Encyclopedia talk:Main Page

Greetings all! I think we need to make the Main page more immediately visually accessible - in other words, what Wikiversity is and what you can do there. I'm not such a whizz at Mediawiki design, so I'd appreciate any help in making a better page layout. I can then help with adding and creating links.. Cormaggio 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

The other languages link to de: links to de:Wikipedia. Is there a way to fix this? --Fang Aili 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's being worked on. It depends on Brion's schedule since this requires a direct change in the database. -- sebmol ^? 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Is it really necessary to protect the main page in its first few days of existence? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just undid it, but it should probably be redone tonight whenever the last admin goes to bed. Right now there are plenty around to take care of any vandalism that may happen. -- sebmol ^? 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Main Page/Design could be used for edits. This idea is discussed in Page organization subsection below. Doug 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Spaces

Should a "School of X" be in the Wikiversity namespace (e.g. Wikiversity:School of Engineering) or should it be called School of Engineering on its own? Or simply Engineering? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Can you come to the chat? We're all here talking if you want to join us. -- sebmol ^? 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't right now, sorry. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Page organization

I re-organized the layout of the main page. Done now.

To do (and "done" by various editors):

• edit the browse box (indent text -- remove rule line?)
• Done - changed "open-content" to "free-content". decide on whether to use "free-content" or "open-content" in several places on page
• Done - revise the links section (into 2 columns?).
• Done - "department" changed to "subject". while "department" is used on wikibooks in the same manner as on main page, is this the correct term? (department usually means something more specific like physics or anthropology) would "study areas" be better?

Doug 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. In the "Help develop Wikiversity!" box, an invitation could be made to edit the main page as in:

• Help with Wikiversity:Main Page/Design

A "stable" version of this page could be uploaded regularly. Or, along lines (less ponderously so) of the en.Wikipedia main page revision this Spring, perhaps revisions could be consensed/voted on by admins and/or all users. Doug 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It is after all the first page people see so it should always be in a presentable condition. I've moved the design page to Wikiversity:Main Page/Design since it doesn't really belong into the main namespace. -- sebmol ^? 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. It hampers non administrative editors. Trash or vandalism on the main page will not damage a learning institution more than letting an initial unofficial clique get in the habit off controlling site activities. Consider a brick in mortar. When someone spray paints or taggs the administrative centers walls or a Department Head's car is all work and study at the institution immediately suspended and control handed over to the janitors or one Dept Head? It is theoretically possible to define a human expert in encyclopedias, dictionaries, or publishing formats and procedures. It is self evidently impossible to find or create an expert in all fields of human learning. Mirwin 02:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The intent of the design page is to include everyone's input. A process for somehow regularly loading revisions doesn't exclude any input. The design page is a good idea for when it becomes necessary to protect the main page because of increasing traffic, just is done on Wikipedia now. This is a probability. I also feel it is a good idea to implement a design page for all edits soon because it allows people with page layout experience to clean up gently the page layout impact of substantial content edits (which often can mess up the graphical aspects of page layout) before going to the main page (and not even having the final say -- just a clean up that can be revised until page reaches a lull/stability for a day or two) -- without subtracting content or removing emphasis. Perhaps an example of this in practice for a limited time frame would demonstrate the benefits -- then the community could choose. Such a process would be a boon to the community and project - by keeping the design page attractive and user friendly. If people want to play with alternate page layouts, that is great and can be done better done on alternate design subpages where compromises and choices can be worked out. The wiki free form process on the main design page would be there -- supplemented by some planning subpages for more focused discussion of examples. Doug 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with calling one of the schools "Professions". Professions can be found in all the other schools!! Also, I feel that Education should be one of the major Schools.--Ningbojoe 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing about "professions" when I was editing some of content of that subsection. A more appropriate label for that category will surely pop up sometime. :) Education could be one of the Schools. So could others. I expect the list may grow longer... :) Doug 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the aim of Wikiversity?

I don't understand, what is the difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks? Under meta:Wikiversity/Modified project proposal I learn, that it is about learning about a topic (Wikiversity) and reading about a topic (Wikibooks). But this "difference" seems a bit made-up to me. Wikibooks at the moment features the book wikibooks:Movie Making Manual. A how-to on movie making. What would be the difference to a course "film making" or "movie making" on Wikiversity? Okay, I see that a Wikiversity maybe would have a slightly other focus on some aspects, but is it useful to create two independant projects? I can't think, that this was not a topic already before, so please point me to the discussion (but if it is a typical endless wiki discussion, I would be happy if you could give an outline of the main arguments, that were crucial to the decide). --84.143.6.71 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just take some time here and relax for a moment. Yes, this was a major criticism to the proposal, although if you look at b:Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Wikiversity you will see at least some of the justifications to delete Wikiversity in the first place, and also see some replies and rebuttals at meta:Wikiversity/Vote/en. This is certainly an issue that has been rehashed multiple times and deserves FAQ level answers. --Robert Horning 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare What is Wikibooks to Wikiversity project proposal. The content of Wikibooks is textbooks. The content of Wikiversity does not include textbooks. --JWSchmidt 03:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is of course possible to fork an FDL book and add features that the Wikibook's project has decided it will not allow authors to use. For example, extensive links within text materials. They have decided they wish to be closer to formal textbooks easy to make print ready than online sets of notes. Extensive problem sets or quizzes. In line clickable animation or audio or analysis programs or other electronic extenstions available to a properly equipped computer via data on same CD or the internet. An example would be an enginneering text with clickable access to stress/thermal analysis finite element packages or other numerical methods. Mirwin 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

MIT has a program known as OCW(Open Course Ware) which provides course materials online for nearly all of the courses currently offered at MIT and for a select few courses even includes video lectures. I was wondering if anyone was aware of whether or not it would be possible to integrate these already available resources into the Wikiversity project? I feel that it would be a waste of time, that could be better spent on improving and supplementing these resources, to recreate them. Mos87

Main page mission statement

Create and host open-content, multimedia learning materials and resources, for all age groups in all languages

Isn't this the mission statement for Wikibooks? Is there a link to the resolution from the board? - Amgine 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here: Wikimedia Foundation approval of the project

The statement you quote reflects part of the mission of Wikiversity. Another major part of the mission is to create learning communities. As I understand it, Wikiversity projects can be partly based on Wikibooks in the same way that Wikibooks are sometimes partly based on Wikipedia articles. However, Wikiversity can be much more than a collection of curricula; it can be a network of learning communities, a creative university/multiversity without walls. --Doug 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The effective mission of the Wikibooks project is to create textbooks. A lot of other material people have typed in is routinely archived and deleted or perhaps merely deleted. I am curious Amgine. Do you intend to participate here at Wikiversity or do you view yourself as an interested Wikimedia Foundation member playing hall monitor to make sure we conform strictly to the letter of the approved proposal? Are you a regular at Wikibooks concerned that we may host ebooks and other online materials that Wikibooks declines to host as outside their narror definition of what someone may use as a textbook or learning reference manual? Mirwin 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New banner graphic

There are 4 white guys (yes?) in the banner at the top of the main page: [1]. That won't do. Please fix. --Doug 03:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And one of them is holding a big stick and pointing his finger :-) Thanks for raising this, Doug. Cormaggio 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a quill, rather than a stick - but I still advocate a better image for the main page - something more along the lines of "learning together". Cormaggio 11:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a simple stylized image of a galaxy would work -- this being in part a metaphor for many bright lights shining and living together and also a metaphor for exploring the universe? Until a banner more representative and less male and euro-centric (which only fits maybe 10% of the global population) is created, is a banner needed? Is one needed at all? Also, I question the use of a graduation hat as the WV logo if the statement of what WV is not includes not granting degrees. Perhaps a galaxy could be a logo option for WV. Doug 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, the logo is wrong - I just put something there as a placeholder (to replace Wikipedia's logo, which was there originally), with the full intention of opening a logo contest to decide our real identity :-). There have already been a few suggestions - so maybe we should get going on it soon - I know my girlfriend is keen to have a go. As for the banner image, no, we don't need one - though images are useful - I'll pooch around for something better.. Cormaggio 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yah, some graphic or photo would be nice up top. What you have now is better. It might be hard to find a banner that makes everyone happy by various criteria. A pluralistic option: Perhaps we could rotate (even automate the rotation) of the top graphic amongst a dozen or two dozen photos (or more) of people from different cultures in schooling/learning/research contexts -- one could have a blurb about the inclusive nature of wikiversity and reaching out to many contexts -- off and online. A logo contest soon sounds good. Doug 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. How do we know they are "white"? My impression was Spanish from about the 1600s. Conquistadors learning how to get to the "New World". By all means pick something politically correct for China and North Korea. Maybe a CD or IC under the arm of a scholar escaping from Alexandria burning? Maybe the scholar could be plugging a light fiber into the internet? Mirwin 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone knows the identities of the persons in the orginal picture but I couldn't be sure -- that is why I wrote "yes?" with a question mark above. We can't be sure they are all guys either -- another reason I wrote "yes?". But, something that looks like it could be 4 white people who happen to be all guys (yes? no?) sends the wrong message. I hope we have a community process to develop and pick a graphic. Doug 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to say that this is something that needs to be fixed again, as the current image is something that is for a classroom in South Africa and it doesn't make it all that clear. Of course, we could do a "rotating" image that would have something from different regions of the world that would rotate in and out depending on the day of the week. That might show a little more diversity anyway. Kinda like the "pic of the day" images. --Robert Horning 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Move

Uh, why move this page? It's the *Main Page* :-) Cormaggio 16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to keep the purposes of the namespaces clear. If the main namespace is meant for learning and research materials, Main Page doesn't really fit into it. -- sebmol ^? 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is only by historical tradition that wiki main pages are in the main namespace. The idea of having an introductory main page came before the idea of having a project namespace to hold the meta-pages about the project. I support having the main page be in a "meta namespace" such as the wikiversity namespace. Technically, I wonder if the main page should be thought of as a portal. --JWSchmidt 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By having Main Page as a redirect, we are automatically making practically everyone entering the project coming into a redirect. I just don't think that's good design. Yes, the main page is many things - a portal, a meta page - but, most importantly, it is an introduction to the project. Why immediately scupper the design of the page by keeping to a strict plan of what a particular namespace is? *No* other project has a redirect from Main Page - and I don't think it's purely an historical thing either. Cormaggio 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What redirect? It's fixed. ;-) -- sebmol ^? 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean, that you see underneath the page title: "Redirected from Main Page" - I just don't think it looks good. Cormaggio 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't see that anymore. Try entering just the URL or click on the image on the left. It should go straight to Wikiversity:Main Page without redirect. -- sebmol ^? 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it is :-) Cormaggio 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's ok? -- sebmol ^? 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That redirect sign is back, by the way - not sure if it's something to do with the vandalism.. Cormaggio 07:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the "redirect sign" is seen if you came from Main Page to Wikiversity:Main Page. --JWSchmidt 09:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by the redirect sign is simply the words "redirected from Main Page", which I get when I type http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Main_Page into a browser (or follow that link, which I've bookmarked). I wonder how it is for people coming in on a link from any of our sister projects..? Cormaggio 09:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If they come through http://en.wikiversity.org/ they won't see a Redirect. If on a sister project the link is made like this: [[v:]], they will also not see the redirect. I would suggest you adjust your browser so that it links to http://en.wikiversity.org/ with nothing after the slash. -- sebmol ^? 09:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Back to dissertation-land for me :-) Cormaggio 09:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

no www.wikiversity.org yet

FYI: There's no http://www.wikiversity.org yet... Katpatuka11:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Brion or other technical developers will need to fix this, the page has been a domain name placeholder for at least a year so it predates our database wiki. He may be waiting for a preliminary logo. I suggest we request an immediate fix using the mortar board logo in the center with various languages around it as in the www.wikipedia.org portal. It seems good enough while we wait for logo designers to show and have a competition. Mirwin 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What Happened?

I don't know about any body else, but the main page seems to be gone.

never mind, it's back

Vandalism

Due to a wayward idiot, this page (the main page, not the talk page) is now being semi-protected against edits by anonymous users. I would imagine after a couple of weeks when this pages gets settled down that there will be no major reason to continue to edit this page, and it will turn to sysop-only edit protection.

If there are problems that you experience with editing the main page, please drop a line here and let us know what you want to see changed. --Robert Horning 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to DE

Can you change the link to DE from Deutsch to Deutsch?

I think the second way looks better.

-- MichaelFrey 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed all of the links from external to internal links. I agree, they look better that way. I think I messed up the Japanese link, so if anybody knows where in ja.wikibooks the Japanese Wikiversity pages are, it would be appreciated. --Robert Horning 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- MichaelFrey 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages without content

...include Esperanto, Netherlands, and Japanese. Should they be taken off the main page? I don't see any use for them over any other languages that have no content. 219.255.192.201 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee

Do we have a welcoming committee here yet? If not, how should one be started? (Or, alternately, would it be appropriate to start one?) --Qwerty 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please start welcoming committee. There is this: {{Template:Welcome}} --JWSchmidt 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What is up with this skin?

What's up with the rounded edges of this skin? It totally does not fit in with any of the other English Wikimedia projects. It looks plain ridiculous, especially since the rounded edges are not anti-aliased. I believe that it should be changed back to normal. 85.147.58.212 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Each Wikimedia project determines its look separately. If you do not like the rounded edges, you are free to register and adjust your Monobook.css. -- sebmol ^? 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you're the admin who made the change, I see. So instead of actually taking the time to discuss this change with me, you simply say "shut up and make your own exclusive override if you want to". This is terrible! You just made this change because you like it, and you don't seem to care about the fact that square edges have become the standard across almost all Wikimedia projects. What is your reason to do this? What do rounded corners add, besides your personal opinion of design? I am a graphic designer and I cannot fathom what rounded corners could possibly add. All they do is show how utterly clueless browsers are at rendering rounded corners. It's all jaggy and aliased, and there are even a few "gaps" in there. Anyway, if you really like this change, then it's okay to add it as you're legally entitled to do so (as admin) but please at least have the decency to discuss it rather than just telling people to go make their own override. 85.147.58.212 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I do have the decency to discuss it. But if you're already making the point that it looks "plain ridiculous", what's the point of dicussion? You have not made any contributions to this project yet you feel the need to call something that meets the consensus of the project ridiculous. If you expect AGF, you have to start by asking, not judging. -- sebmol ^? 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Rounded corners do exist in Wikimedia projects, Wikiversity is certainly not the only one. It's also been around for a few days without anybody complaining. Rather the opposite. -- sebmol ^? 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just gave you plenty of reasons if you'll read my previous message.

1. Jaggy edges
2. Bad browser support
3. Not the standard (consistency is important for Mediawiki as a whole)
4. Not the way the Monobook skin was meant to look

I have not contributed to this project yet (I did vote for it to be started, though) but I believe that there is no problem with me pointing out what I believe to be a problem of this site. In a way, that is contributing as well. Also, you tell me one single other English Wikimedia project that also has rounded edges. There are none. This was my point. I realize there are non-English Wikimedia projects that do. I also cannot see how this decision can prevail in the long run, seen as how the other Wikimedia projects are much larger than this one, and any attempt to add rounded corners there would immediately be rejected via the Snowball clause. 85.147.58.212 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome page

I've just created Wikiversity:Welcome, newcomers and i suggest it be linked to in the Main Page title, just as the other projects are. Can an admin please do this? - Trevor MacInnis 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)