Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

There was a problem creating new pages earlier today/yesterday depending on your locale.

This seems to be resolved now. --Peter Hitchmough 08:39, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

I would like to discuss the heading "health sciences" on the main page. I clicked it, and was flummoxed. As far as I know, there is no such thing as "Health Science"as described. There is health care- that includes traditional medicine and such, but that's not science. Health Care deserves an article but I am too ignorant to know how to change the heading. I posted my confusion here instead of editing the article and discussing it there because I did not want to inadvertantly add it to CZ (which I maintain would be better called Z for Zendium and still could be the Citizens' Compendium, by the way.) Help! Nancy Sculerati

Just to make you happy :-) I just registered zendium.org (it appears the .com and .net variants are Danish tooth products--that's plausible). Maybe we will go with your variant, eventually anyway...

Presumably there are important enough differences between the topics "health care," a set of practices, and "health sciences" (or "medicine"), an area of study and research, to warrant different articles. Or did you mean to deny that? I mean, I will not gainsay you if you do wish to deny it. The list of topics on the front page is a list of disciplines, and "health care" per se doesn't name a discipline.

--Larry Sanger 16:52, 30 October 2006 (CST) (I signed this way by using four tildes in a row: ~~~~

P.S. Dr. Sculerati, please see medicine as well.

My proposal is to post in help section of the page the most actual info, covering technical problems during initial registration at least to get-off some load from tech team, replying on similar questions.

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Main_Page&diff=100001136&oldid=100001131

What's about necessity of registering user name in form of real "First name Last name" ? It's hard to find this somewhere BEFORE attempt of account registration IMHO. Anatoliy Kostrzhytskyy 05:06, 3 November 2006 (CST)

Thanks for pointing that (the real names requirement) out. I don't know where else we can mention that, except maybe in the invitation letters? It was discussed to death on the forum (and talked about on the mailing list in late September). We formulated the policy to help foster a different sort of community, to help make this all the more real. --ZachPruckowski 12:00, 3 November 2006 (CST)

It is mentioned in the invitation letters, and the statement of fundamental policies too.  :-) --Larry Sanger 13:34, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Dear Colleagues,

I was about to write a short piece about Cultural Policy/Strategy but I realise I cannot do so until I am 'au fait' with the technical side of things. Perhaps Larry it would be helpful if new recruits such as myself are emailed an attachment containing a 'tutorial'? Best wishes, aladin.

P.S. Perhaps this can be emailed - I am not sure how to receive or send messages! aladin

Aladin, I agree that many users need a tutorial, and apparently we do need to increase the priority on that. It's easier for us to put it here on the wiki, however, and e-mail a link. There's no "wiki-internal" mail except "user talk" pages, and many people don't know to look at their user talk pages anyway! --Larry Sanger 13:17, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Dear Larry,

Thanks for this. Surely you should be spending your time elsewhere than responding to 'administrative' queries? I am impressed! I am about to use 4 tildes as you suggest, which is a start for me. aladin Aladin 19:29, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Nonsense. It is impossible to have an open, bottom-up project if the project leader is not willing to work "in the trenches" as much as if not more than others. That's how I got Wikipedia started and CZ will be no different. --Larry Sanger 22:40, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Disciplines

Could I ask someone to rework the "Disciplines" list so that it reflects CZ:Discipline Workgroups? And in general, if you can improve the coherence and usefulness of this landing page, please do. Thanks. --Larry Sanger 22:40, 20 November 2006 (CST)

computer sciences

hi all,

where did the computer science pages vanish into? They seem to have been deleted or declared dead.

thanks for any hints upon their location.

Rob Tito

Hi Rob, the place to ask would be on the talk page of the Computers workgroup page, I guess. But since you ask here: see Category:Computers Workgroup. Does that answer the question? (Where did you find the comp sci articles previously?) --Larry Sanger 12:45, 10 December 2006 (CST)

There used to be a page linked to Computer Sciences and that page contained links to e.g. databases - but a different link then the computers page link. That one - including all the myriads of pages of information seems gone. Why ever it was done remains a mystery to me but since it has been done and probably for some good reasons I merely want to add a layer to reflect the broad territory of computers, science of computers and computer science. regards

Rob Robert Tito

I still don't know what page you mean. Do you mean, perhaps, computer science? All the pages are still there, to my knowledge (I don't think we've started deleting any pages). --Larry Sanger 13:02, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Redesigned main page

If you're reading this, then you're hip enough to know that talk pages are important and so you're also probably mediawiki-savvy. Well then you might be just the person to redesign Main Page. Here is my request: move the current contents of the main page to CZ:Project Home. On a newly-designed main page, use a modest, tasteful amount of color and tables to create a simple front page for CZ. (Hint: en.wikipedia.org ain't simple.) I would still like to see links to the entry articles for the workgroups (not the workgroup homepages; e.g., philosophy, not CZ:Philosophy Workgroup). We may also have a featured article on the front page, a la Wikipedia, but not so prominently placed (i.e., not in the upper left). Think: you're arriving at CZ for the very first time. What's the first thing you want to see? I leave that an open question. One thing you'll want to see, of course, is the start of an explanation of what CZ is, and what makes CZ different from WP. So: a link to a page explaining these things, and the first paragraph or two of that page. --Larry Sanger 13:02, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Welcome/Aim
Quick Help		Disciplines
Approved article	Seleced live article
Policy/Technical

I've started something on User:Aaron Brenneman/Sandbox0 if anyone wants to join in there. My current thoughts are a very basic, very streamlined front page with prominant links. /* Waits for rush of eager beavers in the user space. */
brenneman 22:22, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Whew. I read LS's comment above three times and cannot but take it to mean "be bold." So I was. I didn't copy/paste to CZ:Project Home as everything is all still there, just gussied up. Note too, I've only transcluded my version. I think I need to have a cup of tea now, hitting "save" just then has given me the shakes. - brenneman 00:33, 22 December 2006 (CST)

When I tell people to be bold, I mean it. Thanks for your help, Aaron. I think it's an improvement. Look at my comments on the talk page of your Sandbox0 page. --Larry Sanger 02:21, 22 December 2006 (CST)

OK, just a few comments, I would move the Approved Article and Selected Live Article cells up, and the help section down. And, actually, I'm not sure we need a help section on the main page--that's more appropriate for the "Project home" page. Ditto "Policy/Technical." The discipline list is well-placed though. Actually, the question is what we can maintain, interestingly, on the front page, that will be interesting to people. In other words, what cells are of interest to folks? --Larry Sanger 20:22, 22 December 2006 (CST)

The answer there depends on who we actually expect to end up on the main page: Wikipedia outcasts, discerning knowledge seekers, random Google-flux, chickens? My belief is that if we presume complete ignorance of wiki-ways we can't go wrong. Neophytes will appreciate the gentle introduction, jaded veterans will *blip* over it without noticing. I'd like to see a help section in some form that includes:

• A statement about reliability - It's the elephant in the room, but if it addresses honestly and clearly up front it a better approach. Bold faced "It's unreliable" maybe not, but at least a strong caveat.
• How articles get made - Following on logically from "Use caution" with regards to reliability is why complete and perfect coverage is not the goal, eg how does this text get here?

Without fear of sounding like I'm blowing smoke up anyone's bum, I'd suspect that curiosity about Larry Sanger will also run high: Those "second tier" initiates whom have used/refenced Wikipedia but are not intimate with its history will probably want to know basic just-who-does-he-think-he-is sort of information.

The working draft for markII is at User:Aaron Brenneman/Sandbox1, I thought a little stability was preferable to chopping and changing right out in the open. I've put a link to homepage (at .org) top right an made the intro text differenct, and started making the "help" section more generic.

brenneman 17:43, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Comment on "wikipedia's main page isn't simple." While I agree that the english main wikipedia page is not simple, I would argue that wikipedia has a good solution to that... anyone who wants a simple search page like google just goes to wikipedia.org instead of the en homepage (that's what I do). I would recommend that you imitate google and google homepage. Since we have individual accounts we should just be able to have a personalized homepage like google homepage or... a simple homepage like google's simple version. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:33, 25 December 2006 (CST)

Move?

I think this page might do well with a name like "Portal:Citizendium" or "Citizendium:Main Page," since the main page is not an article and should technically not be in the article space. This was recently brought up for discussion on the English Wikipedia, but many users opposed the move because of the number of links that would need to be fixed, both within Wikipedia as well as in other websites. Here, though, this could be done without excessive difficulty since the project is still somewhat new. Ted Zellers 23:03, 29 December 2006 (CST)

I don't know what the argument here is. Main Page is a special page by default. If the concern is just that the page appears to be in the main namespace--well, who cares? What difference does that make? --Larry Sanger 09:47, 15 January 2007 (CST)

The argument is that the main page is not in accordance with the rules (but can be-- [1], [2]), but if indeed no one cares, then I am content to make an exception. --Ted Zellers 17:33, 22 January 2007 (CST)

The only practical I can think of is ... what if there is one day a famous movie or book or something called Main Page? Clearly, we could place the article at Main Page (film) or Main Page (book), but how would the interested reader get there from Main Page? Would there be a disambiguation notice at the top of the front page? It would be ideal to have the front page located at some even simpler address, like http://en.citizendium.org/main or such, but I don't know how feasible that is in mediawiki.—Nat Krause 14:29, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Featured this-and-that

Right now we have no mechanism whereby featured articles and persons are chosen. Until we do have such a mechanism, anything we "feature" here will probably go for many weeks without being changed (as was the case recently). So I'm removing the "featured" stuff until some people step up and take responsibility for "featured" status! --Larry Sanger 09:47, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Reworked page

Having looked at it for a few weeks, I think the page is far too busy. I think we need Ori's help here.

Also, can someone please add the following lines prominently yet in an aesthetically pleasing fashion?

Contribute to the Citizendium's pre-launch funding drive!
We'll be building our "launch war chest" through the end of February.

--Larry Sanger 17:25, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Colors

(1) The colors, as opposed to having each box with the same color, are a good change - BUT- tone it down, go to the palette used and make each one in the same family- however you chose them- but no more than one step above white each. Otherwise, it looks jarring and unprofessional. Nancy Sculerati MD 13:29, 20 January 2007 (CST) (2) Also, besides lowering the value of the colors, you have a relatively cool palette except for that pink on the right. If you were to push the pink towards violet, more of a blue/purple violet and less of a hot pink/ red/violet the whole thing might look very good. The blue/puple/green is good, if it was "less definite" (that is- closer to white, lower in value). Nancy Sculerati MD 13:34, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Okay-dokey, I will see what I can do. --Larry Sanger 13:43, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Teach me how to do colors and i'll go at it. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:46, 20 January 2007 (CST) Man isn't there some software out there that would make colors and formatting easier? so I don't have to learn code? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:49, 20 January 2007 (CST)

It seems we have someone here related to Mondriaan, however he used more primary colors. It seems a bit too crowded now in my opinion, too many colors making the page seem cluttered and very very busy. Less cluttering means easier to read - the borders do that so why use AND borders AND colors? It seems that can be lessened to some extent.

regards [[User:Robert Tito}Robert Tito]]Cassiopeia 13:53, 20 January 2007 (CST)

And Nancy did it, thanks much better. Less bothersome usage of colors. again thanks Nancy. Robert TitoCassiopeia 14:16, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Actually, I figured out how to "hack it". I like it better this way-what do you guys think? Nancy Sculerati MD 14:18, 20 January 2007 (CST)

OK, Nancy and I were editing at the same time. I picked out a bunch of colors...lighter and related...see [3]. And here is Nancy's latest: [4]. Strangely, when I look at her page in the page history it doesn't come up correctly! --Larry Sanger 14:20, 20 January 2007 (CST)

I'll put mine back by hand if you want me to...Nancy Sculerati MD 14:22, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Go ahead! --Larry Sanger 14:29, 20 January 2007 (CST)

See [5] for my latest, which I'm not married to. --Larry Sanger 14:31, 20 January 2007 (CST)

I like the way it is now, can you teach me how to refer you? I'd like to explain why it work.Nancy Sculerati MD 14:41, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah I like yours better now. --Larry Sanger 14:49, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Here's my thoughts: Color on the web is not purely decorative, used well it conveys both mood and information. I like my latest version because it connects connected topics in a subtle way- like "live articles" and "approved articles" which are in a sort of default yellow/beige that is so slightly different than the yellow default that makes up the Welome and Disciplines blocks so as not to be at all jarring - but to still separate the two boxes of articles. The fact that the mirror image of an L is made by the Welcome and Discussion boxes when they are in the same color makes the whole geometric scheme less confusing than making each of those boxes a different color. Putting that central "Welcome Section" in the same white as the page backgound highlights it without making the page much busier. Finally, the very pale blue of the "Our Project" and "Our Contributors" indicates another kind of category that helps in organizing the page. It's pale enough so that it is not jarring against the white or yellow, and it complements our Citizendium blue logo. I used to be my own webmaster and long ago I was actually very good at this stuff. I can use color and hyperlinks to make instantly recognizeable levels of webpages, each at a different level of expertise, but of course- I don't really know what I'm doing, I'm just fooling around and so anyone who can do better is more than welcome to. Nancy Sculerati MD 14:51, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Well, it makes sense to me! --Larry Sanger 15:39, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Computers respective Computer Science

According to me this topic should be part of the natural sciences, and not a part of Arts. Computer Science developed from both physics as mathematics - not from any other major scientific field. Application of computers may result in related - yet derived - topics and sub fields. If all agree I will put Computers into Natural Science, and restore the link to Computer Science or Computers - when appropriate (both pages have been in the Live section - it remains unclear why they were forked and decapitated). Robert TitoCassiopeia 14:25, 21 January 2007 (CST)

The only issue is Engineering, I think. Isn't that part of physics and natural science? If it's not then the same thinking that put it wherever it is likely shunted Computers too. Personally, I think they both belong with Physics and Mathematics. Nancy Sculerati MD 15:44, 21 January 2007 (CST)

"Applied arts" does not, obviously, mean fine arts. Engineering and computer science are both primarily, first and foremost, about how to do things, not about the study of nature in itself. That's why they're applied arts. For example, see: http://42explore.com/42exploreapplied.htm

We don't have to stick with the title "Applied Arts." --Larry Sanger 15:54, 21 January 2007 (CST)

If I am not mistaken processor design is highly dependent upon state of the art physics (90 nm, 65 nm --> 45 nm technology), engineering is highly dependent upon basics such as material sciences - hence a subsidiary of physics. The applied logics of processors (microcode) as well as compilers all are applied mathematics, so these two I guess should belong in natural science not in applied arts (yes I know this is not fine arts) since they both depend too closely to basic sciences. I know I will opt to place them in Natural Science. Makes much more sense. Robert TitoCassiopeia 16:31, 21 January 2007 (CST)

DOH - too bad plain text files do not have a locking mechanism to prevent multiple edits (leading to editting in vain :) ) Well this is one shortcoming - so we have to live with it Robert TitoCassiopeia 16:43, 21 January 2007 (CST)

This is getting humorous: Nancy and I have been doing the same - at approximately the same time - overwriting the other's changes. I hope the latest is ok now. This is a big Homer DOH. Robert TitoCassiopeia 16:53, 21 January 2007 (CST)

If engineering isn't an applied art, then what is? And if computer science doesn't involve engineering, what does?

Anyway, feel free to proceed; we'll be changing it even more when we get a Discipline Workgroup Committee going. But notice that if we are going to edit the workgroup placement, we can't do it just here. We also need to do it on CZ:Discipline Workgroups. --Larry Sanger 16:58, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Valid arguments, the same applies for instance to medicine, that seems to have vanished all the way. I do have a strong feeling (based no doubt upon the system and qualifications used in europe) to talk about natural or beta sciences, applied or gamma sciences (medicine, engineering, computers,economics etc) and alpha sciences (jura, languages, theology, psychology, psychiatry etc). But then that seems for the major part culturally and historically determined. Robert TitoCassiopeia 17:08, 21 January 2007 (CST) Workgroup placement now reflects the moved location of computer and engineering - until further notice that is Robert TitoCassiopeia 17:25, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Anyone (hint, Dr. Sanger) want to move the forums around to reflect the change?--ZachPruckowski 19:14, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Just a question: where is medicine? it should be an applied arts (gamma) science, but all I find is health science - not necessarily synonyms. I would be inclined to exchange health science for medicine and health science as topic in applied arts (even though both should be there). Robert TitoCassiopeia 19:24, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Medicine has not vanished, it's part of the health sciences. That's all part of a plan to avoid the Nineteenth Century classification of medicine as allopathy, usually invoked by those who try to classify all healing arts as medicine, and then distinguish between western tradititional medicine, which they clain is allopathy, and other forms of alternative medicine, like homeopathy, - since that's the way many of these fields started a hundred or so years ago. Since many legitimate healing arts (such as the counseling of bereaved families by clergy, psychotherapy, and the "art" of bedside medicine as practiced by physicians like myself) have no firm basis in science, they can all be discussed in healing arts without muddying up health science. Meanwhile, the healing arts can be taken for the very important activities that they are, without reducing them to "applied biology". Take a look at the Wikipedian article "Medicine" to see what I mean. Nancy Sculerati MD 19:34, 21 January 2007 (CST) Exactly what I meant, with the exclusion of alternative medicin - like magnetism and the likes (based upon no solid scientific data or evidence. Whereas alternatives like acupuncture are totally embedded within medicine. I was just thinking about that difference.Robert TitoCassiopeia 19:42, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Logo

The Logo needs to replace outdated logo on sidebar. Too overwhelming at top of Main Box of Main Page. Might work better if solid black scape repleced by one of ther blues or yellows already in play.Nancy Sculerati MD 09:37, 23 January 2007 (CST)

I agree, but is it all right for a day or two? We're waiting for different-sized versions from Paul Hitchmough. Hope he comes through for us! --Larry Sanger 09:50, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Sure, if it's allright with you (all) I'll download it and play with it myself, as well. Nancy Sculerati MD 10:03, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Well, look at what I have up there now. Also, I'll send you the original file to play with, if you think you can improve the coloring of the "zen" letters ;-) --Larry Sanger 10:29, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Paul H. finally came through for us. The new logo, with a slightly grey key and cleaner-colored lettering, is now up. Now we just need to have someone upload the upper left logo! --Larry Sanger 14:03, 24 January 2007 (CST)