|
''Old discussion moved to [[Project:The caucus]].''
== Logo and theme ==
'''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. [[User:Wegerje|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. [[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]]
: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.
::Feel free to call this the Electorama Wiki or any other name. I'd caution against getting too wrapped up in gravitas, though. We're going to be at this a very long time, so we might as well have some fun along the way. For what it's worth [http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/browse_frm/thread/f80b26ea8a5eb75a/3e36bcd744d73a9f#3e36bcd744d73a9f this isn't the first group with grave concerns about the gravitas of their logo].
::The goal behind naming the main Electorama site was to avoid going down the same rathole that most electoral reform pages go down. They either use the old red, white, and blue cliche, or some other textbook metaphor for serious stuff. The problem is that these sites often pronounce how boring and ponderous they will be before someone ever gets a good read. I specifically wanted Electorama to be accessible, and chose the theme accordingly.
::So, this Wiki doesn't necessarily have to use the same theme as the main Electorama site. What's more, if there's a better theme for the main Electorama site, I'm happy to adopt it there, too. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] 22:28, 1 Feb 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)
== Our "Village Pump"? ==
We should probably have some sort of "Village Pump" type page here. Naming this is always traditionally different on a per Wiki basis, based on the flavor of the Wiki. My proposal would be for "[[Project:Smoke-filled room]]" or perhaps "[[Project:The caucus]]", but regardless, this page should probably be reserved for discussion of the [[Main Page]]. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] 16:02, 6 Feb 2005 (PST)
|