Fundraising 2010/Messages/All

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Information

We are no longer taking banner suggestions through these pages. Please see Talk:Fundraising to discuss current banner messages.

Navigation
ALL banners Newly submitted By Language Vista-keditbookmarks.pngTesting Queue Tested
By type
Mission Based Informative Technology Jimmy Appeal Traditional Fundraising
Testimonials Humor Chapter Specific By Geography
Project-specific
Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons Wiktionary Wikibooks Wikinews
Wikiquote Wikisource Wikiversity Wikispecies MediaWiki


Contents

Newly Submitted Banners[edit]

Did you know...[edit]


Proposed by: Lineplus (from a french proposition). On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. I like it but needs a strong closing phrase instead of "donate to wikipedia".Theo10011 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps adding "stay curious" to the end instead of "donate to wikipedia" might be worth considering, it tested pretty well earlier and does fit in to the message.Theo10011 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Modified. --Lineplus 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. I might be interested in the first two, but I'm surely not interested in more than 100 digits of pi :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. decimal→digit; Abraham Lincoln→someone else --Cybercobra 04:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


How else would you know[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Facts could include things like the day the Treaty of Paris was signed, Lady Gaga's real name, Barack Obama's birthday, the motto of Argentina, etc - stuff people generally would look up on Wikipedia. Possibly region-specific? Lexicografía 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    Answer: I can look it up in a book. Nice Idea like your other one above with rotating facts. Maybe add the "quickest" or the "easiest" way of looking up [rotating facts], just a suggestion but it works either way.Theo10011 05:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    I guess I was more thinking about things that one wouldn't find in most books, which is why I suggested Lady Gaga and President Obama. Lexicografía 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    Oh I assumed from the treaty of Paris and motto of Argentina to be random possible facts one can look up in a book. Also, Mr. Obama is the president of US, I am sure his real name would also show up in a lot of books but I will give you Lady gaga:) But how would you feed the rotating facts that only relate to a selective category? Theo10011 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the idea, but I don't think it'll work. You have to choose something that all people know, and what they most likely learned on Wikipedia. Considering our diverse readership, that's very difficult --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Theo10011, and Church of emacs has a good point. --Nemo 07:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I would click on a link to see the answer to the fact, if I knew it or not. So, I think the "fact" should also be a link to the donate page, but a version of the page with the answer at the top, if that is possible. Ie a parameterised donation page needed that shows the param at the top.--83.141.89.154 11:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Brought to you by[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-24
Comments:

  1. Suggested for non-Wikipedia content projects. ~ Ningauble 12:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Cool. Lexicografía 14:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like it, but how will it read on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is brought to you by the same folks who make Wikipedia..." Is that the intention? Is that awkward? Ocaasi 10:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    "Suggested for non-Wikipedia content projects." ~ Ningauble 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    Right. Ocaasi 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose. --Yair rand 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Wanna tell us why? This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. :) Philippe (WMF) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Same problem as the "Bigger than an encyclopedia" banner. Having a banner across a project emphasizing that its connection to Wikipedia is a major aspect of the project is a problem. --Yair rand 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the clarification. :) Philippe (WMF) 16:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Like it or not, the big sister is by far the most famous. Remember we are primarily appealing to readers in the general public, not contributors who may have strong feelings about project identity and independence. For the sake of public appearances, I think it is beneficial to present Wikimedia projects as one big, happy family. ~ Ningauble 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I concur with Ningauble. Sister projects have their own lives, but not hate the eldest sister any way :) --Aphaia 09:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Huh, clearly you've never visited Wikinews... the wub "?!" 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Yair rand; I was quite surprised when I understood that this was meant for non-Wikipedia projects... You're not considering that if someone is reading a banner on a website this is because he knows it and it finds it useful in itself. And anyway, I think that editors could be quite annoyed by this one (I would be). --Nemo 07:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. How about we generalize it with "the rest of Wikimedia"? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledging benefactors[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-24
Comments:

  1. The idea was to acknowledge the contribution of a benefactor, If mine doesn't work I think others should consider a banner to acknowledge the benefactors with a rotating list of public donations. something along the lines of "Your search was sponsored by ..." or "the answer to your question was sponsored by...." or "Wikipedia is made possible by a donation from....and you can do the same" I think its one approach thats should be covered and is sorely missing above, putting names to our supporters.Theo10011 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Really cool idea. Mario777Zelda 21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. It's a fun idea. It's a twist on the donor comments method. I like it. Philippe (WMF) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I strongly support it. When we featured donors' comments and names, we found here and there their warm reactions, not only with excitement but also appreciations. I'm sure it'll enhance a positive atmosphere which surrounds our fundraising campaign. I love it. --Aphaia 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. I know in the past people have donated just so they can troll the banners. (e.g. Putting Wikipedia Sucks as the comment for the donation.) I think we should probably screen the names in some way to avoid that problem. Nn123645 12:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. Do we risk getting people concerned about privacy if we do this? I'm not sure I'd want my name on a banner, and even if it's possible to opt-out, it seems a little Orwellian to me. en:user:Buddy431 as 130.126.213.165 03:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
theres already a donor's comment page located below the messages page. There are logs and donor suggested messages for every year, I understand that some would want their contribution to be private but consider the impact of reading a message about someone from Johannesburg or Mumbai donating even a small sum of $5, I think it would definitely showcase the diversity and the reach of the projects and should get people on the sidelines to donate even a small amount which they wouldn't have otherwise. We would only use donors who have made their donations public and would not object to it. Theo10011 16:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Nice idea, as long as whatever system is used to do it is smart enough to filter out anonymous contributions: "Wikipedia is brought to you today [by] Anonymous" would be too much of a win for 4chan's ilk for my taste. :P Nihiltres(t.u) 23:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. This is really great. Some suggestions: change to Name from Location eg John from Alaska. Also could be worded as "Wikipedia was brought to you today by" and "This page was paid for today by". Pretzels 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Pretzels, that was the original idea, "x from location" and I would want it to be that. It would showcase the diversity of our supporter base, and hopefully encourage them not to hesitate donating even a small amount by telling that others have done the same.Theo10011 22:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. I like it very much. How about merging it with #Every dollar donated? (Wikipedia is brought to you and other <(DONATION / 10) * 150,000> people by a <amount> donation from [[Name of Benefactor]]. You can do the same for someone else.)--OsamaK 16:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are the kind of person that helps[edit]


Proposed by: Gigs. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-28
Comments:

  1. The idea here is to exploit the nascent self-identity of people who have made small edits in the past, i.e. nearly everyone. We convince them that they are the kind of person that supports and contributes to Wikipedia, and we point out an action to them that is congruent with this positive self-identity, donation.
  2. I really like this one. Lexicografía 01:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I suggest to rephrase to "You helped to write it! Help keep it running!" to avoid the them vs us issue. GoEThe 11:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support GoEThe's version, sans exclamation points. sonia 23:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I also support GoEThe's version (although like sonia, I think the exclamation marks should go) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support GoEThe's version (without exclamation points). :) Otherwise it's a good banner. —Clementina talk 11:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. I appreciate this one very much. It caught my attention immediately. GHarshfield 13:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. I like it. Would probably go with "You helped write it; help keep it running". But what if the reader has never edited before? — The Earwig (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    Logged in editors only? sonia 11:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. I like this, but maybe only for logged-in users? Tempodivalse [talk] 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  10. I like GoEThe's version without the exclamation marks. MC10 (TCEM) 02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong support[edit]


Proposed by: Teles. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-28
Comments:

  1. Best for logged in editors, since strong support is a polling phrase. Ocaasi 11:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed. I don't know that non-editors would get this at all. Lexicografía 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. What? I'm afraid that I don't see any relation in-between the simple denotation of a colon separating Wikipedia—donate. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Love it. But not for public pages. The casual reader wouldn't get it. Anthonyhcole 07:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Descobrimentos 2.0[edit]


Translation: Age of Discovery 2.0. Continue the journey.
Proposed by: GoEThe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-25
Comments:

  1. Specific to Portugal. Alternative to the second sentence: "Knowledge is the most precious spice. Keep it free!" GoEThe 06:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rome[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-29
Comments:

  1. Or maybe "Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. We need your continued support."?  fetchcomms 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    I like that idea better, I think it has more relevance to Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    Ditto- the alt is fantastic. sonia 07:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    Fetchcom, I prefer your alternative. It's much more relevant. --Aphaia 09:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like this, especially the alternate version. Lexicografía 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Like it.Theo10011 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I kind of like the original more, the latter implies that Wikipedia or {{SITENAME}} is finished, which obviously isn't the case. Additionally on smaller projects where there is a huge potential for growth (i.e. Wikipedias with less than 10,000 articles) it isn't nearly as impressive. Nn123645 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Sounds well. --Da voli 06:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like it. Good idea. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. The original is good: it's a well known quotation. --Nemo 07:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. What about "Wikipedia wasn't built in a day." and that's it? HereToHelp (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. +1 to fetchcomms. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  10. I like the original but not the alternative, for the same reasons as Nn123645. ---- Alexandr Dmitri 18:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  11. I don't like this. Rome collapsed under its own weight, it expanded to the point where it was impossible to manage. Do we really want to invoke that here? 206.248.204.121 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    "Rome wasn't built in a day" doesn't have to do with its collapse, afaik, just its rising. In any case, it's a recognizable phrase, and I think that 99% of people wouldn't think about Rome's collapse.  fetchcomms 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Smoke and fire[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-29
Comments:

  1. Nice but I like the one you suggested above about Rome much more. Theo10011 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I dunno, but the first sentence gives the impression that 'something is wrong' (at least that's how we use it in Arabic). I'd vote for another 'introduction'.--OsamaK 11:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I ♥ WP[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

  1. Takeoff on the whole I heart NY deal. Lexicografía 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Ah...finally. Not to nitpick but do you mind changing the heart with the red one used above and maybe trying a different font style. Thanks Theo10011 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    Go ahead and use the image if you want to - I haven't been able to get the image to look right. Lexicografía 15:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I get it but I don't think other people out of context will. Anya 17:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Ningauble - I feel that people could look at it, and not realise that they are being asked to donate -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    Also, how widely recognised outside of the English-speaking world is the "I (heart) xxx" format? That's not being critical, it's a genuine question, as I don't know the answer. I know that English, American, Australians, etc, readers would recognise the format - but would Japanese, Bokmål/Riksmål, Indonesian, Cebuano, etc, readers? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    This can probably be used as an EN-only banner.  fetchcomms 00:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    Good point, Fetchcomms, and only for English Wikipedia. I don't think I'd love to see it on EnWQ. On the other hand, I suppose it'll be understood in many other language community but it'll be hard to translated, and I'm not sure if it conveys a right message on what we are to put a certain foreign language banner and none of the other languages. --Aphaia 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. I proposed something similar here. I like this concept but it needs more about donating.  fetchcomms 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. Great one. I think this is almost universal. Two questions: Two lines or one line (no break)? Also for a tagline/ask, how about: Do you? Or, simply, on a second line: Donate today. Ocaasi 07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. The "I heart __" thing is basically universal, from my experience. I have my doubts over WP=Wikipedia connecting for most readers though. sonia 23:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    That's a good point I hadn't thought of. What about I <3 Wiki? User:Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    But Wikipedia is not Wiki. Pretzels 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. This is missing the "ask" for money ... maybe add a line underneath "Do you?", as suggested by Ocaasi. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The learning will never stop[edit]


Proposed by: Frozen Wind. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

  1. Suggested for Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikibooks and probably Wikisource. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yeah. Ok. I can see people being confused about what donating has to do with their ability to learn ... Anya 17:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    1. Message fixed. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. A bit picky, but the second sentence is a bit ambiguous - perhaps change it to something like Help others keep on learning: donate? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is good but donate can be added in the second line

Handbook[edit]


Proposed by: Acather96. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

  1. cute. I like it. - Jenny
  2. This is good -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia isn't a handbook, though.  fetchcomms 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like this one. I doubt it will supersede WP:NOT ;). It is a handbook in a metaphorical sense, as a big guide to information, even if it's not a how-to manual. Ocaasi 07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. This is good, but would flow better as "Life didn't come with a handbook, until Wikipedia." Pretzels 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. Love it. Anthonyhcole 07:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

404[edit]


Proposed by: BarkingFish. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

  1. Suggested for potential global usage on all english projects. BarkingFish 19:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Raises the concern that Wikipedia is not in fact at risk of going under, so a bit of an exaggeration. Ocaasi 07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. People don't like be losers - look on february 2007 "we have not money". Yes - they will give us money, but we will lost contributors. Przykuta 06:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    I've never heard this interpretation before. Perhaps it's a bit rash. --Nemo 07:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    That makes sense. If Wikimedia is about to "disappear from the web", why the hell am I investing my time into building it? I'll have nothing to show for it. Guilt-tripping donors works sometimes, but not when you're also discouraging editors. sonia 07:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Most internet users don't know HTTP errors --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

404 Variant 1[edit]


Proposed by: BarkingFish. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

  1. Variant on the 404 banner with alternative tagline. BarkingFish 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Same, not in fact at risk of going under Ocaasi 07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. It's an equation, showing the consequences of no donations, using simple terms. I think it's great, and I don't think it implies anything about WMF solvency. My76Strat 02:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I don't think that using technical error codes is a goood idea, although error 404 is the best known. And I agree with Ocaasi. --Nemo 07:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Goethe Quote[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-02
Comments:

  1. What's going on with the strange line break/capitalization? GorillaWarfare 23:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Added a line break, but I still don't get it. Sounds more like a plea for content. What if you replaced "Help us apply our knowledge." with "Do... so that we may continue" GHarshfield 13:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle Quote[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-02
Comments:

  1. Not sure about how to end it. I was considering "Help us do either".....Theo10011 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Like the idea. How about finishing it with "To those that donate, Thank You."? BarkingFish 21:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    This is a very nice addition. Should we keep in mind the grammatical issue: 'that' refers to things, but 'who' to people--so correctly, it would be, "Those who know, do. Those who understand, teach. To those who donate, thank you." Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ocassi, thats an unedited quote from Aristotle, altering it would be paraphrasing and essentially make it a "non-quote". I understand your suggestion but it would lose its value as a quote from Aristotle. this and the one below can run on Wikiquote. Theo10011 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
BarkingFish, I like it but I think it can be better without 'To', 'Those that donate, thank you'.--OsamaK 11:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Khalil Gibran Quote[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-02
Comments:

  1. Maybe for wiktionary... so I can look up what perplexity means. 206.248.204.121 15:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Funny comment, I do like this one though. The above comment supports the banner indirectly. GHarshfield 13:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Free Knowledge Forever[edit]


Proposed by: Da voli. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

  1. Clear, Concise. Love it. Theo10011 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Too reminiscent of "Wikipedia Forever". Sorry. ---- Alexandr Dmitri 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Our goal...[edit]


Proposed by: 1234r00t. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

  1. I think this sounds a little awkward right now. If anyone has some good tweaks... be my guest. If you need to talk to me contact me at my talk page. Mr. R00t Talk 20:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps "Our goal: All human knowledge. You can help us reach it." ? Lexicografía 20:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Mr. R00t Talk 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Why the ellipses? GorillaWarfare 23:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually liked it better previously. I'll split it. One under this for your wording and the other the way mine was originally. Mr. R00t Talk 20:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. Given that articles get delete, because their subject isn't well-known enough, this banner is rather hypocritical and lying. --94.134.192.236 11:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice idea but it would need to be modified to conform to WP:NOT Anthonyhcole 07:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Proposed by: 1234r00t. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

The burden of abundence[edit]


Proposed by: My76Strat. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

  1. I'm not sure if 'sharing means' (as in riches) is one of our goals. I'm afraid it might give many people the wrong idea.--OsamaK 10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons[edit]


Proposed by: Orionist. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. Great Idea. Like the one below a bit more. Theo10011 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Proposed by: Orionist. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. This option is best out of four pieces. Enumeration of useful things that Wiki can give is rooted in memory easily. --Da voli 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Love it, I agree with Da Voli, enumerating the content helps. Theo10011 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Agree about enumerating content. But could we have "help us keep it growing" be the donate link? HereToHelp (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Proposed by: Orionist. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. I like this variant the most, possibly because it's more tactful than "Donate today." HereToHelp (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)



Proposed by: Orionist. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. ...

Knowledge is the gift that keeps on giving[edit]


Proposed by: Tyrol5. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. I like it. Theo10011 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs you[edit]

Imagine it, Jimbo, with a bad 'tache

I can't be bothered to mock this up, but it's just an idea;

There is an incredibly famous poster of Lord Kitchener, from World War I, asking 'your country needs you'. Mr. Wales, pointing at us, telling us that "Wikipedia needs YOU" - with a big moustache...I think this would be a winner. It's been used as parody for all kinds of things; I believe that the problems of 'war' connotation are dated enough to be negligible; it's light, amusing, and eye-catching. Not necessarily as a banner; I appreciate pics might not work. Still, I thought the idea worth mentioning; forgive me if I am too far off-base. Chzz 01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. First, this poster is not as famous as the Uncle Sam one used for recruitment by the US army. Second, the concept itself seems cheesy and trite, it has been used very frequently in the american media historically. The "war" and the "big brother" connotations are too strong to consider this, it can draw a very vocal negative reaction from the community.Theo10011 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough about the US thing; that one is 'more famous' here, UK, for sure. But as the 'Uncle Sam' is so well-known in US, that helps, actually, surely? I understand the connotations thing, but really, I don't think that is a problem - I can't honestly see anyone taking offence. Or offense. And I mostly just want to see Jimbo with either a big floppy moustache or a goatee. Chzz 02:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
:) --Yair rand 09:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The total sum[edit]


Proposed by: My76Strat. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. Not sure but I think "Addendum" might make more sense here.Theo10011 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Too few people know what "addend" means. Cybercobra 06:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The how near future[edit]


Proposed by: My76Strat. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. FA is insider lingo that should probably be avoided
  2. Not sure about "When war is but a history project", there are still ongoing wars today, still not sure how it ties up to being a featured article on Wikipedia or how that would get me to donate. Sorry, its a bit confusing.Theo10011 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. FA is an unclear acronym for it has many meanings. What do YOU mean? --Da voli 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that this suggestion is confusing. To the extent possible, I withdraw the proposal. My76Strat 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

2.0 vs 1.0[edit]


Proposed by: Przykuta. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. Confusing, especially to those who don't know about Web 2.0, "We think about 2015" doesn't sound right either.Theo10011 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. +1--OsamaK 10:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons and pictures[edit]


Proposed by: TheDJ. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. Thought this would be a nice idea for Commons. TheDJ 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice idea, but the images need better presentation or organization with the banner text, they just seem tacked on to the message. I like the concept. Theo10011 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Great concept, but poor phrasing. Cybercobra 06:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Inter-generational[edit]


Proposed by: 216.38.130.165. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. Like it, I removed the "<>" but it still needs a donation page link. Theo10011 17:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nursery rhyme[edit]


Proposed by: Przykuta. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-05
Comments:

  1. Um... it doesn't have that jingly ring to me. Sort of clunky to read.  fetchcomms 02:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. No rhymes? sorry it sounds clunky like Fetchcomms said above. Theo10011 17:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Community Equation[edit]


Proposed by: 216.38.130.165. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. Nice, I removed the "<>", donation link needed. Theo10011 17:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the idea behind it very much. It's just that I'm afraid it would give the wrong impression that we don't get/want corporate giving.--OsamaK 10:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. It's nice. sonia 03:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like a LOT. Nimmolo 10:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Diving Into[edit]


Proposed by: Da voli. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-05
Comments:

  1. A pool analogy? Sorry I don't think it works in the context of keeping a pool clean. Theo10011 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Clean of what? Controversial articles, topics "we" don't like, different opinions? Sounds more like something all those "One Truth" mongers are propagating to keep the "filthy other" out. --94.134.192.236
  3. I hate when vandals pee in the pool. Marcus Qwertyus 19:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep Wikimedia running[edit]


Proposed by: Mr.Z-man. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:
Based on the total operating budget of $20.4 million and 525,600 minutes in a year (the exact number is $38.81). Obviously the numbers are tweakable for different time/donation. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. This is a neat fact, but it actually sounds kind of discouraging as phrased. $39 dollars is a lot of money, and 1 minute sounds small next to it. Maybe it can be rewritten to emphasize that 'all of Wikimedia' can be kept running for 'only' one $39 donation. Also, since $35 is the lowest preset option, maybe we could fudge it a little and use $35. Great that someone's donation could make them feel like the next Wikimedia/Wikipedia minute is funded by them. Which is not too shabby. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. We should focus on the large effects of small donations not the other way around, this one seems to be disparaging a small donation in the big scheme of things, sponsoring for one minute of uptime seems rather denigrating to a benefactor. Theo10011 17:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Per Theo10011. AngChenrui 12:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Good try, but more depressing than motivating. Cybercobra 06:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity, search, learn, teach[edit]


Proposed by: GoEThe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. This is very cool. I think the 'ask' in the second part could be rephrased a bit. Maybe 'Keep knowledge flowing.' Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    Love it. "Circle of Knowledge" if you want to consider another heading, I do agree with Ocassi above-'keep knowledge flowing' sounds more organic there. You might also want to consider adding 'repeat' as a stage at the end. Theo10011 17:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Done and done. Circle of knowledge was what I was thinking. I think it could be snappier if we replace curiosity with something shorter, but I couldn't think of a better word. GoEThe 11:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I replaced it with "wonder," which beat out "question". It flows much better with all verbs (although both of those suggestions can also be nouns, which is a little confusing at the beginning of the ad). There was also an extra period at the end of it, but I felt it work would better as an ellipses, continuing the theme of continuity. HereToHelp (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. I love this one.--OsamaK 11:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support, User:Elitre
  3. Support - simply and elegantly phrased. I think it would make a nice banner. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I love this, too. Think "wonder" is an improvement on an already excellent concept. Not sure it needs "repeat." Anthonyhcole 07:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Imagine your donation[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. Suggested for all Wikimedia projects. Probably only appropriate for registered users. ~ Ningauble 14:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the message and the appeal. I'm not a big fan of the small font, though--it's a bit tough to read. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 16:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    Well, the vision statement is a bit long for a bumper sticker. I was trying to make it fit on one line for many typical display screens. Perhaps un-bolding instead would work better (bold catches the eye, but is harder to read). In general, using a headline font for the whole message makes it difficult to say more than fits in a headline. Is the vision statement is just too long and complex for an appeal to readers of, say, an encyclopedia? ~ Ningauble 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    Does it have to be exact from the vision statement? "every single human being" seems rather redundant and verbose, you could replace it with 'everyone' for a shorter statement- "Imagine a world in which everyone(/anyone) can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Theo10011 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, a shorter version would work better, and be catchier for the context too. "Imagine if every single human being could freely share all knowledge." Pretzels 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. How about adding "Now" at the beginning of the second line for emphasis? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like it, but suggest a change to "Imagine a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Make it a reality." —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A word from our sponsor[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. This is cool. It could also be: And now, a word from our sponsor... Like they say on the tv/radio. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I considered opening this with "And now,..." or "First,..." as heard on TV and radio, but I don't think they enhance the ask. If I were to add a temporal lead-in it would be "It's time for..." or simply "Time for..." because they lend immediacy to the ask, i.e. it's time for you to do this now. ~ Ningauble 14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it. Theo10011 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like Ocaasi's suggestion, but this is great either way. sonia 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Agree. HereToHelp (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. This is cool. Another variation could be "This page is sponsored by: You". 178.102.96.209 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like this and "This page is sponsored by: you".  fetchcomms 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. This is great. Keep it how it is - brevity is the soul of wit. the wub "?!" 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. Nice idea. Although the landing page would have to explain it. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. I love this one; especially Ocaasi's suggestion: "And now for a word from our sponsor..." Lexicografía 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  10. Brilliant; short and to the point. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  11. This one appeals to me, we are the one's that write it and pay for it and it is good to be reminded about that. Short and very much to the point, and very easy to understand, most everyone will get it. Ulflarsen 16:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  12. I really, really like this one. Succinct and really gets the point across. Ericleb01 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A word from our sponsor (2)[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-27
Comments:

  1. This longer version of the above suggestion might play well in conjunction with the "Jimmy appeal." ~ Ningauble 17:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. ...

Every dollar donated[edit]


Proposed by: Mr.Z-man. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. Similar to #Keep Wikimedia running, but with a more impressive number. Based on the total yearly budget of $20.4 million and an estimate of ~9500 pageviews/s for all of Wikimedia (from domas' stats) Mr.Z-man 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it but you might want to rephrase "in the hands of people" to something related to pageviews, like dispense or access etc.. Theo10011 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Theo10011. '[...] can make <number> articles accessible to the world'?--OsamaK 11:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest merging it with #Acknowledging benefactors.--OsamaK 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Monopoly of Knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Sky Harbor. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

  1. I based this message on a long-running thing here in Manila: my peers think I have a monopoly on knowledge because I edit Wikipedia. Time to prove them wrong. xP --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    There is no tie-in between the two sentences, they seem unrelated whatever their context might be. Sorry, it doesn't sound right. Theo10011 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    I was thinking otherwise: it's true that one of the ultimate aims of Wikipedia is to encourage ordinary people to be Wikipedians as well, and to contribute their knowledge to improving Wikipedia content. But what if they can't do that? I was thinking donations have the same effect, since it likewise proves that supporting the website is not the domain of a few people, but of every person who wishes to get involved. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Help making Wikipedia a monopoly with my donation? I think I'll refrain. --94.134.192.236 12:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish[edit]


Proposed by: Wifione. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

  1. Why this will work!
  • 1. The statement of "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish" implies the undying need to gain knowledge - the tagline has been used as it was made irrefutably famous by Steve Jobs in his Stanford Convocation address in 2005. The reason Steve Jobs is being used here is to position Wikipedia both implicitly and explicitly as being a global community having an iconic/cult backing of users (rather than simply implying the backing of editors) akin to the iconic status of Jobs in the 'users' of his products.
  • 2. The statement "Stay Free" brings together the philosophies of attempting to be ad-free, at the same time emphasizing the point that Wikipedia propagates the emphatic "free" flow of information, than one which is sponsored or ad-driven!
  • 3. At the same time, the power of the "Stay Free!" tagline allows the users to empathise with Wikipedia, considering the project their own (notice the difference from writing "Keep Wikipedia free" to writing "Stay Free". In other words, let us - you, me and Wikipedia - stay free). The term "Stay Free" also has a revolutionary touch to it, promoting a 'cause' that our users would want to contribute to. In the sense that the term "Stay Free" also provides pointers to readers on how they should lead their lives - uncontrolled by external monies/lobbies. Quite motivating, I should say immodestly, as the philosophies of freedom and independence being promoted by the 'Stay Free' tagline immediately stamp a patriotic fervor to the movement - the movement that is Wikipedia!
  • 4. Shrewdly, the point of growth has been left out. That is, nowhere is it written that "donate to ensure Wikipedia becomes the world's largest encyclopedia" or anything similar to that. The conjecture has deliberately been restricted to, "Let's keep 'our' project free for independent/free usage of information."
  • 5. But the most important part is the absence of any agenda (except the agenda of keeping it free and donating money). There is no agenda that is evident or perceivable (for example, it is not written that keep Wikipedia free and ensure children of tomorrow become more literate; or similar propositions).
  • 6. "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. Stay Free" is a direct, flat, gimmick-free message that donors would understand. There're no bright coloured neon-lit characters; there're no complicated conjectures being propagated. One message; one behavior expected.
  • 7. It's my lucky number. So! :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ 14:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. I hope you don't mind I just removed a superfluous line break. Theo10011 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't get it nor understand the reference, and I don't think it's good to call our readers "foolish". Lexicografía 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Real Tragedy[edit]


Proposed by: Bigroger27509. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

  1. Cute, but why did you put an internal link on the Tragedy heading?, I think we all know what that implies. Theo10011 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. This implies that a)No donation, no Wikipedia; b)No Wikipedia, no research papers. The former is passable, the latter is a rather flimsy link. sonia 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Strictly speaking, we don't really encourage people to use Wikipedia for any sort of real research. Mr.Z-man 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. And many schools/universities won't even accept Wikipedia as a source on research papers (unfortunately... although not entirely without justification, I have to admit). Hersfold (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Appears to be trivialising Wikipedia. Well many use Wikipedia for their research papers, but that's not the reason why we came about in the first place. AngChenrui 12:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. Research papers shouldn't be written off WP anyway. If they are, please, get rid of them.  fetchcomms 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Free does not mean cheap[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

  1. It confuses 'free as in freedom' and 'free as in beer' (I think we should always make banners that reflect both interpretations).--OsamaK 11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    That only works in languages having a homonym for "without cost" and "without restraint". (I don't know how projects without such homonyms handle the "free encyclopedia" tagline.) "Cheap" is also a homonym, meaning both "inexpensive" and "worthless". Perhaps this banner is only suitable for English projects. Your donation does keep it free of charge and free of sponsor-imposed restraints. ~ Ningauble 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it. Anthonyhcole 07:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

E pluribus[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

  1. From E pluribus unum, the motto of the United States inscribed on most US currencies. it would translate to "out of many, Wiki"- also possible is "E pluribus, Unus Wiki" or one wiki but that might sound to limiting. Needless to say it is very US centric but worth considering. Theo10011 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Good one for US visitors but I'm pretty sure that people in other parts of the world won't be able to easily understand it (If you agree, please move it to the by geography page).--OsamaK 11:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I'm not American, but I really like this as an attention grabber. Not sure it will encourage people to donate though. the wub "?!" 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like this, but not much as a banner. --Nemo 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. I don´t like it. For me it´s sound like: "American Imperialism=Wikipedia". Ciberprofe 15:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. In Portugal, it would be associated with the motto of SL Benfica: File:Águia.jpg. GoEThe 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. Love it, but it'd need targeting toward America. Lexicografía 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. I think this can be (somewhat) localized for other geographies whose motto is also the equivalent of E pluribus unum. For example, I was thinking it can be Bhinneka Tunggal Wiki in Indonesia, since it is the same motto/slogan, only localized for that particular area of the world. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela quote[edit]


Proposed by: Tyrol5. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-08
Comments:

  1. Maybe better for Wikiversity, more than other projects.  fetchcomms 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. This is best suited for Wikiversity and to a lesser extent Wikibooks, I think. But I like the slogan, makes a good appeal for donations. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Good angle. --Cybercobra 06:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Law of Attraction[edit]


Proposed by: Kayau. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-09
Comments:

  1. I like this one. (I added a wikilink to the English Wikipedia article and I moved the second sentence into a new line).--OsamaK 11:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Smart idea; hopefully they verify it, though.  fetchcomms 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Cute idea, might want to add Karma to the description. Theo10011 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Nice idea, but the linked article would need some real work first to remove the negative templates on it. the wub "?!" 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Kinda; I think Theo10011's suggestion of "karma" would be much more widely recognized than the Law of Attraction. Lexicografía 15:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The only advertisement[edit]


Proposed by: Pretzels. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-09
Comments:

  1. We can't promise ever. Although "These are" might be more accurate; we run series of banners, not just one per reader.  fetchcomms 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. The best of an excellent bunch! But, as per Fetchcomms, I'd drop "ever" - it works fine without it. Anthonyhcole 07:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I'd prefer using the plural and omitting "ever", but otherwise this is a nice slogan. Support. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. As we saw with es.wiki, it really is never. Agree with "these are" plural rephrasing. --Cybercobra 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Haiku 1[edit]


Proposed by: Hersfold. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. An attempt at a haiku. Hersfold (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice, although the "Thanks!" seems out of place, but is necessary to make the line work. How about "Please donate today" instead?  fetchcomms 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    Works for me. See below. Hersfold (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Haiku 1.1[edit]


Proposed by: Hersfold. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Haiku 2[edit]


Proposed by: Hersfold. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. Another haiku. Hersfold (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Interesting. I think it might work.  fetchcomms 22:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. The middle line is too long. Also some redundancy with the word "help". Lexicografía 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Haiku 3[edit]


Proposed by: Hersfold. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. And a third haiku. Hersfold (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I think most people are against the "Wikipedia will not be here tomorrow if you don't donate now" idea.  fetchcomms 22:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. My concern about this haiku, and the two above, is that it's not immediately obvious it's poetry (no rhyme, rhythm takes a bit to figure out), so the reader may be left wondering why the lines/punctuation are broken up so oddly. Also, the wording seems a bit ... awkward. I really like the concept, but I'm wondering if it's the most effective appeal. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Limerick[edit]


Proposed by: Hersfold. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. This was a lot harder than the haikus. Hopefully it'll attract attention, though. The three article links I picked because I think the seven wonders are neat to read about, I think it funny that there's a town called Boring, and when doing a google search for "icky", that album came up and it's actually a surprisingly well written album article. Hersfold (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Epic. Although, the rhythm would be more limerick-like imo if the two middle lines were shortened to "to run this, peeps/Sure ain't that cheaps"- but that isn't quite as clear. :) sonia 10:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the limerick form requires the third and fourth lines to have two feet of three syllables each (six total); while I do agree with you, what I have sounds a little long, the lines you suggest only have four syllables each, so don't fit. Hersfold (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Of course, if adopted, this should be English-only. I'm not sure if it can be translated easily with the same tone! Anyway I really like the "we're not picky" part and I hope we will see it in one final banner.--OsamaK 19:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like it, I agree it should be English/English based only. --WolfnixTalk • 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Good idea. But slightly longish, making the banner obnoxiously tall. It will work if the font size can be adjusted in the actual banner testing.  fetchcomms 22:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. Wow, this and the Haikus above must have taken a lot of time and effort. I really like these, but I think they would work better on Wikiquotes or specific projects, most people might not even realize that they are Haikus or limerick from a quick glance, they might not even realize that they conform to poetic meters and Moraes. Theo10011 22:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. I love the idea, but the two middle lines read a little bit contrived. How about: "But the money, you see, / We can't grow it on trees" ? Lexicografía 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    I like this. :) sonia 08:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. Can we make the font size smaller so the banner won't be overly annoying? But otherwise I like this. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The new interface[edit]


Proposed by: OsamaK. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. Careful, some people do not like some aspects of the new interface. ~ Ningauble 21:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Also it's a bit misleading, as work on the new interface was specifically funded by a grant, not by community donations. the wub "?!" 23:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I actually still use monobook, because I don't like vector... :-/ Hersfold (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    ↑ This. — The Earwig (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    Well, since the vast majority of people who see these banners are readers, that won't matter too much. Vector was generally well-received from a Usability perspective by readers and those who only edit infrequently. PeterSymonds 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    Me too. I find Vector frickin' ugly. Lexicografía 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting delete.svgUm, no, I think the preliminary Vector designs worked, and then they screwed it up.  ono  21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Even if everyone liked this, the usability team isn't funded by reader donations like the wub said above.  fetchcomms 22:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. I think most users didn't notice or forgot about it, and have no strong feelings about the new interface. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, good interfaces are invisible in the sense that users quickly cease to pay them any attention and, instead, focus on what they are trying to accomplish. When someone does stop to think about an interface, it is usually because they are experiencing some frustration. ~ Ningauble 19:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Donation needed[edit]


Proposed by: The Earwig. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. I really like this, as an improvement on an earlier suggestion which was just "Wikipedia[donation needed]". It think the juxtaposition of 'free' and 'donation' is perfect here, setting the right 'subtle tone'; it's not it-your-face, it is slightly amusing, and...well, I think this is a winner, and hope we can give it a try. Chzz 18:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Love this one. the wub "?!" 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like this one a lot. Not a note insider-ness like some of the others. --WolfnixTalk • 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support.svgAdd a logo, or something to make it more memorable.  ono  21:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    Why? — The Earwig (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. I like this one a lot! And I agree with Wolfnix -- I think most people know the Wikipedia/citation needed connection, while people may not know, say, what a FA is. GorillaWarfare 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. I love this. And I wouldn't worry about people not recognizing the citation needed; it's far too common. Lexicografía 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, this is brilliant. Gregory Harshfield 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. Agree. It's perfect. Anthonyhcole 07:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. Brilliant, fully support this one. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. I was just about to propose this. Among those who know Wikipedia enough to recognize the reference, it seems like it would get an extremely positive response. Ejak91 00:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  10. +1 --Cybercobra 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  11. Love it. People will get it. If they haven't found a citation needed tag, they probably haven't read enough to consider donating. HereToHelp (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

NO WAY![edit]


Proposed by: Uncle Fred. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. I support this one, since I am opposed to ads! --WolfnixTalk • 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. No "no ads" banners. No shouting, either.  fetchcomms 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you explain your dislike for "no ads" banners? One of the primary motivating purposes of donors has been to keep it ad-free. Philippe (WMF) 14:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • This may not be fetchcomms's reasoning, but to me it seems somewhat hypocritical. Call them what we want, but these banners are still advertisements in a way. I think that we'd annoy a lot of readers if they saw something saying "No ads!" at the top of every other page they read. Hersfold (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Makes me want to throw up. Mono 23:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I agree we don't need to keep bringing it up over and over again, thats the annoying thing about ads, attaching a "no ads" banner to every page would be an oxymoron, technically its an ad itself. Theo10011 21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Yes Way!. A level up from commercial ads IMO. Marcus Qwertyus 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just your donations[edit]


Proposed by: The wub. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

  1. Short, simple, to the point. --WolfnixTalk • 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. No "no ads" stuff. But I like the "No premium content" idea.  fetchcomms 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Concise but why mention ads again or "premium" subscription? Its a constant fear among the community and benefactors, we shouldnt keep reminding them of that. Theo10011 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    It's not meant as a threat, but as a reminder that we're different to almost every other big site on the Internet - and that's why we rely on donations. Also readers with ad-blockers might not even realise we don't have ads. the wub "?!" 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I don't like 'No "premium" subscriptions.' 'No fees', maybe. Emufarmers 23:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  5. Yes "no ads"! Agree w/ Wolfnix. --Cybercobra 08:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just your donations 2[edit]


Proposed by: Emufarmers. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-06
Comments:

Even your mother...[edit]


Proposed by: participant fundraising meeting 09/10 Utrecht. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-11
Comments:

  1. Excuse me? No.  fetchcomms 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, No.Theo10011 22:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. But mine doesn't. I don't know, this is a bit too "your mom" for me, rude in a way. sonia 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per Sonia. Mono 23:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Part of the language we need to avoid to beat sexism.--OsamaK 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. No, please, let's not stoop to the "your mom" level. Lexicografía 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. I don't think this is suitable. Aside from the un-PC factor, I'm not sure this connects to an appeal effectively (i.e., it doesn't really give a good reason why the reader should donate). Tempodivalse [talk] 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Care to Support[edit]


Proposed by: Participant Utrecht fundraising meeting. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-11
Comments:

  1. ... care to elaborate?  fetchcomms 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You might have to leave your house[edit]


Proposed by: Chrisfjordson. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-12
Comments:

  1. We use libraries to write Wikipedia. Not sure this sends the right message. Libraries are useful.  fetchcomms 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    I Agree with Fetchcomms.Theo10011 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Libraries are good. We can't have anything anti-library or anti-paper book; or anything reinforcing the stereotypes of lazy people! Lexicografía 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Information on number of donors and amount of donations[edit]


Proposed by: 86.9.198.24. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-12
Comments:

  1. Likey.  fetchcomms 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. its on the right track, but whats my motivation for donating? Just because a 100 people did it, maybe add some personal or geographic information to motivate others to not hesitate with donations.Theo10011 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Donate![edit]


Proposed by: 1234r00t. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-13
Comments:

  1. As nom. Mr. R00t Talk 02:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    Note how it says "Comments", not "Vote". If you insist, oppose because we have a disclaimer saying we aren't reliable.  fetchcomms 22:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I changed than to then in the second sentence. Anyway, would it really work if we say a project like Wikipedia is a "reliable source"? Perhaps this is misleading. I'm thinking of w:WP:RS's definition here: "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." — The Earwig (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. This isn't true. Besides the reliability issue, Wiktionary aims to be a dictionary, Wikiquote aims to be a quote collection; no project aims to be a source for everything. Mr.Z-man 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Greatest collection[edit]


Proposed by: Mono. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: Mono. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-13
Comments:

  1. I like the idea. Maybe change "greatest" to "largest" for accuracy? While Wikipedia is first in terms of amount of information, using "greatest" could be understood to mean it's also the best in terms of quality, which is only an opinion, as opposed to statistical fact. That, and I'm unsure the logo is absolutely necessary ... but good ideas. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Powered by wiki[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-13
Comments:

  1. Many wikis are also powered by MW. I'm not sure this has an apparent message.  fetchcomms 22:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes check.svg Added text,  ono  22:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I HEART W*[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-13
Comments:

  1. I'd prefer plain text hearts (faster loading), and the abbreviations aren't completely obvious to everyone. But I proposed something similar a long time ago, with the addition of "Do you?" and a donate link after the "I love [project]" part.  fetchcomms 22:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I Love Heart SVG.svg these. Theo10011 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I prefer the one further up the page with a plain text heart and the traditional layout. Also some of these abbreviations seem a bit obscure. the wub "?!" 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm not seeing any donation links... Rock drum (talk·contribs) 12:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Ouch! These are far too big, and look terribly similar to "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Also, I don't know if people will get the WN, WB, WM etc. abbreviations, even if they do understand WP. Lexicografía 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. Do these have an apparent message/request for donations? That doesn't seem immediately obvious to me. If we do go with hearts though, I'd prefer something a bit smaller... Tempodivalse [talk] 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. None of the readers know what the abbreviations mean, and wiki != Wikipedia and we should not encourage that erroneous conflation. --Cybercobra 08:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

10 years of Cs[edit]


Proposed by: Mono. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: Mono. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-13
Comments:

  1. I like the idea but I don't think the narrative connects, I understand the 10 years accomplishment which is admirable but it doesn;t connect with the rest of the lines. how about "10 years of constant......... brought you Wikipedia, lets keep going" or "10 years....We are Wikipedia, lets keep going for 10 more years". Theo10011 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We can do better[edit]


Proposed by: GoEThe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: Mono. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: User:Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-14
Comments:

  1. Look what we have acomplished. We still want to do better. GoEThe 11:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it, but maybe with your explanatory text: "Look at what we have accomplished. We can do better." I also question the irony of this over an article that is dismally bad. sonia 12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. That sounds like we've done a terrible job. We haven't.  ono  19:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Even in a bad article, this would work, I think. We can be humble to say that there is still a lot of work to do. How about: "We can still do better."? Or "Did you find what you were looking for? We can still do better." GoEThe 10:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I believe that that would give them the impression that wikipedia contains bad articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jijo925 (talk)
  5. I agree makes it sound like we haven't done our best so far, I understand the optimism you are trying to convey. Theo10011 20:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. I think we need a "Help us go further" message, not "Help us do better". How bad are we, again?  fetchcomms 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    How about the one that Mono suggested, but with Fetchcommons' "Help us go further" as the second phrase? GoEThe 08:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. It sounds to negative: "Look at what you've done!! Surely you can do better than that." Lexicografía 14:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. These all seem to have negative connotations, especially the first 2. Mr.Z-man 01:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. "We can do better" and "Look at what we've done" could easily be taken to mean that our work has been poor so far. Maybe something along the lines of "We can still do better with your help" is less ambiguous? Tempodivalse [talk] 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is now quickly, easily and freely available...[edit]


Proposed by: micki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-14
Comments:

  1. English is not my native language, so it's possible I did something wrong. Feel free to fix it. mickiτ 15:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support.svgI like this, removed the "to" for better flow.  ono  19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Growing with Wiki[edit]


Proposed by: Jijo925. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-15
Comments:

  1. I don't understand this. sonia 08:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    I am guessing its about growth. :) Theo10011 20:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. What's the correlation between my growth and donating? If I want to grow my knowledge, I read, not donate money.  fetchcomms 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The limit[edit]


Proposed by: Jijo925. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: Sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-16
Comments:

  1. ...

Jijo925 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. Pictogram voting support.svgAdded "the" at the beginning boldly, but otherwise I love it.  ono  20:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. This one being not obviously WMF-related, I can forsee misunderstandings when it's atop certain articles. To make it clearer, how about something like "For {Project}, the sky's the limit. Take us there." ? sonia 23:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit]


Proposed by: LionheartMD. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-17
Comments:

  1. ...

LionheartMD 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. No, I'm not, especially after this. Mono 23:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't actually donate myself (hypocrite!). Nor will I donate an actual wiki, because the WMF has plenty.  fetchcomms 00:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Depends on the type of donation. Some give pennies, others give freedoms, and still others provide knowledge. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. WikiDonor? Sounds like WikiGnome, WikiDragon etc; smacks of jargon. Lexicografía 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    Agree, as per Lexicografia above.Theo10011 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki. Mr.Z-man 01:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

History in the making[edit]


Proposed by: Knop92. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-20
Comments:

  1. I don't get it. Hersfold (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Me either. Lexicografía 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Verbose.Theo10011 21:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Ditto.  fetchcomms 01:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Seems a bit too wordy, I'm not sure readers will have the patience to read all of that and take a moment to "get" its meaning. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We can. We will. Lets Go![edit]


Proposed by: samkupar. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-21
Comments:

  1. Where is the link to the donation page?--94.98.207.229 03:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Should be "Let's go", and I think of "share, contribute, and improve Wikipedia" as editing, not necessarily donating.  fetchcomms 01:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Super size my knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Sargoth. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-21
Comments:

  1. I don't get it, nor do I like it. Lexicografía 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a reference to Supersize Me? We could put the link to the donation for "super size". :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Too many negative connotations. People who hate fast food and people who hate that documentary will both be turned off. Lose lose. Gigs 18:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Imagine what we can do with 10 more years...[edit]


Proposed by: GHarshfield. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-22
Comments:

  1. [citation needed]; it's a risky business saying Wikipedia is the "largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of man". Lexicografía 14:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    What if we added the word "online"? GMan 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Imagine having a free pass to every museum in the world[edit]


Proposed by: GHarshfield. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-22
Comments:

  1. Good one.--94.98.207.229 03:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like "Imagine having a free pass to every museum in the world" more than "Can you feel yourself getting smarter?".  fetchcomms 01:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    Good point! I like that too. GMan 14:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia infinity[edit]


Proposed by: GHarshfield. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-22
Comments:

  1. [citation needed] As above; it's a risky business saying Wikipedia is the "largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of man". Lexicografía 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

<[[According]] [[to]] [[Clay Shirky]] [[in]] [[his]] [[book]] [[Cognitive Surplus]] [[on]] [[page]] [[10]]:>[edit]


Proposed by: DethariusXXX. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-25
Comments:

  1. Um, what? This isn't asking for donations in any way that I can see. Lexicografía 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia[edit]


Proposed by: sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-25
From [1], modified to remove superscript. sonia 08:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. ...

You are the missing puzzle piece[edit]


Proposed by: Yair rand. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-25
Comments:

  1. Pictogram voting delete.svgMissing seems to have a negative connotation.  ono  01:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA NEEDS MONEY[edit]


Proposed by: Amnesico29. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-27

  1. Pictogram voting delete.svg I like the idea, but execution needs work.  ono  03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA NEEDS MONEY v.2[edit]


Proposed by: Amnesico29. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-27

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Wikipedia has already been created.  ono  03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember when you couldn't learn almost anything instantly? Now Wikipedia needs you.[edit]


Proposed by: Thparkth. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-28
Comments:

  1. ...

Wikimedia Commons: reasons[edit]


Proposed by: Minisarm. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-02
Comments:

  1. ...

'U sapive ca...[edit]


Proposed by: Joetaras. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Confermate 'u: 2010-11-02
Commende:

  1. ...

One World / One Wikipedia[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-04
Comments:

  1. "One world" was placed first because it sounded better and the world is more important than Wikipedia even though this is a fundraiser. Simple variations: add to the front the following words to all lines: "Just" ("Just one world," etc.), "Our," ("Our world," etc.), "Your," ("Your world," etc.); the words "helps to bring" or "helping in bringing" could also be used ("helps bring" is not grammatically correct), but that sounds too wordy compared to the first two lines, and I did not like the sound of it anyway. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Motivating, concise, cleverly expressed. Worthy of Wikipedia. -- OneAmongBillions

Feed[edit]


Proposed by: Solstag. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: Solstag. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-04
Comments:

  1. I had originally suggested this in Portuguese, but people seem to like it so I'm translating to English. --Solstag 07:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Cute! sonia 09:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Optic fiber? I propose bandwidth; I like the idea, though.  ono  00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Nom nom. I think the point behind optic fiber was connecting it to dietary fiber, but I can't speak for the Portuguese folks who proposed this. Lexicografía 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    You're right on Lexi, except that I carry a Brazilian passport ;) Moreover, I think the image of something solid helps people connect to the feeling of throwing a puppy a bone. --Solstag 05:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are we here?[edit]


Proposed by: OneAmongBillions. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-05


Proposed by: OneAmongBillions. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-05
Comments:

  1. ...

<quote>[edit]


Proposed by: Naren. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-05
Comments:

  1. ...
  2. No shouting.  ono  00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. sorry just want to make it look clear.

MAHATMA GANDHI[edit]


Proposed by: Naren. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-05
Comments:

  1. ...

Take a step forward[edit]


Proposed by: Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-09
Comments:

  1. ...

Mayan Calendar[edit]


Proposed by: Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-09
Comments:

  1. Cute, perhaps a bit culturally specific though. sonia 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Invest[edit]


Proposed by: Lazowik. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-11
Comments:

  1. CONTENTLANGUAGE for donation language link and ns:project in GRAMMAR:B.lp for project name. Lazowik 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Helps With My Homework[edit]


Proposed by: [Sophie] (wikipedia) 2010-11-12. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-12
Comments:

  1. ...

Wika-pedia or wike-pedia[edit]


Proposed by: [Sophie] (wikipedia). On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-12
Comments:

  1. ...

wiki-tan[edit]


Proposed by: [Sophie] (wikipedia). On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-12
Comments:

  1. ...

Vandlism[edit]


Proposed by: [Sophie] (wikipedia). On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-12
Comments:

  1. ...

Lunch with Knowledge[edit]

<Learning Lunch>[edit]


Proposed by: [[user:{{subst:vanillabrand@gmail.com}}|]]. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-16
Comments:

  1. ...

Give what you can here: Take all you learn from here[edit]

<Donating to Wikipedia: Warm Fuzzy Feeling meets Voracious Appetite for Knowledge>[edit]


Proposed by: 67.186.6.28. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-22
Comments:

  1. ...I like this one except the wording in the content more like Where would you go to look anything up if .....Glalaish 03:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please Read: Wikipedia potentially giving in to Advertising for 2012[edit]

<enter the title of your banner here>[edit]


Proposed by: 12.189.27.3. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-22
Comments:

  1. ...


Important Notice[edit]


Proposed by: 12.189.27.3. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-22
Comments:

  1. ...

22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)89.108.180.30Roland Haddad=== <Many people google stuff, I wiki them!> ===

Proposed by: 89.108.180.30. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-22
Comments:

  1. ...

The 3 C's of why you should donate to Wikipedia[edit]


Proposed by: Glalaish. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-11-29
Comments:

  1. ...

Citation needed[edit]


Proposed by: XalD. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-12-16
Comments:

  1. "clean them up"... or something --×α£đes 02:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

just my little idea[edit]

<Honesty>[edit]


Proposed by: 82.144.249.18. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2011-01-03
Comments:

  1. ...

cuttitv[edit]

<enter the title of your banner here>[edit]


Proposed by: 122.174.102.74. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2011-01-14
Comments:

  1. ...

Wikipedia Banner - Education/Society[edit]

Wikipedia[edit]


Proposed by: Grammatik101. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2011-06-04
Comments:

  1. ...

Knowledge will be forever[edit]

Knowledge will be forever[edit]


Proposed by: Unknown. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2012-03-07
Comments:

  1. ...

lenutaa_mirceaa>editing fundraising 2010/messages/new(new section)[edit]

<enter the title of your banner here>[edit]


Proposed by: 79.119.226.43. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2012-11-08
Comments:

  1. ...





Beautiful[edit]

Feed a child[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

note: Could be perceived as insensitive to causes that are actually feeding children. Seems like a stretch. Rebecca (WMF)

That was kind of the idea. It'd be more insensitive if it wasn't true. You really can, and there's something to be said for giving knowledge which is profound. I changed 'feed' to 'give' below to avoid the direct connotation. Probably reads better if you just saw that one first. User:Ocaasi01:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
+1 to Rebecca.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Give a child[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

note: again, wouldn't throw a child in here unnecessarily. But the idea is nice. Providing education to people who might not acquire one otherwise. Rebecca (WMF)

  • I like it. The children thing seems to soften people up; add a picture of a kid in rural somewhere and you've got it made.  ono  02:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Change child to "everyone, including your son" ;) Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 07:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sea of knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • We want people to give a bit more than a penny, don't we? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as encouraging people to donate only a penny. GorillaWarfare 00:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Navigation
ALL banners Newly submitted By Language Vista-keditbookmarks.pngTesting Queue Tested
By type
Mission Based Informative Technology Jimmy Appeal Traditional Fundraising
Testimonials Humor Chapter Specific By Geography
Project-specific
Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons Wiktionary Wikibooks Wikinews
Wikiquote Wikisource Wikiversity Wikispecies MediaWiki

Education/Information/Knowledge[edit]

Scientia et Aurum[edit]


Proposed by: TeleComNasSprVen. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-22
Comments:

  1. Latin's not one of my strongest subjects.
  2. Nor is it most people's. How many would get this? sonia 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. ahh latin, it means "gold and knowledge are power", its a variation of Gold is power "Aurum est potestas". there are much better phrases like "Ex astris, Scientia" which mean "from the stars, knowledge" and "Et ipsa scientia potestas est." which would mean "And knowledge itself, is power" if you want to consider Latin phrases.Theo10011 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Not every single person in the world is familiar with Latin. I love "Scientia potestas est. Make Wikipedia more powerful." but if we non-English people translated the latter part, why not the former part too? It'll make more sense to speak in a same simple tone. We have not to be a snob // Reservations: our Latin projects may assume this kind, but better the whole banner in Latin, not only the former part. --Aphaia 09:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's my fault. I tried to translate as much as I could, but that turned out to be only the first part. I know I should have studied my Latin more. ;) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Make the Wikimedia Foundation more useful[edit]


Proposed by: James Salsman with thanks to TeleComNasSprVen. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

P.S. Please test the #25goals below. Thank you! 71.198.176.22 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Millions[edit]


Proposed by: Kevin McE. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Dual meaning of contributions, emphasise collective effort element of content, happy to see alternative words to further (other, a different type of, your, financial...) Kevin McE 06:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I support this, but only if the spelling is changed to "encyclopedia".. Lexicografía 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I think encyclopaedia/encyclopedia should be standard throughout. I vote for "encyclopedia". Also, I feel like "in need of further contributions" is awkward -- perhaps go with a full sentence? GorillaWarfare 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting delete.svg I vote for encyclopædia  ono  21:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    Of course, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the free encyclopædia that anyone can edit". — The Earwig (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    There's probably some cause for avoiding ENGVAR issues entirely by not using such words. In English speaking countries outside North America, the insistence on American spelling (one *never* sees it as -edia in Australian texts for example) smacks of a form of cultural imperialism which Wikipedia is right to avoid. Orderinchaos 01:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    Huh? It still doesn't look right. Encyclopedia is what should be used.GHarshfield 14:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than an encyclopedia[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-21
Comments:

  1. Suggested for non-Wikipedia content projects. ~ Ningauble 14:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a very, very bad idea. The projects are not defined by their relation to a larger sister project. --Yair rand 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that it feels off message to me. I'm OK with the concept, but this particular language makes me uncomfortable. Philippe (WMF) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I can see how this might come across as rivalrous or something. I will try to think of something that more clearly connotes sailing alongside the flagship project towards a shared vision. In many people's minds, other projects are strongly identified by their relation to Wikipedia: content that furthers the foundation's vision but, in terms of scope and structure, is "what Wikipedia is not." ~ Ningauble 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Presenting 11/12 of the projects as "sailing alongside the flagship project" is itself very harmful, IMO. --Yair rand 19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the theory behind this at least. Maybe revised somehow? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Like it as it is. User:Elitre

Knowledge heart[edit]


Proposed by: GoEThe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-29
Comments:

  1. Maybe animation is not a good idea. Could replace with Wikilove2 new.png. GoEThe 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Not sure if everyone "hearts" knowledge. How about doing a variation of the famous "I Wikilove2 new.png NY" campaign.Theo10011 12:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. No animated images, especially low-quality ones. A text heart would work fine.  fetchcomms 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    I proposed something similar here.  fetchcomms 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    I changed the image to a stationary one.GoEThe 11:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Tacky. One of the main qualities of Wikipedia (to me) is the professional, clean look. This banner doesn't go with it. --Urzică 07:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Humanity Dream[edit]


Proposed by: Da voli. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 21:41: 2010-09-24
Comments:

  1. Is there any particular reason this is in triangle brackets? S8333631 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The brackets are in the template, to delineate where you submit the banner name. I'm removing them. :) Philippe (WMF) 19:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Philippe, for removing the brackets. It was my first try. --Da voli 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. What dream? --88.130.160.172 10:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I hope this is not the culmination of humanities dream, otherwise we are way too shortsighted. My76Strat 05:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • According to Buddhism Teachings, main reason of all suffering is a lack of knowledge. So comprehensive knowledge can be considered as a humanity dream. --Da voli 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia will never be finished, so this isn't really true. Mr.Z-man 03:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is for everyone[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Like it. Another Variation "Free knowledge for all, help keep it that way".Theo10011 13:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You have the power[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. hmm shape people's mind might be construed as influencing or controlling them. How about "power to enlighten/open people's mind...".Theo10011 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, that sounds negative / threatening. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    +1--OsamaK 19:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. This one could go horribly wrong in translation. Gigs 00:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sum of All Knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. This kinda makes it sound like the sum of all knowledge is already present and the projects are complete, which they aren't... Lexicografía 12:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yea I know, and I wanted it to be different, but unfortunately I could not think of a better set of words to fit the rest. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Maybe work in a verb such as "amass" or "collect"? Lexicografía 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. "Amassing the sum of all knowledge in one convenient location, help us collect it."Theo10011 13:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Knowledge is cheap[edit]


Proposed by: Trev M. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-22
Comments:

  1. Knowledge is cheap? doesnt seem that natural, there are hundreds of phrases to contradict that "information is power" etc.. plus "how much you got" sounds aggressive and threatening.Theo10011 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. If its so cheap, why are we asking for $250 donations? Mr.Z-man 03:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the previous comments.--OsamaK 19:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

all our knowledge belongs to anyone[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. I'd probably switch the language to something like "Our knowledge belongs to anyone.", but I like this idea quite a lot. It promotes (Wikimedia) giving back, as opposed to simply people giving TO (wikimedia). Philippe (WMF) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. First thing that came to mind was "all your base belong to us". I'm trying to decide if that is a good thing. Concept is good though. sonia 06:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    Me too ;-) ~ Ningauble 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    Me too ;-) Bright side: it makes someone smile, grin or laugh. Bad side: some people - Japanese - feel mocked, because the original is thought to be a typical English, Bad English of Japanese. But either good or bad, it would be no big deal. I assume most of our readership may never have heard that and only see its idea. --Aphaia 08:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. not sure about this one, I would suggest another iteration to Philippe's suggestion above "Our knowledge belongs to everyone". More inclusive of the diversity on Wikipedia.Theo10011 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I would use "All knowledge belongs to everyone," since "our" implies a bit too much control. (It's ours, but we'll let you rent it for a while.) I like the idea in general. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Information should be free[edit]


Proposed by: Andre Engels. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-17
Comments:

  1. it sounds pretty ironical for a donation request. DarkoNeko 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I agree, but I like this. How about "information should be free, but our servers are not"--Deniz (WMF) 00:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. this sounds very familiar, I think this or something very similar has been suggested or used previously. I like Denize's variation though.Theo10011 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Information IS free. Access to it isn't always. For that, I don't like this one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


you can help spreading knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Concise and to the point. - Andre Engels 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. like it, just add "donate now". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't sound right grammatically. Theo10011 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Grammatically it would be "with spreading" or just "spread", but I like it. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Mission Statement[edit]


Proposed by: <enter your username here>. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Bringing the idea of the Movement for the old banner. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice try, but seems a bit too obvious and wordy for its purpose. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pretty long. I don't know if it'll work, and the punctuation might need some work as well. Lexicografía 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Remove 'That's our commitment.' (no added meaning there) and remove ' - Wikimedia movement' (we don't need refs here) Chzz 03:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sum of all knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Doc James. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. The wording is a bit awkward, something more along the lines of "our goal: the sum of all human knowledge" ? --dgultekin 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I think fundraising banners are not the place to mix motives about editing vs. donating. Also, not sure about capitalizing the H and the K. Always reminds me of German and reading old English. Ocaasi 21:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. As above, I wouldn't use "edit" as an additional option when the specific purpose for this is to receive money.
  4. No, weak wording. Chzz 03:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

spread knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-14
Comments:

  1. intentionally mentioning Wikimedia, so when they are visiting a page on Red Cross they dont think it is them. Replace [pm] with p or m - open for debate. Intentionally h with a small_caps so the W is the only capital in the sentence and attracts more attention. Effeietsanders 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I really like this one. It is clear and simple. I would go for Wikipedia and not Wikimedia. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Clear and simple, yes. Just drop that "pm" thing. :-) Ziko 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support. Very nice. Paulmnguyen 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Nice idea. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I think placing a / between "P/M" might help but I am still not sure of this one.Theo10011 17:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Simplify; "help us spread knowledge - donate to Wikipedia" and, Ok, acceptable. Chzz 03:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Sharing[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Needs a comment on what should be done next. "Edit. Donate." maybe.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
it was written along the lines of "Stay Curious", shorter messages have tested extremely well. Plus, I think Sharing works better than asking to donate. It's Short and concise for those reasons.Theo10011 13:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Like this one very much. @Jmh649: Sharing can be interpreted as sharing money i guess. Mvg, Basvb 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I can see both sides of the issue made here already. But generally I like it. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Not bad. Not great, not bad. Chzz 02:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Simplicity is good, but this suggestion targets those who already give, excluding those who have yet to give, but might be willing. My76Strat 04:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. I like it. Very simple, very meaningful.---OsamaK 19:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep Sharing[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Not crazy about this one, and I suggested it.Theo10011 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. "We" have the sum of all human knowledge- we being the world, or Wikimedia? The latter is untrue, the former unclear. sonia 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    Concur. --Aphaia 15:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. There is a huge amount of editing too do. The sum is a goal not the current state of things. How about "The sum of all human knowledge is our goal."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. And, frankly, the vision is "imagine a world in which the sum of human knowledge...." We don't have it yet. :) Philippe (WMF) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    Concur with Philippe and Jmh649. I like the modified version - or We are making the world in which ... --Aphaia 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. This is the only one so far that I support. I love this one. It conveys the message of wiki.-Iankap99
  6. No, poor grammar, and incorrect. Chzz 02:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Food of the Soul[edit]


Proposed by: Rock drum. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-09
Please note, I adapted this banner from one by fetchcomms.
Comments:

  1. Not so compelling as other subversions of "food of the soul". IMO we'd better to get rid of negative words like "don't do xxx". --Aphaia 06:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. If knowledge is the food of the soul, how can a lack of food do anything but make you hungry? :) Rock drum (talk·contribs) 16:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is, negative words rather help taunt and intimidate people, but it would not be the best way to motivate them. --Aphaia 16:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that. How about just Hungry? as the link? That cuts more positive. Ocaasi 09:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done See #Hungry? Regards, Rock drum (talk·contribs) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Like the one further up that this is based on, I see where it is going and how it is meant, but do we really want to mention a "soul" here? What about those who don't believe in souls? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it (as an athiest) - maybe "Knowledge feeds the soul" is better? Chzz 00:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feed someone Knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. good :) Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Somewhat awkward, I am not sure if it'll translate well. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Are we not having language-specific banners as well? This one might be better for Wikiquote at least; "Knowledge is the food of the soul" is from Plato.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    We are indeed using language-specific messaging and banners. :) Philippe (WMF) 00:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I love it. If we optimize it for Wikiquote (and Wikipedia/Wikisource in some cases), the first sentence would be followed a link to q:Plato in each language. For translation concerns, if we can tell translators where we've taken it, they can consult a local library, or just their own language WQ or WS :) --Aphaia 06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I do not believe in the concept of a soul. Impossible to translate in my silly little farmer language (Dutch). Kwiki 04:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Great, the end could be improved. Consider just "Feed Someone" or "Hungry?" Ocaasi 20:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Nom nom nom LOL I'm not a fan of mentioning a "soul," though I see where you are going with this. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This one's also kinda cheesy no pun intended whatsoever but also good. Reminds me of FreeRice a little, which isn't bad at all! Lexicografía 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. I think this one has potential as well. Gigs 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. I like it but I'm not sure it would get me to donate. Anya 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. the generalized usage of "Soul" along with "feed someone knowledge" seems a bit clumsy. The original quote is from Protagoras, a dialogue by Plato, its original context is quiet different from its perceived usage. As far as modifying Plato's quote theres quite a few others like “If a man neglects education, he walks lame to the end of his life”,“Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous.”, “The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life” and “Know thyself.” Theo10011 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be free[edit]


Proposed by: Andre Engels. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • "Because knowledge should be free", maybe? Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Imagine a world[edit]


Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Actually, I am not such a big fan of this peticular Wales phrase. "Knowledge" can mean a lot, but WP (and WM projects) deal only with a little segment of human knowledge.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with striking phrases. For me, it is important to contextualize the project with the overall goal. It strenghtens the call for action and it is a good method to cultivate donors. But we would have to talk about the last sentence. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree that the goal is the more important part. What's a fundraising campaign without a big idea? 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Very wordy. --Cybercobra 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that people like reading, really, they are in Wikipedia for that. Emijrp 16:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Once restricted[edit]


Proposed by: sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • I like this one. Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • how about "knowledge was once restricted to those who could afford it. That changed in 2001. Donate today for free knowledge". That gives a time frame and it highlights the historic importance of wikipedia. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I people will get what is meant with 2001. Also, this works only for (English) Wikipedia --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest rewording: "Knowledge was once restricted to those who could afford it. Do you want to keep it that way?" to provoke action. Renata3 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I like the subversive quality. --Cybercobra 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is too much. Knowledge is still restricted. --Nemo 09:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Closer to that goal[edit]


Proposed by: Yair rand. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Or possibly "brings that goal closer" or something like that. --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. +1 Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Free Information[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Sure it is. It's free as in freedom and currently also free as in beer :)
    It isn't free to make, though. I don't think people will get it (most people don't even know the original slogan) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. What does "free" mean? Free licence or no cost? It can't mean no cost, so long as we are asking for money, and I am not sure people appreciate the free licence. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    It wants to be free of cost to anyone, but it's not (we need to pay for server costs, etc.) is what I meant.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Knowledge is free, content isn't. Sounds too activist to me. Effeietsanders 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. The message throws questions into my mind if I try to place myself in the shoes of a casual visitor. I might ask "huh? I thought Wikipedia was free to use?" or "can knowledge want anything, since it is not sentient?" I feel it gives me too much to think about; lacks directness. --Bodnotbod 11:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. As Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation founder) put it many times, it's "free content" as in licensed under our free licenses such as the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, not "free beer". MuZemike 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Information IS free. Access to it isn't always. For that, I don't like this one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. You might be able to play on the dual definition of free here. Something like "Free content isn't free". Gigs 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. No, simply no. Sven Manguard 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shine the light[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
  • Basically, I like the global approach. But in that case we would have to provide further information on the landingpage in what way we support the global outreach. Maybe too poetic for a donation banner. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

/:I like the broader emphasis. I think many Wikipedia users would take to the idea that the format is spreading to distant places. User:Ocaasi 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Sounds almost religious. (Matthew 5:14-16) Not sure we want that association to happen, but maybe it is just me. And maybe that association only happens to people for who it is a good association. Effeietsanders 10:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't think of religion with this one (but don't have much knowledge on religion). Mvg, Basvb 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A bit too enlightenment (I'm not sure this word has the same meaning in English as in Italian, though...). --Nemo 09:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is universal[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • The universe is big, you know ;). We're happy to spread it on earth, though --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is power[edit]


Proposed by: Church of emacs. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Inspired by Fundraising 2010/Messages/Courageous
Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Näh... V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it. --Aphaia 06:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Seems hard to translate. But for English only it might work. Effeietsanders 09:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Nice, but will users understand that this is a request for donations? Ziko 13:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • We can always test it with and without a 'donate now' button Jalexander 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I think it is kind of hard to add a donate now-buttom. You have to empower yourself by donating? You take through giving? I would rather see this message in a personal appeal. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Knowledge is power[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Actually, when I look at donator's comments on German language Wikipedia, there are many of such statements. Maybe not a bad direction.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Even though some Germans might like the idea of knowledge as power, I would guess that most users do not think in that categories while searching for every-day-information. But I´m open to test that one Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm worried that this one may be a bit too cliché for American audiences and therefore won't have as much impact as the sentiment it is trying to portray. I wouldn't be surprised though if the general idea of "Knowledge is Power" resonates with donors. Anya 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A bit corny, but would probably still work. --Cybercobra 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What's money[edit]


Proposed by: ChrisDHDR. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • It is a little bit contradictious if you ask for money saying simultanously that money is not important.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • good Lvova 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like concept, don't like wording. Renata3 02:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Next Chapter[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments

  • Prefer an active verb (Write the next chapter...) Ocaasi 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think if it was "write the next chapter", people would be expecting it to be an edit link and not a donate link. Then again, I'm not sure what kind of link they think this wording is. GorillaWarfare 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Worth to you[edit]


Proposed by: n/d. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like this. Maybe "how much is {{project}} worth to you? Philippe (WMF) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This would be one for the testing. the wording "knowledge" vs. "wikipedia". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I like this one as well. --Bodnotbod 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • wolud it be possible to test both variants? would like that --Jan eissfeldt 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wake up the world[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Good one, but translations should use different amounts of money. In the Middle East, I'm sure no coffee costs $5 (~$2-$3 usually).--OsamaK 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We should consider possible effects of suggesting a specific donation amount. This could potentially result in people donating $5 who might otherwise give more. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
  • The problem is a general one, we do not want to tell people how much to give. If we say "give 5$", we may only get so much from a person who would have given also more. If we say "give 100$" this sounds exclusive to many others. Some may not want to give (even if they themselves would give 100$) but find this offensiveley high for poorer people.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon[edit]


Proposed by: Pronoein. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Global community[edit]

«The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product» (Fundraising 2010#Focus Group).

Millions[edit]


Proposed by: Yair rand. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Don't quote me on the statistics :) --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I like this concept a lot.
  1. +1 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like concept, but not wording (repetitive). Renata3 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Return the favour Today!

Accessibility[edit]

Make Wikipedia available[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
  • Globes don't have corners. :) Philippe (WMF) 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL For that reason alone I like this one even more! — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And there are many languages which has no equivalent expression. In them it'll be just said "everywhere" or "in all the world". Just remark. --Aphaia 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree but still support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like it. Worth testing. Ocaasi 20:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The downside to the slogan being it's already available. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Like it. User:Elitre
  • I love this one. Mr. R00t Talk 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, some what redundant, but at the same time straight to the point. --WolfnixTalk • 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Making History[edit]

Make history[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • We should correlate to the donor survey and see if this rates as a motivation for giving. Philippe (WMF) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed the world[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Past simple isn't very active time. Lvova 11:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, the "us" vs. "you" problem... GorillaWarfare 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Crescit eundo[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Most people won't get it due to Latin. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Exactly! And most people don't live in New Mexico. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Heh. At least you got it :P.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Cancer. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t17:35z
  4. I think this one is a little too obscure. Philippe (WMF) 18:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. No. "Crescit eundo. Translated from Latin, it means "It grows as it goes" and has been criticized for appearing strange or even nonsensical at first hearing." en:Seal_of_New_Mexico. Chzz 00:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Future of knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: User:69.226.103.13. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • The actual stuff is done by volunteers, donations only enable that process :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I really like it. Anyone who helps Wikipedia in any way does "build the future of knowledge", and that's exactly what this donation campaign should emphasize. --Urzică 07:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Future freely given[edit]


Proposed by: n/d. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • I like this one very much. --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What is Wikimedia? Sounds nice, maybe too nice to click on it? Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Too ambiguous for new readers? Renata3 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Change "Wikimedia" to "[Project]" --Cybercobra 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious[edit]

We need your help[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Maybe drop the "We need your", so it's just "Help keep it going."? Philippe (WMF) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • either way - I like both phrases. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • good. Lvova 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Good. Suggest rewording "This website is changing the world. Do your part. Donate today." Renata3 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice appeal. --Cybercobra 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit the World[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

One small step[edit]


Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Poetic and bold. Maybe remove "That's", and it would be even broader. User:Ocaasi 09:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly a rather tired message, though? Perhaps with some tweaking - "That's one small donation for man, one giant gift to mankind"? Mike Peel 21:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "man" and "mankind" is the same thing, it should be "a man". Gender neutral terms would be better tho: all white, all male, all American won't fly anymore. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t17:48z


Quid pro quo[edit]


Proposed by: Magnus Manske. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Should be tested. 216.38.133.254 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. please not, most won´t understand Till Mletzko (WMDE) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Only on lawiki ;) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. It might get a high number of clicks as a short and intriguing message, but the phrase has a very negative connotation in politics as a synonym backdoor bribery and other unseemly transactions. I'm not a big fan. Ocaasi 06:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Concept good, not so much on wording. Renata3 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Agree with comments 2 & 3. --Cybercobra 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    I thought more people would remember Silence of the Lambs... --Magnus Manske 16:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This is (also) an Italian phrase (qui pro quo), which has a very innocuous meaning but wouldn't be understood in this manner (do ut des would be, it's very common); Ocaasi's comment surprises me, someone should update wikt:en:quid pro quo (looks like w:en:Quid pro quo is more updated on English modern usage). Conclusion: don't expect similar results in different countries... --Nemo 06:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Protect[edit]

Keep it that way[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • I like. --Cybercobra 20:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Preserve the knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
  • This sounds as if WP is the place to do so, or that without WM all would be gone. Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep the information free[edit]


Proposed by: Andre Engels. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Again, our problem with the word "free". Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see a problem with 'free', most people just take it to mean cheap and available, without any conflict. User:Ocaasi 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No Wikipedia[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-20
Comments:

  1. I like this, to the point, but perhaps worth testing where we can choose what age groups we want to target? --Deniz (WMF) 00:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. simple, straight, I like it too. Also, for some reason "wouldn't that be dreadful" sounds very British to me which may not be a bad thing.Theo10011 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like the basis behind this one. Do we really want to user "Wouldn't that be dreadful" though? That's too depressing. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Dreadfully funny. :) I'm all for this one. S8333631 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The day when Wikipedia was down[edit]


Proposed by: Hans Adler. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. I'm not sure of this: first, I don't think that we should be "proud" of our offline-status, second I don't think that many remember that day, and third we are not asking money only for that. But perhaps it may be useful to ask money to improve our servers, although 99,999 % uptime (with new datacentre) is a 2010 goal, if I remember correctly. --Nemo 10:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. My concern would be that a lot of people may not really know what servers are. Even "down" in this context is somewhat computer jargon-y. Mr.Z-man 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ad Free[edit]

Only Ad[edit]


Proposed by: Mario777Zelda. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-22
Comments:

  1. so we're making a promise to have no ads, then asking them to keep that promise? sonia 05:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Not strictly true either: Users place WPs own internal "propaganda" in their own space in boxes labelled "advertisment". Trev M 09:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Not remotely true: multiple fundraising banners are rotated. ~ Ningauble 21:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like it.Theo10011 18:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Untrue statement (though I know what you mean to say). Don't like it for that reason though. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Perhaps a slightly better wording for the first sentence would be "This is the only ad campaign on Wikipedia." Mario777Zelda 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    But this isn't the only "ad campaign" on Wikipedia, either - they do this fundraiser every year. Lexicografía 21:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    That's the point: this annual campaign is the only advertising. Also, the more correct the slogan is, the less catchy it becomes. Mario777Zelda 23:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sadly, people today are incredibly quick to notice when something said by an organization or public figure is untrue — so banners that WM uses must be true. Lexicografía 23:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Not supportive. Repeatedly we have said Fundraising banners was no ads. We are not in the position to make a promise - That if Wikipedia will be ever ad-free, it'll be decided by the community in future and in each time, not us in 2010. --Aphaia 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just kidding[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

I dont think its funny to even joke about ads, the idea has been thrown around so much I dont think a lot of community member will see the humor in it. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Seems like a touchy area to me. Philippe (WMF) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
+1 --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • no. Many will not see the humor Anthere

Not an Ad[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? 16 September 2010. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-09
Comments:

  1. Yes I think this is an important point to get across.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, I think it is important to point out the no-ads-all-donations-character. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Might be very nice! Effeietsanders 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Heh (I love it). --Aphaia 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Dislike. I thought we weren't going to use "Threat of a future-advertisement here." type-ads, or however these were eloquently described before. Quiddity 22:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. It looks like an ad: it is one. Bad one. I-20the highway 22:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Not sure we can promise to never have an ad, either. GorillaWarfare 00:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yuck, an ad[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Yet another take on the no-ads theme. Lexicografía 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Heh. I like this kinda joke, but no so much as to have it on the top. --Aphaia 19:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. would work... --Smihael 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fast removal[edit]


Proposed by: Train2104. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

  1. Only if this is true — and the "no more banners" theme is getting pretty overworked. Lexicografía 22:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks different[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Like this one too.Theo10011 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. This is good. S8333631 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I don't like it. Too colloquial – does not go well with the formal tone of WP articles, etc. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm not opposed to the tone. :) I think there's value in writing that's different in a defined way, because it calls your attention to it. Philippe (WMF) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I think dropping the "Yeah" would help, but otherwise I like this one. Gigs 00:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like this one (although I agree with Gigs that the "Yeah" should be dropped) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This looks promising. May be worth testing. Hans Adler 14:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. In general I like the message, but it uses "it" three times with no explicit antecedent for any of them, which bothers me slightly, but could be confusing for people with poor English skills. Mr.Z-man 21:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How to keep Wikipedia ad-free[edit]


Proposed by: Bejinhan. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. This presents the whole ad-free message in a concise manner. Bejinhan talks 05:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ads[edit]


Proposed by: sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Please don't... --Yair rand 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No "no ads" banners.--OsamaK 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If I saw this, I'd avoid the area and not donate out of sheer anger. I HATE these types of adds. Sven Manguard 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Goals[edit]

Available everywhere[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Every day? GorillaWarfare 00:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Here for you[edit]


Proposed by: User:Emijrp. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments

  • I like the first part, but the second sentence doesn't quite resonate for me. Philippe (WMF) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the idea. Agree that the end could be more effective; maybe just 'Donate today'. Also, 'try' is kind of soft maybe 'want to be here for you' is a little more positive. User:Ocaasi 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not convinced. Spiritia 10:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Philippe. --Cybercobra 20:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

City free[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

A contest among cities? Might work in competitive countries... User:Elitre

Someone in city[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Yes... so what? :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, it needs a call to action. Maybe, Together, you can keep the project thriving." Ocaasi 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

City $$[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Not sure how robust our geo-tracking integration is, but this kind of competitiveness can be fun and effective, especially if it is tied to easily available or publicized lists which track donations by region. Potentially there could be a prize for the city with the highest total/highest per-capita donations. Ocaasi 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Would be interesting to test. But no core values/messages, just appeal to competitiveness... Renata3 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh, I like... Although, like Ocaasi said, how accurate would the "You know you can beat that, [City]" part be? If it got my city wrong, I think I would just be a little confused. And then again, if it got it right, I might be a little creeped out. GorillaWarfare 00:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How about "do more than most for others"? 71.198.176.22 22:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reach that goal[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

I like the idea to communicate a vision. Even though a little bit wordy. Maybe without "on the planet" Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, lose that. Plus I don't think "single" is needed either. With those words removed I support this banner. --Bodnotbod 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
+1 --Cybercobra 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe make it "a world in which everyone is given free access to all knowledge"? Orionist 12:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Build the biggest[edit]


Proposed by: [[Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)]]. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • we already have, haven't we? at least in our core markets and languages --Jan eissfeldt 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe change it to "together we're building..."? Orionist 12:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

26 from Sue's goals list and overlooked esoterica[edit]

General Comments

I'm sorry, I don't find any of those banners compelling. They list very specific goals such as offline editing, which are of course important for us, but most of the readers a) don't know what this is about, and b) don't care. The banner text should be a slogan, a short (emotional) appeal, which everyone (or at least many readers) understand. Not something specific you'd have to explain in detail for people to understand. Just my $0.02, --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately agree. They're just too insider-y and technical for most readers to understand or care about. Good idea, though. I do like the goal motif: maybe some of these can be rephrased to be more attractive to a wider audience. User:Ocaasi 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Given the fact that the best performing banners have been generally surprising to most everyone, I hope they are all measured. If it were easy to predict what inspires people to give then there would be fewer poor people. 71.198.176.22 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm coming around on these. They are very concrete and specific. Some people might find that direct and appealing. Worth testing. Might also benefit from a link to the full goal list on the landing page. Ocaasi 06:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of these are definitely good, but others are too confusing or uninteresting to most donors. I think it would definitely be smart to test some of the ones that we think are the most specific/most obviously impact and help donors and readers. Cbrown1023 talk 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not test all of them instead of assuming that any of us has the ability to read donor minds? With more than 2.5 millions impressions a day for the tests that are currently running at only four at a time, they could all be tested with a very high level of certainty in less than an hour. 71.198.176.22 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No. This simply isn't true. The math doesn't work. For a banner test to be really relevant we need to see about 150 donations as a result of it. We simply haven't been able to do that on banners that weren't the Jimmy appeal, and certainly not within an hour. Even with that aside, there are other considerations (hours spent creating them, checking the test for flaws, checking the designs so that we don't run broken banners, creating UTM tracking, etc) than the sheer number of pageviews served, which is - as I already pointed out - a flawed analysis. Philippe (WMF) 02:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of these could be rewritten to be more interesting, but even I don't care about a few. Woohoo, math rendering. Mr.Z-man 22:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter note: this and the following 25 banners were derived from Sue's list of goals plus some items which have been overlooked -- originally they were intended as earmark suggestions, but I realized just now that they work just as well for banners.
  1. Significantly too technical for the majority of editors, I'd say. Same goes for some of the others here. GorillaWarfare 00:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter comment: esoteric sure, but worth testing. People on the internet often love esoteric tech that they might not understand at first.
  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter comment: I know this might seem esoteric, but it does have a visceral factor which most of our text-based projects do not, and could be very attractive to visually-oriented learners.
  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  • submitter comment: don't hate the math geeks, they occasionally help out :-)
  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...



Proposed by: James Salsman. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-05
Comments:

  1. ...

Inspiring[edit]

Above and Beyond[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-18
landing page with 10 year anniversary noteComments:

  1. This is trademarked, also there's no ask in it, we've found that banners which say 'support us' or 'donate now' result in a better conversion rate. --Deniz (WMF) 00:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. sounds......presidential, something thats used in speech, too vague to have any association with Wikipedia, only suggests growth nothing else.Theo10011 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OAU/AAB[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-18
landing page with 10 year anniversary noteComments:

  1. Where are we going?Theo10011 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Places.  ono  02:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Been there, done that.;) Theo10011 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. LOL Theo. Anyway, isn't this slogan already trademarked somewhere? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dare to Know[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. This one is great.  ono  22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like this one, even though I'm not sure whether people are expecting a donation page to pop up :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Hey, "Stay curious" worked ;). I was surprised at that one getting the most clicks last week.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Good! V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. If you know, there is no more need for Wikipedia :) Otherwise, it doesn't look like a donation link, but rather to some kind of competition. Effeietsanders 10:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    Eh, it worked for "Stay curious", so worth a shot, I think.  fetchcomms 03:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Like it. Ocaasi 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Positive (after the results of "Stay Curious") Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support. Very nice. Paulmnguyen 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pretty good. --Cybercobra 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Everyone loves a dare, right? PrincessofLlyr 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. I love it. Simple and sharp. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Awesome, support. Anna Lincoln 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Not making me want to donate. Will probably make me stay on Wikipedia longer though. Anya 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. I love this but it wouldn't make me donate anything. Mr. R00t Talk 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  14. Approve. Chzz 00:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  15. I love this one, it leads you in, and most people would want to click, thinking it was a random article banner. --WolfnixTalk • 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    So far our tests have shown that drawing a person in with a intriguing banner does not lead to them donating once they arrive at the landing page. To make that conversion from clicking to donating, there needs to be an 'ask' in the message. --Deniz (WMF) 00:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  16. I do not support this suggestion. though i like it very much, it feels out of character with the survey and focus group results because: it is vague and does not clearly state an ask, which seemed to be most preferred. Philippe (WMF) 23:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Be 1 in XXX[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

'On landing page: today, xxxxxx people will use Wikipedia and 1 out of every YYYYYY will donate to support our community. You can be one of them.'
Note: This is great, we should play with it a bit, something along the lines of "only 1 in XXXX donate" or "your $__ donation supports bandwidth for XXXX people" --Dgultekin 22:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I really like the "your $____ donation provides bandwidth/access to XXXX people" Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we really say that? Sounds like very thin ice to me. But I do like the concretion of the donation. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • How big is X? This only works for large X. MER-C 02:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, Comscore calls it 388 Million unique viewers per month. So assuming they're evenly divided out, we can call that about 13 million per day. I'll ask Megan to post here with the total number of donors we have in an average month, because I don't have that number at my fingertips, though I probably should. Philippe (WMF) 21:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ehm, wut? I dont get it. Effeietsanders 10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Makes me think: "why don't these other XXX pay?" Basvb 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. For the 2009 fiscal year, we had an average of 21,782 donations/month (~726/day). Obviously that number is much higher for fundraising months but that's the yearly average. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
    • so, the ratio is 388,000,000 / 21782, or roughly 1:18,000,000. Philippe (WMF) 00:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. combined with additional information on the landingpage, it would be worth a shot. I would like to test that one in Germany aswell. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I might be a bit late to comment, but I am not sure about this one. I know the intention is not this but I think it undermines a benefactors contribution, its not saying that you are "special" unless they see the landing page. if someone sees it randomly they would assume that the message is saying that we don't value individuality.Theo10011 07:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Campaign[edit]

Wiki now Wiki later[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Don't know if this is correct english but in dutch it sais: "wiki nu, wiki straks". Other version: Use Wikipedia now, use Wikipedia later. Mvg, Basvb 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure if this really suggests anything. It sounds more to me like asking people to edit than donate. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To attract non-financial contributions.

Powered by volunteers[edit]


Proposed by:  – mike@meta:~$ . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Too back-alley robbery "your life or your wallet". Suggest rewording: "Meta is powered by volunteers and your donations" Renata3 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do like the option -- to edit or to donate. GorillaWarfare 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not perfect[edit]


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-14
Comments:
Whether "or press 'edit'" should be there is open for discussion. Effeietsanders 09:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. I think these banners should also try to get people to edit and improve Wikipedia this I like the press edit bit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. This sounds too indirectly negative or demanding. (If you don't like it, do it yourself!") — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. No; I dislike code/showing the insides of Wikipedia. Let's keep the donate message simple. No options, just $$$. Chzz 03:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like these. 71.198.176.22 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

One small edit[edit]


Proposed by: Ktr101. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • To me, this seems to conflate edits with donations. Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It does, but maybe effectively. User:Ocaasi 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the end of it is missing something: ... and be the chage you want to see in the world! ?
Sounds like a good idea to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Us vs. you[edit]

Help us help you.[edit]


Proposed by: CobraWiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. As I mentioned above, us/them/you dichotomy is probably bad. See my previous comments. Gigs 00:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We provide the knowledge, you the funding?[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Grammatically correct? Mvg, Basvb 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I'd just add in a second provide, "we provide the knowledge, you provide the funding" I like the flow, but worry that it's a bit 'we' vs. 'you'--Deniz (WMF) 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Grammatically it's, "We provide the knowledge. You provide the funding." using either a period or semicolon. "Will you provide" would be more appropriate since it's a question. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Like some of the previous banners, creating a dichotomy between "editor" and "patron" is probably a bad idea. The people who are donating are probably those who at least have made small edits in the past. We shouldn't challenge the nascent self-identity of the person right as we ask them to affirm their commitment to the success of the project by donating money. We want to affirm that they are the kind of person that supports Wikipedia, they are the kind of person that would make a donation. Gigs 00:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Gigs and Deniz. We should absolutely avoid this. The same for #Help us help you.. --Nemo 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Community[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-06
Comments:

  1. Oh, no, wikicommunity may be a horrible place, sorry. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't get it. Also "give us some money" is not the nicest way to ask, is it? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sort of based after a radio slogan. Doesn't sound too good to me after another few read-throughs.  fetchcomms 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. No. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. We are inclusive. We wish our readers join us. No us verses them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. I agree.--Bodnotbod 11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Long. Complicated. Worth a test though. Effeietsanders 09:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I don't like the message; it's not clear enough. I don't think it's worth a test. It might, however, be good inspiration for similar messages. :) The underlying idea is nice. Nihiltres(t.u) 19:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. This sounds like something a fakey mobster would use to advertise his protection racket. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. The Wikipedia community chiefly serves for the purpose of managing Wikipedia articles; it is not the Chinese Communist Party in that it should freely disregard any and all outside pressure and influence. MuZemike 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Way too wordy and somewhat demanding. "Give us money." — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Give us support? Still a forceful statement --Deniz (WMF) 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Yeah, too pushy. Gigs 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Too complicated. Keep in mind the ADD crowd. Sven Manguard 02:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. Sorry, I don't like this one. It seems to make everything about money whether a community or the "world" thats against the principles of an open and free encyclopedia. Theo10011 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Some give their time[edit]


Proposed by: Sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Not sure how I feel about this. It kind of makes me feel like only experts are editing, which is intimidating. Maybe discouraging for potential new editors? Megan Hernandez (WMF)

Well, a lot of us who are certainly not experts expend huge amounts of time fighting vandalism/clerking/finding sources as I do. What I meant to make clear was that there are three ways to give: time, knowledge, money- and any of the three is most appreciated. sonia 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I really like the three-way-approach - even though the call for action is a little bit cautious. It would be interesting if that light approach would work (maybe with a synonym for expertise?). Till Mletzko (WMDE) 11:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "knowledge" would be more universal and less intimidating? sonia 01:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Humor[edit]

All our knowledge are belong to you[edit]


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-21
Comments:

  1. I'm not sure on the wording, punctuation and line breaks, but the general idea should be clear. Lexicografía 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    Well, you are trying to use "all your bases are belong to us", which is unnecessary. you can use it generally considering the next 2 lines.Theo10011 18:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. People not familiar with Internet memes won't get it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 19:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    Most people have at least heard of the "all your base are belong to us" phrase, even if they don't know exactly what it means or where it comes from. Lexicografía 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    I'd actually bet a good deal of what little I own that most people haven't heard of that phrase, and those who haven't will probably assume we don't even know basic grammar and not donate. Mario777Zelda 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    Nobody over about 30 would get it at all, and may even think it's a grammatical error. 178.102.96.209 18:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. "Allowed" is the totally wrong terminology here; it's a call for funding, not legal help. 178.102.96.209 18:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I agree, to people who don't recognize the meme, it will look like a grammatical error. Furthermore "allowed to stay online" sounds like we're trying to keep someone from pulling the site offline. GorillaWarfare 23:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tennis-related[edit]


Proposed by: 72.83.94.104. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-21
Comments:

  1. That is really creative, congratulations CnkALTDS 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. We don't have the ability to serve banners related to a particular topic, unfortunately. :( Philippe (WMF) 21:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like it. Just Deuce. Your serve. is snappier. Anywhere'll do, Philippe Trev M 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I am not sure about the terminology, why tennis?, why not football or golf, seems irrelevant. "Deuce" might not be a good term to start a banner.Theo10011 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Haha. Creative indeed. I also like Trev M's shortened version. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I imagine that for a very large population "deuce" calls to mind card games first rather than tennis. ~ Ningauble 12:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    Am I the only one who is thinking of all the double entendres associated with the word "Deuce", have a look here for yourself. Among some of the connotations associated with the term are- a name for the devil, a DUI, a red light district in New york city, Harley- davidson model of motorcycle, a machine gun etc. all of which is amongst the most common euphemism for "Number 2" and that is not counting similar sounding homophone "douche". Most of that usage might be US centric but its worth pointing out.Theo10011 19:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Non-tennis players will wonder why you are talking about feces. Gigs 00:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. I like it personally but not buy. 1) It wouldn't work if you are not familiar with tennis. 2) Hard to translate. In many languages serve in this context can be strongly connected to tennis and only. If not, it could be connect to a sort of demanding humiliation (serve - servant association). OTOH for English speakers, it might work. --Aphaia 08:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

we want to wiki with your money[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. I'm not sure what this means? Perhaps some further explanation? Philippe (WMF) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Lost in translation maybe?Theo10011 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. You want to do what with my money? Shame on you! LOL Seriously though, I just don't like the sound of this one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Donating allowed[edit]


Proposed by: Basvb. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. 'Donations allowed' would be better in English, I think. - Andre Engels 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Andre. Made me grin. Nice laid back way of inviting those kind of people. A bit too short: maybe as the link for one of the other banners not so clear about its solicitation? Trev M 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I don't think it works as well in english, "not donating also allowed".Theo10011 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Thank goodness! I was afraid I would get in trouble for donating! LOL — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hungry?[edit]


Proposed by: Rock drum (talk·contribs). On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
I have adapted this from my previous banner, Food of the Soul.
Comments:
a

  1. I think it's too vague - I would not know what to expect when clicking this. - Andre Engels 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. My reaction is to argue rather than to feel responsive. Trev M 10:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. the previous phrase should have been "food for the soul" not "of the soul", I think its a bit clichéd.Theo10011 18:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I do like this one better than the ones mentioning a soul. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Where's the real "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Warm fuzzies cost extra[edit]


Proposed by: Ragesoss. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-24
Comments:

  1. Nice.Theo10011 05:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't get it. Lexicografía 14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    the warm fuzzy feeling!! you know the one you get when you contribute for the first time or are rewarded for it. it can just be the warm fuzzy feeling of finding what you were looking for.Theo10011 18:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    It's probably a bit hard to understand for en<2 speakers. Also, isn't that colloquial? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    It's definitely colloquial. I like it. Lots of advertising appeals to common language; I think that's okay, even though our article-prose aspires to something somewhat higher. Ocaasi 03:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Again I don't get it. I love warm fuzzy feeling but it doesn't associate with an encyclopedia. Also as a member of Transcom, I won't but colloquial ones, because it is hard to translate. --Aphaia 09:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like it! I believe it's the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you donate. Definitely for English projects only though -- I doubt it would translate well... GorillaWarfare 23:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sliced bread[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I don't care for this one. I think the more inspiring ones are better.  ono  02:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. "Since sliced bread" feels very colloquial to me... Philippe (WMF) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I kind of like it, but more in the 'funny' category. For a lot of people, Wikipedia really is that convenient. The phrase is colloquial, because lots of people use that expression, and lots of people use Wikipedia. So it kind of fits...User:Ocassi 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the secret[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Nice. Emijrp 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed Tuesdays[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

could be misconstrued, funnier when it was "the internet will be closed this Tuesday for maintenance". Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. Confuses readers: Is Wikipedia in a financial crises? No, they are doing just fine? Well then, why should I donate? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody clicked hide[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:


Slower and slower[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi, credit to Rd232. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Cute and funny idea of falling over (tripping over) but also could be construed as something getting really old, slow and dying. Theo10011 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. I'm not so sure about this one... Philippe (WMF) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I am not convinced... Anthere
  3. Sounds like Wikipedia is in imminent danger of this... GorillaWarfare 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Admit It[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Clever, but is the PhD demo a little small? Will others get it? Ocaasi 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. ..."never would have finished that report"? Philippe (WMF) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      1. I changed my mind on this one. I read it literally before, but it doesn't matter that most people don't do dissertations, only that the word sounds, aspirational, like something smart people do and therefore the general public might want to be a part of. Also, "Future grads" is a great turn of phrase that brings up all kinds of broad sympathy and appeal. And actual grad students will chuckle that it's true, at the very least as a form of procrastination. Ocaasi 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. A bit provocative. Also, for how many reader might this be true? A tiny minority. Probably --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Too far-stretched. Writing a dissertation does not and probably should not involve Wikipedia. Actually, as a former PhD student I feel a bit offended by the statement. Lecartia 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Even if it might be true, I don't think it'll be appealing: Even wikipedians admit that Wikipedia is not a reliable source which should be cited by academics. So I doubt it'll be that effective. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Too a narrow target, isn't it? Better to say "report" or "homework". --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Could have a certain populist appeal to non-academics in an ironic sense as well, but I doubt it would be effective because in that sense it is not a positive message. ~ Ningauble 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support. If these messages are displayed randomly, I think this one has great potential. I would generalize dissertation to 'paper' or the like (report does not flow as well in English, IMO). Also change to the proper conditional case: "Admit it: without Wikipedia, you would never have finished that paper." Though the sense of the statement is negative, it has a positive result (completion of the work) and the imperative is positive (Donate to keep it free, not "don't let it die" or "Unless you donate, WP will be gone"). Paulmnguyen 17:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. I know it's meant as a joke, but still this one make me feel like I'm being called stupid. As if not for this site I would still be in school and failing all of my knowledge classes such as history. I graduated far before this site went online and did just fine. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. How about replacing "dissertation" and "grads" with "paper" and "students"? Almost every middle-to-high school student I know uses Wikipedia, at least as a reference point for finding other places to look. Lexicografía 19:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Lexicografía's suggestion goes some way to fixing a problem with this (target audience too small) but I don't think students can afford to donate any substantial amount. MER-C 08:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. The word "grads" has no meaning at all in the UK. GrahamColm 08:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Support the Truth[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-12
Comments:

  1. New project-specific suggestion for Wikiquote, with some reservations about negative tone. This is a play on a quote of uncertain origin that may or may not be famous enough for use in non-English Wikiquotes. ~ Ningauble 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. well, we work on validity, not truth --Jan eissfeldt 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Nice one but might be misconstrued if someone is not aware of the quote. Theo10011 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Personally, I wasn't familiar with the underlying quote (thank you, Google). Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it's just better known somewhere else ... dunno, but such quotes are often barely localizable as they are just not equally well-known around the globe. —Pill (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Most readers won't get it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Parents would not be happy; most would not get it.  ono  23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


No such Thing[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Too much of a mouthful. Also: Does "free" mean free licence or no charge. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. "there is no such thing as a free lunch" would be too anglo-centric, and would not be understand in many countries. In Japanese there is no similar expression so it wouldn't be so pithy as its original. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I agree with V85, it's a bit confusing to me, too, because the definition of free in the sense used here is different from that we commonly use (e.g. when we refer to Wikipedia as the free encylopedia"). —Pill (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Not clear enough Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Too complicated. If you use it, limit it to native areas. Effeietsanders 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Make a donation[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Submitted on: 2010-09-08
Comments:

  1. Kinda like the idea. Replace second sentence with something like: "Here is your chance today." Renata3 01:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Prize winner[edit]


Proposed by: <enter your username here>. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

Submitted on: 2010-09-12
Comments:

  1. Not sure about this one. Famous scam tag-line. Theo10011 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Too spammy. I would not even think of contributing at a link like this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I agree - this one feels off message to me. Philippe (WMF) 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, this one provokes too much "I've landed on a crappy website" type of thinking. Courcelles 02:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. It's awful :( Lvova 11:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Must agree, it seems to give the wrong message. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. If I saw this, I'd avoid the area until the pledge drive was over, not donating out of pure anger. I HATE this type of ad. Sven Manguard 02:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

HTML begging[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like it. Heh. Philippe (WMF) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure everyone gets the HTML-like tags. Nice idea, though :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. + Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. What does "free" mean? Free licence or no cost? If it means no cost, we are asking for money for something which is meant to have no cost... V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I always like people that don't take themselves too seriously. I'd give my money based on this message. Anya 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I oppose that one. fundraising is not about begging. it is about convincing people of a great vision and asking them to support it financially. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. ^ sonia 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Not clear what means "free" - no advertisement? Free license? And I've got some criticism why Wikipedia had no advertisement "instead of begging", even i n a very small number. Not sure if it goes well. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Personally I like it, but I don't think "begging" is appropriate approach. The message should be that Wikipedia is valuable and not a homeless person asking for a penny because s/he knows no better. Renata3 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hypochondriacs[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Hate it. I would never donate based on this.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, sadly low-brow humor doesn't work when you're a) dealing with a real disorder and b) asking strangers to give you money User:Ocaasi 07:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. How about something like "the puzzled for Wikipedia. You know you need it to look that up." I like the idea of appealing to the reason many people use Wikipedia: to satisfy their curiosity. The "Stay Curious" banner may be better for this though. Anya 14:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Ocaasi says it all. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't panic[edit]


Proposed by: Theo10011. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like this. I prefer it without "future", though. And I'm not keen on the ellipsis. How about "DON'T PANIC: Your Guide to the Galaxy". --Bodnotbod 14:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Hate it. Not meaningful at all.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. A good joke, but only a minority will get it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Meh. I get the joke but it doesn't make me want to donate. Anya 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I must say I do agree with Anya. Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Homework[edit]


Proposed by: n/d. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Really cute. User:Ocaasi10:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like it too. --Bodnotbod 14:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Decent.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Too pushy --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Appealing to the wrong audience here. Not sure that parents, the actual donors behind the target audience, will appreciate threats against their child's homework. Anya 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. The wrong audience? It is not only kids that have homework, as do students and everybody that has night classes and stuff like that. I like it a lot and it could make me donate a few dollars!
  7. I had the same thought as Anya, and that this may provoke the wrong nerve in educators/parents who are concerned about their pupils relying on Wikipedia. Courcelles 02:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. This is funny, I like it. If people don't donate at least they come back for some more # thumbs up # Serenity.id 09:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. I don't know, I'm not really a fan of the message this one is giving. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Share knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Too 'gimme, gimme'ish.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, it's like a back alley robber: your life or your wallet. Renata3 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Inheritance[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Sounds like "your death will make our day", or did I misunderstand something? :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Don't get it.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
+1 --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Hate it. If I had an inheritance, I'd feel more offended and less wanting to give. If I didn't have an inheritance, I'd be happy to be relieved of all responsibility here. Anya 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Curse jar[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Nah.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. Anya 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. This one was not my cup of tea, even though I do get it. Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Heelllppp!!!![edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Takes too long to get the message. Additionally, I would donate based on this.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. This may actually get me to donate. But that's because I know what's going on behind it.Anya 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I don't get it. sonia 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
  4. Neither do I. Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. No. Sven Manguard 02:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Spill knowledge[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Like BP and oil?  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Both poetic and a bit funny, but perhaps not very good for WP to be compared with BP :) Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Okay I like this one :) --Addihockey10 02:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed until further notice[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Bleh.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. We are not in a financial crisis --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. But we could be if there are no donations. I think this would open up the eyes on people and make them understand that they can't take it completly for granted. Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To donate, or not to donate[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like this one, but can we bold 'to donate'?  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Poetic but no message behind it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. This joke is so old and worn out that it doesn't even make me smile anymore. Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mightier than the sword[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Odd comparison.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Meh. Does not encourage action. Very passive statement. Renata3 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Gotta add the creepy jimbo pic.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. People don't know Jimbo ;) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Hehe! Good fun! Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Insider-fun, but doubt would raise any money even among hardcore Wikipedians. Renata3 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible, Snooki, and Quantum Physics[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I can research the Bible in the Bible, QP in my textbook, etc.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Right, but in one place? Added italics to the 'and' for unitary emphasis. User:Ocaasi 07:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. This is great.--Banana 00:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I lie it. Also, it's probably the best to replace "Bible" with per-language book in translating.. For Arabic and Farsi, it can be Quran, for Hebrew it can be Torah and so on. (Of course, it isn't about endorsing any faith, it will just refer to something people might be interested in checking).--OsamaK 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Love it.......where else can you find a reliable Snooki Bio??? lol.Theo10011 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I like it. I might add "in one place". And also, perhaps link to the articles on the subjects? GorillaWarfare 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

50 years[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. There are several problems with this, but the reference to WP as an encyclopedia about pop culture and tech stuff - big smile.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Love this.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc.
  3. Wonderful! What are the problems? The reference to a commercial product? Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I foresee cultural/translation problems; can't support. --Cybercobra 20:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. great!--Poupou l'quourouce 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like it, but I wonder if we can/should, kind of, 'advertise' iPhone. Any other options?--OsamaK 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. Who knows? Get Apple to sponsor the mention of their product :P Actually, that's a bit close to ads, ain't it? sonia 04:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

CD Player[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-09
Comments:

  1. I might be nitpicking but why a CD payer, I know its supposed to be defunct technologies, but CD's had a decent lifetime along the lines of cassettes, VHS etc., a possible suggestion would be mentioning HD-DVD - much recent so most people would be aware, plus it lost the format-war like Beta.Theo10011 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I really like where this one is going but I agree that CD player is not a good choice as many people still have CD players, even if only in their car. What about cassette tape? But I really like the idea of appealing to parents and getting them to think in terms of their children. --Bodnotbod 11:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Take something which is more important these days, doesn't even have to be sure that it will starve away: car, computer, paper/book, encyclopedia (not that important but might be funny). (like book the most). Mvg, Basvb 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Vinyl/LPs would make much more sense. --Cybercobra 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pick a much older item, one that hasn't been used for several generations and this would work. Nice idea. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I'd say record player or phonograph, something a little farther back. Today's youth do actually use CD players, believe it or not...Lexicografía 21:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The point is that CD players will probably be obsolete when today's youth grows up, not that they're obsolete today. Jon Harald Søby 21:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  7. Or the cynic version "How else will your children know what a cow is?". --88.130.160.172 10:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support, suggest reword 2nd to "Make sure Wikipedia is there for the next generation" Chzz 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. I mostly like it and agree with Chzz, lets emphasize the next generation without implying a future where the only way to find knowledge will be Wikipedia. My76Strat 03:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  10. I agree, we need to show that Wikipedia is the future, not the only way to the past. (Betamax anyone?) --WolfnixTalk • 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[Donating] does not hurt[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

[2]

Against "traditional" knowledge[edit]

Dead-tree books, libraries and school.

Save on books[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like this one. I think it may be better to say "think of all the money you've saved on books". That said, I'm not sure how happy the publishing industry will be about us boasting we stop people buying books. There could be a companion banner; "think of all the time you've saved".--Bodnotbod 13:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. We don't want our readers to stop reading books ;) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I totally oppose this! "Think of all the money you'll save on videogames, cellphones, tech gadgets, cable TV etc. if you spend your time editing" would be better. :-p --Nemo 08:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Trip to library[edit]


Proposed by: Sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I could imagine that teachers and librarians will not be fond of this. :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Don't like this; then teachers and librarians would hate WP even more.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. This one's super great. 178.108.62.173 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. We don't want people to stop reading books! --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Hate it in principle but it might work for fundraising. I'd test it at least. Anya 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. Well- I love libraries too. It's just that if I suddenly want to know something it's much easier to flip open my laptop and search Wikipedia than to go to the library. I didn't mean this to be like "libraries are obsolete" or anything. sonia 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      1. So do I, but I have no problem understanding the message and there is a place for both of them. I like it. Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like this one, it's so true. Serenity.id 09:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Could be promising. --Cybercobra 20:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Absolutely not. See #Save on books. "You saved time to make one more trip to the library/to read one more book from your library" would be better. :-p --Nemo 08:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias[edit]


Proposed by: Sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Maybe a cutting down a tree thing...  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. How about just "Help keep us different"? Let the reader's mind fill in the gap about why Wikipedia is different to them. Anya 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. The more I think about it, the more I like the simplicity of that. sonia 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      1. That would be a great version! Jopparn 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Don't like this at all. If you don't donate, Wikipedia will turn into a paper encyclopedia? Also ditches on paper encyclopedias. Renata3 01:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Renata. --Nemo 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. I think that it may work. Emijrp 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Saving on books[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Books are good. Where would we get half our refs?  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. We don't want people to stop reading books! --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Libraries[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

note: c.f. Sonia's entry above

Recommend against this one, on the basis that some Wikimedia partnerships are with libraries. Libraries are more than just a collection of books. ;-) Mike Peel 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia, but I still reserve a special space in my heart for libraries. Megan Hernandez (WMF)
  1. Libraries are not bad, Mhernandez sums up my thoughts.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Church of emacs hasn't commented this yet :-), so I'll remind you that we want people to read more books, not less. --Nemo 08:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Still cheaper than school...[edit]


Proposed by: Kwiki. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Another option is "Cheaper than school" Kwiki 05:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Could be misunderstood as an anti-school statement... Ziko 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like the sentiment, but agree that we are the last people to be anti-school. How about 'still cheaper than your textbooks' --Deniz (WMF) 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. Textbooks- good idea. sonia 10:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. ENGVAR issue on word school: in UK, school refers to 4-18 education, and is free to the user. Kevin McE 06:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. I dont think Wikipedia is considered an alternative to school, more complimentary to it. Libraries would also be cheaper than school which Wikipedia might have more in common with than school.Theo10011 18:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. No. Like others, I also believe it sounds like you're better off not going to school. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. No, we don't offer an alternative of school afaik, and we have no way to prove. Certain individual schools could be run on a smaller budget than WMF's. --Aphaia 08:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. As for book and libraries. --Nemo 09:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Community jokes[edit]

For logged-in editors.

Donation needed[edit]


Proposed by: Cormaggio. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. This is by far my favourite banner of those listed here at the time of writing. I realise it's somewhat of an in-joke but actually I think most people that have used Wikipedia enough to wish to donate will have seen the 'citation needed' template and get this joke. On that basis I would support seeing this banner for even non-logged-in users. I also think we could use the meme with additional content. So, for example, if we use quotes from testimonials, we could put [ donation needed ] in superscript after the quote. I do think that may be risky. Obviously when the [ citation needed ] template is used it tends to cast doubt on the information preceding it; would adding [ donation needed ] mean people associate the testimonials with falsehood? What do people think? --Bodnotbod 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Fantastic idea. :-) This is actually less of an in-joke than you might think. A lot of people now know about [ citation needed ] - it's entered popular culture. It would be fantastic to see how well this one performs. Mike Peel 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, this one is fantastic! - but likely limited to those who have edited before. dgultekin 17:09:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    Aye, I think this would be an interesting one to test on both sides to see the difference. Jalexander 09:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Some WP do not have that template, by the way.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    enwiki, then. like it.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. +1 support. Quiddity 00:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. good. Lvova 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Agree with Bod: "most people that have used Wikipedia enough to wish to donate will have seen the 'citation needed' template". As for the other attempts at humour above, someone will take it the wrong way. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-08t17:55z
  7. Hehe, good fun! Jopparn 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. This one could work surprisingly well, I think. Definitely worth testing. Shimgray 21:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Should be a classic. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Excellent. --Cybercobra 19:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. --Banana 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. I don't think it is THAT obscure. Plus, there's already this. I like it. Allmightyduck 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. That's an awesome one! CharlieEchoTango 08:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. Yes! Simple, funny, gets the point across without clutter and unwanted associations. Translating it might be a bit of a problem; in my native language, just posting "citation needed" without anything preceeding it is gramatically awkward, but for the English Wikipedia at least, it should work well. --Urzică 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation (notice)[edit]


Proposed by: Nihiltres and Ragesoss. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. No, keep focus on donating. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the idea, but the link to "Charitable contribution" is indeed a bit distracting. I'd like to see this tweaked a bit. --Urzică 06:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation (support)[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Landing page will elaborate on the difference between supporting Wikipedia morally or by editing/contributing, and supporting with donations to keep the whole thing running. Of course, will only work for projects where "disambiguation" is used. WillWatershed 01:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Most readers won't get it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Agree with above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I think it's a candidate for logged in users, though. Philippe (WMF) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Would be good for inner circles here, but for general public I agree with CoE also. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. No, sorry, too much of an insider-thing, also too repetitive. Chzz 02:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. I agree, too much of an inside niche with this one, if you didn't know about wiki, you would get a SNAFU look on your face. --WolfnixTalk • 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is a stub[edit]


Proposed by: Ragesoss. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Great. User:Ocaasi 09:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. + Lvova 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Like it. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. --Banana 00:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Awesome. Go with this. Noraft 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Should the link be on "expanding it"? --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. Best one on the page Sumsum2010 23:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  8. I very much like this. I agree with Nemo, though, on the changing the link to "expanding it". GorillaWarfare 23:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Root of all evil[edit]


Proposed by: Ktr101. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Hate it, would not donate.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Too negative. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. What about adding Mwahahahahaha? Kayau WP WB ZHWB WN 12:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sucky internet[edit]


Proposed by: Fetchcomms. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I'm strangely drawn to this one. --Bodnotbod 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Meh.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I think this would work really well on the Swedish language version of Wikipedia. A lot of advertising in Sweden uses humor to sell (according to what I have read, more than what are common in other countries), and this one seems to be in perfect line with that. I dig it. Really. Jopparn 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Meh. I never understood that Jimbo quote. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BRD[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Does this mean being bold, and undoing your donation? :-/ Mike Peel 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Kinda like it (life cycle of WP also includes donating), but I don't like bringing up negative topics (revert wars). Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. You have to have quite a bit of editing experience to get that joke. Hut 8.5 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sixth pillar[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. This is fantastic. I really like it. sonia 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Love it.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. Requires quite a bit of inside knowledge. Maybe if the word "pillar" was linked to the 5 pillars? But then we're probably creating drop off by directing traffic somewhere other than the donations page. Philippe (WMF) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      1. The pillars on the landing page perhaps? Jalexander 09:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
        1. That's a good idea- it not only encourages donating but awareness of what we are about, what we stand for. (Could perhaps play on curiosity a bit more by removing the "donate today"... what do you think?) sonia 08:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          1. The whole 'call to action' thing is a bit of a mystery to me. It is standard practice to include it, but "Stay Curious" blew other banners out of the water. We should probably test a few variations. My hunch is that shorter banners do better with no call to action, but longer banners might benefit from the subtle push. I partly worry that people won't know what they're getting into and that short banners result in good click-through but lower conversions (donations) from those clicks. Curiosity is great, if it leads to donations, but it also implies that the reader doesn't quite know what they're being led to, which might not be ideal for a fundraiser. Then again, a good landing page might do wonders, and could turn mere curiosity into an impulse to donate. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 04:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. good. Lvova 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
              1. It's true that "Stay Curious" blew others out of the water as far as clickthroughs. What it did NOT do, though, is motivate people to donate. There are a number of potential factors, of which the most likely is the landing page. But let's be careful not to correlate clickthroughs with conversions, where conversion = donation. Philippe (WMF) 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Like it, maybe reworded, but keeping the pillar and linking to the other 5. User:Elitre

IAR[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Heh, but meh.  ono  02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I really like it! Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. This one seems pretty good for logged-in users. It obviously shouldn't be used for other users. Nihiltres(t.u) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. I don't understand this. --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

COI[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

OWN (can)[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

OWN (do)[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like. Philippe (WMF) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Have my reservations about introducing confusion. So I paid to have my article, why you delete it? Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Please avoid this (and the previous one), per Renata. --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

MOS[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Funny, but no. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure that editors like MOS. --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

BEANS[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I chuckled. sonia 08:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice. --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. LOL! I like it, but obviously needs to be targeted to logged-in editors. Lexicografía 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Ahaha, very much like. Definitely has to be logged-in editors only, though. And perhaps link to the page, just in case. GorillaWarfare 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTFREE[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Is it about 'you should pay for work in wikipedia'? Oppose. Lvova 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. It was supposed to be a play on WP:NOT, which is a policy about all the things that are excluded from the encyclopedia (like travel recommendations), but in this form it doesn't quite make sense and also is bad for branding, since free is a good thing that we want associated with Wikipedia. Maybe WP:NOTCHEAP would do it better.Ocaasi 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MONEY[edit]


Proposed by: Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. This one made my eyes cross. Philippe (WMF) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I think you went just a bit too far with the inside references on this one. Theo10011 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Prone to misinterpretation by those with a dirty mind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing... ;-) Mike Peel 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    Seconded... >< GorillaWarfare 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't see the point of this one. sonia 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Huh? Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    +1. Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Addiction is free[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1.  :-) Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. MY addiction (by which I mean coffee, of course) isn't free :P Philippe (WMF) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. yeah, my bandwidth is not free. I pay $40 per month to TimeWarner. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Addiction to what? (Insert lots of nasty stuff here.) MER-C 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Our bandwidth. --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. As mentioned previously Addiction is probably not a good word to use on a banner. Theo10011 20:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle, Huggle[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like this. Obviously only en.wiki. --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. en.wb also uses Twinkle. ;-) Anyway, I like this. Kayau WP WB ZHWB WN 12:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]


Proposed by: User:Ocaasi. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

I like this message that puts things into perspective, not sure what it will do for donations though. sonia 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Go away[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. No. I have a visceral reaction to threat-motivations like the "no banners" banners.
  2. Does it actually go away if you donate? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. probably not. sonia 08:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      Yes, when we reach the target. --Nemo 08:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I presume there will be a "hide" button. Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Donation a day[edit]


Proposed by:  ono . On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments: I thought it will be back next year? :) Kayau WP WB ZHWB WN 11:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. Very catchy, I like it. Theo10011 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete the main page[edit]


Proposed by: sonia. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

On landing page: "what have you done???? donate to fix the mess!" :P sonia 08:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Hehe! Let's try to get the wicked ones to open their wallets. It is worth a try! Jopparn 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Funny concept :) Renata3 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Very much like. GorillaWarfare 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

48[edit]


Proposed by: Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-12
Comments:

  1. not exactly the emotional instrument we should work with. if you interpret it according to the word => well.. and the ironical version seems unsure to me by cultural standards --Jan eissfeldt 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. sounds sleazy and......wrong.Theo10011 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. hehehehhe, just a joke. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Wrong connotation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Bad idea. Courcelles 02:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. No. I don't think any parent would want their child finding this on the Main Page. Wackywace 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Book stub[edit]


Proposed by: Kayau. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Freely share [Donation needed][edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-21
Comments:

  1. I like this, but will the average user get it? Lexicografía 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    We can target this to logged-in users only --Deniz (WMF) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    Even among contributors, one might wish the vision statement were more widely recognized. A greater proportion of contributions might be on-target.  ;-) ~ Ningauble 21:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Probably not good to remind people of one of the worst features of Wikipedia, when asking them for money. Gigs 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I don't like it because of length and visible complexity. The shorter alternative would work better. --Aphaia 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The free [Donation needed] encyclopedia[edit]


Proposed by: Ningauble. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-21
Comments:

  1. Again this one is community centric. New users would read it as "the donation needed encyclopedia". Theo10011 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the phrasing. I don't like "Donation needed" as a subscript thrown in there. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Hilarious. I agree anonnotice should avoid it. --Aphaia 09:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. I think the superscipt detracts from a powerful message here. sonia 04:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Playing with our reputation[edit]


Proposed by: Hans Adler. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

  1. Not bad, I think better for logged-in users. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 16:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Mmm... I'm not so sure. It implies that Wikipedia is accurate reliable, which is something that we've tried to warn that we're not. GorillaWarfare 00:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I agree with GW. Kayau WP WB ZHWB WN 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Informative[edit]

Newly Submitted Banner[edit]


Proposed by: User:GoEThe. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-16
Comments:

  1. Landing page could have a brief history of the site with the core politics, why it needs donation to keep running and a link to the donation page. GoEThe 08:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • A "brief" history of the site with core politics? I'm worried that could be a small encyclopedia in and of itself. I don't think we can do that in 3 paragraphs :) Philippe (WMF) 21:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like the informative banners, but I agree that there's no way it could be fit into a readable landing page. Perhaps how is Wikipedia free? --Deniz (WMF) 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    I was thinking of something on the lines of the five pillars or the Wikimedia values. Short and to the point. But your suggestion would also work, I think. GoEThe 12:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Nice idea, but the answer would be far too long and un-interesting for a donation landing page. Plus theres no mention of donating, supporting or sharing.Theo10011 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Where's the real "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Charity[edit]


Proposed by: effeietsanders. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-14
Comments:
Might be an option to replace "money" with "you". Effeietsanders 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. I like this one. But we have to replace "money" with "you". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like this, but I second replacing money with you. To the point and informative.--dgultekin 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Love it. Gets non-profit point across. Renata3 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. +1, Till Mletzko. Ziko 14:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Something about 'donate now' is too urgent. I think 'donate today' is less imposing. Otherwise I like it as a direct appeal. Ocaasi 04:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like it, I think we should test it tomorrow as:
  7. Sometimes simple and direct is best. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Charities run on money. --Cybercobra 04:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
{{SITENAME}} is run by a charity. Charities are run by you.
Please donate

Jalexander 04:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but "donate today" sounds better than plain old donate or donate now. NW (Talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Jalexander's with NWs suggestion I like. Also try with "Donations allowed" suggested as a banner on its own, a few down. See what the relative response is. Trev M


Creative commons[edit]


Proposed by: Doc James. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: yes.

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Most people don't know what "Creative Commons" is and you can't explain it in a small banner --Church of emacs talk · contrib 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We could change it to "public domain" However I have also explained it "This means it belongs to all of us" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not in the public domain. (At least, not most of it.) That it "belongs to all of us" doesn't explain CC well and is very vague. Air belongs to all of us, because it is a public good. Wikipedia is not.  fetchcomms 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect "Creative Commons" is a trademark... Philippe (WMF) 01:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Creative Commons is not a trademark. Yes agree "belongs to all of us" is more public domain than creative commons but the "commons" do belong to all of us as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure about that?  fetchcomms 03:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. I wouldn't use the word "edit" for something That is asking for donations. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Maybe target this to non-logged in users, and link "edit" to Special:CreateAccount? Lexicografía 22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. I love to see encouragement but afraid it's ambiguous. Does it "belong" to us? And who are we in this context? Wikipedia content does not for example belong to WMF, at least it has states for years afaik ("not publisher but internet provider logic"). --Aphaia 15:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. No, Wikipedia != Creative Commons Chzz 03:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Where your money goes[edit]


Proposed by: Seb az86556. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Yep. Good art could make this really compelling. Philippe (WMF) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. This could be misinterpreted that Wikipedia is written by a paid staff instead of volunteers. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Of these three, I prefer the second one the most. Church's argument is good. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Could end up pointing to: "E. Midy proved a general result about such fractions, now called Midy's theorem, in 1836. The publication was obscure, and it is unclear if his proof directly involved 0.999..., but at least one modern proof by W. G. Leavitt does. If one can prove that MIDY IS A FAG of the form 0.b1b2b3... is a positive integer," —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandré du Toit (talkcontribs) 17:22, 8 September 2010
  5. I love it. It conveys a very clear message - "your own money makes realize what you have now". --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. What if the article is vandalized, spam, a one sentence stub or has other egregious problems? MER-C 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Too confusing. What about when I'm looking at an article on Médecins Sans Frontières? Effeietsanders 09:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. It's a good attempt, but I agree with others; it's rather a hostage to fortune... we could end up with those arrows pointing to stuff we wish they hadn't and find screenshots going viral that show, for example, [BANNER] above "prostitution" or "drug trafficking" or any evil you care to name. --Bodnotbod 11:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Good point Bodnotbod. That would be damning. Wiki has enough potholes to avoid without us providing the rope (mixed metaphor!). Ocaasi 20:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Good ... until it backfires, and somebody looks at an article with a myriad of issues (or perhaps saw something that is not in line with their beliefs). MuZemike 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Very "to the point" though the wording sounds like your money may pop up on the screen... if only you could reach into your monitor and grab it! Also, let's hope that it doesn't appear above the pages about toilets or drains... particularly having those "down" arrows! LOL — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Very straight I like it. KuwarOnline Talk 08:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  13. I like all three of these, but my concern is the same as others': What if this banner appears over something negative (hate crime, persecution, homophobia, etc. etc.) and Wikipedia gets bashed because of it? Lexicografía 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    1. Negative words accompanied - good point. So how about removing the arrow, but saying, e.g. "Wikipedia: where your money goes"? --Aphaia 06:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  14. I believe that this is the best of the ones in this section. I might even bold the arrows. Sven Manguard 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  15. This would be outstanding if we could make it not appear on certain pages– I could see this backfiring if a user saw this on the IRS page, just as an example. Nomader (Talk) 04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  16. I like this and the related ones, but I also think they won't work (and will sound pretty odd) when displayed on controversial or bad written pages. Also, imagine it above such a page as "The Holocaust": not a pleasant match. User:Elitre
  17. Nice idea, but yes, we need to be very careful which pages it appears on. It wouldn't look too hot on en:toilet either :-S I think that, given the technical problems, this probably can't be used. If it was, it would have to be 'only on a certain set of articles checked' - probably most FA or GA would work, with a bit of careful removals. But it's probably too much hassle, sadly. Great idea, probably not feasible. Chzz 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Result of your donation[edit]


Proposed by: Seb az86556. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. good. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. See above. MER-C 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. What if I'm looking at an article on holocaust? Effeietsanders 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Like others in the previous banner it can sound negative if looking at a negative page. If it could be placed only on the featured page then maybe. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. These kind of banners are a disaster waiting to happen. People will vandalize pages just to take funny screenshots of the arrows pointing toward something racist or stupid. Gigs 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. The one directly above is better, more plain, more compelling. Sven Manguard 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. I like this and the related ones, but I also think they won't work (and will sound pretty odd) when displayed on controversial or bad written pages. Also, imagine it above such a page as "The Holocaust": not a pleasant match. User:Elitre
  8. As above....
↓ The result of your donation
Comunism
...and so on. Chzz 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. You spelled Communism wrong, but I agree with the point. Although darkly humorous, it is not the type of scenario we want to portray. GHarshfield 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Donation at Work[edit]


Proposed by: Seb az86556. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. Out of the three I like this one the best. Not sure why. Anya 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. I like this third one the best. It's more graceful than "The result of your donation." WillWatershed 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Fine, but a bit hard to translate I'm afraid. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You raise a very good point here, Aphaia. Maybe we should be clear that what we're asking for is not necessarily translation, but localization. If there are words that work more clearly to make the point, you should feel free to substitute them. Philippe (WMF) 15:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Point taken, but then you give us in translation another headache. Last year we got complaints from translators who claimed the originally proposed phrases made no sense and sound rather ridiculous. Translation is a creative act, but translators are not PR staff. If they should take so too much time to coin a new phrase as to put aside other necessary works to do in a limited time, I'd rather give them a room to decline intransferrable. There would be many materials besides that. Again puns are not translated, you can just create something similar in its effect. In this case, I'd rather love to decline simply, if I were asked for Japanese: In Japanese its equivalent is literally "in construction" - and often showing agent is thought as simply rude and aggressive. "localization" of ideas are not simple, what you like could be disgusting in another context. If you think it seriously, I'd rather recommend you to do it not only in English, even at this stage. It takes a time to think out this kind of stuff. --Aphaia 06:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it is perfectly ok for languages and projects to say "this just won't work here". Same reason we also want suggestions for specific banners that will only work (or are designed for) specific languages and projects. We may have a ton of campaigns running at once but are more then happy to do that. It would be preferred to NOT have a lot of just straight 'translation' requests for banners local specific banners are generally better. Jalexander 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. See above. MER-C 01:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Less dangerous, but still: what about when you're looking at an article on... Effeietsanders 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. I really like the sound of this one. It's not implying positives or negatives toward the current article so much. Again, though, this slogan sounds like it would fit better on the main page only. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Not the best in the series, the one two above is better. Sven Manguard 02:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. I like this and the related ones, but I also think they won't work (and will sound pretty odd) when displayed on controversial or bad written pages. Also, imagine it above such a page as "The Holocaust": not a pleasant match. User:Elitre
  9. Same problems as mentioned in previous. Also confusing text, sounds like I'm donating at work. Sorry. Chzz 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

US v India[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  • Hm, and that depends on the donated money? Maybe I didn't get it.Ziko 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There would need to be some explanation on the landing page. The idea is that with more money we can do a more effective job with caching centers, things like that, to improve performance around the world. Philippe (WMF) 23:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      I like it (it's better than references to kids in the developing world and so on), but I would use it only if it's actually in our annual plan. I thought that only Virginia data centre was. --Nemo 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite the approximate truth of this, I think most people are unpersuaded by comparisons between haves and have-nots. More importantly, most users probably don't even know India has a Wiki. I think it's better to excite users about the expanding nature of the project, and to view places like India as unrealized growth rather than suffering laggards. Ocaasi 06:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Time/volunteers[edit]


Proposed by: CoreyOMP. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:


Everyone Using[edit]


Proposed by: WillWatershed. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Comments:

  1. I like where this one is going. Donors like to see their gift as part of a big total. Ocaasi 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Maybe change "that buys a lot of server space", though. sonia 10:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. It's bad idea. There are many countres where 25$ for charity for one man are too many, and $XX,XXX,XXX will be reason not to take part of. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Bad idea, since iirc WMF has said that server space is no big problem and no sole one for years. --Aphaia 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. It can probably be effective to admonish folks that that small donations make a big difference, but I think it would need to be more succinct. ~ Ningauble 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Server space isn't nearly as inspiring a thought as spreading the sum of all human knowledge for free throughout the world :) Jebus989 19:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Is it even possible to determine reliably how many users are on a Wikimedia page at any given time? Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. An interesting idea... but only useful if there is already a counter in place tracking the number of current visitors of course. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Yea! WikiCopter 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. I agree with Lvova, Aphaia and Jebus989 (and also Ningauble); I'll add that this "what if" doesn't work becau