Talk:Welcome to Citizendium/Archive 1

Welcome to Citizendium

Current talk page

Archive 1

Page needs redesign and simplification

All, if you are interested in the Main Page, will you please work together (or just submit a design of your own) on a brand new and highly simplified design? We will move many of the links that are now on the front page, and in the sidebar, to other (still easily accessible) pages.

I did like a design by Ori Redler from some months ago, but we never followed up on it. --Larry Sanger 22:55, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Would it be this one? [1]. It still needs work, but is this what you had in mind? --Matt Innis (Talk) 23:13, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that's the one. --Larry Sanger 08:25, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I like that idea. Very simple, and a few more entries, but looks good. Jochen Wendebaum 01:19, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I got an idea! Reading about where and how to put the Beta tag, without losing sense of a "key" why not a "keychain"? Thomas Mandel 23:38, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice basic layout idea, cool idea for the keychain. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:23, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Along the "key" theme, what about keyholes or locks, as in clicking one "unlocks" the information users seek. Too hokey? Aric S. Campling 07:56, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

This is something like what I was thinking (I have larger versions if wanted): Aric S. Campling 16:00, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Hokey, yes, but I like it! Anybody know how to do this stuff? --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:09, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I just noticed this too. It's a great logo. Why don't we make it into the top-left icon? --Larry Sanger 08:18, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I must admit to not knowing how to actually change that... happy to provide a nicer/bigger logo to fit in the same dimensions as the existing one if someone else knows how to actually get the logo into that space. Aric S. Campling 20:52, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

No problem getting it into the space! Try one version with "Credibility and Collegiality" or "Credible -- Collegial" (some variation). And "Citizendium" of course. --Larry Sanger 08:38, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Also, how about trying simply "CZ" in the black part? Simple, might work. --Larry Sanger 03:19, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I know it is doable. I also know I am the sort who just really likes very artistic web design, so long as the functions do not become non-obvious and/or complicated. I just don't think simplicity and plainess necessarily have to be one and the same. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 18:48, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Are we still in beta given the planned 2.0 initiatives? Can't we be in like, 0.2?--Robert W King 23:17, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

We officially Do Not Care that beta = pre-1.0. --Larry Sanger 23:20, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I think the keyring is nice!  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Pat, thanks--looks better, but still not the radical simplification I was hoping for. But then, we can't really have such a simplification until we have at least partly redesigned the entry pages of, for example, the project (CZ:Project Home). --Larry Sanger 06:37, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I just saw the redesign, and while I think it's an improvement, I have at least one suggestion for improvement: "Approved Articles" should be up very close to the top. These are our showpieces - the thing which sets us apart (in theory) from Wikipedia. Anthony Argyriou 12:11, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to tinker with it. I was a little nervous messing with the front page. Anyone should feel free to radically modify as far as I'm concerned. I placed the information sort of in the order I personally wanted--I imagine if you poll 10 people, you'd get ten different sets of priorities there. Anyway, why don't some of yall try your hand? I feel I've already stirred this pot enough :-)

I've just spotted the fresh design and couldn't resist experimenting :-) But my question is: does the Notice Board is a "project entree"? For regular editors the page is either in the watchlist or two-clicks-away via CZ:Project Home on the left margin. For newcomers, the Notice Board is virtually of no meaning. Do you see any other group potentially interested in having the link on the main page? --Aleksander Stos 08:06, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Meh, get rid of it. Really, you can edit it, please do. --Larry Sanger 08:19, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

somehow it's reversed.

I can't help but point out various bugs and display issues, so here's yet another one: (screenshot pending)--Robert W King 14:18, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Robert, do you have problems with other sites too? It seems like you have many more layout problems than others, even those using PC's. It makes me wonder whether you're missing some software. Chris Day (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Just seen your screenshot. That png is transparent (at least it is mean't to be. For some reason your system is substituting transparent with black? Chris Day (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

When I click on the fullsize logo, there's a gray background.--Robert W King 14:24, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Nope. CZ is the only one, and I am sure I'll get the same results when I get home, but I will keep you updated just in case..--Robert W King 14:22, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Nope, it's ok! Looks OK in the picture above too

Strange, especially since the "approved"green tick is semi transparent. I'd expect the same with that too. Chris Day (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Chris- I'm at home now, and it shows up the same way. The subpages template also appears to be a 50% grey/green, and the normal logo has the same background. I still see the front-page logo with the black background; it might be the way IE renders odd transparencies.--Robert W King 17:37, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Does no one else use IE? Chris Day (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I use IE, and my monitor displays the logo as a black rectangle with blue "zendium" and "beta," the latter on a white odd-shaped background. -- k kay 00:55, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Just noticed this discussion. So it still looks black to some people? It doesn't to me on IE. It must have something to do with the background of that table cell. I just removed the background color. Does that fix the problem? --Larry Sanger 02:12, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Nope, still black even after I 'hard refresh' and/or clear my cache. I might should mention, however, that I'm using an antique computer running Win95 and IE5.5, but it was working okay before. -- k kay 01:40, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Now? --Larry Sanger 01:47, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I can see again! If the background is supposed to be a sort of tan, I've got it perfect, if not, at least I can see all the elements now (on the 'main page' -- the ones on this 'talk' page are still black, of course). Thanks. -- k kay 01:51, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

This is only a IE 6 and below issue with transparent PNGs. Appears fine on IE 7, Mozilla Firefox and SeaMonkey, Opera, and Safari for Windows, which is what I've tested it with.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:33, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Also displays fine in Konqeurer on Kubuntu Linux.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:37, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Grand, but there are probably more people using IE 6 than all the other browsers you listed combined, except maybe Firefox. --Larry Sanger 03:17, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Forums link

Would someone please restore the Forums link at the left bar? It's very helpful and convenient (I use it several times daily, and suspect others may as well), and it's an important part of the project. Russell Potter

This was my first reaction too. There is the "Communicate" link, however, and the target contains all useful pages. So now I appreciate lighter toolbox. Notabene, by the same logic, we could suppress the "Notice Board" link from the toolbox. It is, anyway, linked by "Communicate" and its proper place is in the watchlist. --Aleksander Stos 15:27, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I use the Forums link a great deal as well, and would like to see it back. Aleta Curry 18:17, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I too would like to see it back. Hayford Peirce 14:02, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

The "Communicate" option is much too ambiguous. Communicate with whom? About what? Through what means? I greatly prefer the original set of options. Russell Potter 17:28, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Missing links - food, cuisine

This page is sure a lot cleaner looking than when I first joined a couple of months ago -- a great improvement! I don't see any openings, however, that would lead the casual browsing newcomer to Food Sciences or Culinary Arts (a proposed workgroup) or Catalog of French cuisine or Catalog of cocktails or any of the food articles I've worked on. Surely food, as a vital part of our existence, ought to be referenced here in some easy-to-find way. Under Sports, for instance, there's a list of difference sports, some with existing links and even sub-links.... Hayford Peirce 16:26, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Just an oversight? Aleta Curry 18:24, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

We three ought to work together to get a food article up to approval status. French fries seems a good candidate. I'll try to recruit an editor, if need be. And after thinking a while, I do think a Cuisine Workgroup or some such is needed; just does not fit tightly enough with Food Science--one produces (a science), the other prepares (an art), with little crossover.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:26, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I'll have a look. (Although the idea that the first approved article in Food Science will be something so completely bad for one--sheesh!) Re: Cuisine Workgroup--I'm not fundamentally opposed, but I need to point out that as far as I know, cooking is one of the food sciences, so it's not so much an issue of crossover as subset. Don't care enough to argue, though. Aleta Curry 17:08, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Borders

I like it better with borders, although it's a close call. Hayford Peirce 18:42, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Checklist!

Guys! Did you delete the checklist? Aleta Curry 18:50, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

It's still there, just buried now. Bookmark it. It could also be added usefully to CZ:Project Home if it isn't there already. Template:Checklist --Larry Sanger 08:52, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

"just buried now." ??? Why not just make things easier? Aleta Curry 17:05, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Because sometimes easier ain't actually easier. Simplify the entry pages and more people have warmer fuzzies about us. What we really need is a personally configurable sidebar...but for that, we need more active (or paid) coders. --Larry Sanger 04:01, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

An idea for "Recreation"

I don't know what we're calling the organizational sections that the workgroups fall into, but I'd like to address the one now called "Recreation".

Let's change this to "Avocations, Recreation and Related Professions". It will help us deal with hobbies that are paraprofessional and avocations that can be amateur or professional (gardening, sports, cooking are crossover occupations that spring to mind.)

Now we can keep the present workgroups and also add one for 'Service Organisations' (The Red Cross, The United Way, Rotary International and the like.) This will also solve the many issues that have been raised with regard to "hobbies" in the forums, and also, as someone pointed out elsewhere, that Service Orgs and charities aren't included anywhere at the moment. Aleta Curry 17:15, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Hi Aleta, please move this to CZ:New Workgroup Requests where we're keeping track of this sort of thing. I'm afraid your insights will fall through the cracks otherwise. --Larry Sanger 23:52, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, thanks, I posted it over there. Aleta Curry 00:10, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Article of the Week

I've just reworked slightly the page to make a place for the Article of the Week, I think it's a must ( see also this forum thread). Naturally, the featured article is to be changed on a weekly basis. Since the wikiprocedure proposed by Larry didn't generate many reactions so far, let's simply adopt the rule of time order of approvals (any other suggestions?). To make it easy to see, I'll insert here an ordered list of articles to be put on the front page. To make it easy, here is the list (on a second thought, we might still change the order, just by manual editing below) --Aleksander Stos 12:13, 25 July 2007 (CDT) Update: List no more needed, see here. --Aleksander Stos 08:10, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

1. Biology
2. Barbara McClintock
3. Chiropractic
4. Metabolism
5. ...

This isn't a bad idea at all, Aleks, it's just that I think that if we were to vote, it could generate more community excitement. Let's see how my "would you vote" vote goes... --Larry Sanger 12:22, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe a better home for such a list is on a subpage? Main_Page/Article_of_the_week The front page looks good to me. Chris Day (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe you're right. --Larry Sanger 12:39, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I just noticed the vote discussion. Move that subpage to a better name or place as needed. i created it before noticing the other discussions. Chris Day (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Last changes

I particularly do not like "We're aiming to be better and more reliable than Wikipedia". R. Versuri (Talk) 08:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

It is not the main goal of CZ. If we aim at credibility and quality, of course we're aiming to be much better and much more reliable than Wikipedia! R. Versuri (Talk) 09:02, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree. In fact I just removed it. Chris Day (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

New Article of the Week

Check out Main_Page/Test to see a mock-up that includes a CZ:New Article of the Day. Unless there are objections here or on CZ Talk:New Article of the Day I will update the main page at 1900 UTC tomorrow to include this change. --Carl Jantzen 23:28, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Questionable sentence on the Main Page

At the moment, one sentence reads:

Regular smart folks and experts—welcome!

Doesn't this imply that only experts or knowledgable people should edit Citizendium? Personally, I think this sentence should be removed - I think it would make less intelligent people feel unwelcome. Any thoughts? Oliver Smith 18:22, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd reword it to "Experts and regular smart folks welcome!" I'm not too worried about less-intelligent people feeling unwelcome, as probably 80% of all people consider themselves smarter than average. Anthony Argyriou 18:40, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

There's no need to be in your face elitist to be honest. At least remove stuff like that from the front page otherwise this place will get a reputation of taking itself too seriously. My brother who has a maths degree dismissed this place almost instantly by saying that 'they take themselves too seriously', which to be honest is kinda true when we have that kinda stuff on the front page. Denis Cavanagh 09:29, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Please comment on this edit. Note the edit summary. Chris Day (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I think that is much better. It removes the perception of elitism, plus, you have to consider that most people who find editing an encyclopedia a fun hobby are probably pretty bright. :) --Todd Coles 10:14, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

That's much better. Thanks, Oliver Smith 10:57, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

No, it's not better. I've changed it back. Saying "Everyone is welcome" is false: it is not the case that everyone is welcome. In particular, people who cannot agree to our Statement of Fundamental Policies, and people who are incapable of making a positive contribution to the project, are out.

I don't mean to be mean, but look--just because someone raises an objection, that does not mean it is necessarily a legitimate objection and that something should be done about it. I think the original complaint, that we specifically invite "ordinary smart people" is somehow elitist, is an obvious non-starter. No, it's not elitist. If you think so, you don't know what "elitist" means. Moreover, I strongly reject this premise that it is in any way offensive to encourage smart people to apply. In fact, I find it silly and offensive to suggest otherwise. --Larry Sanger 22:17, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Surely we welcome everyone to apply? Are we rejecting people at the front door, other than for their unwillingness to agree to a satement of policies? I'm not sure this has much to do with elitism and more to do with our own credability, at least the way it is currently worded. As it stands, it reads like a Bushism i.e. trying to connect to regular folk but failing abysmally. It does not sound genuine or particularly welcoming to anyone. Chris Day (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, the problem is that you are both right, in a strange way. Certainly, people who cannot endorse CZ fundamental policies are not accepted, but on the other hand we have to consider the question: "In principle, is everyone welcome?" If the answer is Yes, subject to their accepting the CZ policy, then I think a qualified "Everyone is welcome" is fine. The problem is a different one, if you want to discourage people other than those who will not endorse CZ policy. This, Larry, is the core of the complaints made: that the wording implies that only clever people are welcome. To some extent it is a matter of PR, something on which I am not so knowledgeable. But I think you should reconsider the phrasing, Larry: perceptions DO count, in this world...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:03, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

"Surely we welcome everyone to apply?" Chris asks. Of course, but that's a straw man. The issue is whether it's all right if we specifically encourage smart folks to apply. Of course it is! Moreover, Martin, I agree, perceptions do count, when it comes to recruitment. But I completely disagree that there is a potential perception problem in this case. Who, among the people who might consider joining us, does not consider themselves "regular smart folks"? Really, how concerned should we be that someone who isn't the brightest bulb feels put off by our encouraging smart folks? --Larry Sanger 12:00, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree Larry's version could be perceptually problematic, and also agree that Chris's is, well, just not really true. How about we just avoid all this hullabaloo by rewording it, New authors and editors welcome! Besides it doing the job very well and removing any possible cause for PR offense, it actually provides people with useful and neutral information via the links.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:24, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I might add I made the change more to generate discussion rather than as the perfect solution. I'm fine with Stephens suggestion here. Chris Day (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

If I may throw my two cents in, I much prefer Stephen's version. --Stefano Bartoletti 00:50, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Your solution is pragmatic and elegant, Stephen:-)--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:54, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. Aleksander Stos 02:47, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. There's very little chance for PR offense: the concern about that here is just a reflection of the echo chamber effect. Now, if you want to, you should go ahead and make the change anyway, over my protest, since no one appears to agree with me here. But the reason I can't agree is that this is yet another example of the sort of de-natured, de-personalized, committee result that you get when you try to please the sort of people who don't want to offend anyone. Well, as you all well know by now, while I try to be as kind as I can, I also am not so diplomatic that avoiding giving any offense is A1 top priority. It's a priority, but explaining what we're about, clearly and engagingly, is a higher priority. If people are offended by what we're about, let them be. I maintain that it is actually considerably more important that specifically encourage people with lots of knowledge, intelligence, and writing ability than that we not "offend" people who believe they might lack these qualities. Call me old-fashioned, benighted, politically incorrect, whatever--but this is just completely obvious to me. --Larry Sanger 12:00, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

BTW, what do you think about new frame around the CZ logo on the top of the page? I'd prefer the "plain" setting without too many boxes -- a question of taste. Aleksander Stos 02:47, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Happily, the boxes are not so visible [at least on my screen] :-))--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:01, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I completely and utterly disagree with Larry, but Stephen's idea is a nice midway point. Can we all agree on that as a compromise? The old 'experts and regular smart folks welcome' just made us look like the college astronomy society. This is something bigger, I think. Denis Cavanagh 03:17, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, what defines smart? There are several indicators to measure intelligence. I doubt Einstein could have written Les Miserables and I doubt Victor Hugo could have developed the Atomic Bomb. I doubt whether Johhny Cash could formulate an acceptable theory based on black holes and I doubt if Dr. Hawkings could sing 'Folsom Prison Blues'. Its all subjective after all. Most importantly we need not to scare otherwise good people away simply because of something that can easily be changed. Denis Cavanagh 03:21, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I disagree with but bow to the majority opinion in this case. Denis, are you implying, perhaps, when we say "regular smart people wanted," we mean that there are not different kinds of smarts? Or that intelligence is not relative in various ways? Why take us to be implying that? Do you really think that intelligence is now officially an offensive concept? I don't. If you do, I'm curious why you don't also think that expertise is an offensive concept--and even more offensive.

Look, folks (and, by the way, has Bush now tainted the word "folks"? God, I hope not). It is not prejudiced, politically incorrect, or anything of the sort to say that we encourage the smartest people possible to contribute. What are we, Wikipedia? There are some people who are smarter than other people. Has this perfectly obvious truth become politically incorrect to state? If so, I am politically incorrect, and proudly so. There are many people who are smarter than I am. They should join us, because, I think, they'll help us to make the project better. And people who do not think that they are "smart folks" would be completely wrong to suggest--bizarrely--that in an encyclopedia project, the project should not specifically encourage smart folks. I utterly and completely reject that sort of laughable egalitarianism. Don't expect me to change in this regard. I have a great deal of respect for intelligence, and it is precisely by respecting it that we'll get the sort of resource CZ can become. Don't worry about putting off a very few people by encouraging smart folks; worry about not encouraging the smart folks enough.

None of this is to say that we should, say, give an intelligence test for entry. This is all, quite simply, just a matter of common sense, not something about which to get worked up about. --Larry Sanger 12:00, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

With regard to folks, it grates on me now, most likely due to its overuse the last seven years.

With regard to attracting smart authors. I can't remember the study but those who are smarter than average often underestimate their intelligence. All i'm saying is I can see how it might put some people off. Chris Day (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I have to agree with Chris on the word "folks"--an interesting quick-word on words to describe people from a business perspective --Robert W King 12:10, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

You mean you're going to let Republicans co-opt a perfectly good word? --Larry Sanger 15:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't attach any political stigma to the word; I guess it's just my view that "folks" is associated with people from the midwest and south, typically ruralites--I'm not sure if this is also what Chris is alluding to. --Robert W King 15:34, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

So, are you going to accept Stephen's revised wording, Larry? I should point out that I rarely follow the crowd, so the echo effect does not apply in at least my own case--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:39, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I said so twice, Martin. I am not going to make the change myself, but I won't change it back if someone else does make it. --Larry Sanger 15:15, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Larry, with all due and authentic respect, flaunting political incorrectness is bizarrely unintelligent, as it can give needless offense to the regular smart folks and experts we are seeking to attract. Its just a reality of the world as it is rather how we might wish it were.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:08, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

You're assuming something that I specifically rejected above, namely, that the concept of smarts or intelligence really is politically incorrect. I doubt it is, with a few small exceptions. No one has said anything the least bit persuasive that "smart folks" is the slightest bit offensive. It just isn't. --Larry Sanger 15:15, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

To say it is not perceptually problematic, Larry, is to say that the social sensibilities of everyone who has posted here are removed from reality and are not worth listening to. That just is not so. Mind you, I fully agree on point of truth that some people are smarter than others, that women tend to be less aggressive because of their biological makeup, and a whole slew of such things. But a public project's PR just ain't the place for it. Just think about it. I am sure you have heard this sort of thing from people before.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:27, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Larry, I am all for meritocracy, and will be the first to agree that an encyclopedia needs a certain minimum standard of skills from its authors. I am also personally inclined towards political incorrectness. But this is not about my personal opinions: it is about how a front page looks to most people. Image may not be everything, but it is intelligent to start off looking reasonably good...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:37, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Steve, as I think you already know, I usually do "think about" what I write very carefully. I'd appreciate it if you kindly bore that in mind. I think that all of us, including myself, are subject from time to time to echo chamber effects. Anyone who says he is entirely immune to such effects is, I think, the same sort who says he or she is immune to the effects of advertising: such claims belie a full understanding of the effect in question. I think this is one of those times. However, I also bear in mind that I could be mistaken; I am not as certain of my views on such matters as some of you seem to be. Therefore, I defer to the popular view, whether an echo chamber effect or not. --Larry Sanger 15:47, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

"Just think about it" - I meant think about what I was just saying. I realize you usually seek to be very careful in what you write.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:08, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, what you were saying was, essentially, the contradictory of what I was saying. I can't think carefully about the merits of latter without thinking about the merits of the former, can I? --Larry Sanger 16:30, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry that I came late to this discussion. For what it's worth, I agree with Larry's position 100% -- maybe the exact wording can be judiciously tweaked, but I think the kind of people who WILL be writing for CZ are not going to be offended by this so-called "elitist" wording. And the kinds of people who WON'T be writing for CZ are welcome to peruse it as an encyclopedia without contributing to it; I doubt if they'll be offended by this. And even if they are, if they want to learn about Navy grog, for example they're gonna have to do it here, at least until WP ports it over.... Hayford Peirce 18:06, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Look, I'm not sure if I made myself clear at all so far; My opposition to the mainpage headlines is two fold - Like Chris already mentioned, it is a little cringeworthy and two, It looks like we take ourselves too seriously. For the overwhelming majority of the people who contribute here it is just a hobby. Saying we only want smart people to apply is just well, stupid. Not everyone who is clever considers themselves to be and vice versa... Its all about perceptions. Denis Cavanagh 03:30, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not cringing, and I doubt many others are. Inviting "ordinary smart folks" makes us look like we take ourselves too seriously? I disagree. And inviting ordinary smart people and experts does not mean that we only want these to apply, obviously. To the extent to which it's about perceptions, the original was just fine. --Larry Sanger 08:11, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

The wisest among us will know the true extent of his own ignorance. 'Intelligent' people rarely like to flaunt it and quite frankly it just looked silly. I mean comeon! Who actually goes around labelling themselves clever? Its just cringeworthy seeing something that looks like an attempted status symbol sitting on the front page. Denis Cavanagh 08:53, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't know why we differ in this, but I don't see any of that at all. "Ordinary smart folks" is hardly a status symbol (do you know what this means?); and who is labelling whom clever? We aren't so labelling ourselves, I think. We're saying we welcome such people to apply. Anyway, Denis, you may have the last word, as this is now academic. --Larry Sanger 08:57, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Larger Picture for Article of the Week

I think it would be a good idea to make the picture on the front page somewhat bigger. I think pictures have the potential to grab attention, and it is more likely to draw someone in than the short blurb. --Carl Jantzen 09:06, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I tend to agree. We may try to get rid of the description of the picture/thumb (as a principle), this will make some room. After all, intrigued reader may click to visit article and see it in full details. Aleksander Stos 04:08, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Write-a-thon

How come there's no link about the Write-a-thon? I thought we all thought that publicizing it early would be a good idea? I mean, that major big block notice can go up a day or two before, but there should be a little link to the write-a-thon page squeezed in somewhere so that people who don't know what/when it is can learn about the party and mark their calendars. Aleta Curry 17:53, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Probably a good idea. We had a lot of participation with only a day notice last month, if we give it a week or so we might be able to attract some of our more casual authors. --Todd Coles 09:12, 29 August 2007 (CDT)