ChoralWiki talk:Main Page/Old discussions

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Test Main Page discussion

One thing that would be very useful for first-time visitors is to clarify the distinction between the terms CPDL and ChoralWiki. I've used the site for years, since long before it was a wiki, and I have no idea why those two words, with different colors no less, are sprinkled throughout this page. I mean, why "CPDL composers" and "...editors" and "...volunteers" but "Browse ChoralWiki"? I'm sure there's a logical reason for the choice, but it might be helpful to put it somewhere obvious.Choralnet 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

CPDL is the organization, and ChoralWiki is its (wiki) website. The term originated with Raf Ornes. -- Chucktalk Giffen 23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Choralnet raised an important point. I'm not myself particularly fond of the idea of using both terms interchangeably, and think CPDL should stick to its original name whenever possible. But of course somewhere on the Main Page is should be made clear that CPDL is a wiki, therefore open to everyone's contributions. —Carlos Email.gif 01:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Should we abandon the term ChoralWiki? Right now I'd be hesitant to do this, since the term is now widespread. When fixing up the Main Page, I tried to use CPDL to refer to our editors, contributors, volunteers, and other personal aspects of the organization (since CPDL is an organization of people), while mainting ChoralWiki for our website where scores and information are available. It's a bit analogous to the Metropolitan Opera (as an association) versus the Metropolitan Opera house or opera season there. Or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) versus the Space Museum (in Washington, D.C.) operated by NASA. Note that the opening banner says, "Welcome to ChoralWiki, home of the Choral Public Domain Library!" ... At any rate, I think the matter will require considerable discussion and deliberation before making any drastic changes. -- Chucktalk Giffen 05:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, I didn't mean to be so radical as to abandon it, but just to limit its use in general. When the term 'ChoralWiki' was coined in 2005, CPDL was already up for 6 and a half years, that's a long time. And as you know, things change fast in the IT field. In 5 years, someone will possibly develop a much enhanced collaborative tool called Waki, and if we decide to move CPDL to this new platform, we'd have to abandon ChoralWiki in favor of ChoralWaki (who knows! :) But you're totally right in that such a decision (of limiting the usage of 'ChoralWiki') would depend on a broad consensus. I'm really curious to see what others think, hope more people join in the discussion. —Carlos Email.gif 05:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I think I agree with both of you. Since we've been using the term "ChoralWiki" since 2005 to refer to the website, it would be foolish to remove all references to it. Some people that I speak to and some limited discussion elsewhere on the web indicates that some know it as "ChoralWiki" and others and "The Choral Public Domain Library" or "CPDL". On the basis of this, both names should sit at the top of the Main Page as they currently do. Perhaps the best way to explain the way we use the terms and other such idiosyncrasies would be to have a help page for newcomers to the website - a beginner's guide/FAQ. --Bobnotts talk 12:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. As for the colours of the names "CPDL" and "ChoralWiki" would it be worth trying out some the colours currently used in the logo (ie. green and blue)? Just a thought. --Bobnotts talk 12:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Originally, I had set CPDL in a sort of magenta/raspberry color, but it looked too much like a visited red-link, and I refrained from changing it to blue (choosing instead to use a kind of gold color) for fear that it might look too much like a blue-link! The green for ChoralWiki was indeed inspired by other use of green on the Main Page and in the logo. I do agree that some explanation of the two terms for newbies is in order. -- Chucktalk Giffen 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I am in general agreement with the needed use at this point of continuing to use both terms, but the CPDL moniker needs to remain clearly the prominent one. The comparison of Met Opera to Met Opera House etc. is interesting, but when you go to Google, do you say you are visiting Google or Google page, Google site, Google haus, etc? The name of the website is irrelevant or at least subsidiary to the organization and its contents. Perhaps modifying the banner slightly will help clarify?? "Welcome to ChoralWiki, home of the Choral Public Domain Library!" could be something like "Welcome to the Choral Public Domain Library, a Wiki site! Contributions to ChoralWiki are welcome from anyone." Or some such banter to distinguish the difference between the organization and the site. As to colors, I agree that the red & blue use would be confusing. But I also feel that the gold is not too clear, especially on some monitors/screens. HTML colors are still limited, but in the magenta vein, what about a burgundy/maroon-family color? I should reply below, but I feel that the "Search" box should be at the top. Nothing worse than arriving at a site and having to search for SEARCH. Even though it is also always at the nav bar at left, I think it should remain at the top. -- Paul Marchesano Marchesa 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


I've changed to CPDL template to display in more of a copper than a gold color.

Re Page Format

I prefer Search in its current position at top left of page rather than on the test page where you have to scroll down to get to it. I know there is a search in the left panel, but the big box is more eye-catching. Otherwise the generally cleaner and more modern feel to the page is good Dawnp 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See above, re search box. I agree it belongs at the top. The cleaner look is nice. I failed to say that clearly above :( -- Paul M Marchesa 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the search box to the top of the first column as suggested. I hope it meets with everyones approval.