Fundraising 2010/Messages/New

Navigation
ALL banners	Newly submitted	By Language	Testing 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

Newly Submitted Banners

Did you know...

The capital of Uzbekistan? The birth date of Abraham Lincoln? The 762nd decimal of Pi ? Stay curious!

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:

I like it but needs a strong closing phrase instead of "donate to wikipedia".Theo10011 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Modified. --Lineplus 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
decimal→digit; Abraham Lincoln→someone else --Cybercobra 04:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How else would you know

How else would you know [rotating facts]?
Donate today to help keep Wikipedia here.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with Theo10011, and Church of emacs has a good point. --Nemo 07:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Brought to you by

{{SITENAME}} is brought to you by the same folks who make Wikipedia possible:
You.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-24
Comments:

Suggested for non-Wikipedia content projects. ~ Ningauble 12:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Lexicografía 14:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Suggested for non-Wikipedia content projects." ~ Ningauble 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Ocaasi 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. --Yair rand 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanna tell us why? This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. :) Philippe (WMF) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - Thanks for the clarification. :) Philippe (WMF) 16:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        Huh, clearly you've never visited Wikinews... the wub "?!" 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
How about we generalize it with "the rest of Wikimedia"? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging benefactors

Wikipedia is brought to you by a small donation from [[Name of Benefactor]]. You can do the same for someone else.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-24
Comments:

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)[reply]
Really cool idea. Mario777Zelda 21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are the kind of person that helps

You helped us write it; help us keep it running

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-28
Comments:

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.
I really like this one. Lexicografía 01:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support GoEThe's version, sans exclamation points. sonia 23:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support GoEThe's version (without exclamation points). :) Otherwise it's a good banner. —Clementina talk 11:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this one very much. It caught my attention immediately. GHarshfield 13:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Logged in editors only? sonia 11:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, but maybe only for logged-in users? Tempodivalse [talk] 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like GoEThe's version without the exclamation marks. —MC10 (T•C•EM) 02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support

Wikipedia: Strong support.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-28
Comments:

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

Descobrimentos 2.0

Descobrimentos 2.0. Continue esta viagem.

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:

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

Rome

Rome wasn't built in a day.
Wikipedia needs your continued support.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-29
Comments:

Or maybe "Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. We need your continued support."? fetchcomms☛ 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea better, I think it has more relevance to Wikipedia. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto- the alt is fantastic. sonia 07:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fetchcom, I prefer your alternative. It's much more relevant. --Aphaia 09:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, especially the alternate version. Lexicografía 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like it.Theo10011 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds well. --Da voli 06:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Good idea. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original is good: it's a well known quotation. --Nemo 07:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Wikipedia wasn't built in a day." and that's it? HereToHelp (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to fetchcomms. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the original but not the alternative, for the same reasons as Nn123645. ---- Alexandr Dmitri 18:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Smoke and fire

There's no smoke without fire.
There's no Wikipedia without your support.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-29
Comments:

Nice but I like the one you suggested above about Rome much more. Theo10011 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I ♥ WP

I ♥
WP

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

Takeoff on the whole I heart NY deal. Lexicografía 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I get it but I don't think other people out of context will. Anya 17:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the "ask"? ~ Ningauble 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This can probably be used as an EN-only banner. fetchcomms☛ 00:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I proposed something similar here. I like this concept but it needs more about donating. fetchcomms☛ 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But Wikipedia is not Wiki. Pretzels 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The learning will never stop

The learning will never stop. Help others keep on learning and donate.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

Suggested for Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikibooks ~~and probably Wikisource~~. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
1. Message fixed. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Handbook

Life didn't come with a handbook. Until Wikipedia. Donate today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

cute. I like it. - Jenny
This is good -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a handbook, though. fetchcomms☛ 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is good, but would flow better as "Life didn't come with a handbook, until Wikipedia." Pretzels 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love it. Anthonyhcole 07:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

404

Wikimedia + No donations = 404: Page not found
Don't let us disappear from the web. Donate now.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

Suggested for potential global usage on all english projects. BarkingFish 19:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've never heard this interpretation before. Perhaps it's a bit rash. --Nemo 07:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Most internet users don't know HTTP errors --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

404 Variant 1

Wikimedia + No donations = 404: Page not found
You do the math. Donate now.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-01
Comments:

Variant on the 404 banner with alternative tagline. BarkingFish 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same, not in fact at risk of going under Ocaasi 07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Goethe Quote

“Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Help us Apply our knowledge.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-02
Comments:

What's going on with the strange line break/capitalization? GorillaWarfare 23:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Aristotle Quote

“Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach.” - Aristotle. Donate.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-02
Comments:

Not sure about how to end it. I was considering "Help us do either".....Theo10011 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like the idea. How about finishing it with "To those that donate, Thank You."? BarkingFish 21:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Khalil Gibran Quote

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." - Khalil Gibran. Support us if your perplexity ever brought you to Wikipedia.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-02
Comments:

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

Free Knowledge Forever

Free knowledge for everyone forever. You are welcome to support this initiative!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

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

Our goal...

Our goal: All human knowledge...
You can help us reach that goal.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

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)[reply]
Perhaps "Our goal: All human knowledge. You can help us reach it." ? Lexicografía 20:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mr. R00t ^Talk 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the ellipses? GorillaWarfare 23:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Nice idea but it would need to be modified to conform to WP:NOT Anthonyhcole 07:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal: All human knowledge...
You can help us reach it.

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

The burden of abundence

You've shared your knowledge;
Will you share your means?

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-03
Comments:

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)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

7,292,770 files and counting, all free for you to use.
Help us keep it growing. Donate today!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

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

7,292,770 free photos, illustrations, maps, animations, sounds, and videos.
Help us keep it growing. Donate today!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

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)[reply]
Love it, I agree with Da Voli, enumerating the content helps. Theo10011 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

7,292,770 photos, illustrations, maps, animations, sounds, and videos.
Did we mention they're free? Help us bring you more!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

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

More than 7 million files, free for you to use anywhere, anytime, for any purpose
Help us keep going. Donate today!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

...

Knowledge is the gift that keeps on giving

Knowledge is the gift that keeps on giving. Help spread it today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

I like it. Theo10011 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs you

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:) --Yair rand 09:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The total sum

Be an addend to the sum of human knowledge, Donate today!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

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

The how near future

When war is but a history project, Wikipedia will have a FA on the subject.
Because of your support!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

FA is insider lingo that should probably be avoided
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)[reply]
FA is an unclear acronym for it has many meanings. What do YOU mean? --Da voli 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this suggestion is confusing. To the extent possible, I withdraw the proposal. My76Strat 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2.0 vs 1.0

In 2010 we all know that 2.0 is better than 1.0
We think about 2015... Help us build your future. And ours.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

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)[reply]
+1--OsamaK 10:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons and pictures

Donate, to put our world in pictures

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

Thought this would be a nice idea for Commons. TheDJ 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great concept, but poor phrasing. Cybercobra 06:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-generational

Help keep Wikipedia free for the next generation of learners.

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:

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

Nursery rhyme

Jingle bells, jingle bells. Wiki in our home.
Open world for open people. So, open your heart's door

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-05
Comments:

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

Community Equation

Community-oriented = Community-funded.

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:

Nice, I removed the "<>", donation link needed. Theo10011 17:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's nice. sonia 03:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like a LOT. Nimmolo 10:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diving Into

Diving into the pool of knowledge… Your donations make this pool clean!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-05
Comments:

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)[reply]
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
I hate when vandals pee in the pool. Marcus Qwertyus 19:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikimedia running

Keep Wikimedia running for 1 more minute with a $39 donation.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Theo10011. AngChenrui 12:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good try, but more depressing than motivating. Cybercobra 06:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity, search, learn, teach

Wonder → search → learn → teach → repeat.
Keep the knowledge flowing…

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I love this one.--OsamaK 11:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, User:Elitre
Support - simply and elegantly phrased. I think it would make a nice banner. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Imagine your donation

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
Imagine your donation making it a reality.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

Suggested for all Wikimedia projects. Probably only appropriate for registered users. ~ Ningauble 14:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about adding "Now" at the beginning of the second line for emphasis? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Dissident^Talk 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word from our sponsor

A word from our sponsor:
You.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
I like it. Theo10011 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Ocaasi's suggestion, but this is great either way. sonia 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. HereToHelp (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is cool. Another variation could be "This page is sponsored by: You". 178.102.96.209 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this and "This page is sponsored by: you". fetchcomms☛ 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is great. Keep it how it is - brevity is the soul of wit. the wub "?!" 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea. Although the landing page would have to explain it. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love this one; especially Ocaasi's suggestion: "And now for a word from our sponsor..." Lexicografía 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant; short and to the point. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I really, really like this one. Succinct and really gets the point across. Ericleb01 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word from our sponsor (2)

Please take a moment for this important word from our sponsor:
You.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-27
Comments:

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

Every dollar donated

For every ten dollars donated, Wikimedia can put 150,000 articles in the hands of the people.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-06
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I agree with Theo10011. '[...] can make <number> articles accessible to the world'?--OsamaK 11:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging it with #Acknowledging benefactors.--OsamaK 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly of Knowledge

We don't have a monopoly on knowledge. You can help too.
Support Wikimedia today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Help making Wikipedia a monopoly with my donation? I think I'll refrain. --94.134.192.236 12:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

"Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish" (Steve Jobs, 2005)...
"Stay Free!" (Wikipedia, 2011)
Donate today!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

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)[reply]

I hope you don't mind I just removed a superfluous line break. Theo10011 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Real Tragedy

Millions of Research Papers will suffer if you don't Donate!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Research papers shouldn't be written off WP anyway. If they are, please, get rid of them. fetchcomms☛ 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free does not mean cheap

{{SITENAME}} is the free {{SITETYPE}}.
Free does not mean cheap: Your donation keeps it free.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like it. Anthonyhcole 07:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E pluribus

E pluribus, Wiki.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-07
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like this, but not much as a banner. --Nemo 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t like it. For me it´s sound like: "American Imperialism=Wikipedia". Ciberprofe 15:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Portugal, it would be associated with the motto of SL Benfica: File:Águia.jpg. GoEThe 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love it, but it'd need targeting toward America. Lexicografía 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nelson Mandela quote

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." —Nelson Mandela
Help spread it today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-08
Comments:

Maybe better for Wikiversity, more than other projects. fetchcomms☛ 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good angle. --Cybercobra 06:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Attraction

The Law of Attraction states that people who give away money often get back even more in return.
You are invited to verify that now.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-09
Comments:

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)[reply]
Smart idea; hopefully they verify it, though. fetchcomms☛ 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cute idea, might want to add Karma to the description. Theo10011 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The only advertisement

This is the only advertisement you will ever see on Wikipedia.
Help keep it that way.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-09
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As we saw with es.wiki, it really is never. Agree with "these are" plural rephrasing. --Cybercobra 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku 1

Wikipedia
Makes the world a better place
Donate today. Thanks!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

An attempt at a haiku. Hersfold ^(talk) 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Works for me. See below. Hersfold ^(talk) 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku 1.1

Wikipedia
Makes the world a better place
Please donate today.

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

Comments:

Haiku 2

With lots of knowledge
Wikipedia helps the world.
Please, help it today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

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

Haiku 3

Without help today,
Tomorrow, Wikipedia
May not be. Donate.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

And a third haiku. Hersfold ^(talk) 07:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Limerick

For knowledge you come to the Wiki,
From the neat to the dull to the icky,
But running this site, peeps,
It sure isn't that cheaps,
Each little bit helps, we're not picky!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like it, I agree it should be English/English based only. --Wolfnix • Talk • 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like this. :) sonia 08:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The new interface

The new interface is cool, isn't it? Fund us so we can make it even cooler!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

Careful, some people do not like some aspects of the new interface. ~ Ningauble 21:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I actually still use monobook, because I don't like vector... :-/ Hersfold ^(talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
↑ This. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Me too. I find Vector frickin' ugly. Lexicografía 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, I think the preliminary Vector designs worked, and then they screwed it up. ℳono 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Donation needed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.^{[donation needed]}

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

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)[reply]
Love this one. the wub "?!" 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one a lot. Not a note insider-ness like some of the others. --Wolfnix • Talk • 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add a logo, or something to make it more memorable. ℳono 21:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree, this is brilliant. Gregory Harshfield 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's perfect. Anthonyhcole 07:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, fully support this one. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
+1 --Cybercobra 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

NO WAY!

Ads? In my Wikipedia?
NO WAY!

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

I support this one, since I am opposed to ads! --Wolfnix • Talk • 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No "no ads" banners. No shouting, either. fetchcomms☛ 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
Makes me want to throw up. Mono 23:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes Way!. A level up from commercial ads IMO. Marcus Qwertyus 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just your donations

No ads. No "premium" subscriptions.
Just your donations.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-10
Comments:

Short, simple, to the point. --Wolfnix • Talk • 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No "no ads" stuff. But I like the "No premium content" idea. fetchcomms☛ 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't like 'No "premium" subscriptions.' 'No fees', maybe. Emufarmers 23:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "no ads"! Agree w/ Wolfnix. --Cybercobra 08:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just your donations 2

No ads. No fees.
Just your donations.

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...

Even your mother uses Wikipedia. Donate now!

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:

Excuse me? No. fetchcomms☛ 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, No.Theo10011 22:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Sonia. Mono 23:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the language we need to avoid to beat sexism.--OsamaK 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please, let's not stoop to the "your mom" level. Lexicografía 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Care to Support

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:

... care to elaborate? fetchcomms☛ 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to leave your house

Wikipedia: If we weren't around, you might have to go to the library.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-12
Comments:

We use libraries to write Wikipedia. Not sure this sends the right message. Libraries are useful. fetchcomms☛ 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Fetchcomms.Theo10011 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Information on number of donors and amount of donations

{Number of donors} have donated {Amount of donations}. Be the next!

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:

Likey. fetchcomms☛ 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Donate!

{{subst:PROJECTNAME}} aims to be a reliable source for anything you need. If you rely on {{subst:PROJECTNAME}} then help us.
Donate Now.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-13
Comments:

As nom. Mr. R00t ^Talk 02:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Greatest collection

We've created the greatest collection of shared knowledge in history. Make it better.

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

We've created the greatest collection of shared knowledge in history. Make it greater.

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

Submitted on: 2010-10-13
Comments:

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)[reply]