Fundraising 2009/Alternative banners
| Fundraising 2009 |
|---|
| General |
| Design and message (Meta) |
| Translations |
| Live donation pages (WMFwiki) |
| Raw statistics |
| Public relations/Announcements |
Please use this page to brainstorm alternative banners for the 2009-2010 fundraiser.
{{banner-test
| content =
}}
Or, make your own design! Template:Banner-test-2 awaits you. --MZMcBride 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Guys, please let's drop the jokes and try to come up with something useful. Don't use this page to announce your displeasure at the current slogans with mock banners. That won't help anybody. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Slogan ideas
- wiki wanna live 4 eva
- "Help Wikipedia last forever"
- (from the initial banner design) "One entry became 13 million. One language became 270. Help protect what we’ve created."
- Your help is [Wikiproject]'s future
- [Wikiproject] always available
- Sharing knowledge with [Wikiproject]
- [Wikiproject]: sharing knowledge for all our futures
- Notice how "our" which is alienating in English as a first person plural in the formation "We think you suck" is replaced with a definite shared identity "all our [plural noun]"
- u & [Wikiproject]: 2gether 4evah
Suggestion 1
There, that's better already. Rd232 11:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seems rather long Nil Einne 11:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well it was knocked up in 60 seconds. Rd232 11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's what she said. --Coffee (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did I really? 71.230.1.236 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's what she said. --Coffee (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well it was knocked up in 60 seconds. Rd232 11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 2
Bit more layout and it would do. Course if you pay me $250,000, I may do better... Rd232 11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits of the PR thing, I suspect they do know one thing and despite the fact I have very little knowledge or experience in these sorts of things, the little I do have tells me putting something that long is likely to be a good way to get readers to simply ignore it because it's too long. I'm pretty sure there's a well established principle in advertising that too much information or text is often a bad idea Nil Einne 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Shorter is generally better, but it depends on other factors too, like the key words, how eye-catching, and how much it looks like a banner ad. Rd232 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, given the traffic volumes, there should be a big element of throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks. Serve some decent ideas to X visitors, then ditch or try variations. The returns from finding some really good ideas are high enough that it's worth testing quite a long tail of possibly-good ideas. Rd232 19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Shorter is generally better, but it depends on other factors too, like the key words, how eye-catching, and how much it looks like a banner ad. Rd232 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 3
- How about:
- You can wire the $250,000 to my account in the Cayman Islands, please. Craig Franklin 11:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
- Yes, how could I have forgotten the all important Impact font. If it works for lolcat macros, it'll work for Wikipedia! How silly of me. Craig Franklin 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
Even better, why not use cats? Everyone loves cats. the wub "?!" 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's a step up from "Wikipedia Forever". Durova 16:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It may be a joke but it is actually much better as it explicitly makes fun of itself, whereas WIKIPEDIA FOREVER looks like a hack or the slogan of a child. —Centrx→talk • 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. The campiness makes it palatable. The "Wikipedia Forever" slogan looks like it was devised by an earnest committee of twelve-year-olds. Durova 17:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you cleaned this up for readability -- no italics, same font size top and bottom, semi-opaque banner behind text for better contrast -- it could be very cute. not sure how to identify visitors who would like it, but it might be worth adding cuteness to a rotation to get comparative stats :) Sj+ translate 12:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. The campiness makes it palatable. The "Wikipedia Forever" slogan looks like it was devised by an earnest committee of twelve-year-olds. Durova 17:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia needs YOU! Donate now. |
$250,000 can go in unmarked bills in brown paper bags direct to my bank, thanks. Orderinchaos 11:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- An alternative (I suggest finding a 12 year old with skills to improve my autogen effort:) [1] Orderinchaos 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.graffitigen.com/temp-images/5/673/graffiti-street-125793890270476.gif){kind=link}
As an addendum, I actually did find a 12 year old, who provided this:
Suggestion 4
- I like it. Simplicity is always good. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Like the alliteration. ChrisDHDR 14:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Simplicity is good, but I'm unsure of whether people will recognize this as a call to donate. Perhaps another line saying "Donate today"? This is quite good though. NW (Talk) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really like this. — Jake Wartenberg 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like this one. JoshuaZ 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like this. The mod below (and in general, explicitly asking for a donation) seems better to me, though the whole can be clickable. Agreed with Mav that it would be better with SITENAME or LONGSITENAME ('Wikimedia Commons' for instance) in place of Wikimedia, and 'Wikimedia' on everything but the 9 main content projects & MediaWiki. Sj+ translate 12:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
4B
- A bit concerned about name recognition of "Wikimedia" (a typo of "Wikipedia," right?). Also concerned about translating. Though in English, it sounds beautiful. --MZMcBride 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just used the name of the project I was on. To aggressively emphasise that this is donate or die for the entire project, not just en.wikipedia. [Your project goes here] Fifelfoo 21:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like both this one and 4a above. Regarding translation dificulties, perhaps we should simply give the translators more leeway to come up with something thath sounds natural in their language. "Wikipedia Forever" for example, sounded even worse in my native portuguese than it does in English, if thats even possible. Acer 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like this. Might be better using the {{{SITENAME}}} parameter. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 5
Should note that the phrasing is not my own, it came from Fundraising 2009/core messages/en#Notices. (I noted this in the #Slogan ideas section already, just want to be clear.) --MZMcBride 12:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice! Acer 12:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I like it too. Orderinchaos 12:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Much more reasonable; starting to sound like a project to which I'd be willing to contribute money. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Tasteful, good message, do want.
- Sounds good. This slogan has my vote. --Novil Ariandis 14:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ed (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Tasteful, effective and reasonably sized. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well done! NW (Talk) 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, great slogan. You might change "Donate today." for "Donate today!". The exclamation mark is important, since this is a "call to action". Dodoïste 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the full stop is far more mellow and professional. The exclamation point, while not a gigantic issue, is a bit immature in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- So do I, but remember that mellow is probably not the foundation's paramount intention this year, judging by the slogan they chose. Something that maintains some of that rallying cry aspect would probably be more likely used.
- Excellent one. You deserve that 250k more than the people who are getting it now. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, and ought to translate well. Durova 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is great. the wub "?!" 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's the right sort of direction (see similar suggestion below), but I'm unconvinced about "protect". I find this wording a bit confusing and off-putting. Rd232 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is better than what I saw last night. But like Rd232, "protect" sounds wrong; how about "Help us continue to improve what we've created"? -- Llywrch 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Help us do more"? Rd232 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Succinct, to the point, Rd232. I like that suggestion. -- Llywrch 21:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Help us do more"? Rd232 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The last sentence could be rephrased, but the slogan is marginally better than what we have. –blurpeace (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would change protect to preserve, but other than that, I like this one. Zscout370 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- One of the better banners from the current campaign at capturing its message. I'd like to specifically see a comparison of this wording, preserve instead of protect, and Help us do more instead of 'Help protect what we've created'. That would be telling for future fundraisers, and we could get a gauge on which tone is more suitable once and for all. Sj+ translate 12:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
5B
"Protect" is now "preserve," I've removed the quotes, and the banner uses less whitespace and a slightly smaller font. --MZMcBride 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like that the most, much more professional than the current slogans. One suggestion: perhaps we should replace "entry" with "article", for clarification. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fine too. Durova 20:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like this one also. JoshuaZ 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yep Acer 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, though I'd still prefer "help us do more" - shorter, punchier, avoiding an emotionally ambiguous "we" (is it including the reader, or excluding?). But keep "entry" for better compatibility with other projects. Rd232 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest : "Help us growing!" ; "Please donate today!" Dodoïste 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- These are very good - good catchy phrasing, the right drivers. Very nice. Tony Fox 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fine as well –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Great - Blargh29 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 6
The "Help it stay that way." may not be the best, but it'll do. Plus it has the advantage of being able to stay the same between wikiprojects. ChrisDHDR 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 7
based on Suggestion 4. --Novil Ariandis 14:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 8
Simple but effective. Rd232 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not bad. It's simple and gets the point across well. NW (Talk) 15:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really like this one. Dragons flight 15:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, looks good! Acer 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not bad. Appeals to public guilt, like the PBS donation drives of yore. It's basically a passive-aggressive "Don't be a freeloader". I can't say I enjoy seeing messages like this, but I also can't deny that they tend to work.
- Sensible. Durova 15:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly the best so far Modest Genius 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Does everybody knows what "bandwith" is ? We should not use geeky words. We should use words that everybody understand without a doubt. Dodoïste 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters. People who don't know what it is will assume it's some resource that needs to be paid for. We could switch the word to "computers" or something, but that sounds icky to the technically proficient.
- "Server" might be more common than "bandwith", according to the stats. Thought it is not a big change, it is easier to understand what a "server" is, than what bandwith is. And I do believe most people have a rough idea of what a server is. It might just be my own opinion though. :-) Dodoïste 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters. People who don't know what it is will assume it's some resource that needs to be paid for. We could switch the word to "computers" or something, but that sounds icky to the technically proficient.
- I think "Thank you!" is a bit awkward to include before people have clicked the banner, much less donated. I'd go for something like "Please donate to [Project] today!" --MZMcBride 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Thank you!" adds a little to the guilting. "please donate" is more of a begging angle. It's better to focus on one emotion. Rd232 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me. Better than the current banner, for sure.--Unionhawk 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is quite good as well. Tony Fox 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good - also good.--Blargh29 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 9
To not break the "Wikipedia Forever" branding thing, but to recast it in a light that doesn't make use look like an insane cult, a spin on #Suggestion 5.
9A
156,357/Meta obviously changes on a per project-basis. I'm using magic words. Headbomb 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
9B
A variant based on Rd232's suggestion. Headbomb 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like the one entry / one language bit, and the magic words are helpful. But I just don't like "forever". At all. Hyperbole aside, how do donations today have a measurable effect on the very long term survival of Wikipedia? Even if there's an answer to that, it's probably too complex to explain in the banner, and hence to use the concept. So instead of "forever", have something like "Help X thrive", or something in that direction. Or perhaps "We're not done yet."? Rd232 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- i.e. "One entry became 16,592. One language became 270. We're not done yet. Donate." Rd232 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It is worth noting that magic words generally don't work in site notices. It could be prerendered for various languages and projects more or less by hand, but {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} can't be automatically filled in given the way site notices currently work. Dragons flight 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really like the 'we're not done yet'; it helps emphasize that Wikipedia is still a work in progress of sorts. Veinor 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Same; that really struck a chord with me. Good :) NW (Talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 10
I know it's silly and aggressive, but I'm curious to see how David Gerard's #wikipediafundraising slogan would play in terms of attracting donors.--Ragesoss 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dunno it seems to me something that sounds ok in theory until you start to consider who it appeals to. That's primarily students particularly secondary school students. While these may be a core wikipedia demographic, I think it's fair to say it's unlikely they generally have the money or the means to make a donation. Some parents and others may find it amusing but I wonder if others will just find it silly or childish. It may also just reenforce their notion that wikipedia is simply something kids use instead of doing their homework properly and therefore not worthy of supporting Nil Einne 17:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- This made me laugh, and I'm here in college. I'll echo Nil Einne, though. --Izno 03:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely worth trying. Am I showing my age when I say this evokes one of the classic National Lampoon covers: "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog"? -- Llywrch 07:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I like it! Easy to replace homework with other words that relate to target audience. "Paper" "proposal" "report" Leighblackall 10:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 11
This one adapted from Nihiltres; I think it might work.--Ragesoss 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- This and Suggestion 12 should definitely be in heavy rotation for logged-in editors. They are cute, and a fine reminder about the fundraiser that hopefully won't incline them to turn the banners off. They also shouldn't be seeing the banners that provoked strong negative reactions by editors... Sj+ translate 12:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 12
In a similar vein.--Ragesoss 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Support... I assume non-editors who at least read WP on a regular basis would understand this, too. -- Mentifisto 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't translate well (to smaller languages or non-encyclopedia projects). Durova 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 13
- Preferably in a smaller font. 132.229.117.120 17:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'd quite like to see that one tested, and see how the response is. Rd232 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that one should be tested. --Novil Ariandis 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion 14
From the "let's intrigue them but hint at what's behind the door" school of thought.
Note
I like a couple of the suggestions above, however they're very similar to previous years. Many people might not see this as a problem, since the previous years' banners were tasteful and appealed to established users. It's my understanding that Wikimedia hired a PR firm to hopefully make more money by appealing to Joe Internet User too, and for better or worse, Joe Internet User responds more to simple statements that elicit an emotion rather than the thought-provoking slogans that we would call tasteful.
It might be pertinent to keep this in mind when designing suggestions, and to try and make your slogans universally appealing in that way. Otherwise I don't think there's much chance they'd be used. A slogan that sounds just like previous years would defeat the purpose.
- A link to previous years' slogans would be handy, if anyone has it. A link to any statistical analysis on success rates would also be cool. Rd232 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- here's 2007 & 2008 stats compared. The spike in '08 was due to that video from Jimmy, before which it was unclear if we would make the goal. Here's the raw stats from this year; looks like the first day of the fundraiser before the 'Wikipedia Forever' banner was pulled (around 18 hours, at night in the US) netted around $24K. -- phoebe 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fundraising_2008/core_messages/en. You can find other years' messages by heading to Fundraising_[year] and finding links to subpages named /core_messages and the like. There are performance analyses available on those pages. Basically many of those slogans sounded similar to the suggestions above, ie. somber and/or clever statements that show appreciation for the community, rather than being a simple two-word rallying cry as this year's was (is). The best proposal would be a compromise between the two, in my opinion.
- There is something missing in the main slogan "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER": nothing indicates this words ask for a donation. A lot of readers might not understand we are asking for donations. Previous year's slogans contained "donate now", "donate today", etc. Whatever the message we choose, it should at least be clear that we are asking for donations. Yours, Dodoïste 15:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed - the 12-year-old I found seems to have realised that when he added in red "Please give us Money". Orderinchaos 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- A look at some stats from last year suggests (to me anyway) that two slogans in particular were successful: "Wikipedia is a non-profit project: please donate today." and "Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you." If anything, the shorter messages did worse (contrary to what Eloquence said over at en.wp today). Rd232 17:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to take another look at those stats. "Wikipedia is a non-profit project: please donate today" was by far the worst slogan. All 4 were shown the same # of times, but that one generated only 994 donations versus 4444-5620 for the other slogans. The shortest - "Wikipedia: Making Life Easier" - did indeed perform the best, albeit only by a small margin. --ThaddeusB 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. I didn't read "% who donated" as a % of those who clicked through. Rd232 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Punchy banners seem do well. The appeal from Jimmy wasn't so "short" in terms of charaters but had an immediate impact. Hopefully we can get a much wider range of comparative statistics this year, also between different phrasings and presentations of the same messages -- we have enough visitors that even a % of a day's clickthrough traffic is enough to get statistically significant results. email campaigns to raise funds are able to get turnaround feedback within an hour on the most effective variant wording for a request for action by email; perhaps we can do the same with banners. Sj+ translate 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. I didn't read "% who donated" as a % of those who clicked through. Rd232 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to take another look at those stats. "Wikipedia is a non-profit project: please donate today" was by far the worst slogan. All 4 were shown the same # of times, but that one generated only 994 donations versus 4444-5620 for the other slogans. The shortest - "Wikipedia: Making Life Easier" - did indeed perform the best, albeit only by a small margin. --ThaddeusB 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
donor comments
Everyone likes donor comments, and there are some good ones waiting to be used already from this year, e.g. [2] "After all it's given me I thought I'd give something back." -- phoebe 16:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I thought Rand Montoya specifically said that the donor quotes didn't really make a huge difference on the fundraiser drive last year and that's why they wanted to tone them back. If that's true, I'm a believer in toning them back this year too. Mike Halterman 17:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- "I thought"? Link and stats would be really helpful, because a lot of people like the donor comments. Rd232 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The donor comments didn't do extraordinarily well, but they would be an ok stopgap measure while we work out the others. They are set to run in Phase 4 anyway. another good one -- phoebe 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Forgive me, we're not in court and I have other things to do in my day than go back through these conversations. Mike Halterman 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well it would be really helpful to have details. Rd232 21:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- See [3]. Relative to the 20% share of visitors it was given, the donor quotes presented last year did quite poorly compared to the other instruments running at the same time. That could be associated with the quotes chosen in some way, but you'd have to dig further to figure that out. Dragons flight 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well it would be really helpful to have details. Rd232 21:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- "I thought"? Link and stats would be really helpful, because a lot of people like the donor comments. Rd232 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
this comment is rather interesting... --Chris 08:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Incorporating graphics
Thing probably needs a slightly different form of localisation for commons. Perhaps something with graphics?Geni 19:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Beside project logos (which I think we should avoid), what kind of graphics do you think would be good? It obviously needs to be something tasteful, but I'm having trouble thinking of anything that would work internationally and somehow relate to Wikimedia / MediaWiki / free content. Got any ideas? :-) --MZMcBride 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gallery of 9 or so images scaled to 15*15 and rotated a lot. Work through the featured images intialy.Liveware problem 19:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Featured images are huge and often of random items, though.... Got a mockup? --MZMcBride 19:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gallery of 9 or so images scaled to 15*15 and rotated a lot. Work through the featured images intialy.Liveware problem 19:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Graphics suggestion 1
Not for actual use but rough dirrection:
|
|
.svg){kind=small}
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
5.4 million images but we need your support |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geni 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good. :) Durova 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it needs one or two images to keep it simple and focused. --MZMcBride 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, nobody will be able to tell what they're looking at. Also, have we thought about how quickly this can be served? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- pretty fast. Once the thumbnails have been rendered which only needs be done once the whole think is about the size of the wikipedia globe.Geni 21:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Images can be made larger by going to to 4 but I'm not that much of a fan of the effect:
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Geni 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be too hard or too illegible to do something clever like constructing the word "images" out of lots of tiny images? Rd232 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- With the size we plan to use it wouldn't really be practical.Geni 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary
How about some project specific banners?
--Yair rand 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what she said.
Written by volunteers, supported by readers like you.
Generic enough to use the {{SITENAME}} parameter. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
+1 to all of Mav's. :-) Cormaggio @ 10:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Help us change the world
Another idea that can be used on any project. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We are there for you
Another idea. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Your home for free knowledge
Also uses the {{SITENAME}} parameter for project localization. My domestic partner came up with this one in less than 10 seconds this morning. Yet, I think it is much better than the WIKIPEDIA FOREVER theme that was paid for. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You depend on us, now, we need your help
Another idea off the top of my head. Still using the project-neutral {{SITENAME}}. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We blinded you with Science
All four en:Thomas Dolby fans would appreciate this. Backslash Forwardslash 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Information should be free
It's been said that the campaign also should work for the longer-term idea about Wikipedia/Wikimedia. For longer term, it's important to think about which message to send. And in my opinion, the message to send about Wikipedia and the other projects is that they are free (as in speech), and that that is something worth preserving. It's also the kind of slogan that has the capability to be kept in use after the fundraise is over.
Possible problems I foresee is that it might be less useful on projects like wikisource, and that (like "Wikipedia forever" by the way) it is too unclear that it is a call for donations. I tried working with an undertext ("Help us keep it that way"), but that loses the succinctness, and might run into translation problems. As an alternative I might propose the following:
$100,000 worth of computer hardware
Replace $100,000 with either the estimated worth of the servers that are used for a typical request, or with the estimated worth of all the Wikimedia servers. Another idea would be to have a banner that shows the daily cost of bandwidth. RockMFR 12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)