Talk:States of Wikiversities

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Very important tool, to know which community we can and should support.--Juan de Vojníkov 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


The page is a bit chaotic. I think that it would be very helpful to remove some months from the activity section and make the size of the tables smaller. This should help somebody to navigate through the page and it would make the page much better.--ZaDiak(T)(C)@ 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Or separate the table in two : in a table, the contributions, in an another, the transaltion ?Crochet.david 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not have a problem in this way too ;). But something should be done. Can you do the change in the next update?--ZaDiak(T)(C)@ 18:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem.Crochet.david 20:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


When can we expect an update of the site? I'm curious what happened in het last months. Timboliu (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks David. Timboliu (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This should not depend on David. The page may be edited by anyone, but it is difficult to understand the wikitext, and I don't know that data sources have been fully explained. David has been busy, and hasn't updated this since October, 2013. Maybe it doesn't matter, but this is a prominently featured page.
This often happens on wikis. Someone has a great idea, and works hard to implement it, and then maintains it for a while. And then what happens? Bots can be written to compile data and dump it onto a page. If a task is simple, it can be done by anyone.
This is not a criticism of David, who has obviously done a great deal of work. --Abd (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Activity in the Dutch wikiversity is not shown[edit]

Why is the activity table for the Dutch wikiversity not up-to-date? Who can fix this? Timboliu (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)



I am thinking about updating this page (manually, that is), but I would like to share some of my ideas first, and wait for a few days for any objections. Here is my plan:

  • Translatewiki activity is not something that we can check retrospectively, so references to translations should be removed. We can keep a final column in the table for the current situation, which would be better.
  • There is no difference between "No" and "0", if I am reading the page correctly (please advise if I am mistaken). So I plan to keep the cells red until the month when the respective project started, and keep the zero-contributor months in orange. When the project had 1 contributor, then it should be marked as 1, but if 0 in the next month, then back to the orange. Update: Scratch that, I get the idea behind it now.
  • When old pages get deleted, the Catanalysis tool can not keep track of this, obviously. So, edits to these pages are lost. It may be argued that this is problematic and maybe disrespectful to the contributors, but I beg to differ. I think lasting contributions are what matters, so we should stick to what Catananalysis shows us, and update the table retrospectively from time to time. In another words, we should decrease the numbers, should that be the case. For instance, I've tagged the majority of my project's (TR) pages for deletion, and this will decrease our numbers, but it sure is healthier.

Assuming noone will have any objections, I plan to start updating the page and implementing the changes mentioned above. Meanwhile, I'd love to get some feedback from those who read this, and especially from Crochet.david, who created the page.

Vito Genovese 14:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been bold and updated the first table with current data. I've also added automatic Catanalysis links to the language codes, and I intend to develop the table structure further. Any comments are welcome.
As the second step, I intend to check with the LangCom in order to see what the actual status for each project is, and rearrange the tables accordingly.
Vito Genovese 18:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, about the "Request in meta" column. This column provides links to ancient LangCom reports, which are not used anymore. Many of these reports were not even created by LangCom members, so there is nothing we should be linking to. Wikiversity requests are now kept here, so we should adopt the two statuses that LangCom uses, namely "Discussion" and "Verified as Eligible". I will be restructuring the second table accordingly.
Vito Genovese 19:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for getting this done, your ideas look very sensible to me. Still, we should be thinking about automatising these updates. With regards to the LangCom links, we could be linking to m:RNL and the respective subpages instead. --Vogone (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vogone: Thank you for the feedback. RNL is exactly what I have in mind. I think we should finalize the layout, and then configure a bot for the subsequent updates. I wouldn't mind updating the upcoming months manually, though. It shouldn't be so much work once the initial update is completed.
Vito Genovese 10:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

{{Catanalysis}} and category conventions on Beta[edit]

One problem here is that someone wanting to look at the statistics for a test would get an incorrect result from {{Catanalysis}}. See the modification I made there. This now gets to the correct results (i.e., mainspace pages that are part of a Beta category, not category-space pages that are part of a Beta category).

Separately, if someone unilaterally goes away from the root category naming convention here, one doesn't necessarily find all the pages one needs to find. So, Jayprakash12345, if you mostly categorize Hindi Wikiversity items here as in Category:वैकल्पिक HI rather than as in Category:HI, an outsider might not find them at Catanalysis. At minimum, you need to put a pointer there on the page for Category:HI. But I suggest you're better off sticking to the naming conventions in use here. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
StevenJ81 First of all Sorry for the trouble. It was changed by me. Because I discussed it with native community. Some of page have not well written content in HI category. Thus the task being closed in phabricator as you known. So native taked decision that new alt category made for fast tracking. And when page wrote in well content then Change again in root category. Thanks-Jayprakash (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

StevenJ81 Sir, Give us some time. I will fix all this in 15-25 days.-Jayprakash (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not my call, and I'm not saying the actions you took are unreasonable. I'm just telling you that someone looking for data on Hindi Wikiversity right now will have a hard time finding it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about trimming this page, with older data staying in an archive[edit]

Please see Wikiversity:Babel#States of Wikiversities (January 2019). StevenJ81 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)