text:
Wikiversity talk:Copyrights

Creative Commons
Any chance of getting Creative Commons dual-licensing for Wikiversity? The Jade Knight 04:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The german Wikiversity use CC-BY-SA 2.5. Why not the english Wikiversity?
 * We now have a Creative Commons learning project. CQ 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content
Hello. I am usually at English Wikipedia. There I noticed that at the article for someone added links to non-free textbooks hosted locally here at Wikiversity. I am posting because I believe this is not allowed.

Global policies for this is are at wmf:Terms_of_Use/en and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. The second of those says, "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License...". I interpret this to mean that while different Wikimedia projects can have variations in their exemption policies, activities like hosting entire non-free works are out of bounds. Friends of Wikimedia projects like the Internet Archive are alternative options for hosting nonfree Creative Commons content including textbooks with noncommercial or nonderivative licenses.

There is a template here Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 and a category Category:Creative Commons Non-Commercial ShareAlike. I think all of this content will need to be deleted and I started a deletion discussion at Requests_for_Deletion. Over there anyone can discuss the deletion. I think here would be the best place to discuss how to make Wikiversity's copyright policy as clear as possible.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   11:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 * As I read Terms of Use, the only relevant section is 7d on non-text media. CC-BY-NC-SA is a "Free Content License", so the only part of 7d that is open for interpretation here is whether non-commercial is consistent with "unrestricted". Since the full phrase is "general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution", and content under CC-BY-NC-SA is generally available for re-use and re-distribution, I'm not seeing a violation of the Terms of Use. Do you have a reference to comments from WMF Legal supporting this interpretation? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone can contact legal but for my part, I would prefer to talk this through. You could contact legal either now or later as you like.
 * Section 7d of the terms of use says, "you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy", and links to the license policy I presented above.
 * At Creative Commons they draw a line between their free and non-free licenses. Instead of WMF legal, most copyright issues in Wikimedia projects get resolved at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. NC licenses are already forbidden on Commons. They would give comments immediately if asked.
 * There are a few directions we can go with this. Can you tell me if you disagree with any of these, so I know more about what we are discussing?
 * NC licenses are non-free
 * Non-free licensed content is generally not allowed on Wikimedia projects
 * There are special exceptions which permit NC-licensed content, but the content in this Wikiversity category does not meet those exceptions, and the exception rule probably will not have any applications here.
 * Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 * We seem to have a difference of opinion in that I believe NC licenses are free content licenses, while you, apparently, do not. Commons isn't relevant here. If you'd like to see a change in Wikiversity content hosting, please contact WMF Legal and provide a reference supporting your position. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Clarifying: The difference between the Creative Commons article you linked to and WMF Terms of Use is that Creative Commons describes "Free Culture" while WMF refers to "Free Content". CC-BY-NC-SA content is free, and generally open to re-use and re-distribution. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 * This was my mistake (if it was a mistake). I just deleted my reinsertion of a link to these pdf files on WIKIPEDIA. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenStax_College&type=revision&diff=797042652&oldid=796953307 --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, we have a difference in interpretation. I am comfortable letting the deletion discussion progress without my further participation. Here are my positions:
 * NC licenses are non-free according to all authorities, including Creative Commons, the open access community, and the consensus of the Wikimedia community.
 * There is no ambiguity in defining free versus non-free licenses.
 * I can agree that either or both my phrasing of all this is unclear, or that Wikimedia policy can be difficult to read. Still, Wikimedia projects do not permit hosting of this kind of NC content.
 * Thanks, I think we reached the end of the conversation.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I need to delete files such as File:Openstax_University_Physics_Volume_1-LR.pdf?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem with CC-BY content. The question Bluerasberry has asked is whether the community agrees with the other Wikimedia projects that CC-BY-NC-SA content is not free, and if not free, then not hosted. But it should be noted that there are four paths to address this request: Based on the options available, what is your preference? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The community can decide that CC-BY-NC-SA is not free and should be deleted.
 * 2) The community can decide to ignore the request and continue as is, accepting CC-BY-NC-SA as generally free (free content rather than free culture).
 * 3) The community can decide that CC-BY-NC-SA is not free, and add Fair Use tags to retain the content.
 * 4) The community can decide that CC-BY-NC-SA is not free and revise our EDP to allow the content.

 * Looking at Wikiversity history, numbers 2 & 3 have precedents! While number 1 may have occurred, I have found no precedent and, therefore, do not agree with it. Since we are already allowing the content with that license as well as have some images originally uploaded under that license and converted to fair use per uploader or faculty request, number 4 may not garner much interest. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are aligned with Marshallsumter's. I have no knowledge or understanding of our relationship with Wikimedia Foundation, and cannot judge the relative merits of 2,3,4.  But I fully endorse the principle that we obey the rules and conform to the WMF power structure. The fact that Wikiversity can host sister links onto Wikipedia articles gives the WMF both the moral and legal authority to exert power over Wikiversity. Wikiversity should never "revolt" against WMF.  Instead, we (as individuals) should find other wikis such as https://wikiversity.miraheze.org/wiki/. I created this wiki and propose that we consider creating an official relationship with Miraheze (subject to the approval of WMF of course).  Miraheze has no advertising and relies on small donations and free labor.  It links into WMF wikis (WP, WV, Commons...) but has no sister links out of WMF wikis.  Miraheze is performing a valuable service for my university by hosting a private wikinode at https://wright.miraheze.org/wiki/ where 100 students can write term papers without "peeking" into each other's projects, which I later grade for university credit.  This service would cost $1000 per year on another wiki, and I suggested to a Miraheze administrator that they "sell" this service to my university at a low cost.  I was informed that they are committed to being a free service.  These are noble people!
 * FYI to all: I adopted a wiki that was abandoned on Miraheze, and uploaded this pdf file there b/c I don't have time to get the original authors permission. I will properly license it in a few weeks when I see this person.  Anybody is more than welcome to use this wiki for similar purposes.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

 * If there was a legal violation, we would hear from WMF Legal or WMF Office. It's a question of how we want to handle NC content. As I understand the CC-BY-NC-SA license, there is no issue. Wikiversity is non-commercial, and files (not pages) can be tagged and shared NC-SA.
 * Separately, hosting something elsewhere in the situation described is unnecessary. A Fair Use tag should be applied to resolve the freecollegeproject issue until the content is publicly licensed, whether hosted here or elsewhere.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on the file hosted by the freecollegeproject. I will leave it there because I am writing a pdf document to be read online and wanted a hyperlink to it (note also how I signed my comment on this miraheze-supported wiki with my WV username, "Wikiversity:User:Guy vandegrift").  The readers will be interested in seeing that there are lots of wikis out there.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the licensing of Openstax textbooks: Page two of each pdf contains the copyright information:
 * File:CalculusVolume1-OP.pdf (as well as volumes 2 and 3) are CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
 * File:Openstax Astronomy-LR.pdf is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
 * File:Openstax University Physics Volume 1-LR.pdf (and volumes 2 and 3) are Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
 * File:College-physics-9.72.pdf is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

 * Per https://openstax.org/tos, Openstax is CC-BY unless otherwise noted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Source of endless dispute
There is a conflict of purposes. The WMF policy was largely designed for encyclopedias, and "free content" was interpreted to mean "free for any use (with attribution)." The NC licenses discussed are not "free" for "commercial use," so the effect of the policy is to support commercial users, who, in theory, then, can just copy WMF content without worrying about copyrights. In fact, the projects are full of copyright problems, including Commons, as you can tell by the constant flow of deletions there of files that had been hosted for years, where someone discovers an alleged defect in the license.

The actual WMF policies allow individual projects to have differing policies, by creating and maintaining an Exemption Doctrine Policy. This has been discussed many times, and some of the discussion has been disruptive. See and. There has never been a clear resolution.

As pointed out there, we have an EDP. If the EDP is not clear enough to cover common situations, it should properly be revised, by the community, so that the endless arguments and questions can cease. Mu301, in 2016, amended the EDP section to add a bolded note at the end: Note: any "fair use" at Wikiversity must conform to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy

That was circular, since the Foundation policy allows Wikiversity to amend its own policies. Who decides what conforms? First of all, the Foundation policy was clearly written with encyclopedic content-creation purposes in mind. Wikiversity has a quite different mission, learning, including "learning by doing." The way I read the Foundation policy is that they give examples of exceptions, and possibly non-exceptions, but within an encyclopedic context. The WMF has the ability to enforce its own decisions, but will also generally respect community rights. We are not required to consult the WMF to develop our own policy. Rather, if the WMF considers our policy to be in violation it is free to object. Per discussions long ago, to consult the WMF in advance of finding an actual community consensus is backwards, and likely to result in the most conservative answer possible, rather than the one that most serves the purposes of this particular community.

Having a clear local policy will allow users and custodians to avoid endless disputes (and damage to content). We are free to define that policy. Instead, what we have is what could be called "established local practice." This turns something that could be simple into a more complex decision, that could then readily vary with time and the custodian involved. One point to make very clear: the existing practice requires that all "non-free" content be tagged in a way that it is machine-readable. That will allow a commercial user to quickly find all such content and, if they choose to, remove it. This fully covers the clear purpose of the Foundation Policy.

There is no issue of copyright violation on this, no risk to Wikiversity or the WMF, which is fully protected legally, and so "fair use" considerations are largely a red herring. A commercial user could decide to use NF content on a fair use argument as well; for commercial users, such uses are more restricted than are non-commercial users. But how much work are our users and custodians, volunteers, to be required to do in order to avoid some work by commercial users? Non-commercial re-users don't need to worry about it. If we can use it, so can they (assuming the license is NC. If the material is ordinary copyright, it may still be used with a Fair Use Rationale, and that requires some level of judgment. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The need to disseminate information.
Hello, At 94 years of age not too sure if I am in the right location. I will provide personal information and if someone could get back to me and advise. At my age time is not on my side. The plethora of technical information on the site is well outside my ability to digest. Born in Scotland, left school at 14 years of age. Emigrated to New Zealand with my family just after the war and lived there for some thirty years. My wife and I later retired to Australia where I now live. In New Zealand, at fifty years of age, I did a four-year Liberal studies course at Canterbury University and graduated from there. Have written and published ten books through Google Books under the title "Universal Language of Absolutes". Have decided to rewrite that series using Wikimedia images and to avoid any Copywrite issues. Would welcome any advice available.

Sincerely,

James Brines. Hamish84 (discuss • contribs) 04:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Welcome! If you wrote the content, there are no copyright issues. You own the copyright. Creative Commons licenses describe what others may do with the content. As the copyright owner, you aren't limited either way. As you note, images you don't own need to be free. Any content you didn't write yourself needs to be properly referenced and consistent with Fair Use. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Copyrights


text:
Share of voice

Share of Voice in advertising is a measurement model within advertising. Share of voice measures the percentage of media spending by a company compared to the total media expenditure for the product, service, or category in the market. For example, if an electronics brand were to invest $5,000,000 advertising their latest e-reader, but $100,000,000 worth of advertising was spent advertising e-readers across the entire market for this shared category, then the 5 million dollar investment would equal a 5% share of voice.

Share of Voice can be calculated by taking your advertising spend and dividing it by the total of all market advertising spend for the same type of product or category.

Share of Voice is used to "represent the relative portion of ad inventory available to a single advertiser within a defined market over a specified time period."

Theory
The goal of advertising is to make your target audience aware of your brand, product, or service and influence them to act. Therefore, having a high share of voice can lead to increased awareness, and ultimately, increased sales and market share.

From the perspective of publishers and those selling ad space, Share of Voice capitalizes on the concept of exclusivity. By limiting the number of ad space available on websites, email newsletters, and other media, ads are more likely to be seen by their target audiences. When you limit a website, for example, to 10 advertisers in each ad position with each paying equally, on average each advertiser will be seen at least once every 10 rotations.

Share of Voice is designed to create a mutually beneficial relationship between the advertiser and the web publisher. The advertiser is willing to pay a premium for exclusivity and less competition for their target audience's viewership. The publisher no longer has to rely on volume and can attract advertisers that want to specifically reach the publisher's audience.

Because the Share of Voice method values quality of ads over quantity of ads, publishers are perceived to have higher levels of credibility and interaction. When high quality content is presented, high quality advertisers tend to follow.

Benefits versus pay-for-performance models
The share of voice advertising model is contrary to pay per click, cost per impression and/or pay to play (see brokered programming), which are pay-for-performance models that generate revenue for the publisher (typically, the website owner) only if the advertisement is clicked or viewed. The publisher is incentivized to seek out as many advertisers as possible, often on a bid-based system. Furthermore, Share of Voice bypasses the ethical dilemmas that come with PPC and CPI models, which are subject to abuse by click fraud, or Pay to Play tactics (advertorials, product placement, news coverage in exchange for ad purchases, etc) that are not always transparently paid ads.

When content is compromised for ad dollars, the level of reputation and respect for the publisher can dwindle as readers become disenfranchised and advertisers see less return on their initial investment.

Share of Voice models
Share of Voice models can be contract models where ad placement and content are pre-negotiated. This way, advertisers have the option to have longer advertising campaigns where content does not need to change based on the availability of advertising space. Additionally, the publisher's non-ad content, i.e. in the case of a news publisher, is independent of the advertiser's marketing campaign, regardless of other sponsors or advertisers that work with the web publisher.

Share of Voice can also be employed to maximize a brand or group of brands' exposure via advertising weight expressed as a percentage of a defined total market or market segment in a given time period. The weight is usually defined in terms of expenditure, ratings, pages, poster sites etc.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Share of voice


text:
Dastjerd-e Aqa Bozorg

Dastjerd-e Aqa Bozorg (, also Romanized as Dastjerd-e Āqā Bozorg and Dastjerd-e Aqā Bozorg; also known as Dashtjerd-e Āqā Bozorg and Dastgerd) is a village in Eshaqabad Rural District, Zeberkhan District, Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 1,061, in 266 families.

title: Dastjerd-e Aqa Bozorg


text:
revelatory

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * Of, pertaining to, or in the nature of a revelation
 * 1) Prophetic (especially of doom); apocalyptic

title: revelatory


text:
User:Omegatron

No longer active
I am most active on en: Wikipedia:user:Omegatron

I started out contributing to the Electronics wikibook and the Robotics book, occasionally. (I have a bachelor's in electrical engineering, and I have built a few robots in my day.) I watched it turn into a complete mess, as a single person turned a book about Electronics into a grand unified book about Life, the Universe, and Everything. (Adding things like Brief History of the Universe, The Solar System, Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere, Earthquakes and natural disasters, and Global Warming to the Analog Circuits section, which should have been about resistors, capacitors, and op-amps.) There are just too few people on Wikibooks to fight off such disruptions, so it just goes on uncontrolled.

It seems policies are decided the same way. Compare Administrators with Wikipedia:Administrators.

There's no clear distinction between where Wikipedia's goals end and Wikibooks' begin. I'm just going to focus on Wikipedia from now on.

"Next section" functionality
I think Wikibooks could really use "next"/"previous" functionality for sections. Wikipedia has soundly rejected such functionality several times, but Wikibooks is inherently a progression through topics. Here is a sandbox for myself to try some things:

User:omegatron/navtesting

and some bookmarks to related ideas:

 * meta:Help:Variable
 * meta:Help:Template
 * en:Template:Pope
 * Manual of Style

Spell checker
See en:User:Omegatron

title: User:Omegatron


text:
Bicycles/Tire patch compound

The glue used to apply patches to inner tubes. It is a form of contact cement. Unlike most glues, the parts to be joined should be put together after the glue has dried for a few minutes.

title: Bicycles/Tire patch compound


text:
Deanery

A deanery (or decanate) is an ecclesiastical entity in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, the Evangelical Church in Germany, and the Church of Norway. A deanery is either the jurisdiction or residence of a dean.

Catholic usage
In the Catholic Church, Can.374 §2 of the Code of Canon Law grants to bishops the possibility to join together several neighbouring parishes into special groups, such as vicariates forane, or deaneries.

Each deanery is headed by a vicar forane, also called a dean or archpriest, who is—according to the definition provided in canon 553 —a priest appointed by the bishop after consultation with the priests exercising ministry in the deanery. Canon 555 defines the duties of a dean as:

 * promotion and coordination of the common pastoral activity within the deanery;
 * seeing that the clerics of the deanery lead a life in harmony with their state in life and perform their duties with diligence;
 * seeing that religious functions follow Church norms;
 * seeing that the good appearance of churches and sacred furnishings are maintained;
 * seeing that parish books are correctly managed;
 * seeing that the parish rectory is well maintained;
 * seeing that clerics, following the norms of the diocese and the norms of Canon 272, attend theological lectures, meetings, or conferences;
 * making sure that the priests of the deanery have access to spiritual helps and aid in difficult pastoral circumstances; and
 * making sure that pastors in his deanery are well cared for when they are sick or dying.

Additionally, the dean must follow the particular norms of the diocese. Canon 555 also particularly mentions that a dean must visit the parishes of the district in accord with the regulations made by the diocesan bishop.

Anglican usage
In the Church of England and many other Anglican churches a deanery is a group of parishes forming a district within an archdeaconry. The more formal term, rural deanery, is less often used, though the superintendent of a deanery is the Rural Dean. Rural deaneries are very ancient and originally corresponded with the hundreds. The title "dean" (Latin decanus) may derive from the custom of dividing a hundred into ten tithings. In medieval times rural deans acted as officers of the diocesan bishop, but archdeacons gradually took over most of their duties. However, the office was revived during the 19th century. Modifications to deanery boundaries may be made according to the provisions of the Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 63).

The deanery synod has a membership of all clergy who are licensed to a parish within the deanery, plus elected lay members from every parish. They were established in the 1970s.

The term is also often used to refer to the house, or official residence, of the dean of a cathedral. The term is also used to apply to the ecclesiastical districts of Jersey and Guernsey, which are Royal Peculiars and whose deans hold a status more nearly equivalent to an Archdeacon than a rural dean.

In the Episcopal Church, deaneries are synonymous with convocations and are headed by deans.

Eastern Orthodox usage
Deaneries also exist in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where they are subdivisions of a diocese.

title: Deanery


text:
Swasthya Adhikar Manch

Swasthya Adhikar Manch is a nonprofit organization in India which advocates for safety in clinical trials.

A women's branch advocated for health safety.

Amulya Nidhi has said that pharma companies wish to avoid all regulation of their research, and because of this, people have to advocate for themselves.

The organization filed a public interest litigation in 2012 asking for government intervention. That petition became Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India, a court case. The Supreme Court of India sided with the organization in 2013 on a case about clinical trial safety. In response, the government halted approval of new clinical trials until regulation was in place.

The organization has made some progress in improving safety of clinical trials.

In 2020 the organization commented that despite advances, transparency of health research information for the research participant is still not a common practice.

title: Swasthya Adhikar Manch


text:
cryptomonad

Etymology
From the type genus,.

Noun

 * 1)  A flagellate of the order ; most have chloroplasts.

title: cryptomonad


text:
Broken/About

Note: this page sould probably be renamed to Wikiversity: namespace.

See m:Talk:Wikiversity for other talk related to this page.

See also:Talk:About (duplicate of this page?)

Project identity
A few points:
 * Firstly, "The main goal of Wikiversity is to teach" - is horrible. Surely we are about promoting learning, not just providing information?
 * Second, why are we forbidding research? It doesn't seem possible in a learner-centred environment, especially if we are providing courses on sociology, chemistry, or anything to a reasonably high level? Or maybe we aren't doing this? And yes, I realise we don't want to just allow ourselves to become a repository for the work of Professor Fruitcake and his band of merry students, but surely there is a need for some form of publishing research and peer-review?
 * Following on from this idea, is it not necessary to provide some forum of debate wherein learners can exchange ideas/problems? Does this not obviate a project similar to all other Wikimedia projects where users have pages (again forbidden) and there is some sort of communal meeting ground, ie. Water Cooler, Helpdesk, etc.? This is a fundamental aspect of learning and motivating people to participate - one of the holy grails of e-learning.
 * And finally on the subject of cutoff point - I realise the idea of cutting off courses at high school level is probably a practical one - I realise that my points here are potentially huge and extremely complicated. But isn't that what we're supposed to be providing, eventually? It seems that for now we're just going to build a repository of books ie Wikibooks and then write up a few questions and get students to go figure - doesn't seem so inspiring to me.

I realise I could have gone and edited all this but I feel they're too big issues to just boldly change. So I'd like feedback on what people see as the identity of this project, or more like its potential identity, bearing in mind it will not remain on Wikibooks for ever :-) All the best. Cormaggio 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Teaching vs. learning. Education is still dominated by the factory metaphor: an endless stream of students comes down the line, empty bottles ready to be filled with knowledge using the most efficient knowledge injection technology. The students are viewed as passive empty containers to be filled by the fountain of information flowing from the instructor. I agree that it is a horrible image.

 * An alternative educational philosophy starts with each person as a curious individual confronting the wonders of the world. For each individual student there is a theoretical optimal way to promote the process by which the student can learn about the world. Educational institutions can be judged according to how effectively they provide the assistance that each student needs to find their intellectual path in life. Clearly, such optimization of learning requires feedback between learners and teachers. At the very least, a teacher needs to learn about the student in order to know what the student needs.

 * In the factory model of education, teaching can be one-size-fits-all. The Receptacles (students) that happen to be a good match to the Dispenser (teacher, educational institution, course of study, instructional methods) will be filled efficiently. The Receptacles that are incompatible with the Dispenser are knocked off the factory line and into the trash bin of society.

 * Can a Wiki University escape from the factory model of education? I'd like to find out. Towards this goal, I suggest that a good first rule for Wikiversity might be: Wikiversity does not have to do anything in the same way as conventional universities. We have the chance to designate the needs of learners as a central concern of the entire Wikiversity system. To accomplish this, we need innovative methods for allowing the educational process to be informed by student needs. Wikiversity should be constructed from the ground up using anything we can think of that will allow students to make known their learning needs and anything that will allow the Wikiversity community to facilitate learning and discovery.

 * This does not mean putting students "in control"; often students have no idea what is best for their learning needs, they just do not have the needed experience with options and knowing what works and what fails in education. There has to be a facilitated process of communication between members of the university community that allows institutional and personal knowledge to guide the learning process according to student needs. Of course, there has to be flexibility and wiggle room for experimentation and innovation.

 * Research. It is probably the case that university education should be centered on research. The university community has to be involved in exploration of the unknown. How to ask questions and explore the unknown is a major part of the subject matter of university level education. People who want a "university" without research should start a wikitechnicaltraininginstitute. A university community must be engaged in peer-reviewed publication. Wikiversity can make use of conventional informal wiki "peer review" of wiki webpage content and formal peer-reviewed wiki publication. Some forms of modern research can be very expensive and will probably require innovative cooperative interactions between Wikiversity and bricks-and-mortar research institutes. Some of the better research institutions are already developing online "community outreach" programs that allow for open access to the research infrastructure. Wikiversity could tap into this growing opportunity for access to research facilities and expertise. The wikiversity educational model will eventually infect and transform some segments of existing traditional universities. --JWSurf 04:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you ever so much for that thoughtful and eminently quotable piece, JW. I absolutely agree that it's just too soon to start cutting off aspects of what is a potentially ground-breaking initiative. Just on a further identity issue, and this has been discussed on the m:Talk:Wikiversity page as well as mailing lists, but what about generalising it further and naming it something like Wiki-learning (or Wikisophia as Erik and Angela suggested)? This would include the (arguably) more passing information-driven aspect of high-school courses, and also the research-driven work of potential higher education courses. But, yes, I completely agree that we need to look at the broader picture of what is possible as well as what is practical for now. Cormaggio 11:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Name and Scope. In my view, early education depends on human contact; basically, children must be allowed to hear, see and do and you need a person there to see how things are going and help out. I'm not enthusiastic about the utility of online learning for young childrn. At some point, each person (with a healthy brain) can attain the ability to start learning from sources such as textbooks. Such a person has learned how to learn and has become self-motivated and can be responsible for their own learning. At that point, online learning resources can be effectively utilized. Some high-school students reach this developmental stage, but not all. I would not exclude high-school students from participating in Wikiversity (how could you?). Anyone loking for answers will be attracted to Wikiversity. I confess that I have no talent for naming things. "Wikiversity" seems fine to me. It is hard for me to generate much concern about names. I suspect people will use whatever name they want and the project should probably adopt the name that the community comes to use. I once heard about a new university where they did not put in sidewalks. After a year, they paved the paths that people had worn in the ground. Has someone expressed a coherent objection to "wikiversity"? --JWSurf 15:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, see m:Talk:Wikiversity and a number of threads on the foundation-l list in May starting with this post from Erik Moeller. Cormaggio 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Traditional Universities "the name Wikiversity is problematic in that it ties the project very strongly to the idea of traditional universities" (source)
 * It is hard for me to picture a "wikiversity" as anything traditional. I guess it is true that there are some people who would reflexively try to model wikiversity after "traditional universities". That reflex can be easily quelled; just state that it is the mission of wikiversity to be innovative and do what is best to promote education, not replicate in silico the limitations inherent in traditional universities. Was there a debate like this when wikipedia .... wikibooks and wikinews were named? "the name wikibooks is problematic in that it ties the project very strongly to the idea of traditional books." --JWSurf 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Too Cute. "The trend of squeezing things into obscure neologisms strikes me as too cute for a serious project." (source)
 * "We can never forgive Abner Doubleday for inventing the word 'baseball'. The trend of squeezing two perfectly good words into a new word strikes me as too cute for something as serious as a national passtime, er, national sport. Couldn't he come up with something better? Er, some other name? 'Doubleday' is a silly name, too." -Al Spalding (1907).

 * Ok, I'll hit the points one by one here.

 * Teaching vs learning- I think that the way I meant the term teach and the way you mean the term learn are identical.  If you want to rephrase it as facilitate learning or sometthing similar, go ahead.  As someone who has worked as a tutor and TA, I tend to mean teach as "do whatever is necessary to help people learn the material".

 * Research- I'll stick to my guns here and say that wikiversity's job is not to host new research. I think its a case here of people getting too caught up in the name "versity".  If you're writing a paper, it ought to get peer reviewed either through a normal journal or through existing wikis.  If its already gone through peer review and been generally accepted, its no longer research and thus acceptable (provided you turn it into a course or part of a course).  A note from our discussion on meta- I would not consider redoing a sociology experiment or the like to be research unless it covered entirely new ground.  If its a run comprised of existing knowledge, its not research but an experiment.

 * Exchange of ideas- Yes, I agree that a forum for exchange of ideas and thoughts are necessary. I don't think anything on the about page ruled it out.  Perhaps it didn't talk about it, blame the fact that I did a quick rip-off of the wikibooks about for that.

 * Just wikibook problems - No, I don't think our goal is just to provide a few questions and answers for wikibooks. I think I stated it best in the differences between this and wikibooks part

 * "The major difference between the two is the difference between a course and a book. A course combines multiple methods of learning, to increase the chance of a student learning. These methods can include but are not limited to- wikiforums, lectures, homework, collaborative projects, discussions, student journals, etc. A book can be one part of a course"

 * The reason for the cutoff point is that below some point, students are not very capable of self-learning. At that point, any attempt to put courses on the web is not really aimed at the students, but at educators.  Which while useful, isn't really our goal IMHO.  Of course, this leaves a lot of ground open, and should not be intended to mean only things you learn in school are acceptable courses.  --Gabe Sechan 17:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not certain I have found the current draft goals or mission statements. I am confident that at least delivery of free self and mutual study processes to participants via internet or grid browser will be part of it or implied.  Just as practicing engineers will be assisted by case studies and sample projects FDL'ed for the pedagogical purpose of illustration by example ... so too will kindergartner instructors and home schooling parents as well as any participants stranded in isolated pockets such as Gilligan's Island or Mission to Mars (or far beyond) probably be interested in FDL'ed lesson plans that can be easily and quickly cut and pasted into something useful for their instructional efforts.  Are we to teach or enable self study for everybody except teachers and parents?  BTW I think many here are placing way to much emphasis on the term "course".  The Mars Society has a fully functional open source simulation of a Mars Colony that I fully have good intentions of eventually adding to or modifying when it is appropriate to start enabling my own cluster of space colonists or micro entrepreneur associates with access to fun educational materials.  There is an open source flight simulator that my brother is currently using to help himself learn to fly.  Both as part of ground school and for touch and go in various aircraft ... that is correct, the physics of the simulation and the feel of his custom built game rig is good that he is training his reflexes for survival escape modes before he gets in the aircraft and becomes a hazard to himself, his flight instructor and anyone on the ground nearby.  If we restrict Wikiversity to our own crystal clear vision of what it should be with no room for innovation or learning applicable to real life then we risk alienating the technical modern computer savvy internet users that we wish to attract as self study participants.  Speaking specifically regarding small children.  Why should we restrict ourselves from developing useful video, sound, interactive clips?  Clearly there have been no limits placed on commercial and advocacy groups in there efforts to profit, addict, brainwash kids in the U.S.  Anyone really think that semi random groups of parents can produce worse results than some of the potentially damaging material delivered for profit or personal agenda?  Perhaps a review board with some teeth will be appropriate to eliminate hazardous or inappropriate material or restrict it according to various cultural or geographical requirements (yes, filtering or censoring).  The discussion I have seen to date all seems to converge towards building appropriate general tools and allowing responsible agencies (sovereigns, parents, etc.) specify to the adults running the individual accessing browser determine what the local machine should deliver to specific local consumers.  Just my quarter's worth. I'll be around. Lazyquasar 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, on teaching - I couldn't put it any better than JWSchmidt's eloquent expression of the differences between teacher-centred and learner-centred education (see above). I don't think it's just a case of semantics, and I fear that, even if you think we mean the same thing, the difference will become apparent during the actual process.
 * I also think that your take on research is quite misguided. I think that you see research as some form of end product, whereas I see it (and I think JW agrees) as part of the process. However, I do agree that research is difficult terrain - we couldn't, for example, endorse research that someone did that was deeply unethical, and how we negotiate this is tricky, or will be at least.
 * The issue of creating a platform for exchange just seemed to necessitate allowing for some form of personal space, where users could upload their photos, list their interests, thoughts - ie. just like on any of our projects. The present wording forbids the use of wikiversity for hosting personal websites - ok, this could get unwieldy but so can any wikimedia user page.
 * It seems I misunderstood the cutoff point - I thought we were saying no courses above high school level, wheras it seems we're saying no courses below. Sorry about that.
 * But basically, I appreciate this discussion we're having and hope it does some good for the project. These are fundamental points and ones many members of the wider community will be interested in. Do you think we should advertise this a bit more - get a few more opinions? I also appreciate that you just recently wrote this page, Gabe, and as such it seems to reflect your view of the wikiversity. Can you maybe point me to previous discussions of these points so that I could look at their background? Thanks. Cormaggio 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * On teaching vs learning- I think you and JW had some bad teachers. I was a TA and tutor, and the good ones do whatever is needed to pound the data into my head, and thats why you see some distinction.  But as I said- I'm not dead set on that wording.  Please go ahead and change it, I believe that I meant it in the way that you mean learning.
 * The wikimedia software does have user pages for things like photos and interests. People are able to use that.  I'd be nervous of allowing full home pages- it seems like it would be way too much work for the admins.  THats the main reason we end up having scope talks in the first place- the more thats allowed, the more work it is to aintain stuff.
 * Definitely we want college in here. In fact, I don't plan on doing anything below it at this time.  I'd even say jr high would work.  There's just a nebulous cutoff somewhere below.
 * I think advertising this more widely is a good idea, the more opinions the better. Mind doing ti for me?  I'm in the middle of moving, so I'm typing this on a webTV system that reboots every 10 minutes- hard to surf or type good replies.  The issues that aused e to write ti were from a mix of sources-  metawiki's wikiversity page, talk pages here for various wikiversity pages and course pages mainly. --Gabe Sechan 22:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks Gabe. I'm trying to understand your sentence about me, JW and bad teachers - is it that you think we'd make bad teachers? If so, why? But basically, yes, the point is that there are different teaching styles and we should accommodate for that. I've made quite substantial changes to the Goals section to reflect the general substance of this conversation - please take a look. i think the only thing we substantially disagree on is research, which I've changed in the goals section but which remains in the research section. I basically think that it's just too early in Wikiversity's identity phase to block out something which I believe to be fundamental to e-learning. I'll try to advertise this a bit more - set up a Wikiversity sub page on Meta - but I'm also really tied for time at the moment. Anyone reading this, even if you haven't been involved yet, is welcome to try to implement this community involvement process that this project so badly needs. (See below) Thanks. Cormaggio 09:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, not at all. Not having seen you in action I can't say you're good, but you definitely have the passion for it.  I said that if you think there's a major difference between how I meant teach and you meant learn, you've had some bad experiences with teachers.  A good one does whatever is necessary to teach the student, he doesn't just try to follow the same formula as JW's text said.--Gabe Sechan 10:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Two short comments

The first is about the cutoff. I just do not see why we would put a cut off with a minimum age required, and definitily would not recommand it. We had several times on wikipedia some interactions with teachers from kids about 8-10, and these teachers are already using teaching supports to prepare their lectures. These are usually more illustrated, but definitly courses with guidelines over a few weeks. These courses could very well fit here. What I would not want to see if such teachers rejected from the place just because of a rule set up at the beginning of a project, by university teachers who do not considers needs for teaching materials for younger. The low level cutoff will just happen naturally. There is another reason : I wish we work on illiteracy, including teaching materials for adults. There are few of these materials in some little developped countries and I think these materials should have the opportunity to be hosted here. If they are rejected, I think they will reappear on wikibooks and upset editors from wikibooks. These materials belong here. So what are your arguments for putting a minimum age limit ?

Second, about research. I totally disagree that any type of university system should be centered around research. THis is how some students end up with brains loaded with useless stuff and do not learn to have a real useful job and end up unemployed as employers do not even see how to make a good use of all these freshly graduated people. Do not get me wrong : research is important, and in some areas, absolutely mandatory. But one of the wrong things we can see in university, is thousands of young being taught research stuff while it will never be what they will be asked to do in real life. This is not helping at all. This said, I think research should be part of wikiversity; if only in one sense : I think it should be possible for publish research papers, such as students to publish their PhD thesis, which in many countries end up on a shelf on a microfilm, hence useless. The thesis can be used as references for teaching courses. Anthere

 * I agree about the cut off point - I don't think there should be one. My initial objection was to cutting off higher courses, which i couldn't see us doing, especially if we're going to be a "wikiversity". But there is so much potential here and I think this broad scope of all education is what prompted Angela and Erik to propose Wikisophia, which I'm personally not so keen on (if not Wikiversity, then I prefer Wiki-learning for now). I think that really any courses that have a teacher should be encouraged, and those literacy programs would be fantastic.

 * And on research, I don't think that this project should be strictly "centred" on research, but rather that research has to have a place, especially in some fields. I take your point on being practical and "real world-focused", but essentially, I think it should be down to the person/people facilitating each course to decide what are the appropriate learning outcomes and teaching methods for their course. This way we are flexible to adapt - I just didn't want to cut off all this potential. Thanks Anthere. Cormaggio 16:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The role of research in a university

 * "I think that you see research as some form of end product, whereas I see it (and I think JW agrees) as part of the process." (see above)
 * The role of research in a university is a source of endless debate. "Research" can be placed in the more general category of "scholarly activity". The members of a university community should be engaged in scholarly activities. There are many activities that are scholarly, for example, creating a textbook. This is why it is perfectly sensible for wikiversity to exist at wikibooks. If someone did an analysis, I think they would find that most textbooks are produced by members of a university who in making a textbook and in so doing, performing their obligatory duty to take part in scholarly activity. The term "research" actually gets used in two different ways. There is "original research" in which investigators try to discover something new about the world. There is also "literature research", which is fundamental to many forms of scholarly activity, including textbook writing. A wikiversity is going to have to utilize resources such as textbooks and these resources will depend on "literature research"....going into the "literature" (I'll accept a broad definition of "literature") in order to learn what others have accomplished in the past. A key reason why research is central to a university is that the students get to exist within a community where the members are actively engaged in the process of doing research. This is how students learn to do research. This is how the cultural heritage of research is passed from generation to generation.
 * I can think of two alternatives to institutions of higher education where research is central to the community. First would be some kind of technical training institute where the students do not need to learn to think, only how to put patches on flat tires. There are such institutions that pass themselves off as institutions of higher education, but it is a scam. Second, you could have an indoctrination center where students are forced to learn some corpus of propaganda and original thought is actively suppressed. Some political and religious institutions shun free enquiry and adopt the strategy of indoctrination. Again, I find it distasteful to call these "institutions of higher learning", but they do exist. --JWSurf 16:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Once again, I'm in pretty much total accord - it's much clearer now you outline what it would be like without research. (Surely the wikitechnicaltraininginstitute is virtually provided for in the "How to.." manuals in progress here on Wikibooks?) But more pertinently, are you proposing that "original research" as you delineate it would be outside the remit but that "literature research" would be allowed? As far as I'm concerned, research is always an original endeavour (and in my opinion subjective, though many will find that distasteful) and it simply cannot be prohibited from a learning environment, especially a higher institution. Cormaggio 20:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Original research- bring it onI agree that the distinction between "original research" and "literature research" is blurry and mainly a matter of emphasis. Hopefully anyone doing "literature research" is being just as creative as anyone else and making discoveries and creating new knowledge from old. That's why universities recognize activities such as textbook writing as being a valuable scholarly activity as is dicovering a cure for some disease. In no way would I try to exclude any form of scholarly research from wikiversity. With respect to "original research" such as that conducted in expensive research laboratories (example: human genome project) or in the field (example:space exploration) there is no reason why wikiversity could not host a wiki "virtual research space" that would hold information about every research project that exists in the world. I predict that, eventually, some researchers are going to open up their research activities to the world and put everything they do into wiki format. Wikiversity could strive to become a "host" for such virtual labs. --JWSurf 12:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Right on. Cormaggio 17:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's my problem with research and wikiversity. Its not that research is a bad thing.  It isn't.  And its not that people using wikiversity shouldn't do research.  Its a matter of scope and difficulty.

 * Scope- there's a fundamental limit on what you can do on a project.  There's limiting factors- money, time, manhours, etc.  On wikiversity, the main roadblocks are manhours and expertise.  Manhours are simple- we only hve so many contributors, and so many admins.  The more data coming in, the harder it is to handle it all, organize it all, proofread it all, etc.  The wider your scope is, the harder it is to do this, because everyone has their specialty.  Wikiversity is already incredibly broad, for upper level meterial it will be difficult to find people to do this.  There's a reason we don't have one giant webpage called wikifacts with an encyclopedia, dictionary, books, courses, etc.  Its too difficult to do.  By paring it down, you enable the amount of work to be reasonable.  You also increase the amount of work done in a single area rather than 1 person in each of their pet research projects, creating a more comprehensive program of study, This gives the illusion of completeness, and will draw additional contributors because there is something concrete to contribute to.  Then when we have more contributors, we can broaden the scope or crete a new project, depending on what we think is best.

 * Secondly, expertise. First off, writing a textbook is not research.  Its scholaarly, its valuable, but not research.  Research is investigation to uncover new facts.  If you're doing original research, you have a major expertise issue.  If, for example, you're doing research on string theory- you can count the number of people in the world who understand the theory to the detail needed on your hands. Its not possible for us to peer review it, because we just aren't qualified.  The chance we have 2 or 3 others capable of following it are abysmally low.  In addition it just doesn't give itself well to being wiki-ized (it gives itself well to being openly available, but not to being wide sored collaborated on).  Joe Schmoe shouldn't be commenting on it, becuse he isn't capable of it.  Those half dozen people who are qualified to help all know each other, they don't need a wiki to collaborate.

 * I just don't see us having the manpower or the expertise to do original research well. I think another poject down the line for it would probably be more in line.  I don't have a lot of hope for that either, but I think its more likely to work.  Its always better to underpromise and overdeliver than the other way around.  If we have too wide a scope, we will not be able to focus sufficiently to succeed.  Doing original research seperately gives both the courses of wikiversity and any eventul wikiresearch a better chance of success.  --Gabe Sechan 09:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's do this
Sj, in his board election manifesto, commented on the stagnant enthusiasm that is the proposed projects page on Meta. I propose we really get this project moving at Wikiversity's entry on that page and start to invite people who have expressed an interest in the past to save this gem from inertia. There really is enthusiasm but it's just so complex that nobody will really take it on. So, are you ready for the wikiversity challenge? Cormaggio 20:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I'd like to see more names on that list, and an overall show of support. Not here, nono, but on meta where it's more directly noticeable. We want to look as vibrant and excited to get going as possible--which I hope we already are. I'm afraid I won't be teaching any classes myself until the start of 2007, but I'll certainly find time to assist with the administrative and organisational side of things. I'm hoping we can get a nice balance of seasoned admins to balance out the contributor-only users as it's going to be a big undertaking to both transwiki and upkeep all the data.
 * I'd like so many "comments" they have to use a subpage for the proposal. If you want to get noticed as a potential sponsored project, display so much enthusiasm that the discussion becomes annoyingly unmanageable! Heck, maybe they'll give us en.wikiversity.org just to shut us up. :) GarrettTalk 13:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * wikiversity challenge. Just a guess, but probably what is needed is someone who can make a major and sustained commitment of time and effort towards consensus building and jumping through all the existing hoops (discussion, poll, etc.) that must be jumped through in order to get the wikiversity project a name space ("take the responsibility to realize it unto your shoulders"). Probably what the board really wants to see is an infrastructure in place that will ensure that the project will not be stillborn. So someone probably has to sign-on as "wikiversity chief development officer" and do a bunch of what I would call "administrative grunt work". As much as I like and trust the distributed wiki way to get things done, that is what has been going on for the past 2 years of wikiversity "development" and it has not impressed (favorably) the folks who are in control of setting up domain names for new projects. Personally, I have never understood the Wikimedia Foundation. I look at their Proposals for new projects page and the first thing I see there is "Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge." To me, in looking for ways to promote that goal, a wikiversity is a no-brainer. When I see things like "Some veteran users are suggesting that it will be a year or two before any other project idea will be accepted as a new separate project, if ever." my enthusiasm for making a major commitment to wikiversity plummets. When people at wikibooks actively try to eliminate wikiversity, I feel like other people in the wikimedia community "just do not get it" and that creating wikiversity is going to be an uphill battle against people who are working against wikiversity. Roberth seems to actually understand the process for new project proposals, which is a plus. One thing I fear is that discussion of wikiversity is very widely distributed and nobody has that organized so people are going in many different directions. It seems like this should be the central nexus for discussion with all other related discussions pointing there and that page pointing to all the other relevant pages. I know that Cormaggio has already made some effort to get discussions organized. Maybe we need a page to list "outreach" efforts that can or have already been made to get the word out about the new project proposal. Maybe we need some message that can be "broadcast" about "now is the time to launch wikipedia, please help". --JWSurf 13:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * To be fair, I don't think the votes for deletion here at Wikibooks reflects anything more than a pruning of projects needed to be monitored, and, if we're going to be setting up some of the platforms that we list above, then I agree. I don't think therefore it represents an opposition to Wikiversity in principle, just in its current operation here. What's vital here however is that we start to get an active group together to form a solid foundation, define a suitable space for it to exist in (ie. domain) and put pressure on the developers to start it up. And I don't know, but it just may be a long time before this comes to fruition, so i wouldn't just throw in the towel if getting it up and running soon is a concern. But there's no reason we shouldn't keep momentum toward that end, and that's what I'm trying to galvanise here. Thanks for both your input, it's encouraging, and yes, I agree we should move back to meta to try to bring it together more. Create new pages or at least sub-pages of Wikiversity. And if you want to draft that message, please do - I'll do my bit but am hectically busy with dissertation at the minute. Cormaggio 17:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no opposition on principle from the board. Quite the opposite. You are perfectly correct that the only way this project will ever be created will be after someone takes the lead of the creation and actually make the effort of 1) making a nice proposal page, 2) propose it for vote and 3) lead the vote. But *someone* (or a group) has to do the job... and the fact the job gets done is the best proof there is strong motivation from a core group of editors. Do not expect the board to do it... it is not our job and frankly it would be a bad idea. Even if Wikiversity was one of the board member pet project, I would recommand against leading the creation, as it could lead to accusation of favorism. A year ago, we created a new project at a moment where we thought there was enough consensus and thought it was slowed down because of us. The accusations of "authority abuse from the board" which resulted from this creation garantee today that IF you want wikiversity to exist, then you have to wet the shirt yourself. All I can say is that the whole board is supporting the idea as far as I know. When we can trust there are enough supporters, then creation of a new wiki is a matter of hours if not minutes. Power is in YOUR hands. If things do not get done, the responsability is not on the Foundation. We are not a top down organisation ;-) user:Anthere

PS : I will go next week at the next FLOSS meeting, and will try to present Wikiversity. My thoughts after digging for a week in the archives is that the project is not yet very well explained to outsiders :-)

 * Anthere- Robert Horning has already set up such a page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity and in fact voting has started up today. On that page is the nexessary translations, as well as a list of courses already started.  He also sent an email to the meta list last month describing his intentions and timeline.  If there's anything we missed doing, please let us know and it will get done.--Gabe Sechan 00:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am aware of Robert move on meta. I have been following the issue quite closely since wikiversity here has been proposed for deletion. In the past few days, I looked with interest whether the vote would be really started, and was glad it was all in time and as appropriate. Thanks Robert for this. Let me tell you what I think is very probably missing in the current meta page. I strongly wish that Wikiversity is not limited to University (or tertiary education), and according to what I read here, I feel that most of you would agree with this; However, this is not reflected on the meta page... and as Erik pointed out, the name could bring the confusion. Another thing bringing confusion is the way information is currently organised in schools of various topics (sciences, social sciences etc...) which totally reflect a university organisation. Still, as a mom of 2, far from being at university, I can perceive MANY ways in which teachers could use wikiversity (even if a 8 years old is very unlikely to follow a course online), and as an adult, I can perceive MANY things that could be taught online, totally out of regular university frame. A couple of example 1) a course focused on bring help to injured people 2) a course such as the one followed by all pregnant women in developped countries before giving birth or 3) a course on how to use excel (or any software). These three make sense on wikiversity to my opinion. Students would benefit from the frame and the interaction with other students and teacher. Still, none of this is described anywhere and when I look at the meta proposal, I do not imagine this. I only wonder where the "giving birth without pain" could fit in the current proposal. Since I can't get a vision... I am not sure everyone will get it. And am not sure people will vote in full knowledge of what they could be voting for. By I hesitated to change the page as it is already translated in several languages. I wonder if we could not add a couple of "visions" examples to the proposal. Do you see what I mean ? <IP_ADDRESS> 04:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cutoff point - College, High School, and Junior High courses
(moved from content page)

"Any material roughly equivalent to a college, high school, or junior high school course or a significant part of such a course. While even earlier courses would also be acceptable, you eventually hit the level where you're no longer targeting students, but educators. This is the cutoff."

 * This is nonsensical. What point in defining a "cutoff" for the "School of Education".  Every teacher's college in the modern universe to have a stock of FDL materials prepared to assist current and future home, public and private educators except Wikiversity and other backwards faculty development facilities? Since this will probably be a long debate let us skip the local talk page and go directly to a policy discussion at the Wikiversity:School of Education:Wikiversity Content Policy:Content Cutoff.
 * Should our local educators refuse to take up this debate then we can shift to the Engineering Department. Lead engineers and planners often find some rudimentary education is required to successful complete and manage large complex projects and programs.  Please remove this note when permanent policy is approved and published by the responsible Wikiversity Board, Voting Faculty, or Policy Body.  Lazyquasar 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no "Wikiversity Board" etc (or, alternatively, consider yourself on it!) I've tried to clarify this debate on the content page and I've also suggested Project identity as a page to start this discussion if it does take off. Issues I see are: Wikiversity's name, the type of materials it hosts (ie resources or courses), the cutoff point for materials, and whether it should host original research. Oh, and where it should be hosted, of course. I'm also unsure if this debate would be more productively held on Meta or Wikibooks. Cormaggio 11:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Teaching & Research: It CAN be done!
There is nothing in the concept of Wiki that is antithetical to either teaching OR research. In fact, Wikiversity offers the most promising framework for all of the functions of academia, and it can do it better than traditional academia! You just have to structure it right! After all, the most important function of a university is a system of accreditation, for students (earning degrees), for professors (whose teaching credentials are assured by the institution), and for researchers (whose research is also accredited by the institution, and accreditation is what Wiki does best! We just have to get away from the idea of Wikiversity accumulating vast sums of money from students and government grants, and then dispensing them on teaching and research, as in the old-fashioned "brick and mortar" academy. Thats the centralized Soviet concept of academia. We need the self-organizing distributed self-accreditizing concept that is the core principle behind Wiki.

First, in teaching, cut out the middle man, and have students pay directly to professors of their choice that they find listed in Wikiversity, which provides the framework where professors can "hang their shingle" and advertise their availability, as in this example professor's shingle. The professors in turn accredit each other by forming voluntary associations under various "departments", and they appoint a dean from amongst themselves to vouch for all the professors in the department, as in this example dean's page. The professors in a department check each others' credentials, and judge each other during disputes. Each professor in turn accredits and validates the students that they teach, watching out for cheats and charletans among the students. And clusters of departments can associate into mega-departments or instititues, again based on their mutual reputations. Finally, Wikiversity as a whole validates all the departments and institutes under its tent, using the same kind of self-validation seen throughout Wiki. If a scandal occurs, then very quickly, students, professors, deans, and Wikiversity itself, will rapidly distance themselves from the offender, so the system polices itself.

And research can be funded in exactly the same distributed self-accreditizing manner. Interesting research is posted on Wikiversity, as in this example research shingle, where interested funding agencies or even private individuals can pick and choose the research they find most interesting, then they send funds direct to the researchers themselves, again cutting out the middle-man and the need for middle-bureaucrats to make big financial allocations. Instead of one giant government bureaucracy allocating millions of dollars by way of requests for proposals, complex reviews, and panels of experts, the funds can trickle in $10 or $20 at a time, but from millions of small private doners who think the research is worth funding. Not only can Wikiversity perform the same functions as academia, it can do it much much better!

 * Right now we need to address the request for modifications to the Wikiversity proposal. --JWSurf 20:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide Vancouver University
Worldwide Vancouver University http://www.WorldwideUniversity.edu would be glad to collaborate in the Wikiversity concept.

00:13, 13 January 2006

Proposal: How to accredit students
Students of Wikiversity could be accredited if they could take exams or have term papers marked in a formal setting. I propose a way this could be done.

Markers, exam composers and exam supervisors from universities around the world could be allowed to register (after applying or interviewing) with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Students with a Wikibooks user account ready to be evaluated would enter some identifying information into a secure form and be given a private access code from Wikimedia. The code, combined with a full name, would grant a graduate school or potential employer full or partial read-only access to the graduate's permanent record. The uploading of exam papers by authors would also be highly secure; current papers would, of course, not be published.

Although term papers could be e-mailed to their markers, exams would probably have to be taken in a formal setting at a bricks-and-mortar university.

The markers would be given access to a highly secure form where they could enter marks into student permanent records.

When one student had met the requirements to graduate, Wikimedia would provide them with a printable diploma, certificate or degree. The certificate would be prominently displayed on the permanent record for easy verification by employers.

If the electronic security measures were strong enough, the one question remaining would be who would pay the markers and authors for their time, and the universities to rent their exam rooms, if they are not willing to provide these services pro bono; they could be paid for by the student (which would probably still be less than traditional tuition), the student's local government, and/or Wikimedia donors.

I would welcome some feedback. Would this enable accreditation of Wikiversity by professional organizations? Are there additional issues that might arise in the developing world? <IP_ADDRESS> 16:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Accreditation is not where we should be going - it is impractical, and would actually hold us back. In any case, the board rejected "credentials" in their last decision - see Wikiversity/Modified project proposal - I think this logically extends to accreditation. -- Cormaggio 22:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * A far better approach IMHO is for the wikiversity to stay clear of accredation issues and simply allow already existant academic institutions to continue as things go along. If a particular institution establishes a bona fide examination for a particular course that people can enroll for (at a reasonable registration fee) then a note to that effect can be included. It would be great if real universities etc ... are prepared to between themselves offer examinations for courses but its highly unlikely that anything of the sort will ever occur.

Too long
This page has begun issuing warnings that it is too long for some browsers. Accordingly I am initiating breaking it up into multiple pages. Unfortunately I am confused about whether and where this project is still active. I hope the Wikimedia Board manages to publish some minutes regarding its scheduled 13 November Meeting where Wikiversity was an agenda item soon. A pointer placed here if the minutes online would be appreciated. Lazyquasar 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Link to original page before beginning segmentation.

Wikiversity:draft policy discussion:Should research be allowed, integral or prohibited on Wikiversity assets?

 * Please do not break up this page - if needs be, you can archive, but it is inactive at present, so it can stay the way it is. Cormaggio 22:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Broken/About


text:
User:Muhammedfasilm

Born in 1989 at Calicut, India, Muhammed Fasil is one of the greatest personality. Completed his graduation in B.Tech from the University of Calicut. Currently working as Software Analyst in Dubai

title: User:Muhammedfasilm


text:
2019–20 UC Irvine Anteaters men's basketball team

The 2019–20 UC Irvine Anteaters men's basketball team represented the University of California, Irvine in the 2019–20 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. The Anteaters were led by tenth-year head coach Russell Turner and played their home games at the Bren Events Center. UC Irvine was a member of the Big West Conference. The team won their second straight Big West regular-season title before the 2020 Big West Conference men's basketball tournament; subsequently, the remainder of the 2019–20 NCAA Division I men's basketball season and postseason tournaments were canceled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The team finished 21–11, and won at least a share of 3 of the last 4 Big West regular-season titles. The program has won at least 20 games in 7 of the last 8 seasons. Turner became the winningest coach in program history on January 15 surpassing Pat Douglass's total of 197 wins and won his 4th Big West Coach of the Year Award. Evan Leonard, Eyassu Worku and Tommy Rutherford all recorded their 1,000th point during the season, the first time the program has had three players score 1,000 career points in the same season. The team was 12th in the nation in FG% defense, holding opponents to 38.8% shooting, 11th in total rebounds (1,269), and 3rd in rebounding margin (+9.4). Brad Greene pulled down a Bren Events Center-record 21 rebounds on January 11 vs. Hawaii.

Previous season
The Anteaters finished the season a program-best 31–6 overall, and 15–1 in the conference, and recorded their first-ever NCAA tournament win over Kansas State in the South Region first round before falling to Oregon in the second round. During the season, the Anteaters participated in the 2019 Gulf Coast Showcase, which was held in Estero, Florida, where they were runners-up upon defeating UTSA and Tulane before losing to Toledo. Prior to the season, the Anteaters competed in the 2018 Asia-Pacific University Basketball Challenge, hosted by the KBA and Yonsei University where they were also runners-up.

Schedule
Source:

!colspan=12 style=""| Exhibition

!colspan=12 style=""| Non-conference regular season

!colspan=12 style=""| Big West regular season

!colspan=12 style=""| Big West tournament


text:
1948 Wimbledon Championships – Mixed doubles

John Bromwich and Louise Brough successfully defended their title, defeating Frank Sedgman and Doris Hart in the final, 6–2, 3–6, 6–3 to win the mixed doubles tennis title at the 1948 Wimbledon Championships.

Seeds
🇦🇺 John Bromwich / 🇺🇸 Louise Brough (champions) 🇺🇸 Tom Brown / 🇺🇸 Margaret Osborne (semifinals) Jaroslav Drobný / 🇺🇸 Pat Todd (semifinals) 🇦🇺 Frank Sedgman / 🇺🇸 Doris Hart (final)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall Athens

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Mall Athens
No assertion of notability, non-encylopediodic design ⇒    SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (and kudos to Jester for listing all these extraneous articles about non-notable shopping centers). Joe 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Malls and shops are generally not notable. See Articles_for_deletion/Precedents. --Metropolitan90 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, rewrite poor article, but clearly notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The largest shopping centre in a capital city of millions is clearly notable. Osomec 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Mall is notable because (1) it is the largest shopping center in Greece, newly built and a nationwide center of attraction. If Disneyland is important enough for France, so is the Mall for Greece. (2) according to recent press reports ( "Galera" magazine ), the construction of the Mall has been one of the largest economic and political scandals in post-junta Greece, larger than the Koskotas scandal of the 1990ies. If this poll decides against deletion, I am willing to contribute this information. --Michalis Famelis 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
The Kissing Booth (film series)

The Kissing Booth film series consists of American teen-romantic comedy films developed and released as Netflix original films, exclusively for the streaming service. Based on the novels written by Beth Reekles, the plot centers around Rochelle "Elle" Evans, and the complications that arise when she begins dating her best friend's older brother. The series explores the teenage experiences of high school, popularity, dating, and friendship.

Although it was poorly-received by critics, the series as a whole has seen success in its streaming numbers with audiences. Netflix officially identified it as one of its consistently most-viewed releases.

The Kissing Booth (2018)
Rochelle "Elle" Evans, is a popular and outgoing student at her high school. Despite this, she has never been kissed. Together with her life-long best friend Lee, the pair plan a kissing booth event as a fundraiser for their school at a Spring Carnival fair. Elle has always had a secret crush on Lee's bad-boy older brother, named Noah. For years, she never acted on her feelings, since she and Lee had written rules about their friendship. One of those rules was to never date each other's family members. After sharing a kiss at the event, Elle and Noah begin a secret romantic relationship. When Lee finds out, there is a strain on the pair's friendship. After some time, their differences are overcome. Elle navigates the complexities of teenage-drama, while Noah prepares for Ivy League college experience at Harvard University. As he leaves, Elle realizes that though she doesn't know what the future holds, her romance with Noah will always be a part of her.

The Kissing Booth 2 (2020)
Elle begins her senior year of high school, while Noah is a freshman at Harvard. The couple navigate their lives, balancing full schedules of education and studies, and continuing their long-distance relationship. This is complicated as each of them find attraction elsewhere; Elle with a new student named Marco, and Noah with a British student named Chloe. Elle tags along with her best friend and his girlfriend named Rachel, as a third wheel on the couple's dates, only to unintentionally cause friction in their relationship. Noah meanwhile asks Elle to once again break one of her best friend rules with Lee, and wants her to move to attend college with him once she graduates high school. Lee however wants her to continue her schooling, with him at Berkeley. Noah realizes that his feelings for Chloe are only as a friend, while Marco tries to convince Elle that they have something more. Noah and Elle reconcile at her graduation. Elle receives letters from Harvard and Berkeley notifying her that she is accepted at both schools. She faces the difficult decision of choosing her best friend, or her love life with Noah.

The Kissing Booth 3 (2021)
In July 2020, it was announced that a third entry in the series had been filmed back-to-back with the previous film. As principal photography had been completed before the coronavirus pandemic outbreak, its release will be affected, as was much of the film industry.

title: The Kissing Booth (film series)


text:
Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a few comments:
 * Hi, I'll review this article! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * review
 * I made some edits that you are free to change.
 * Make a slight tweak to one as Baja California is a state in MX as well as a peninsula. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "developed from a tropical disturbance offshore the coast of Africa. After developing on August 13," - kind of repetitious
 * Removed the first part as it was not true AFAIK. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * San Carlos needs disambiguation
 * ✅. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "making Doreen the wettest tropical cyclone for the state of Nevada." - as of that date?
 * Yea, but the record has not been broken since. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * but you don't know when a view is reading this article. Perhaps they're read it a year from now, and that statement may not be true then. It's a rule somewhere in MoS not to use uncertain dates. I've changed it. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that rule is not in the layout or lead guidelines, then, it should not hold an article back from promotion, BTW. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in the GA criteria 1: "words to watch" - not to use uncertain dates. (see relative time references) Now you've "edit conflicted my passing of your article. So you want to argue over this?  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it. Otherwise the article looks fine. Will put on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I've made a couple more copy edits.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:y
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * Again, thanks for the review. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)/GA1


text:
Kansas's 20th Senate district

Kansas's 20th Senate district is one of 40 districts in the Kansas Senate. It has been represented by Republican Eric Rucker since his appointment in 2018 to replace fellow Republican Vicki Schmidt; Rucker was defeated in the 2020 primary election by State Representative Brenda Dietrich.

Geography
District 20 is based in southern Topeka, also stretching to cover sparsely populated portions of Shawnee and Wabaunsee Counties.

The district is located almost entirely within Kansas's 2nd congressional district, with a small portion extending into the 1st district. It overlaps with the 50th, 51st, 52nd, 53rd, 54th, 55th, and 56th districts of the Kansas House of Representatives.

2020
In 2018, incumbent Vicki Schmidt was elected Kansas Insurance Commissioner, and Assistant Secretary of State Eric Rucker was chosen to replace her.

title: Kansas's 20th Senate district


text:
Portal:Thermodynamics

{|cellspacing="5" cellpadding="10" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;width:99%;background-color:inherit"
 * style="background-color:#CCCCFF;border:1px solid #999999;-moz-border-radius:8px" |
 * style="background-color:#CCCCFF;border:1px solid #999999;-moz-border-radius:8px" |

Laws of Thermodynamics (Simplified)
1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, in a closed system, the total amount of energy that can be taken out of the system will be equal to the total amount of energy that was put into the system.

2. In any given exchange of energy, there will always be energy lost. This is referred to as entropy. This basically means that in any system, energy will always be lost in some means, be it friction, or some random quantum effect.

This also implies that there can be no such thing as a perpetual motion machine as energy will always be lost in some form.

 * Note that this lost isn't mean to say "destroyed". It rather means unusable. That lost energy is transferred to the microscopical degrees of freedom of the system, as are molecular vibrations, place in which we call it "heat".

3. No system can reach absolute zero temperature. This is due to the fact that at absolute zero, a system has no energy, and thus does not move. Although this does not cause any problems in the sense of classical mechanics; it does cause problems on the quantum level. If a particle had no movement at all, its speed would be exactly known (zero, exactly), which is forbidden by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 * }

{|cellspacing="5" cellpadding="10" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;width:99%;background-color:inherit"
 * style="background-color:#CCCCFF;border:1px solid #999999;-moz-border-radius:8px" |
 * style="background-color:#CCCCFF;border:1px solid #999999;-moz-border-radius:8px" |

Introduction
Engineering is an area in which mathematics is applied to actual real world problems. The basic fundamentals of Engineering all require Calculus to understand. The more advanced topics require knowledge of both ordinary and partial differential equations. Actual applications require the usage of multiple forms of mathematics in tandem with each other. Frequently, multiple partial differential equations are solved at the same time. To solve these equations effectively, a combination of linear algebra and differential equations is used.

One example is in solving the gas equation in chemistry. Standard equations of the "ideal" gas law is PV = nRT. Engineers understand that the "ideal" gas does not exist in reality, and a compression ratio must usually be used. As such the equation is often used as " PV = znRT " where z is used as a compression ratio.

The compression ratio though is a mathematically derived constant which is based on experimental data. The data is taken and has curvefitting applied to it. Basic algebraic curve fitting does not do an adequate job, so a differential approach is applied to it. In order to do this Maxwell's equations must be applied to get the ideal Gas law into a partial differential format.

One of Maxwell's equations is:

 * $$ T = \left( \frac{\partial H}{\partial S} \right)_P $$

where T is temperature, H is enthalphy, S is entropy, and p is pressure.

So, in essence, the temperature is equal to the change in enthalpy with respect to the change in entropy, assuming that pressure is constant. The $$\partial$$ operator states that the enthalpy (H) is dependent on multiple variables (S,p) and that S is just one of them. By making pressure a constant, the derivative of H just depends on S, and not on p.

By making substitutions like this into the ideal gas equation, the compression factor "z" can be determined for each gas.

 * }

title: Portal:Thermodynamics


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese board games

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Japanese board games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:LISTN. No evidence listing of this product type is anything but an OR-ish CATALOG. If there were sources, we could consider a merge to List of traditional Japanese games, which is a topic that does have some reasonable significance/coverage, but I don't see the topic of modern board games (which is most the list) from Japan being discussed outside some blogs and forum posts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here  01:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here  01:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * KEEP 9 of the 10 things listed have their own articles, so its useful for navigation, thus a valid list article. The modern games couldn't be merged to the other list.   D r e a m Focus  01:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that some of the items on that list are notable does not make the list pass LISTN, not unless you can show that they are other such lists out there (in reliable sources). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WHYN Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).  D r e a m Focus  04:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination is little more than a generic objection to list articles in principle, and therefore has no grounding in policy and is plainly incompatible with consensus practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, I feel like this article meets WP:SALAT, due to its potential usefulness in navigation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  15:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep passes WP:LISTN The links are present so the list aides our readers nav and info. Wm335td (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:CATALOG says that we shouldn't post information about pricing or availability. It does not mean that articles or lists about commercial products are invalid. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: List meets WP:CLN. "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. ... Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. ... Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".  // Timothy ::  talk  03:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silion

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Silion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:N Richard C. Stone (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:N and nom Clubjustin3 (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete Its content is incorrect anyway. It is effectively an orphan, because "What links here" shows an earlier incarnation when it was some sort of Indian village.-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:35, wikitime=  05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment This AfD was started by a vandal who mass-nominated dozens of articles for deletion, seemingly at random. Since this one has generated other delete !votes, I'm going to leave it open; I have no opinion on the notability of the article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep as per WP:NGEO and WP:GAZ.--RioHondo (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 10:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep per WP:GEOLAND. It's an officially recognized, populated barangay, as demonstrated by the very first reference in the article (the Philippine Statistics Authority) and by various other authoritative sources, e.g. [. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND and now sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silion


text:
Matthew Rankin

Matthew Rankin is a Canadian experimental filmmaker. He is most noted for his feature-length debut, The Twentieth Century, which premiered in 2019 and was nominated for eight Canadian Screen Awards, winning three.

He has also received accolades for his 2014 film Mynarski Death Plummet, which was a shortlisted Canadian Screen Award nominee for Best Live Action Short Drama at the 4th Canadian Screen Awards and a shortlisted Jutra Award nominee for Best Short Film at the 17th Jutra Awards, and his 2017 film The Tesla World Light, which won the Canadian Screen Award for Best Animated Short at the 6th Canadian Screen Awards and received an Honourable Mention for the Toronto International Film Festival Award for Best Canadian Short Film at the 2017 Toronto International Film Festival.

Originally from Winnipeg, Manitoba, he studied history at McGill University and Université Laval.

He has also had occasional small acting roles in other directors' films, most recently the 2022 films This House (Cette maison) and Before I Change My Mind.

Filmography

 * Le facteur poulpe - 2005
 * Où est Maurice? - 2006
 * I Dream of Driftwood - 2008
 * Sharhé-Halé Shakhsi: M. Rankin - 2008
 * Cattle Call - 2008
 * Hydro-Lévesque - 2008
 * Negativipeg - 2010
 * Tabula Rasa - 2012
 * Mynarski Death Plummet - 2014
 * The Radical Expeditions of Walter Boudreau - 2015
 * The Tesla World Light - 2017
 * The Twentieth Century - 2019
 * Municipal Relaxation Module - 2022
 * Universal Language - 2024

title: Matthew Rankin


text:
Quilizumab

Quilizumab (INN) is a humanized monoclonal antibody designed for the treatment of asthma. It binds to IGHE.

This drug was developed by Genentech.

title: Quilizumab


text:
Supplemental Guide to Lord of the Flies

This book is intended to provide help for students studying the novel "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding at any level.

Contents

 * /Characters/
 * /Symbolism/

Chapters

 * 1) /The Sound of the Shell/
 * 2) /Fire on the Mountain/
 * 3) /Huts on the Beach/
 * 4) /Painted Faces and Long Hair/
 * 5) /Beast from Water/
 * 6) /Beast from Air/
 * 7) /Shadows and Tall Trees/
 * 8) /Gift for the Darkness/
 * 9) /A View to a Death/
 * 10) /The Shell and the Glasses/
 * 11) /Castle Rock/
 * 12) /Cry of the Hunters/

ניתוח יצירות ספרותיות/ויליאם גולדינג/בעל זבוב

title: Supplemental Guide to Lord of the Flies


text:
sorvegliare

Etymology
. ..

Verb

 * 1) to watch, keep an eye on, watch over
 * 2) to supervise or oversee

title: sorvegliare


text:
Tru-Kvlt-Metal

"Tru-Kvlt-Metal" is the second non-official and third single song by American melodic metalcore band All That Remains from their seventh album, The Order of Things. It was released February 10, 2015.

Song meaning
Phil Labonte stated about the song: "Tru-Kvlt-Metal" is really sarcastic. It's really directed towards the people that we've heard year after year, record after record, saying, 'Oh, put out another record like The Fall Of Ideals. We've done that, and even if we did it, some purist would say it's tarnished anyway because we've already done it. You can't win, so (the song) is kind of like flicking my nose at them and giving them the bird."

Reception
AllMusic reviewer James Christopher Monger criticized the track, saying the song "goes so far as to call out those who have cast doubt on the band's authenticity, and does so amidst a barrage of alt-metal tropes that must have taken minutes to conjure."

Personnel
All That Remains

 * Philip Labonte - lead vocals
 * Oli Herbert - lead guitar
 * Mike Martin - rhythm guitar
 * Jeanne Sagan - bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Jason Costa - drums

Additional

 * Josh Wilbur - Production
 * TBA - Mixing
 * TBA - Mastering
 * TBA - Artwork

title: Tru-Kvlt-Metal


text:
Lojban/Dates

There are two systems of naming months in use: one based on the zodiac, and one based on numbers. The place structure is "x1 is foomonth in year x2 in calendar x3"; this is not according to jvojva but makes it easy to specify dates as "the day nth of the foomonth of the year mmmm".

There are also systems of naming the days of the week based on Oriental elements and numbers.

Note that Sunday in Lojban is either day seven or day zero, depending on your perspective.

title: Lojban/Dates