School talk:History: Difference between revisions

This is the Talk page for discussing the History school
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. This page is used for general discussion for the History school, proposed courses and subpages as well as the layout of the main page in general. For discussion on a particular subpage, please use its talk page.

Note: Sections marked by an asterisk (*) are current discussions about policies, guidelines, or goals for the School of History.

• Archive 1

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

What should be the goals of the School of History? I think we should try to find something to focus on and work toward, here. Any thoughts? Jade Knight 20:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I think one think we should work to get out fairly soon is a course on basic Historiographic methods and problems; the Philosophy of History Department will probably be instrumental in this. This could provide as an introduction to anyone who has not completed college-level History coursework dealing in Historiographical issues. Another course should make sure proper formatting/citation methods are followed. The Jade Knight 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Format style classes are going to be difficult under wiki as it will pretty much be a link to Chicago/Turabian and that's about it. Plus, I think it's going to be difficult to find wiki people that are going to write a paper just for the sake of going over the formatting. Perhaps, by covering a bit of that in each of the topics that come up, a bit of familiarity might be attained, but that's really the realm of a real college class or local writing center/tutor kind of environment. --Kfitton 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • That may be true; people are just going to have to learn Chicago as they go along (though, it might be worth noting that I'm not aware of any place you can find Chicago/Turabian online for free). I think something on Historiography is particularly important, however. The Jade Knight 01:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Turabian - http://library.concordia.ca/help/howto/turabian.pdf
  • Chicago - http://library.osu.edu/sites/guides/chicagogd.php

Just use google =P --Kfitton 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good sources for the basics, though these are only the bare-bones of even Turabian. I guess they're better than nothing, however. Perhaps we should set up a "Chicago-style Reference Desk" or something for more detailed questions regarding citations in Chicago-style. The Jade Knight 21:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Google is not good enough. An academic level of expertise can only be reached when students get books from university libraries, or libraries with enough books of an academic level.--Daanschr 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hate to rain on your parade, but if you know what you're looking for, the books could just as easily be obtained from Amazon or in the regards of articles Lexis/Nexus or First Search if you happen to work at a school/library. If you know how to properly research, a university library is not the end-all-be-all. --Kfitton 17:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Being a small department, I think focus should be important. How many courses can reasonably be offered, and in what areas? How do we get (and keep) discussions going, which seems to be the thrust of the department currently? Would Audio help? A "day" the discussions are held? IRC?

What should be the ordering of future courses, and is there a "stream" of courses that the school is working towards? Historybuff 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

Should we keep to Chicago style here? Should we allow any citation style? What are your preferences? The Jade Knight 06:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I would suggest Chicago or Turabian, as most history professors will require one of those two. In rare cases I have seen APA, but that tends to be more psych/social work kind of situations. --Kfitton 11:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Turabian is simply a condensation of Chicago style. The Jade Knight 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm aware... =P I just stated both because some history professors are quite particular. --Kfitton 18:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm going to vote for Turabian, just because it's a bit easier to use than Chicago. --Kfitton 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • I've just started using Office 2007, there is a built in citation support that covers both chicago and turabian - just in case anyone is interested. --Kfitton 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
        • Just a thought, isn’t history apart of the humanities section that uses primarily the MLA citation style?The G 04:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
          • I don't know how it is in the other universities, but here in my province, we only use the Chicago style. My history teachers would kill me if I use any other. Sekhmetdesign 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
          • History is usually considered a Social Science (though sometimes part of the Humanities). Chicago Style is the universally accepted notation format for History, though. In my studies I've had to learn MLA, APA, and Chicago, and I much prefer Chicago, anyways. The Jade Knight 10:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Leave it up to each instructor. Chicago is required by some professors, MLA by others. Geo.plrd 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've known History Professors who have required MLA? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not history professors. My local university's history department has links to all four styles. It really depends on the professor. The big problem is that AP history courses tend to use MLA format. As I am designing my course to make certain that it is usable by AP students, it is counterproductive for me to force them to use Chicago when their instructor will shitcan it. I would suggest the use of Chicago but leave it up to the instructor. If I am teaching a course on historical writing, I would require APA. Just my two cents. Geo.plrd 03:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah. High School teachers are not necessarily trained the same way history students are. English and education, I believe, favor MLA. Psychology and Linguistics, I know, favor APA. History favors Chicago (almost universally). But I think that's a sensible idea: Recommend Chicago, but leave it up to the instructor. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

They (high school teachers) most certainly are not. i would add to the recommendation that if the class is designed to publish articles on history, use APA. Geo.plrd 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do we want to establish course offering numbers? Suggestions? Should we use a 3 digit system or 4? Should we leave that entirely up to individual Departments? The Jade Knight 07:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't think that course numbers are going to be relevant to a wiki format...in keeping with the idea that http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Education is establishing, I think that keeping valid topics in a list should be sufficient in order for people to access different projects/classes/topics. --Kfitton 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess that's fine for now. Eventually, however, we will want to come up with some way of easily distinguishing various levels of content while sorting it categorically. The Jade Knight 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

We could always start with giving a number for the course, depending on its level and difficulty: level 200 are easy, introductory classes; level 300 are intermediary classes that goes deeply into a subject in History; and level 400 for more advanced, specialized classes. Sekhmetdesign 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do we allow departments to number their own courses? Or should it be a School-wide system? If a school-wide system, why use the arbitrary -00 numbers? The Jade Knight 10:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Department of Southeast Asian History is keeping its own course numbers system. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.155.117 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2008)

I would think it would make sense to use a four-digit numbering system where 1000s are survey courses (such as American History to 1877, World History to 1600, etc), 2000s are courses that focus on a more narrowed general time frame (such as 1900-1999: America's Century), 3000s are in-depth courses (such as History of the 20th Century American West, History of Revolutions in Europe, etc), and 4000s would be specialized research or method classes. That system also would work using only 3 digits. Let me know what you all think of that. Westernhistoryus 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

As the school doesn't teach courses, I would recommend leaving this up to each Department. For example, at American history, I have a tentative process of using HIST-AM-Lxx. L is a number (1-5) that corresponds to a year of college. Geo.plrd 15:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

A few thoughts: If that numbering system is unique to the American History Dep't, is it necessary to include HIST-AM? Furthermore, what about learning projects within American History that aren't traditional college level? Consider the discussion occuring here. Also worth considering is this. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

HIST-AM prevents contradictions with other departments. Geo.plrd 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but those numbers wouldn't be used outside of the American History Department, making contradictions unlikely to begin with. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should another school use the 100-600 series, there would be a conflict. Also should another school decide to use HIST- prefixes, there would be a conflict. Geo.plrd 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, because that numbering and labelling would be used only within that department or school. Think of it this way: On your computer, you can have a folder called "Departments". Within that folder, you can have two folders, one which says "AM" and one which says "EU". Both of those folders can contain another folder called "100" without conflict, though one folder cannot contain 2 folders labelled "100". The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I simply used this as this is a variation of the method used by my local university. If people want to use another method, i have no objections. Geo.plrd 04:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

I think the School of History, or its individual Departments, should come up with a peer review system that recognizes historiographical understanding, and allows us to separate those who may be considered "experts" in History in some sense and those who are simply interested, but do not have a strong grasp of History, or of historiographical methods and their significance. Ultimately, this distinction should (probably) be based on a review of contributions, rather than external achievements (unverifiable) or some sort of test (too difficult to administer fairly). In addition, I think that only those who have been granted this status (at least once we have a few) should be allowed to vote on its granting, and that it be required that those who have it be subjected to a regular (perhaps annual) review process, whereby the School (or their respective Departments) verify that the individual has kept to a professional standard (and to prevent anyone from resting on their laurels, thinking they've "earned" the right to be called "expert" [or whatever], regardless of what they contribute). What do you think? The Jade Knight 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Well...I think you're going to run into the same issue as before - being in a wiki environment and the challenges of keeping participants active. This is what a lot of librarians have against wiki, in that there it no verification of information beyond peer review/editing; as the flaw can be seen on current event articles and topics that are controversial. I think that people have to naturally come to wiki with the idea in mind that information here is NOT the end all, be all of discussion on a topic. Beyond obvious merit and participation, I don't think that there is going to be a reasonable way to establish 'academic validity' that doesn't impede the wiki process and drive people away from participating. Personally, anyone could look up my username and find out my background...and I don't think there is anyone disputing that I haven't put quite a bit of time into the Hitler's Germany class, but am I going to jump through hoops to prove my competancy? No, I don't have that kind of time and I've already proven it to two state boards of education for my career alone! I would be suspicious of anyone who doesn't make a username or fill out their profile, but I wouldn't go to excessive lengths to establish credentials - this isn't the right venue for that. --Kfitton 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It could be an idea to have a section of the school of history that will try to figure out what is necessary to live up to a certain level of academic expertise. It would probably be a small group willing to work on this, but it could try to cooperate with likewise groups on the internet or try to get some support from universities.--Daanschr 15:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I actually like this idea. Anyone else have an opinion of it? The Jade Knight 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this particular strain of this section, possibly an exploratory board could be formed of a few people to determine how to evaluate expertise and credentials. Westernhistoryus 05:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I believe that decisions on expertise should be left to each Department. I would support a list of Curriculum Development Advisors though. Geo.plrd 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "Curriculum Development Advisors"? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Basically subject experts that can provide advise on designing courses. Geo.plrd 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

So, these would be Department-specific? What do you think of Daanschr/Westernhistoryus' ideas? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

They are good ideas. I would have no objections to developing the initial draft as a whole with exploratory bodies, I would just like to see the final draft come from the departments where possible. Geo.plrd 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I created the discussion tags to make it clear what issues concerning department policy are still being discussed, and encourage further comment. Should it use an image different than the checkmark? Perhaps a question mark? When consensus has been reached and something has been adopted, we should add a tag that states that consensus has been reached and the policy has been adopted. In the event that it's rejected, something could be added to that effect. What do you think? The Jade Knight 09:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• That sounds fine to me, however, it seems that there are only around 4 people actively discussing policy issues...is that enough to actually consist of a quorum? --Kfitton 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe not, but we have to work with what we have for the moment. BTW, do you have any suggestions for an icon besides the green checkmark? The Jade Knight 08:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • How about a big question mark...or a gavel? --Kfitton 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • Here are some options:

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

What do you prefer? The Jade Knight 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would go with the yellow+black question mark/circle for discussions, the orange road sign for works in progress, and the note with a tack for the 'to do' list. --Kfitton 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of the European History Department's "Tasks" page? Should we adopt one for the School of History, or perhaps simply have a page which shows all of the departmental tasks pages? The Jade Knight 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• We could probably use one...but I'm thinking more like a little box on the main school page instead of a complete seperate page of it's own. ala: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Portal --Kfitton 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • I've created one designed to amalgamate department ones. I've also created an announcement page which will feed to all of the individual departments, as well. Take a look at how I've integrated them with the department page and tell me what you think. The Jade Knight 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am quite new to this wikiversity experience and not an expert in history at all, but seeing the extreme lack of structure forces me to react. I want to study history myself, and this department could be very interesting. The lack of structure scares me off. I just don't see where to start. Therefore, I would suggest starting to think about the structure. Why not even starting with an introduction, that explains what history is about, why someone would study it, and its relevance towards todays world?

Starting with a structure also inspires people. When it is clear what subjects there are to write about, people will write about it. The way it looks like now, scares people off, really.

• One structure that could be used, is starting with a general outline of history, and then to go digging deeper in the material. An interesting source already is in development as wikibook 'world history'.
• Another structure could be a chronological order.
• There could also be thought about structuring the school in terms of a real university. What courses are given in the first year, what courses in the second year... etc.

It are just examples, but please start with thinking about the structure of the school. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bartje (talk • contribs) )

Welcome to Wikiversity, Bartje! Right now, the School of History is just beginning to get things put together. We don't have a ton of content, and we're working on figuring out what we want and what we don't. If you're just looking for something to get involved with, the European History Department has a list of user-friendly tasks that you could jump right into. Hopefully other Departments within History will also create similar lists. The Jade Knight 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bartje -- thanks for the feedback. As Jade has pointed out, we are quite new (both Wikiversity and the History department), so we are both learning and getting organized.

Jade -- What is the general state of the History stuff at Wikibooks? Would any of that stuff be helpful in generating courses?

I'm a buff, but interested in learning and developing Wikiversity further. Together we can make it better. :) Historybuff 15:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know how History looks at Wikibooks, but the School of History's Resources Page may be a good place to start looking. The Jade Knight 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reactions, it isn't easy to make a structure in a community like this. I'll dig into the wikibooks, but some of my own as well, for inspiration. I'll look around at other schools on how they organize their department of history, with their related courses. Links to other departments might be made, like certain courses of the anthropology department, the sociology department etc... If there is a place, like a chatroom where we could talk (type), meet in realtime, let me know. If there isn't one yet, it might be good to look around for one. It is easier to talk.Bartje

There isn't one that I'm aware of. Email me, and I can provide AIM/MSN contact info. And, last time I checked, there were no relevant courses available in other Schools yet. From time to time I go over to the Classics or Music Schools to see if they've added history courses, but last time I checked there weren't any. It is good to do cross-departmental sorts of things, though.

Right now, the individual Departments have a lot of autonomy, and the kind of structure you're talking about looks like it'd be uniform across the school. Is that better than letting Departments decide for themselves? In terms of strict content, that is something that individuals are going to contribute as they see fit. Those of us discussing this, though, get to be the "bureaucrats" who decide how to organize it all. You may be interested in heading over to the Department of European History's talk page and seeing the sort of structure/content discussions that are going on there. The question remains, however, as to how much we're going to structure content here, and how much we're going to let individual Departments do that. The Jade Knight 23:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity does evidently have an IRC channel, but I'm not around there often. The Jade Knight 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've added a section to the beginning of the School page, featuring tasks. What do you think? The Jade Knight 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

As the list of Active Participants is growing, I think we should perhaps move these lists to the Departmental level, and keep coordinators and liaisons here. However, that would introduce the problem of some people who are considered "coordinators" abusing authority, or thinking that it's significant at all to be a "coordinator". "Liaison" may be a better choice.

So, what do you think of simply listing a liaison for each Department in the School of History in the "Active Participants" section of the site, and providing a list of people to contact for specific sorts of concerns? The Jade Knight 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've gone and updated the "active participants" list to define active participants as those who have contributed in the last two months. This is specifically those who are currently discussing School (as opposed to Department) issues, and those who are contributing directly to the School page here. We can still use Department liaisons, if anyone is interested. The Jade Knight 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will serve as the department liaison for American History. Geo.plrd 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I take it you support the Department liaison idea, then? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see many courses offered for various regions, but none for the general, comprehensive history of the human world. (Human) world history is used to keep the scope of the course on human events, as this is in the department of humanities, and the word history is becoming somewhat archaic (that is, the old line between history and prehistory has been getting fuzzy over the recent decades).

But seriously, I've heard of general world history courses in college, so Wikiversity should have a parallel, right? Xaxafrad 04:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

World History is a very broad subject, it will be need to be grouped by time period or something. How about the History of the Ancient World? Or The World of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately my Ancient History is basically nil. But the Classics department could help out. (?)

Geminibubblegum 17:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, I'm referencing a 'typical' US university - a 'world history' class typically turns into one of several things: Western Civ, Eastern Civ, or Histories of the Third World. On a 100 level, there typically isn't time to cover all three and are usually broken up into seperate classes. --Kfitton 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

My alma mater broke it up into two courses: World Civilizations to 1500, and World Civilizations after 1500. The Jade Knight 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've seen a pair of textbooks at my local library that are divided similarly. Should I check them out and start paraphrasing material? Xaxafrad 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I dont see why not, but remember citations - even for paraphrasing, you're still using material. --Kfitton 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This section is a discussion of a policy, guideline, or goal in development for the School of History. Please contribute your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached and action can be taken.

Wikiversity now has a new Browse page which is almost entirely category-based. Because of this it is very important that History pages be properly categoried if they are to be found. I've made an announcement to encourage this. Additionally, would someone mind volunteering to go around and try to categorize history pages, at least within their own departments? Additionally, we're going to need a logical system for nesting categories—determining how categories should be placed in other categories. Strong categorization could now make a huge difference between whether a user gets lots here or is able to find the project they want. Any comments? Questions? Volunteers? The Jade Knight 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've recently learned that Portal:History gets over 30 hits a day. School:History gets less than 1 hit a day (evidently). People are going to the portal, and the portal uses the category system, so without proper categorization, people wont find what they're looking for in the department. This is top priority!

I've now gone and recategorized the entire History category. All history pages should belong somewhere in the overall heirarchy there. All projects should now be classed (or sub-classed), where applicable in each case, in the areas of "Topic" (theme), "Period" (time), and "Area" (place). If you create a new History category, make sure you get it under this heirarchy. Additionally, there are categories for Historiography and Meta Stuff. For Departments: it is very important that you add the category:Departments tag to your Department page if you want it to show up over at Wikiversity:Browse. If you have a learning project and you want it to be listed, make sure it is filed under Category:Learning projects. This is all an important part of attracting more attention to the School. The Jade Knight 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to propose a department of Irish History in order to increase the amount of courses available here. What do people think? Either that or a department of cultural history to reflect on the burgeoning interest in the area since the 1960s. This of course could link in with the school of historiography in the discussion of new historiographical trends in the late twentieth century and deal with other aspects of historiography such as New Historicism etc etc. What do people think? No craic outta you 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead! We've already got the nascent History of Ireland through Song, but no Irish Department. Really, though, you're welcome to do whatever you like. That said, we do have a Department of European History and Department of the History of Racism. What we really need in the School is more content, and more people involved in community-building, but if you have a great idea for a learning project and it doesn't fit any of our current Departments, feel free to create a new one! Sure would appreciate more comments on the asterisked topics here in the school talk page, as well. (Hope you don't mind me moving your comment; it's easier to find down here.) The Jade Knight 07:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right now I think that there are aren't enough people to spin off a separate department. In the future, should people be overloading the European Department with Irish courses, this would be a good idea. Geo.plrd 15:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've just archived this page. You can find the archives up at the top; I've kept anything I think may be worth ongoing discussion, including all asterisked topics. The Jade Knight 07:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If no one objects, I'm going to cut this section and paste its contents on appropriate department pages. At this point, I don't think it does much good here on the School page. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead, I think that if we could find someone to teach it, a Soviet Union course would be highly popular Geo.plrd 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Apparently a lot of Departments have been set up and abandoned. Jade Knight is posting on Department talk pages about consolidation. I am posting this here for wider coverage.

• The Department of Canadian History should be merged into the Department of American History.
• The Department of Philosophy of History should be merged into the Department of Histography.
• The Department of Medieval History should be merged into the Department of European History.
• The Department of Chinese History, Indic History, and Southeastern Asian History should be merged into the Department of Asian History.
• The Department of the History of Racism should be disassembled.
• All miscellaneous courses should be offered by a Department of Social Sciences.

Geo.plrd 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I strongly advise against merging too early. It seems it is easier to merge later than to take apart. Emesee 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone object to me organizing this page along the lines of Topic:History of the Americas? Geo.plrd 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean, organizing this page? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 05:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you are talking about those templates, then yes. I object strongly. That arguably takes away from organization on Wikiversity in the long run a great deal. I strongly advise against using it, but consensus is consensus. Please let me know where that template is, which I think I may have created. Emesee 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply