Requests for comment/Global banners

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

The following request for comments is closed. While consensus does exist in some sections below, this has largely been superseded already. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose of this requests for comment is to gauge the Wikimedia community's views on the use of CentralNotice and global banners in general.

Global banners were originally written for the annual Wikimedia fundraiser. More and more, the global banners are being used for a lot of non-fundraiser-related reasons.

Please feel free to add your view below or support a view that's already been written.

Ban the banners for non-fundraising use[edit]

Global banners should only be used for the annual Wikimedia fundraiser. They should not be used during other times throughout the year for Wikimedia hiring or strategic planning or other similar non-fundraising-related reasons.

  • Support Support --MZMcBride 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support but I would support an amendment to say that annual fundraiser is fine in addition to any other global banner that it put up for meta discussion/approval/notice first. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support or make smaller. They're quite annoying to me, i don't think that 3 words need ~1 inch of space vertically. Pilif12p 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose They are easy enough to hide. J04n 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support - I have clicked "hide" on the current one about six different times. Tiptoety talk 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose well its up to WMF, how they use the banners. They give us the place to breathe and work. Our focus is content, Foundation focus is substatial development. I would not remove from them a chance they can get a help for us.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment Should we not get full page banners instead? And more flash, please! Svippong 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, though global banners should generally be much more space-efficient than they have been recently. If it's a one-line message, can't it just be the height of one standard line? --Yair rand 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: I dispute they were created solely with fundraisers in mind; they can also serve to disseminate essential notifications and information widely. However, their over-use and mis-use has already severely harmed their usefulness/effectiveness, as well as caused deep-seated resentment in some wiki communities. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it is reasonable to use CentralNotice for more than just the fundraiser. That said, the template staff are so fond of using is simply unacceptable. It must be much smaller and much less obtrusive, and it should be used less frequently.  – mike@meta:~$  22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Really, it's not that big of a deal. Use the dismiss button or CSS them out of existence if you don't like them. There are plenty of valid non-fundraiser reasons to use global banners. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Unless they make it easier to hide them and make them stay hidden, use them more sparingly, make a better attempt to avoid showing them to audiences for which they are irrelevant. Tisane 23:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose CentralNotice is also very useful in other Wikimedia-related situations - like stewards elections or notice for all Polish projects about national Wikimedia Conference. LeinaD (t) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Just hide them if you find them annoying. Also, my understanding is that using global banners for Foundation job openings has not been and will never be standard operating procedure. Steven Walling (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment, there are valid uses other than fundraisers (so I can't support the proposal) but the banners are being over used currently (so I don't want to oppose it and send the message that everything is hunky-dory). Far better though I think would be something like the "News for editors" page on the English Wiktionary. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 23:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose No, they're very useful stuff for the whole movement - geolocated notices for chapters are also used, for example, and get people to meets and chapter launches. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the Foundation and chapters using internal advertising in this manner, and think it's of sufficient indirect benefit to our mission to be worth its space - David Gerard 23:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose they can be useful in many areas for fundraisers, multi project events and announcements etc. A better process on Meta may not be bad and I can certainly see reasoning behind having smaller banners especially for smaller events/announcements. But as a whole no, oppose. James (T C) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Weak Oppose — I have to agree with Thryduulf. There are valid non-fundraising reasons to use the banners, but they're being overused. In fact they're so overused that I've tuned them out in my mind. This latest banner had to be pointed out to me on IRC, despite the fact that I'd been seeing it on 3 different projects. I auto-ignore them now, the same way I do banner ads. If that's what the WMF wants, then by all means they should keep using banners to highlight matters that may be important, but that are irrelevant to most of the community. Gopher65talk 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Part Support Support Happy to see this limited to fundraising only. Will not support a limit of one run per year, as it may at some point soon become necessary to have more than one fundraiser (and the Foundation should feel free to run more than one a year if needed). AGK 23:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support mostly. Actually, I'd like a system on Meta where users can agree on what to display on the banners (as noted above, this latest about job openings really doesn't concern most users. Also, we need to fix the banners so one does not need to click hide multiple times or use css hacks (which many users may not be familiar with), and I'm thinking of either a global opt-out method or the activation of a user preference to hide them. Other than that, I'll keep mocking them and hoping I see them less often.  fetchcomms 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment I am in agreement with Thryduulf that there needs to be great restraint in the use of banners to avoid letting WMF projects look too much like commercial sites. Fundraising is a fundamental, even a survival issue. There may be other fundamental issues. I don't believe that there is much that is really both important enough and urgent enough to warrant more frequent demands on user or contributor or even admin attention. Most users don't care and appreciate not having to care. At Wiktionary important WMF or sister project news could possibly be included in or linked to from "news for editors". "Banner blindness" is a well-known phenomenon. The net result of overusing banners in to shrink the useful area of project screens without actually drawing attention to the target subject matter. DCDuring 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, although I would not object to housekeeping notices such as the current employment opportunity notice if they could be made much smaller. BD2412 T 00:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose The non-fundraising banners should not be so large, however. How does it look when the global banner is three times the height of the local one? Also, consider the possibility of a page on each wiki updated by a bot with Wikimedia-wide news so that items of concern to all wikis don't have to always be in-your-face with a banner. Adrignola 00:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose OpposeSadads 01:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Avicennasis 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. I'd like to be kept in touch with meta things, although I don't care for the employment offers. — Internoob (Wikt. | Talk | Cont.) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Unless we're given an option to opt out of it(like what they had for the fundraising banner). Bejinhan talks 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose --Skenmy talk 08:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. There are at list two other campaigns where banners are really needed, it's Steward and Board elections, as these election are, without a doubt, important for all WMF projects. All other bannners should come only after discussion — NickK 09:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. As I said below we should be using banners to encourage our readership to edit as many do not realize that they are able. Half the size though.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. The following process allows for engagement with the community, so each banner can be considered on its merits. John Vandenberg 12:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose  per Juan de Vojníkov 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC). (I'm assuming here that the Foundation decides what banners to put up and when. If that's incorrect, strike this comment.)—msh210@enwikt 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose there are a number of legitimate uses of CenteralNotice besides fundraiser; however, I agree that it's use should be controlled harder and I suggest large fonts should be avoided as much as possible. Huji 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, although the only useful long term solution will be to deprecate CentralNotice completely. Otherwise, there will always be scope creep. More, because CentralNotice is deployed from Meta but mostly viewed on other wikis, there is never appropriate feedback about whether a given CentralNotice is appropriate, or even about whether they break the wikis they are displayed on - in my experience, they are more likely than not to cause display breakage, and many of them cause actual interface breakage (interfering with edit links, hotkeys, etc). The real reason to deprecate CentralNotice, though, is that it presently causes miscommunications - every worthless notice causes a few more people to turn the notice off in CSS, but at the same time, every worthless notice makes it look more and more appropriate to dump your announcement into CentralNotice where everyone can choose between being pissed off at another worthless CentralNotice or turning it off and missing anything that is only announced there. In the long term, this just makes CentralNotice an open sore, not a means of communication. Gavia immer 18:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose There are good, plausible, non-fundraising uses of the banner regarding getting outsiders involved or emphasizing a particularly important effort (e.g. strategic planning). But non-fundraising uses ought to be discussed beforehand. Cybercobra 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support They interfere with page loading and editing, even when they have been hidden. A "hidden" banner still pops up momentarily when going to an edit window, and I have been enormously frustrated as this often causes me to click incorrectly as the page format suddenly shifts as the "hidden" banner vanishes only after the page's initial loading. The less often this happens, the better. --EncycloPetey 03:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Banners should be used for reasonable purposes - none of the cases where they have been used are unreasonable. We can debate the implementation/design for sure, but not the fact of their use. Witty lama 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, at least until they develop a non-cookie based system: I visit WP from several computers every day and clicking [hide] gets really annoying. -AlexSm 14:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do you mean when logged in? If not, there is of course no way the WMF can individually track you as you move between computers so there is no way they can know if you're someone who has already seen and chose to hide one or someone who hasn't see one before in their lives Nil Einne 12:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose The WMF should feel free to use banners, when they feel necessary, I don't feel they've ever crossed the line or come close and the number hasn't been unresonable. While I'm not completely opposed to discussion, I somewhat doubt a consensus model will work for a global thing of this sort, where there isn't even really any policy to fall back on, unless no one notices the discussion. I doubt we'd even get consensus for fundraising banners. As an aside, I've been interested in what I read from some of the non fundraising banners, and I doubt I would have seen what they mentioned otherwise even with a 'news for editors' page (besides that, it seems clear that with many of the recent banners the WMF is trying to reach non-editors so I'm not really sure why people think these should go on a 'news for editors' page). Nil Einne 12:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support too much intrusive --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Kozuch 20:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose rejects non-fundraising usage? Historically it has been used for other things which may or should be interests of global community as follows:
    ... and do you want drop all of them? Sounds coming only from instant thought, although I personally don't oppose not to use it for hiring, on the other hand, Wikimedia Foundation could use its own website for this purpose, particularly if they would like to see applicants from the userbase of these wikis. --Aphaia 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. Far too restrictive, though banners for most other uses really ought to be quite modest in size and tone. ~ Ningauble 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose too restrictive --Church of emacs talk · contrib 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support they're quite annoying. --Pietrodn · talk with me 12:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Opposestay (sic)! 07:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, they're a perfectly legitimate way of getting information out. And if an "annoying" banner is the worst problem in your life, count yourself lucky! Craig Franklin 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Though there needs to be some process to limit their use. Elections/global polls are fine provided they can be targetted to those who qualify to vote, recruitment ads should go on watchlist notices rather than banners. Also as you would expect of an RCom member I would support use for research surveys, though unlike most of my fellow RCom members I would like to see some controls even on research use. WereSpielChequers 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Require consensus for non-fundraising banners[edit]

Banners for things other than the fundraiser should be submitted for discussion on meta for at least one week (and the discussion advertised on foundation-l if necessary). Consensus should be achieved for the proposal itself (should there be a banner at all?) and for the actual design of the banner (does the message warrant taking up a huge amount of prime screen space for 3 words?).

  • Support Support Mr.Z-man 23:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Yes, certainly. I'm not opposed to having non-fundraiser banners up, but if we need more than one per year or other items like surveys and job openings, the community should be able to approve this.  fetchcomms 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, yes this seems like a sensible compromise. If it affects one or more specific communities (e.g. all Polish projects) then the discussion on meta should be advertised on the village pump (or equivalent) of the relevant projects, but I'd hope that would be common sense. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 00:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --MZMcBride 00:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support AGK 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support — This is reasonable. Gopher65talk 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support: also provide better tools for hiding banners (even for anons). Mono 00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support - This seems reasonable too. Tiptoety talk 01:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Global notices should be made in an open, transparent manner. --Yair rand 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support SupportSadads 01:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Long overdue. The communities need to have control over what appears on Wikimedia sites, not the WMF bureaucracy. Tisane 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. Sure. — Internoob (Wikt. | Talk | Cont.) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Better than an inflexible prohibition. Some of the banners have been quite irritating and not worth the space, for sure, but this proposal should allow addressing that. --Abd 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 04:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Mikemoral 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Oh, yes. Bejinhan talks 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Reasonable. vvvt 07:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --Skenmy talk 08:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support - a lot better than the above. Kayau WP WB WN 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support with the exception to steward and board elections. And yes, all other banners do require being discussed. Particularly, employment banners are very strange when they are displayed to anonymous readers, or on projects where most of editors & readers live not in the USA. Thus, we need a measure to avoid such things — NickK 09:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. We should be using banners to encourage our reader ship to edit as many do not realize that they are able.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. Sensible. I agree with NickK in re the steward and board elections, however this community notification/discussion process should also happen for those notices if the form or content is different from what the community has experienced in previous years. John Vandenberg 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support it make sense . i don't like Banners in general . Mardetanha talk 13:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose  per Juan de Vojníkov 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (in the top half of this page). (I'm assuming here that the Foundation decides what banners to put up and when. If that's incorrect, strike this comment.)—msh210@enwikt 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Yes. Pilif12p 16:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Obvious improvement. Saga City 17:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Diego Grez return fire 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support and definitely use smaller font-size for non-fundraiser-related notices. Huji 17:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support wait, shouldn't all things global require consensus? Lexicografía 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Absolutely; I lean towards supporting the orig proposal, but maybe this can work as compromise. Adverts in general should be opt-in, not opt-out. Chzz 20:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose People act as if this latest hiring banner is an advertisement, along the same lines as Viagra. It's not. The Foundation is the group whom gives the sites a safe place to exist. Maybe this should have been handled differently, but that doesn't matter now. Do not bite the hand that feeds (And yes, I realize, this works both ways). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Almost should go without saying. Cybercobra 02:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Not that I see them anymore. More important that consensus is testing, but establishing consensus should hopefully involve some of that. OrangeDog 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support of course, too many banners these days. -AlexSm 14:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support they need to be smaller, and limit how long they are displayed for or how many times they are displayed to a user - I'm going to the next London meetup but did I really need more than a dozen reminders? WereSpielChequers 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both can be spam if done to excess - and to the recipient there is no difference. WereSpielChequers 15:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support - I believe I suggested it above also. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Why would a discussion on Meta with a few self-selected individuals be a good measure for global consensus? And why would consensus even be necessary on something as unintrusive as a global banner? I get the point of community consensus on things like how to organize an encyclopedia, community processes, admin making, etc. I don't see the need here. sebmol ? 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What do you consider intrusive? --MZMcBride 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I would consider it meddling with project content and community processes intrusive. Attempts to try to form an actual community of contributors such as this call for community job applications isn't, especially if it's done in as subtle a way as this one. sebmol ? 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Having banners pop up in my face every time I click an interwiki link is not very subtle.  fetchcomms 22:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Bawolff 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support JenVan (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support SPQRobin (inc!) 21:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --Wayiran 14:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support MER-C 05:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Kozuch 20:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose - I don't think we need to add a layer of bureaucracy to the process. However, I do think we need to end the practice of using CentralNotice for every announcement under the sun. Kaldari 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support seems like a reasonable compromise on the matter. JoshuaZ 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. I have to hide "Wik{t,i}{books,pedia,ionary,source,news,media} is getting Vectron (or whatever)" banners - which is annoying. I do agree that urgent notices may go without community consensus, though. I-20the highway 12:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support I hope that would also affect non-English projects. I have been recently annoyed by Czech Wikipedia's use of central notice for advertising of a sponsoring action run by the Czech branch of Wikimedia, run in such a way that it was impossible for me or any other user to hide the banner. That sponsoring banner still appears on every page of Czech Wikipedia right now, impossible to be hidden. --Dan Polansky 12:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Killiondude 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral for campaigns that are only shown in a specific wiki, a consensus within that projects should suffice --Church of emacs talk · contrib 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support They can get over-whelming. Also, they might have some effect on the banners during the fundraiser. Theo10011 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Supportstay (sic)! 07:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, Meta is basically tiny subset of all users who would be affected. I would much prefer an ability for the community on a particular Wiki to "opt out" for their project only, in some way. Craig Franklin 12:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose "one week" it should be at least 20 days, Support Support idea Bulwersator 16:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose on the details, as Craig and Kaldari note. I support having a solid process for discussing banners, a central place where all uses of the CentralNotice are designed and discussed, and basic requirements for use of the notice. SJ talk | translate   23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Requirements could include a period of public discussion, hidability (addresing Dan Polansky's comment above), a maximum % visibility or duration of banner use for a single project, the ability for local projects to opt out, &c. SJ talk | translate  
  • Support Support on the principles, not necessarily as to rigid details. Support on project opt-out, again on principle. The WMF may over-ride whatever the community decides, based on its needs, that's a privilege they earn as the host, but they may wisely ask us for advice. --Abd 14:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support --Guerillero 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Require complete banner dismissability[edit]

Due to the intrusive nature of global banners, any banner (fundraising-related or not) must have the ability to be completely dismissed. This ability should be available to both logged-in and logged-out users. Minimizing (reducing the size of the banner) alone is not sufficient.

  • Support Support --MZMcBride 00:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support - I actually agree with this, and it's one of the reasons we didn't use partially-dismissable banners last year for the fundraiser. By my count the last time this was done was... what, 2009? And I thought it was a mistake then too.  :) In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. --Philippe 01:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support - This will also allow us to simplify the way that central notice banners are coded. We can just automatically put a close box in every banner, rather than making people create a new one for every banner. Kaldari 06:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Theo10011 09:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Disagree with the very premise that global banners are "intrusive". Craig Franklin 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
    • Comment Comment I should add here that I think complete and permanent disableability is a desirable thing, and should be best practice. I just don't think that more bureaucracy and requirements is the best route forward here. Craig Franklin 08:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, including link to a page "how can I disable banners forever" (css instruction) Bulwersator 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support, dismissability is great. vvvt 13:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. "intrusive" is not an intrinsic quality of anything, it's really an individual reaction, a quality of the individual. Saying to someone who thinks that something is intrusive that it's not is denying the validity of that person's experience. Bad Idea. That does not mean that this facility must gain immediate Bugzilla attention, but only that this is a desirable feature. --Abd 14:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. It is really annoying to have the page move slightly down during the page load. During the last fundraiser often ended up clicking on the wrong link because the page moved around the same time that I clicked the link. John Vandenberg 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support SJ talk  05:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow fundraising banners only in content namespaces[edit]

Due to the intrusive nature of fundraising banners, they shouldn't display to users who are viewing project-related pages and materials. These people are a very small subset of users who are almost certainly already aware of a fundraiser. They don't need to be bothered, logged in or logged out, when viewing pages such as an internal noticeboard.

  • Support Support --MZMcBride 00:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Question: Do we have any statistics about banner clickthrough by namespace? I think this is a decision that shouldn't be made in the abstract. Are we walking away from $10 or $10,000,000? --Philippe 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'd actually be inclined to ask you for stats like this. :-) I know that the fundraising banners were removed for all logged-in users at some point during the last fundraiser. I also know that a vast majority of page views are for content namespaces, not for project-related pages. --MZMcBride 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support - this makes sense, I doubt it would be a huge number in terms of lost-advertising revenue. Theo10011 09:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, Disagree with the very premise that global banners are "intrusive". Craig Franklin 12:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral. I don't think it makes much difference. It is a small subset of users, and they are already being "bothered" on content pages anyway. ~ Ningauble 13:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. --Yair rand 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support -- while I agree with Craig in principle, we have better things to do with the attention of people who are engaged enough to be looking at anything other than a content-namespace page... related more directly and immediately to compiling a good reference work. SJ talk | translate   23:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose This is currently not possible and it would be unnecessary if all banners were dismissable. It would also be very confusing for users to only get banners sometimes and not others. For example, someone arrives at Portal:Main Page and sees no banner, then goes to the featured article of the day and sees a banner, then clicks on the Featured Article star to see more about FA's and sees no banner... very confusing for no reason. Cbrown1023 talk 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Currently not possible" means absolutely nothing in this context. If the Wikimedia Foundation has made anything clear in the past few years, it's that development related to the fundraiser takes priority. This also wouldn't be a very difficult change to implement, I don't imagine. You check the current page's namespace against the wiki's content namespaces (which are defined).

      The point of fundraising banners are to inform people of a fundraiser. If there's a reasonably good chance that the people that you're trying to inform are already aware of the situation and you can reasonably reduce the level of noise (programmatically), why not? I doubt there would be much confusion from readers or users. It would leave the other namespaces open to internal notices, though. I imagine the sites utilizing local sitenotices or anonnotices would appreciate that. --MZMcBride 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Support I support this zombie proposal. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. Redundant to a better proposal, as noted by Cbrown1023. (But namespace customization would be a good thing, in itself. This, however, would be an individual project consideration, not a global one.) Basic principle: central requirements, inflexible and possibly harmful in some cases. Local option, generally wise. If an option exists and local communities exercise this in a way that frustrates WMF goals, the WMF may directly intervene, they have the right and power. (And they can do this respectfully, seeking local cooperation.) Forceful intervention should be rare, it can cause great damage. --Abd 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I agree with Cbrown1023 & Abd. I think most people would use the "Dismissable banners" feature instead. Namespace customization might be useful, but is not a high priority. John Vandenberg 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Support, this is partly redundant to the dismissability idea, and if we were to protect logged in editors from these distractions I'm not sure I follow the logic of encouraging them to be outside of mainspace. But having the ability to do this may come useful at some point. WereSpielChequers 23:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]