Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Fundraising 2010/Messages/Test Pending

< Fundraising 2010 | Messages

Template:Biographie Kambire sie Jérôme nathanaël née le 10/02/2000 à daba dans la région de san-pedro

Approved for Testing

edit


Complete the puzzle

edit


Proposed by: Arbitrarily0. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.

Submitted on: 2010-09-23
Comments:

  1. Cool, but the logo's kinda intrusive. Maybe make it smaller (50px?) Lexicografía 22:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like it. Don't know if there are any issues about the logo's use and intention but besides that it works.Theo10011 13:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like it. The link should be the full sentence (plus the logo) though. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 18:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Like it and agree with preceding comment. Mario777Zelda 21:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Done and thanks! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ha! Support. MER-C 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I love this one! Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't see the connection to fundraising. I think it needs to be more explicit. Philippe (WMF) 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. should work --Jan eissfeldt 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Because we know the puzzle can never be complete, I prefer something more akin to "Help us by adding your piece to the puzzle". My76Strat 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that's too wordy.
  10. Cool --Smihael 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like this one, but as Philippe said the link to the donation page should probably be more explicit, although we should consider that during the actual fundraiser people will know that there's an ongoing fundraiser, won't they (or are donors occasional visitors who will see the banners only once?)? My76Strat is right, but given that it's figurative also the original version is ok. Nemo
  12. Well done. Short, simple, and iconic. It's also indirect enough to be tactful but not to much as to be confusing. HereToHelp (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I like this. Without specifying fundraising its clear that WP want the reader to do something. But could have a more direct call for reader action ie "Please help ..." or "Will you help --83.141.89.154 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Snappy. Love it ---- Alexandr Dmitri 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  I'd like to see a puzzle piece background if possible, but great.  ℳono  21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Love it. Per Philippe, Nemo, 83.141.89.154, the link to support/help/donation could be more explicit for occasional readers. What about a blue-link sentence below the existing one (black - not linked) that simply says "Donate."Anthonyhcole 07:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Simple. Clever. I like it. Marcus Qwertyus 18:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veni. Vidi

edit

 

Veni. Vidi. Wiki.
Help us keep conquering.

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

'Comments:

  1. I like this one a lot. Consider shorter variations, as well:
  1. This one may be my favorite. Strong on-point message. --Dgultekin 23:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ah, I do have some doubts about this one. Maybe too sophisticated. I would guess that this one won´t work in Germany Till Mletzko (WMDE) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like it! --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I didn’t have any Latin at school in Germany, Till, but I am familiar with the quote nonetheless. It’s a strong and yet funny appeal. I think this will work well. Lecartia 15:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. i don't doubt that the slogan veni. vidi. wiki. works in german but "conquer" shouldn't be part of the translation. the meaning of all relevant german translations would damage our already semi-controversial image(imho) --Jan eissfeldt 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. veni. vidi. wiki. sounds good. I'd rather follow that by come and see, though... -- Duesentrieb
  7. @Lecartia me neither, but you have to admint that this saying is not that common in Germany as it is in the US. But, hey let´s try it. "Stay curious" wasn´t on my top list eiter and I was positively surprised about the outcome of the test. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 09:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 'veni-vedi-wiki' is known joke in russian wiki; I think it will be understandable in russian language. Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Tacky. I am not so sure everyone will understand this Latin quote. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cute. Worth testing for appeal. I'd guess it would be either very appealing or not at all. Anya 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Help us keep wikization around the world. thx :) Przykuta 16:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tanzania 14:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Brilliant. Guess most people know of Veni Vidi Vici. At least in Sweden. Tanzania 14:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I as a latin-lover personally like it, but I don't support for global use. 1) Puns are hard to translate. In Japanese it is usually translated as "kita, mita, katta". No element related to "wiki" at all. 2) Not every Wikimedia users are familiar with latin axioms, and it doesn't go globally I'm afraid. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I like the Latinism a lot, but in an ironic sense. I do not care for "conquering" in the pitch, as it seems dissonant with the mission. ~ Ningauble 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur- I like it, definitely worth testing on English Wikipedia.Theo10011 23:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I think it's a witty idea, but I don't like the second part ("help us keep conquering"). I fear just like Jan that it won't be easy to localize. It shouldn't be too much of a problem to change that part, though -- for instance, "You have what we need to keep growing" (from another proposal) would be a good fit here, I think. —Pill (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This obviously works in Italian, but I don't like "conquering"; at least in Italian, "help us being successful" ("Prolunga il nostro successo" or something similar) would probably be better. --Nemo 08:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Growing

edit


350 servers. 273 languages. 16,400,565 articles.
Wikipedia needs your help to keep growing.

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

Comments:

  1. I like this one, maybe better if you put the articles first, since most people won't react emotionally to servers. Ocaasi 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. +1 Till Mletzko (WMDE) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like this one. Perhaps put the number of volunteers instead of the number of servers? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good having stats. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Number of volunteers are way better, but can we say a number without guessing? Till Mletzko (WMDE) 15:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like the number of volunteers better as well, if we can get something reasonably accurate. 273 languages. XXX volunteers. 16,400,565 articles. WillWatershed 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    alright, then let´s test this one. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fine, but it does only say on Wikipedia as a whole? Not on every Wikimedia project ... --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've said it before, but it's worth restating: we are using project specific messaging. We will not use the Wikipedia brand on Wikibooks, for instance, without a compelling reason. So unless the banner makes absolutely no sense on a project (some of them are VERY wikipedia centric), feel free to think of it as "SITENAME, ...." If the banner makes no sense on the project, we simply won't run it there. Philippe (WMF) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I recommend changing Wikipedia to Wikimedia and using aggregated statistics. Volunteers is probably better than servers for the general public. ~ Ningauble 17:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Though it's no so innovative, I think this one is a very good idea, particularly if the figures are a bit more project-specific. Using the number of volunteers is also a nice proposal. —Pill (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. With reordering I would support this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraiser that anyone can edit

edit


the fundraiser that anyone can edit.

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


Comments:

  1. ...

The landing page for this should describe how the fundraiser messages were created by volunteers and how they can be a part of that, and there should be an input form for people to add their own fundraising messages, which could be dumped into a spreadsheet. (We probably don't want to send a huge flood of people here.)--Ragesoss 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some explanatory text for the landing page:

the fundraiser that anyone can edit
Just like Wikipedia itself, the messages for this fundraiser are written by volunteers. Your support helps bring Wikipedia and its sister sites to 380,000,000 people per month, in more than 260 languages.
Please donate. And then if you have a great message idea, you can edit this fundraiser.
  1. This would be a very unique, interesting concept to try. It's also memorable because it's so tied into what we do here- I'd really like to see this tested somehow. sonia 10:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't like the word "edit", we don't want people editing the fundraiser: If editing could solve money issues, we wouldn't need a fundraiser. How about using the word "contribute"? V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. It's in the spirit of the whole encyclopedia, it's nice wordplay on edit as donate, and as Phillipe mentioned it's literally true, since, well, here we are. Ocaasi 20:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. please let´s test this one. It would great to see if readers are willing to participate (can someone somehow track that?). Also, there has to be a short introduction on how they can contribute/the editing is being done. If we get response, that would be amazing: "one small step for wikimedia, one giant leap for the profession of fundraising". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 13:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WOW. This is awesome. I'd definitely be interested in seeing this in action. Paulmnguyen 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This one caught my attention. It's a good lead-in to get people curious about what we do, how we do it, etc., and it's especially true this year, with the messages being directly judged and proposed by the community (as opposed to other years where it would have been more tongue-in-cheek). I like it, but, as per Ragesoss' comment, I think it would require the landing page to have a good explanation, if the message is to reach its potential. Nihiltres(t.u) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like this, it jumped out at me from the other ones, and is very specific to Wikipedia, rather than a generic banner - Kingpin13 23:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with

Kingpin, it's the only one that got a Lol from me. 68.230.5.178 02:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find what you were looking for?

edit


Did you find what you were looking for?
People like you make it happen.

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

Comments:

  1. I like this one. It's the "reader supported" theme. Philippe (WMF) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. +1 Whould make a lot of sense if it appears after the search. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 11:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shouldn't the second sentence also be in the past tense? Also, perhaps "possible" instead of "happen"? --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like the idea of "possible" over "happen". So long as Wikimedia depends on donations, present tense is appropriate. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like it. Simple, clear and many may have experienced the similar situation. --Aphaia 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like this. "Possible" and "happen" are both good. See which tests better. ~ Ningauble 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Replace 'it' with Wikipedia, and it is nice. Effeietsanders 09:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like this one too. I also support using "possible" over "happen". --Bodnotbod 11:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I actually like it as written, a little colloquial, and not too ambitious. It just says what goes on with very few words and that has some direct appeal. Ocaasi 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Second the ideas of showing this after a search and happen possible. Paulmnguyen 17:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like this one; the one replacing "it" with "Wikipedia" is good as well, and I don't mind the distinction. Nihiltres(t.u) 19:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Warm and fuzzy, support Jebus989 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Excellent emotional angle. --Cybercobra 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nice one Rahuloof 08:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Very real. And it emphasizes the major reason most people would give to WMF/WP. PrincessofLlyr 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Nicely put! I love it. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I like it, but it's not as obvious as it could be that this is a donation banner. Lexicografía 21:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Worth a shot. MER-C 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I really like this one actually, it's well geared towards our readers. Taelus 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. support User:Elitre

Renaissance 2.0

edit


Renaissance 2.0
Help us build the future

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-13
Comments:

  1. Nice! Particularly if paired with some really good text on the landing page... Philippe (WMF) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very interesting approach... not sure yet if it will be effective, but definitely one to try out. If it brings in more clicks, I wouldn't be surprised. Although I think it would look a bit more sophisticated with periods at the end of each line ;).  fetchcomms☛ 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. this one got my support. I prefer enlightenment 2.0 to renaissance 2.0. Landingpage ought be very good though - maybe with some kind of personal appeal. I very much like the reference to the future. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Love this. Personally, I prefer "Enlightenment 2.0" as well -- but I think most (U.S.) people probably have a stronger association with "Renaissance." I'd like to see either or both tested. Really like the "Help us build the future" part, too -- that could be applied as a second line to other banners as well. WillWatershed 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would beg to differ, first are you referring to "the age of enlightenment" or the concept of Spiritual Enlightenment in Buddhist or the western tradition. Not to mention there were 4-5 periods around the world that were referred to as periods of Enlightenment- American, Russian, Polish and Scottish Enlightenment. Renaissance on the other hand is limited to one specific period and location, and it is a universally known around the world as a time of great ideas, culture, art and the Philosophy of Humanism. Theo10011 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like it. Lvova 11:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I believe that it is important that people immediately see that it is an advert to donate to Wikipedia. If they don't understand what it is about in a glimpse, they will mentally filter it away. Ziko 14:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This approach might work. It's definitely eye-catching. PrincessofLlyr 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Haha! I love this idea! — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Awesome! S8333631 21:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Love it. sonia 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't know why,but I just love this.Definitely an eyecatcher!Netheril96 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. How about "Wikipedia 2.0 / Make it happpen"? Just a thought. Otherwise, yes, sure; OK. Chzz 03:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the People

edit


A Wikipedia by the people, for the people …
needs support from the people. Donate today.

Proposed by: Hogne 20:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC). On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.[reply]


  1. Love it! Renata3 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this a lot--Deniz (WMF) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Like it. More than above. Ocaasi 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Great. Paulmnguyen 17:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems like a better variation to me. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good. It doesn't entirely leave out "of the people", but it is left as an implication. Lexicografía 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ahh much better, thats what I had in mind when I read the one above. Theo10011 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I love this one! It should only be aired in the US though. No worry about ppl from US not knowing it. It's taught in every school before high school. Mr. R00t Talk 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Good, I like it, I don;t think it too US-centric. I'd rather re-word as "An encyclopaedia of the people, by the people, for the people...
    ...needs support from the people. Donate today.Chzz 01:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I like it. Would prefer the wording suggested by User:Chzz above. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This one works well using Chzz's suggestion for wording. My76Strat 04:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This one gets my vote, well done! Rike255 14:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I think that this can work also outside USA, but we can always test it in USA only (also to test GeoIP?). --Nemo 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version

edit


A Wikipedia of the people, by the people, for the people...
needs support from the people. Donate today.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-12
Comments:

  1. This one may only resonate for U.S. audiences (since it's riffing on a Lincoln quote), so probably a candidate for geo-targeting. WillWatershed 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "A wikipedia of the people"- should be re-arranged.Theo10011 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The original quote is "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." What is it that should be rearranged? WillWatershed 03:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I only meant that it doesn't sound right, Wikipedia is definitely by and for the people but its not "of the people" as in the case of the Gettysburg Address about Government. I think the idea is great and worth rehashing- Wikipedia, a Democratic encyclopedia, By and for the people.Theo10011 08:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems way too United States specific to me when asking for worldwide donations. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like it, especially the "of the people". Wikipedia is not a superior, high-browed or pretentious thing, it is written and organized by regular people. It would probably need to be US-centered, though, since we can't expect the rest of the world to know this quote. Lexicografía 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-profit

edit


The only non-profit website in the top 10.
Help keep us different.

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

Submitted on: 2010-09-30
Comments:

  1. Per Church of emacs' suggestion. sonia 07:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is this true? If it is it's very nice. Lexicografía 12:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely true. I like it.Theo10011 12:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Great point. Two questions: should we say non-profit rather than non-commercial? And does top 10 need a qualifier like "the internet's" or "the world's"? Ocaasi 21:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-profit is the official designation for the foundation. A qualifier like "top 10 most visited" or "the internet's" doesn't seem necessary since its ranking of all websites but it can't hurt, might make it a bit more concise. Theo10011 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-profit is much better. I totally oppose the idea of promoting the "non-commercial" concept; someone may think that a -NC license is better. And finally, we are commercial, because the WMF sells trademarks and content on different media (you'll find a ~400 000 $ line in the financial statemant about that). --Nemo 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point; modified. sonia 07:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like it. Anya 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Like it, again: let's underline what makes WP different. User:Elitre
    Yes, definitely, but it's "non-profit". --Nemo 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. yo --Jan eissfeldt 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Definitely. Brief and to the point; keep it up! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Feels good. Perhaps the top 10 can be better defined, although everything seems fine. 121.7.4.135 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I support that. Top 10 should be contextualized/qualified. Pro "non-profit". Till Mletzko (WMDE) 14:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons: PLEASE DONATE

edit


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

Submitted on: 2010-10-04
Comments:

  1. oh nice, really like this one (a lot), it really shakes up the general banner format. Not sure what others might think but I love it.Theo10011 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I really like this. Great work. 96.236.149.245 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is fantastic, I really, really like it! --Deniz (WMF) 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An interesting idea, though the letters used may need evaluation/tweaking to ensure sufficient contrast for those with poor vision/colorblindness. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Great idea, sort of hard to read, though. Have we any better letter images?  fetchcomms☛ 02:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Way cool! Please test this. ~ Ningauble 13:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is very cool. My only hesitation, ironically, is that it makes all of the other banners look bland. There is a certain benefit from having the design theme be the same. The visual consistency provides a familiar reference point and an easily identifiable motif. Then again, visual consistency can be a bit bland and also make it easy to identify-and-disregard. Worth testing. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is great!  ℳono  03:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wow! The only issue here is all the images need to be public domain, as there is no link to their licence. Pretzels 19:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Nice. Attribution might be found at the bottom of the landing page. User:Elitre
    Yes. Or someone could look for some good looking PD L, A, E, D, O, N. --Nemo 23:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think that we should test this to try to circumvent banner blindness. If it's too bold, try it on Commons only. --Nemo 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A variation

edit


Proposed by: Lexicografía. On scope? n/d. Tested? n/d. Income: n/d. Discarded: n/d.
  1. This variation is longer Lexicografía, takes a bit longer to read. Still think the one above is the better one. Theo10011 17:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The above one is better.  ℳono  03:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. --Nemo 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

edit

Only Encyclopedia

edit


Wikipedia: the world's ONLY encyclopedia in [XXX].
We need you to keep it online and free.

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

["XXX" will scroll through the many languages for which this is true.] Comments:

  1. <3 this. Philippe (WMF) 22:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one. But I would propose that the second sentence has more relation to the first one. Or as I almost always say, there has to be some further information on how we support THAT encyclopedia. Till Mletzko (WMDE) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Church of emacs talk · contrib 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Will it possible to make list of small languages of Russia for [XXX] in ruwiki? Lvova 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am not sure if encouraging people to contribute to wikipedias of small languages in exotic places is the right way to get people to contribute. V85 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, I think I disagree. For me, that's a very compelling reason to donate. Philippe (WMF) 18:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There could be some difference in perception, however, between contributing Wiki enthusiast who just love the multi-language approach of Wikimedia for ideological reasons and non-contributers. The motivation of the latter is, I assume, rather that they want to say "thank you" to a project providing them with all the information they need. Also, do we really have a list of languages where there is NO other encyclopedia? Can we really say for sure that language xyz doesn't have an encyclopedia? —Pill (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I really like this one. It pulls at people philanthropic strings.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like it personally　but not sure if it's compelling for the majority of our donors. In 2008 or 7 fundraising, we focused on our African outreach. Despite of warm support, we rather got criticism like "I love to see my money used for keeping Wikpedia online for my own use, not distributing African people". This kind of reactions came mostly from the English speaking world iirc. I have no idea a few years were long enough change their minds. --Aphaia 06:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hm. Doesn't it show off with being the monopolist? Ziko 13:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ziko, it's the opposite of a monopoly. There is absolutely no profit involved. In a monopoly, if it weren't for the monopolist, there would be competitors. In these areas, if it weren't for Wikipedia, there would be nothing at all. Ocaasi 01:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies

edit


3.8 billion years of evolution produced the 1.7 million species known today. In 6 years, we catalogued over 200,000. Donate today to help us continue.

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

Notes:

  1. I'm slightly concerned that this will turn off some people who don't believe in evolution. Unfortunately, it loses the ingenuity if we take out that bit. Not sure what anyone else thinks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure how far the Foundation would go as this is a hotly debated topic.  fetchcomms☛ 23:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Won't these sub-projects be shown the banner selectively? In other words, aren't all of the people who are part of Wikispecies already down with evolution? Ocaasi 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we could target this only to wikispecies... Philippe (WMF) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Foundation's OK with it, I'm fine, too. Just wondering, as there are some highly regarded scientists who do not believe in evolution, or in all parts of it, etc.  fetchcomms☛ 03:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is very USA-centric: in the rest of the developed world (even in Italy, despite the Vatican) nobody cares about "intelligent design" fundamentalists. --Nemo 08:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 14:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is great! It shows both the great progress, but also how much more is needed to be done. In my view it do seems perfect for Wikispecies! Jopparn 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I really, really like this one. And I don't think people who are strongly opposed to evolution are spending much time on Wikispecies--dgultekin 17:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising_2010/Messages/Test_Pending&oldid=24892955"