Talk:Improving schools/Pre-K for All in Kansas City, Missouri

Naming Conventions
What can you tell me about naming conventions in Wikiversity, esp. re. using "/" like here in "Improving schools/Pre-K for All in Kansas City, Missouri"?

In particular, what should go in the presumed "root" article, "Improving schools" in this case? And how should the different articles be interlinked?

I ask, because I think I should split this main article into three: Two videos with transcripts and a main article that compares the claims of the opposing groups in the two videos.

This current article gives opposing perspectives on an initiative on the ballot in Kansas City, Missouri, for 2019-04-02. I plan to produce a radio broadcast based on this to air 2019-03-26 on. I want to email all the folks involved in this so far to invite them to ask and answer questions, clarify issues, etc. I hope to make this a major resource for informing the public about this issue for the April 2 ballot -- and beyond. Whether this measure passes or fails, the issue is already on the agenda of the Missouri state legislature. I want to mention that in the main article after I've split the two videos with transcripts into separate articles.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions has this at the top: "You can help develop this proposal, share your thoughts, or discuss its adoption as a Wikiversity policy, guideline, or process. References or links should describe this page as a "proposal"." So technically you're free to do it your way. I use subpages a lot for scientific lectures, e.g., Stars/Blues, other times I like descriptive titles like "Earth as a gaseous object". Whatever you believe helps your learners the best usually works. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * See Naming conventions for background information. Improving schools should be a landing page introducing the topic. We generally try for landing pages to have a neutral point of view. Breaking the content up into logical subpages makes the "chunks" more approachable and easier to understand. If you want to introduce subpage navigation, there are several options available, including a subpage navigation footer and sidebar menus.
 * Based on a review of the existing content, I think a short introduction or overview to the subpage concepts (to address tl;dr) on the landing page would be appropriate. The only other thought that comes to mind for me is that the majority of the voting public may not be as well-read or as thoroughly engaged. Shorter blocks of main points and summaries will help them understand the issues, while providing resources for those who wish to dive deeper. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)