Talk:Welcome to Citizendium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should we add some extra entry point articles to the main page? Please add your ideas below. --Larry Sanger 15:47, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Probably we should stick to lists, overviews, and summary-type topics. Otherwise we end up making decisions about what individual topics within a field are most important--when the decision is almost always going to be completely arbitrary. That rules out the following suggestions (all of which are, obviously, extremely important topics for articles):

Topics that are (though important) not broad enough to include: Evolution - Tectonics - Magnetic North - e and i and pi - Isaac Newton Albert Einstein - Adam Smith and Karl Marx - Montessori Teaching - Psychoanalysis - Football (soccer) and American Football :) - Natural Law

--Larry Sanger 20:43, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

---

Natural Science

Astronomy - the planets or list of planets

Biology -

Chemistry - the elements

Computers - most common programming languages

Earth Sciences

Engineering

Health Sciences - human body - how drugs work - human physiology

Mathematics

Physics - Light - Sound

Social Sciences

Anthropology

Archaeology

Economics -

Education -

Geography - countries of the world (or?) World Gazetteer

Law

Linguistics - English language - major world languages - how languages develop - origin of speech

Politics - political ideologies or list of political ideologies

Psychology -

Sociology

Humanities

Classics - ancient Rome - ancient Greece

History - outline of world history

Literature - major works by language

Philosophy - outline of the history of philosophy - Western philosophers

Religion - world religions or list of religions or list of world religions

Arts

Architecture

Music - list of musical genres (or whatever) - history of Western classical music - (or?) musical instruments

Theater

Visual Arts

Applied Arts

Agriculture - list of crops

Business - major world corporations

Healing Arts - alternative or complementary medicine

Journalism - major world newspapers

Library and Information Science

Media

Military - modern weaponry

Recreation

Games

Hobbies

Sports

---

How about quit trying here to find one or two additional specific lists per topic and instead add one additional generic entry per topic (maybe even as an icon) which leads to a "Most commonly looked up in XXXXX" page. This might be generated automatically from search results (using the Workgroup association as criterium where to list it), but I'm not sure if we really want that (who knows what comes out of that). Alternatively we could create that article based on our opinion what non-experts in the topic would most probably want to (or should) look at. So for Physics (where I'm non-expert) I could imagine links to Speed of Light, Fusion, Einstein, Entropy, ... on such a page. Would make the proposal process here less of a problem. --Markus Baumeister 13:58, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

One problem with the suggestion is that it is the sort of thing that CZ is set up to counteract! The Internet is full of projects that automatically aggregate popular opinion. What people are looking for in CZ is meaningful, human-created, reviewed information. Speaking for myself, I'd be much more interested in seeing a link to an outline of the history of the world than "most-searched-for history topics." --Larry Sanger 14:10, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Sorry to ask, but you did read past the forth line of my proposal (past the "I'm not sure if we really want that"), didn't you? --Markus Baumeister 19:09, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

I admit that sometimes I do read some messages rather quickly, if I have time to answer them at all. Anyway, even a human-constructed list of "top X articles" is of only limited interest and value: we actually recently deleted a whole set of such category pages (e.g., we removed all articles from Category:Philosophy Workgroup (Top)). Anyway, of more interest to most users and contributors is something relatively specific, not generic. For both groups of people, "top philosophy articles" won't be as interesting as "outline of the history of philosophy" (for example). --Larry Sanger 19:46, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Workgroup icons

I didn't comment when they appeared (not at all like me!), but I love the icons and the new look to the Main Page. It's gorgeous altogether and really getting distinctive.However, I think the buttons could be played with- I admit it's idiosyncratic but every time I see NS I think it's my initials, and I will spare you my reflexive read of "AAS". What about just N for natural sciences and AA for Applied Arts & Sciences?, or can we have symbols that are not letters? Are there any universal symbols for these? Nancy Sculerati MD 12:07, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

We can use anything at all. The changes would be trivial since I have all of those files as layers in photoshop.

Another aspect that struck me recently is the sciences blue (for boys) and the arts pink/red (for girls) subliminal message. I think it could be avoided by removing the red/pink for arts, especially since it is a terrible match with the green AAS from a colour blindness perspective. Although, with respect to colour blindness, I'm not sure if we need to consider this more as long as we have symbols or letters too.

With regard to acronyms, is AA any better than AAS? Or is it OK to imply all who participate in the applied arts are alcoholics? ;) Chris Day (Talk) 12:23, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Well, nice little icons would be better than letters anyway. NS => test tube. SS => idealized person/human head. H => book. A => tiny but still recognizable reproduction of some famous piece of art. AAS => bridge. R => joystick; or generic ball. --Larry Sanger 12:31, 18 March 2007 (CDT)