legal
• L2: Male cannabis should be legal
• L2: Male cannabis should not be legal
• L2: Cannabis should be decriminalized
• L2: Cannabis shouldn't be decriminalized
• L2: Cannabis should be legal but regulated to discourage recreational use
• L2: Not: Cannabis should be legal but regulated to discourage recreational use (How do I form a proper negative?)

And here is the pro-con version of it:

• L2: Cannabis should be legal
  • L3: Pro
  • L3: Con
• L2: Medicinal cannabis should be legal
  • L3: Pro
  • L3: Con
• L2: Male cannabis should be legal
  • L3: Pro
  • L3: Con
• L2: Cannabis should be decriminalized
  • L3: Pro
  • L3: Con
• L2: Cannabis should be legal but regulated to discourage recreational use
  • L3: Pro
  • L3: Con

Above, you have more headings (by factor of 3/2), but I find it easier to see what is going on.

That is why I find the current setup preferable. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Good points, I'm convinced! I'll revert to the old/current structure asap, cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Random choice

Dear Sophivorus, it looks like you know more on the technical side than I do. I am a professor of mathematics and work mainly on the German wikiversity, but for one course I made an English version, see Mathematics for Applied Sciences (Osnabrück 2023-2024)/Part I versus v:de:Kurs:Mathematik für Anwender (Osnabrück 2023-2024)/Teil I. There are two items which I was not able to realize here.

1) (de) the lectures (also exercise sheets) show up only by 'touching' them versus (en) they are always there and cover some stuff.

2) Definitionsabfrage (de, the second item under 'Weitere Materialien') is a randomized list of definitions (meant for students to learn the definitions and their learning success, as an electronic kind of a w:Flashcard). I have no idea how to realize this here, but I would like to have that.

I once asked in Request_custodian_action#Import_request_for_MediaWiki_namespace, but with no final solution. Best regards! Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC) (Holger)

Wikidebate button style changes

I noticed you have made the Wikidebate buttons more conspicuous, or so it seems. They are bold and on mouseover, there is a change in style. I for one very much prefer simple styling as it was before. In fact, I would be happy to see these buttons gone/removed altogether: editing wiki markup is not a big challenge (it is not like computer programming or even writing HTML), and I think that people who find it to be too much of a burden are the kinds of people I would prefer not to edit the debates. The real hurdle is the substance being debated; that hurdle/effort given, the additional effort of having to locate the place of expansion in the wiki text and having to type e.g. {{Objection}} is small in comparison to that.

As before, this meant to be a soft nudge rather than a push; I respect you as the creator of Wikidebates. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Hi! Perhaps you're right, but the easy editing has certainly contributed many arguments, some of which are of value. Wouldn't you agree? As to the style changes, it's an attempt to follow standard styling for Wikimedia elements, as can be seen in the Reply button here in talk pages. Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Do we know which arguments were added via buttons? And do we know that without buttons, good arguments would not be added, that is, that the person would not have taken the effort to use the classical editing interface?

2) As for style, on my screen/setup, the "reply" button is not boldface and when I move mouse over it, the style does not change. By contrast, the Wikidebate buttons are now in boldface, and on mouseover, there is a rectangular thin border in blue and background color in lighter blue. I don't remember changing my CSS or the like to have the "reply" button look different. I am using Vector legacy (2010), which, fortunately, is still the default for the English Wikiversity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky

1. Edits done with the buttons have "Add objection" or "Edit objection" in the edit summary (unless the user changed it), see for example here (and scroll down a bit). I just did a change to the code so that all edits done with the buttons are now tagged with #DebateTools, which will allow us to track usage from https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/?query=DebateTools As to your second question, I don't think there's a way to know if they'd have posted without them, but when I first added the buttons, contributions increased noticeably, so I think they do help (at the cost of some low-effort arguments, that is).

2. I'm using the latest Vector, I guess the new styling comes with it. I can make the CSS of the debate buttons depend on the skin too. Also, I can add a parameter to Template:Wikidebate so you can disable the buttons for specific debates. Would that help? Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Fair points. Provided we can track which arguments were added by the tool, it is probably reasonable to keep the buttons. (I don't like them, and I think many of the arguments added were not worth it, but that's my subjective problem.)

2) I switched my setting to "Vector (2022)" and the reply buttons on talk pages did not change: they are not in boldface and doing a mouseover on them does not change their style. I am not clear what is going on. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky After some testing, I figured out that the difference in style in our Reply buttons comes from me having enabled Discussion Tools in Preferences > Beta features. Since the new style is in beta, I just reverted the style of the buttons to the previous one (btw, I do agree they look better this way, and consistent with the [ edit | edit source ] buttons). As to the parameter to disable the buttons for specific debates, let me know if you want me to implement it. Cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; the styling is now gone! As for a parameter to Wikidebate template to disable the buttons, I am not sure it is appropriate for me to ask for it. How would it work: would the debates I create lack the buttons (since I would disable them using the new template parameter) while other debates would show the buttons? That would be an improvement for me, but it would be a strange practice in which the debate tools depend on the whim/preference of the debate creator. Therefore, I don't know what to do here; I am above all glad the new styling is gone. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, I do not use the "reply" button; I always aim at using the plain editing interface with as little interference from JavaScript as possible. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The language of pro and con

What if we change the label in the argument for template from "argument for" to "pro" and, similarly in the other template, from "argument against" to "con"? While the longer versions are perhaps clearer to someone not acquainted, they get repetitive real fast, and there is also an icon. I think we should go for "pro" and "con". What do you think?

You can get an impression of how this will look since I boldly made the change. I will understand if you decide to revert. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky I like it! The next step would be renaming the template itself and going through the wikidebates (with a semi-automated tool) renaming the hundreds of calls, as well as the CSS classes and references in the DebateTools code. Not urgent though, I can do so eventually. Cheers! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I like this suggested change to pro and con too - less adversarial and more discussion-based. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)