- Okay I've managed some rather simple sites before and made a few successful instead of blindly complaining about everything how about we post ideas on how to improve it.
- We're an IT why don't we get some computer science majors or some art designers some extra credit or sometihng to design some code for this wiki it looks terrible. Maybe a competition could be amde to improve it.
- Objectives: I feel like a list of what tihs wiki needs to be complete should be posted up like whats the point of a wiki all the students can access if they have no idea why they're accessing it?
--THOMAS OWEN MAUSHART 14:38, 17 November 2010 (EST)
- A. Exactly how is the site ugly?
- B. How would we define "complete"?
- C. Getting people extra credit in existing classes might be difficult. Do you happen to know any professors that would allow it? Kari Marie Hazzard 15:34, 17 November 2010 (EST)
- Can this get a better URL? wiki.rit.edu? No one will ever remember this.
- That logo is horrible. We have an entire school of graphic designers and that's the best we can do?
- Color scheme is blah. I've skinned MediaWiki before and loathe it now, but I'd rather just use the default if we can.
--Nick Quaranto 04:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about wiki.rit.edu! ITS, can we do that? :P --Daniel Leveille 04:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- We have been looking into finding a better URL. After the WikiThon, we can focus more on these issues. The logo was done free of charge and, in my opinion, is a beautiful logo. It was done by a graphics designer, but if you have a better idea, feel free to contact me. --Richard Edward Latham 03:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- We wanted wiki.rit.edu. Online Learning has it for their evidently seldom-used Confluence installation and won't let go of it. And I like the logo. It's cute. >_> Kari Marie Hazzard 14:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe once RITpedia gains some leverage and takes over Google searches for anything RIT-related (which it will—MediaWiki is great for that) then they'll reconsider. :P --Daniel Rene Leveille 15:43, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
- Finding a new name after Dr. Gatley vetoed "RitWiki" (because of potential confusion) was annoying, I can say that much. >< Kari Marie Hazzard 15:47, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
- The color scheme is a bit off; the orange is a school color I know, but the top-right links look like they're the same red as the "no article" link, so I keep thinking I have no talk page or userpage.
- The wiki could use an extension like DiscussionThreading to make this kind of conversation easier.
- Reiterate the crappiness of the url and logo, though the latter is subjective. I feel like we should use an actual RIT logo or something with a sleeker tiger -- do we really want an RIT reference/info source to be associated with a cartoon?
~Bob Lawton 16:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
- The color scheme (largely) is a result of a quick-and-dirty design on my part. I devised it to be functional, not really to be pretty, because the goal at the time was getting the site up more than making it look nice. It needs serious work from a more experienced designer. Any ideas on what we can do with it? We can scrap orange altogether. We aren't wedded to school colors. Kari Marie Hazzard 23:12, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
- My main complaint as far as colors go is that the links on the top right always appear orange, it ruins the red-for-no-article and blue-for-good-link wiki context clues I'm used to.
- ~Bob Lawton 16:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
- I can look into Discussion threading technically, although Richard and Fran would have to look into installing it. It wouldn't be proper to use site admin permissions to install them post-graduation, if I still have them anyway.
- Regarding the URL, I don't know what to do with it. We can't get wiki.rit.edu right now. Any suggestions on alternatives? ritpedia.rit.edu? Maybe info.rit.edu? I don't know if a cartoon is the right tone for the logo, but it's at least a step up from the last one, which was a photograph. Kari Marie Hazzard 23:12, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
- As a FYI, the URL ritpedia.rit.edu now forwards to RITpedia as well. And, as always, I'm free to suggestions. --Richard Edward Latham 19:08, 18 November 2010 (EST)