Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Electowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(re: name and activism)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
:Great to see you here, Jeff!  The logo was copied from electorama.com.  I don't really care much about logos one way or another, but if you can do better, why don't you upload it and post it at [[Project:logo]] and if people like it, I can upload it onto the server directly.  [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 11:30, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)
 
:Great to see you here, Jeff!  The logo was copied from electorama.com.  I don't really care much about logos one way or another, but if you can do better, why don't you upload it and post it at [[Project:logo]] and if people like it, I can upload it onto the server directly.  [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 11:30, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)
 
::I'll give it a crack. It will say ElectoWiki or some such. (Though see added quibble 2 above.)[[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]]
 
::I'll give it a crack. It will say ElectoWiki or some such. (Though see added quibble 2 above.)[[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]]
 +
 +
:Regarding the name: that's precisely the reason I use these "Project" namespace links.  So that we can change the name of that namespace without too much trouble.  With Rob's permission, we could change the title to simply: Electorama. 
  
 
'''Content contradictions.''' Research thrives in lots of content - the kitchen sink theory - whereas activist "propaganda" thrives in less content - the less is more theory. It will behoove us to craft short, concise, clear activist pages that may point to the dense research pages as needed, but only point and never get bogged down with. [[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]] 11:41, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)
 
'''Content contradictions.''' Research thrives in lots of content - the kitchen sink theory - whereas activist "propaganda" thrives in less content - the less is more theory. It will behoove us to craft short, concise, clear activist pages that may point to the dense research pages as needed, but only point and never get bogged down with. [[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]] 11:41, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)
 +
 +
:I'm not very worried about this until or unless it becomes a problem, but a custom namespace could always distinguish fact from editorial. [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 14:57, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)

Revision as of 15:57, 31 January 2005

FWIW & IMHO - I am neither enamored with the Electorama! name nor the yellow and red logo. For my tastes it is too quasi-commercial and lacking in sufficient "professional" weight. Quibble 2, "Electowiki" comes out of the mouth as a mumble or worse. "Electoralwiki" would get my vote in a single-winner two choice contest.

For the record, while I have been here a scant 20 minutes, I am very excited for this project. Wegerje 11:12, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)

Great to see you here, Jeff! The logo was copied from electorama.com. I don't really care much about logos one way or another, but if you can do better, why don't you upload it and post it at Project:logo and if people like it, I can upload it onto the server directly. DanKeshet 11:30, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)
I'll give it a crack. It will say ElectoWiki or some such. (Though see added quibble 2 above.)Wegerje
Regarding the name: that's precisely the reason I use these "Project" namespace links. So that we can change the name of that namespace without too much trouble. With Rob's permission, we could change the title to simply: Electorama.

Content contradictions. Research thrives in lots of content - the kitchen sink theory - whereas activist "propaganda" thrives in less content - the less is more theory. It will behoove us to craft short, concise, clear activist pages that may point to the dense research pages as needed, but only point and never get bogged down with. Wegerje 11:41, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)

I'm not very worried about this until or unless it becomes a problem, but a custom namespace could always distinguish fact from editorial. DanKeshet 14:57, 31 Jan 2005 (PST)