Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Archive 2

Main Page | talk | archive


 * Please archive conversations from August at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Archive 1
 * Please do not edit these archived sections

New page design
Trevor has done extensive work to create a very nice design for the main page, moved to new page: Main_Page/Design (old page User:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage). It could still be tweaked but it is better than what we have. (See original discussions above in "new page format") Shall we take a quick head count on using the new design -- 24 to 48 hours? Enough time for sense of no objections? Reswik 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Original version
Do you support or oppose using this design on the front page: Main Page/Design (new location)?
 * -- tweaking needed; can go up; design 2 has more code cleanup done so prefer that Reswik 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * - Sure. Looks great, why not? This is a new place, should be able to experiment with a few things. --HappyCamper 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer larger fonts across the board. Scrolling is better than squinting. However, it does provide a crisp image of professional design and will no doubt continue to evolve.  Mirwin 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it; very unique, but also clean and functional. There are some minor usability issues, but I'm sure they could easily be resolved. --Aepex 06:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * . I support Trevor's efforts, but this design isn't ready for implementation.  (Please see User talk:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage for some of my objections.)  It has the potential to evolve into something better, but it would be a mistake to rush it onto the main page before it's ready.  (I'm not saying that it can't be tweaked after it goes live, but it should be further along than this.)  &mdash;David Levy 07:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's definitely better than the current Main Page, but I think it could do with some tweaking. I don't like that overlapping globe thing, for a start – Gurch 12:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * - Great work! Think marketing guys, a great design like his can enhance user experience thus attracting more users and make people more willing to contribute. Rayshan 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like Gurch, I don't like the overlapping globe, nor the overlapping boxes. I feel like there are too many boxes, and this moves away from my vision of Wikiversity, which in my minds aims at being user-friendly and intuitive. Well done for your work however. guillom 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * - Wikiversity is still too small to have something like the wikipedia main page redesign.  If you don't like it, work up your own design.  I think we all can agree this is better the the present one.--Rayc 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not all of us agree that it's better. The issue of aesthetics is subjective (and I'm clearly outnumbered on that front), but the time/date stamp feature is sometimes broken (due to caching), and I guarantee that the text is more difficult for people with visual impairments to read.  (This is an area in which I have some degree of expertise.)  Accessibility is of the utmost importance, and I'd like to think that it would be considered before any new design is rushed into use (even if it looks good to most people).  The current design isn't flashy, but it's quite functional.  Can we please not take a step back in this regard?  The problems that I've cited can be addressed (and I truly see a great deal of potential for a nice design that sacrifices no usability), if only we can be slightly patient.  &mdash;David Levy 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that usability is important. I think a few days of review is a good thing for a really new design, even in a good project. Trevor has tweaked the design. See below. Reswik 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * - I know I just joined, but I must say that from seeing the link to the design from the home page, I must say that it is quite nice for this site. It would really look well as it would show our own Wikiversity creativity, and not just use the standard setup.--Hd.G 06:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * - better than current one. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome job! I love the colors and the concept! -Yorktown1776 16:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Modified version
Please post opinions regarding Main Page/Design 2. Do you support or oppose its adoption, and how does it compare to the original version?


 * Note: I'm aware of a minor display bug in Internet Explorer 6. (The image is off-center and lacks a right-hand border.)  Please assume that this issue (which does not exist in Firefox or Opera) will be corrected when the code is refined.  &mdash;David Levy 09:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As they are now, I like Main Page/Design 2 slightly better than Main Page/Design- even though "Design 2" is quite plain, it 'gels' nicely - looks seemless. If I had a (very minor) tweak, it would be to centre the Browse box text under the "Welcome to Wikiversity" - as well as changing the motto/byline (but that's being worked on elsewhere). Good work everyone :-) Cormaggio 10:43, 26 August 2006


 * -- On a discussion string on his talk page, David points out that he cleaned up template formats and CSS code in working on Design 2. For this reason, I think we should post Design 2. Once the usability issues are addressed in Design 2, I think it can be posted. I prefer a few design aspects of both versions. We can polish and negotiate design features over time. A few design issues: I think it is important to include a sizeable graphic or photo (which could have a link to a blurb about how that item relates to wikiversity) near the top in whatever design evolves. I would like to see more white space in the main top title box. I prefer the mix of blue/tan in heading bars in Design 1. I like a "menu" line centered under the main title box but a top right box menu can work too. Reswik 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * - I'm sorry guys but I have to say that the 1st design is better and here's why: The use of icons helps to make the content graphically stand out. Graphics could generally be comprehended faster than words alone. (Although I don't think all the icons correctly represent the content, such as the broom). As far as color and layout goes, 1st design nicely group sub-content together in "boxes", but it may sometimes look a little "too much". 2nd design looks a lot cleaner, but I recommend something between main content and "Wiki in other languages" so everything don't blend together with the background. Also how about making "Wiki in other languages" and "Sister projects" centered? 66.177.92.226 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for points. I agree that some of design elements of Design 1 are more desirable (as I mention just above). But, we need to go with Design 2 code clean up or recreate that in Design 1. Perhaps it is easier to adjust graphic elements and reintroduce icons in design 2. Not sure. Reswik 17:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In modifying the design, I drew upon the comments expressed here and those expressed by literally hundreds of users during the English Wikipedia's main page redesign process. Over there, the use of icons (including these exact images) was rejected by a clear majority of respondents (many of whom noted that they created an "unprofessional" or "childish" appearance).  As you noted, there is no strong connection between these images and the content that they accompany.  They serve purely as decoration, not as navigational aids.
 * The non-stylized Wikiversity in other languages and Wikiversity's sister projects sections (present in both versions) reflect an overwhelming consensus that emerged during the aforementioned English Wikipedia discussion. The idea is to visually differentiate between the dynamic and static content.
 * Indeed, one of my goals was to make the design cleaner and easier to read (which also entailed the use of larger text), and I believe that I've succeeded. &mdash;David Levy 18:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Design2, but didn't notice a link to the tour. Would be nice if one were added, or made starker if it's there. Dev920 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the link. :)  &mdash;David Levy 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. :D Dev920 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * again, better than current one.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * looks better than both the current one and option 1, and is more organized than option one.--Hd.G 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. Thanks for larger text. Mirwin 06:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i agree that design version 2 is clearer and more to the point (although i do like the wikitrek blurb in design 1) --Smithgrrl 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The overlap between the blue and orange where the "About &bull; Browse..." links are is bothering the hell out of me, probably because I'm a web designer. I would support if that were changed.--  digital  _  me   16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Were you thinking that we would have two separate columns, one blue and one orange (tan)? Or, were you thinking something like what is now on Design 2 -- a blue bar across the top. Reswik 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose either change (and I've reverted).
 * As I noted on your talk page, the logic behind my configuration is that readers tend to notice solid elements of the same color that they're already looking at. If the left side of the page is predominantly blue and the right side is predominantly tan, they'll be more likely to concentrate on one and ignore the other.  By placing blue section headings below a tan header (and vice-versa), the users' eyes will naturally be drawn to both sides of the page.
 * One thing that became clear during the English Wikipedia's main page redesign process is that it usually isn't a good idea to rush to make major changes in response to a single criticism (especially when the status quo has generated generally positive comments). Nine times out of ten, you'll only end up upsetting more people than you please.  :)  &mdash;David Levy 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The tan is drawing my eyes away from the main content, what we need is something to counterbalance it. Perhaps adding blue borders would help, but right now, the right side is too visually heavy.--  digital  _  me   02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you see what the page looked like with the all-blue header? The left side completely dominated.  Then, with blue on the left and tan on the right, it looked like two isolated entities (with the left side still dominating because it's much wider).
 * To me, the page looks fairly balanced now. If anything, the left side still stands out slightly more (because of the aforementioned width).  &mdash;David Levy 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the current design looks better than the variations I explored last night. However, after trying to simplify the top, I think the approach of the new design in general has yielded looks that are too "busy" and distracting up top. If anyone wishes to play with the design, perhaps further work will resolve that. (I am not going to work on the design until after this passes). After this new design (which is certainly an improvement) is approved, I'm going to start working on further revisions on sandbox pages, perhaps variants of this design (or other another similar one), that have the masthead only across the top with two columns underneath. Reswik 14:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I love the second page design. It looks wonderful and easy to organize new information into. It's inviting. OneWomanArmy --Diana 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Summary of discussion (revised): This needs revisions for usability, then this can be posted. A strong majority would like to see this design posted (10 or 11 of 13, including 2 comments on Trevor's design talk page), and some say tweaking is needed first. Almost all would like to see the design tweaked somehow. In response to feedback, Trev has done extensive tweaking now, two rounds at least, including in response to above comments, to improve this. A few minor things remain to do. This is almost ready. ...
 * A longish discussion string from here moved to: Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design.
 * See section above for Design 2 comments. Please share your comments about design 2 above.

Feel free to adjust the design:
 * Trevor moved the current version of the design to: Main_Page/Design.
 * Forked version of the design: Main_Page/Design 2
 * To do:
 * [Done] The right column text still needs work.
 * [Done--problem found--see comment below] Can someone check usability in JAWS or Window-Eyes.
 * Can someone check readability in the Safari browser at various screen resolutions?
 * Thanks, Reswik 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been attempting to adjust the design, but the style templates are making this very difficult for me. If Trevor (or someone else) could move most of the code into the page itself, it would be much easier to edit.  I tried substituting some of the templates on a test page, but that broke much of the page.  &mdash;David Levy 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [We figured out how to work with the templates.] Due to right column text size issues, I think the right hand Communication blurbs needs to be edited into shorter length at each bullet point. Reswik 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Problems found via JAWS with new design -- these need to be addressed. See discussion on Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design
 * Graphic/photo issue -- Should there be a photo or graphic in the top right area of the new design page? (The current top page photo is there and needs to be resized and/or centered if it stays.)


 * This is a comment that should be registered, but probably not acted on yet. The front page fails this accessibility checker - can we get a user familiar with accessibility issues to take a look at the new page and see if they can navigate through it? --HappyCamper 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Contrast is disappearing: Design 1 and 2 are converging in appearance (due to Trevor adopting some of David's revisions). Design 2 code is partly revised for usability issues and being revised further. Reswik 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to include the new stuff that was recently included on the orginal main page. The drafts are starting to become out of date.--Rayc 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strafing
If i understand right, the goal of this project is to teach a man all the things (positive ofc) possible. Look, and if I have some Defrag strafing (computer sport game) skills? Is it forbidden here to teach people such things? Thank you.
 * I've no idea of what that game is, but I don't see a problem in uploading material that teaches people about how to play computer games - we haven't set policies yet on delineating our content (such as exists, for example, on Wikibooks). Just a side thought, but I think it would be really interesting to see what computer games can teach us about the world - if that could be developed, it could be a fantastic resource. Cormaggio 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, thanks. I haven't played it for about a year, but i can ask world champion for it. Thanks!
 * Or, you oculd be a stunt coodinator for Wikiversity the Movie. Great gameplaying skills put to good use!--Rayc 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And hopefully we can teach women too! I really get tired of the sexist language. It's so embedded in education as well as everything else. I can't be silent about it. It DOES matter. Already I feel excluded. No, the goal of this project is to share, collect and strive to educate human beings.User:OneWomanArmy--Diana 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I feel terrible that you feel excluded. Of course it matters. I just didn't respond to this part of the sentence, because there were other things that the questioner (whoever he/she is) wanted to know about. But you're absolutely right to bring it up. Wikiversity is education for all. Cormaggio 14:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel it important to note, in a pure and strict sense of education, that Latin is a root of English. The use of what appear to be masculine pronouns are also neuter pronouns based on context. Man, as in mankind, should not be misunderstood to mean only male humans, but the idea of all of humankind is expressed in that single word as best as possible. We shold also note that language begins verbally and becomes a written language after, logically but not necessarily chronologically as they can happen simultaneously. Some contexts provided druing speach may not be as easily communicated through written word. In any case, I don't think colloquial habits should be maligned, as over time any individual who increases in education naturally revises their use of language to an extent. To immediately highlight errors or discourteousness in the way in which a question is asked in lieu of adressing the content of question seems to me to be agaisnt the intent of Wikiversity. I also feel at this point that in order to not be misunderstood, I need to qualify that this is not not meant to be a personal attack of any kind nor truly a correction of previous behavior, but to highlight that a certain tolerance of each other will make the education process itself go more smoothly. And I hope we can all see that education will help each of us to refine ourselves from our current sate. Talonhawk 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Favicon Suggestion
Your favicon is currenlty identical to wikipedia's... I keep links in my toolbar with only the icon, and I think having the hat would make more sense in any case. Just a random thought. 68.222.136.209 12:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks, and fully agreed that we'll have to change that icon. We're currently in the process of changing our logo, though - details of which here. Maybe we should wait until that's decided? Cormaggio 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation with Wikihowto
I would like to invite everyone to cooperate with Wikihowto. I think we nead a way to make Wikihowto an Wikimedia project. Andi think Wikiversity could, maybe not replace Wikihowto, but at least evolve hand in hand. I think the both Wikiversity and Wikihowto are made to evolve together, don't you think? Please think about it if you do and tell other people about this two projects. (moa3333) 80.236.113.58 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) hm... there is one of these (insert link to Wikihow)--24.208.123.129 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a link to Wikihowto at Educational Wikis. --JWSchmidt 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I cant sign up!
It wont show me the security code, and i only see the dreaded little red x. :( --24.208.123.129 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Geobeedude
 * Account creation seems to be working now. --JWSchmidt 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

i still cant see the verification code.
 * There must be something wrong on your end, because other continue to be able to sign up, and I just checked and saw the codeword. I suggest trying to create an account from another computer, after that you'll be able to login from home as normal. - Trevor MacInnis 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Signups are working fine. I suggest you try accessing Wikipedia through a free web based proxy, as these may alter the image as it is passed on. --Draicone (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal fighting unit
Similar to wikipedia:WP:CVU, I've established this page to co-ordinate vandal fighting efforts (although I doubt this is very important right now). I'm a developer for wikipedia:WP:MWT and I intend to alter it slightly to work with Wikiversity. Input would be appreciated. --Draicone (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to read WV:SHRINE before you consider starting a vandal fighting project here. -- sebmol ? 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, and the goal of VFU is to identify vandalism, as once we reach a few thousands articles there will always be edits that go unnoticed. Any system established would include at least a couple of sysops and focus around recording vandalism attempts and reporting them to sysops (/custodians/admins/bureaucrats) so that appropriate action can be taken. --Draicone (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your enthusiasm but I also want to point out that vandalism and dealing with it is not supposed to be a big deal. People report it or notice it, it gets taken care of, we move on. By creating pages like the VFU, we're just creating yet another place for vandals to feel like they get any attention from us which presumably is exactly what we're trying to prevent. -- sebmol ? 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. However, I've clarified VFU and I really just want to establish a system in place and educate users on how to deal with vandalism - currently, there's no way of knowing what to do with vandalism besides revert it unless another user tells you what to do. There's nothing saying, "Contact a sysop at [ [here]  ]". Just reverting vandalism is good, but if vandals continue to compromise pages, people need to know what to do about it - in fact, they need to know what to do about it in the first place. I suppose a 'unit' is a bad idea, as it gives the impression of many vandal fighters actively reverting vandalism (which, unlike en:wp, is clearly not the situation). I simply felt that having a few users develop a page to educate the public on dealing with vandalism was useful. --Draicone (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

3/4th
We have spent 3/4th of wikiversity's existance redesigning the main page. Could we just throw one of the designs up there and call it good? It can always be reverted.--Rayc | (Talk) 04:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We've got some content started, there's hundreds of pages listed at Special:Allpages. --Draicone (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about a "design change" then the new main page should have the same content as the current main page....just with a new design. I'm reluctant to switch to either Main Page/Design 1 or Main Page/Design 2 because they have content changes. It is not easy for me to follow the trail of of past discussions starting at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design 1 that might explain the content changes. There was a request made at  (Request custodian action) that "Design 2" be used, but there are no discussions at all at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design 2. If there are going to be content changes (new image, "where you can teach to learn and learn to teach", etc) then I would like to see a summary of the content changes and a description at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design 2 of how those changes were selected. --JWSchmidt 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the new design discussions are described here: Wikiversity_talk:Main_Page, with links in that discussion to points elsewhere. The discussion includes various summaries as does the admin request page. JW, since you have objected to the new design in the past (on the Design 1 talk page) and as you are responsible for many of the recent new content changes/tweaks on the old front page design since the new design was developed (and hence you can best summarize those), I do not think you should serve as facilitator on this issue. Just my opinion, Reswik 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have only had a few comments and suggestions about the new main page design. I originally wondered if what looked like an overlap in rectangles in the upper right corner was a an error. I was told that it is a design feature. I requested that there be efforts made to make it easy to read any blue text placed on a blue background. I think it is reasonable that any page content changes existing in the new design be summarized and justified all in one place. There is a difference between making changes to the main page (the most observed page of the wiki) and making changes on a page that ranked 92nd in terms of page views during the last week of August and 246th so far during September. --JWSchmidt 15:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Another summary: Of expressed views about posting the new design, there is a strong majority in favor of posting the new design. Usability issues seem to have been addressed. I do not wish to summarize this further or put work into reconciling the old main page and new main page. If you want to revise Design 2 feel free. A further review of the details of summaries provided already in several places and how to deal new emergent issues due to edits to the old main page will be hopefully a task that a custodian or other volunteer who posts Design 2 will take on, whenever. Personally, I believe Design 2 is ready to post and be adjusted by the community. It is past time for that. Reswik 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm just talking about the main page. Lot of other stuff has been done, improved, etc, but the main page, the most visable page, is pretty much the same as it was a month ago. Is there anything I can do to help out with the redesign? Have you considered the three click rule?--Rayc 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've implemented the main page as set out on Main Page Design 2. I've also refactored it a bit so individual parts can be edited by users without custodian privileges. Should this not work, the subpages can be protected as needed. -- sebmol ? 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

project page picture
why were Image:South African classroom.jpg chose. Is wiki international? I mean that it which explain all people should be choose.
 * It was changed from a bunch of dead white guys. It's an exact opposite picture and a stop gap until we get a random picture function or a logo to put their.--Rayc 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Engineering PORTAL
the engineering link on the main page needs to go to Portal:Engineering and Technology, not School:Engineering
 * Changed it. Now the comSci people will have a 3 click path to there page from main.  --Rayc 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is ok, since before it was a 5 click path because you kept getting redirected to the wrong place. Damien Black 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

the engineering link was changed back to School:Engineering... why is it the only school there and why isn't it pointing to Portal:Engineering and Technology? Damien Black 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, It might of been because of the main page switch over, though if not, there probably is a good reason for it. Math also has a school on the main page.--Rayc 03:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Main Page picture
This new picture on the Main Page is certainly looking better than the previous one, and it associates on school and learning more efficiently, but its big problem is that there are no people in it at all. And since this aspect is very important, if I had to choose between them, I'd choose the old happy corridor instead of this sad abandoned lonely classroom. The old picture reflects the Wikiversity's openness and community way better than this looking-good, but wrong-message-sending one. --George D. Bozovic talk 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, the pictures are changing daily. Good idea! --George D. Bozovic talk 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

An empty lecture hall isn't very wiki-ish, in my view, but I understand what "beta" means and will be back to see the steady improvements. Thanks for all the efforts. | Gardner Campbell 18:02 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Main Page: New Design
Nice design. Congratulations to the designers. 205.189.97.202 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you very much to Trevor MacInnis and David Levy for their talented and extensive work in creating and refining the new main page design. Thank you also to everyone who shared input and comments. :) --Reswik 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto for Wikipedia?
"Help create a motto and a slogan for Wikipedia." It should be Wikiversity, shouldn't it? –Dilaudid 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint, I've changed it. How embarrassing...-- sebmol ? 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes me laugh. 205.189.97.202 02:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk archive
Done talk needes to be deleted or archived to give focus to current talk. Archiving done talk for a month on a separate page provides users a place to check up on done talk they initiated, more graceful than deleting directly. If you can improve this, please do. Ideas? Thanks! :-) Rogerhc 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by this. Most of the time I just make a page like Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Archive 1 and place all of the non-current talk on there. You shouldn't ever completely delete anything.  --Mateo 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can write a bot to auto archive the talk page, or better yet, find a bot that's already been written. --Draicone (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * w:User:Werdnabot might be useful, operated by w:User:Werdna – 86.138.33.165 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If somebody is willing to give me approval and operate as a liason, then I can activate Werdnabot here. Werdna 09:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Currrently I'm the only person authorised to give bot status on Wikiversity - the only unfortunate thing is that, when it comes to all things technical, I haven't a clue :-). But you could liaise with User:Sebmol (who, as far as I know, is working on a similar bot). Cormaggio 10:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

relation to wikipedia?
Does participation in this project require participation in wikipedia? I don't support wikipedia for a variety of reasons, but would like to edit here. What is the nature of the relationship between the two, beyond that they are owned by the same people. thanks. --Mateo 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a number of editors here, including myself also edit Wikipedia, so that's a definite connection. Also, many policies, and indeed articles are adapated from Wikipedia as the project gets started.  This project requires no participation in Wikipedia, so you shouldn't have to worry about that.--  digital  _  me   01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

UC Berkeley offers courses and symposia through Google Video
UC Berkeley offers courses and symposia through Google Video. Should each Wikiversity course link to the relevant videos, if any are available? --DavidCary 05:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. We encourage the use of learning materials, including those which cannot (due to technical or legal restrictions) be offered directly through Wikiversity. I'm not sure how many videos we'll actually have, however. --Draicone (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

General layout suggestions
I would like to suggest the following: I think Wikiversity should, as a general layout devide in accordence to the following hierarchy : ( the arrows are directed from high to low hierarchy.) general schools(e.g chemistry, psychology --> more specific schools(analytical chemistry or developmental psychology) --> courses --> lectures . Under that hierarchy I think each lesson/lecture page should have side pages (like "edit this page" and "discussion" ) in which a Q&A page from actual students and proffesors would be held. I'm only suggesting a discussion on "the general layout" and not making a pinpointed suggestion. If there is already a discussion on General layout somewhere then I'm truly sorry for I did not find it anywhere. in that case, please move my suggestions to the right place. --(User: Eshy, Israel - unregisterd Wikimediaist.)


 * A way of using "schools" was developed during the period of time that Wikiversity existed at Wikibooks (see b:Wikiversity:Wikiversity Schools). In that system, one school does not contain other schools. The curent system for a hierarchy of academic subjects is described at Namespaces and Naming conventions.


 * "each lesson/lecture page should have side pages (like "edit this page" and "discussion" ) in which a Q&A page from actual students and proffesors would be held" <-- I agree that Wikiversity needs to find good ways to promote discussions, question and answer sessions, debate, etc among participants. It is easy to make links to subpages that can hold discussions. Hopefully the wiki software will be improved so as to provide additional features such as threaded discussions that are easily searchable. --JWSchmidt 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "I completely agree with you that each topic should have a virtual classroom with it so that students can interact, since the classroom weather virtual or real is where the true learning takes place. :)"