MediaWiki talk:Tagline

Template:Ilm

This text is common to all Wikipedia articles and pages, it displays just below the title. On my recent endavours around the multilingual wikipedia I have seen that some of the neat, but smaller wikipedias use this text but in smaller font. I think we should also, because it creates a lot of good effects. Look at Matrix_(mathematics) and de:Matrix (Mathematik) just to see the difference. The smaller text on (for example) the german wikipedia makes the title stand out more, it makes it seem like there is more space between the intro and the title. It also makes the first sentence, defining the article, stand out more. Overall, it looks better. I certainly know that I'm on wikipedia, and the text is still there, even if it's in a small font; the text is also still close to the title.

— Sverdrup 16:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the smaller text looks better. I've also found that the From Wikipedia text sometimes detracts from the introduction to the article. Chopchopwhitey 21:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree and have made the change. Angela. 09:25, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Beautiful! — Sverdrup 13:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Webby Awards for discussion of advertising the Webby Awards from here. Thanks. Martin 15:36, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Wikipedia Trademark 2 Linking to Main Page 3 Clicked accidentally 4 Smaller text

Wikipedia Trademark

Based on some recent conversations on Foundation-l (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April/000011.html), I'd like to suggest that we modify this message thusly:

<small>From Wikipedia<small><small>^TM</small></small>, the free encyclopedia</small>

which will appear as

From Wikipedia^TM, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, no registration is required to use the "TM" symbol. As I see it, this is the easiest step to take that will afford us some trademark protection. Note that this is not meant to preclude other, perhaps more effective, steps. -Rholton 12:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just on a technical note, there is a better way of adding that symbol than using <sup> tags - the HTML entity &trade; corresponds to the symbol itself. Thus <small>From Wikipedia&trade; (etc)</small> becomes From Wikipedia™ (etc). I agree that it might be worth doing this, BTW, if only to encourage people to distinguish between "Wikipedia" and "wiki". - IMSoP 14:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course! (smacks forehead) Good point, IMSoP! Why didn't I think of that? That must be why you get the big bucks! ;–) -Rholton 14:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Heh, well, we'll see about the big bucks depending on how I do in my exam tomorrow. However, this suggestion hasn't actually gained any traction. So, does anyone have an objection? And if not, could an admin/sysop please come along and make the change, as this is a protected page.

Of course, I doubt this popping up on Recentchanges will be enough; if still nothing happens, I'll post a link to the Pump... IMSoP 12:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I was about to make this change, but it looked ugly so I didn't. I don't strongly oppose it but maybe there ought to be more opinions gathered on it before it's changed. I think it would look better in the logo that in the text. Angela. 21:34, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

The argument against using it in the logo (I think this was mentioned on the mailing list somewhere) is that that could be construed as only claiming the logo as a trademark, whereas in fact we want to claim the word "Wikipedia" [oh, and the images are harder to edit than the text] However, opinion-gathering welcome: shall we post a link to the pump? - IMSoP 12:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I've advertised it on the village pump. Angela. 00:32, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

It is very ugly. But I'd hate to see weird netizens stealing our names, so, why don't we just go to the Bureau of Trademarkization and make Wikipedia a real trademark? Presumably this way, even without ™, people won't be tempted to steal our glorious moniker. --Menchi 00:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I strongly believe we should register it. Angela. 03:28, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel like reading that mailing list too, but doesn't the foundation have to go through some registration process first for the trademark? Also, I think it looks ugly as hell, so I'd be opposed just on that. Also, might this mess up some of our rankings with google since wikipedia won't be a separate word (thinking of the clones)? Dori | Talk 02:11, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, you only need to be registered to use the ® symbol, not the ™ one. The Google implications are definitely a point to consider though. Angela. 03:28, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

My first thought was "hideously ugly" and probably unnecessary, but then I checked Google™ and Yahoo®: they both seem to use it, so maybe it is necessary after all: something for lawyers to decide. If so, we should register if only because it's less ugly, and investigate doing it in a logo with letter enormously larger than the mark, like Google and Yahoo do (check their logos: the mark is so small you can overlook it unless you're looking for it). - Nunh-huh 05:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Registered or not, I prefer if anything is added, it's added elsewhere than at Template:Fromwikipedia. -- User:Docu

You've hit it on the head. Neither Google, nor Yahoo add it to their title (text). They add it to their logo. I'd be OK with adding it to the logo (if it's discreet). Dori | Talk 23:41, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that it's only 'ugly' if you look at it a certain way; another way would be to see that it's part of the valiant fight to keep others from diluting our presence and usurping our work... OK, it's ugly. But necessary (not legally, of course, but practically). I think we should have it here.
James F. (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to imply that I'm in some way irrevocably married to this idea, but to answer/clarify some points:

• a trademark exists whether or not it has been registered (and regardless of what if any symbol we use) - registration costs, and simply makes subsequent court-cases slightly more clear cut (AIUI, IANAL, etc.)
• as I pointed out above, building it into the logo leads to the possibility that people will think it's the logo that's a trademark, and carry on happily using the name Wikipedia.
• personally, I don't think it would look that ugly, after all it would only be in small™ type. But that's something for everyone to conclude on their own. [Out of interest, I think it would be harder to fit it non-uglilily into the logo, as it would spoil the symmectricality...]
• making it less visible would be completely counter-productive - either people are misunderstanding the status of the term, in which case we need to highlight that it's a trademark; or they're not, and it will make no odds whatsoever whether we label it or not (see previous disclaimers).

- IMSoP 00:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd be ok if it's in the logo, like Dori suggested. It's more acceptable visually than in our tagline. --Menchi 00:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I think it's imporant to include it in both tagline and logo -- genericized trademark comments on the fact that a trademark must be actively protected, or it can be lost.

Note that there's an online process for registering a trademark at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html

Some nice coverage of trademark issues in the Chilling Effect Tradmark FAQ (http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/faq.cgi) (Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a joint online rights/intellectual property website produced by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law school clinics.) Catherine - talk 21:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Lots of good conversation. I am curious about something. I note that many people find the appearance of the suggested tagline "ugly." Now, I know that beauty (and ugly) is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm wondering if it could also have something to do with the browser or the font or some other factor?

Could someone with access to multiple browsers give a look and let us know? On my browser (MS IE 6.0) I tried it with a couple common fonts and I don't think it looks too bad. -Rholton 04:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh no. Please no! It looks so corporate with the ™ thing in it, it makes me want to puke. Does Wikipedia want to look corporate? Hnnngh? I suppose not! So no trademark attributions please! -- Cymydog Naakka 15:35, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Linking to Main Page

Would anyone have any objections to linking "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ?

Why? Well...

1. Currently there isn't a link to the Main Page in the source HTML, which means if any non-visual-CSS (screen reader/text-only/mobile users) want to go to the Main Page, they have to go all the way through the content in order to find it.
2. It may well improve search engine rankings, having "Wikipedia" and "free encyclopedia" pointing at the Main Page.

I propose styling the link so MonoBook users simply see it as plain, ordinary text. I can't really see any downsides to this... can anyone else? Tom- 22:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay... nobody objected so I've tried it, seems to work ok. Feel free to moan if you dislike it! Tom- 19:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand that clicking on the logo isn't intuitive or universally available to all users, but I don't like this link. I think it distracts from the article to have the very first thing be a red, underlined, bold Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I propose reverting and and having a much broader discussion about this. (Crossposted to Talk:Main Page and MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css) Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why did you have a bold, red, underlined link? Unless you have it in your user styles, you should see it as plain black non-underlined text. Tom- 22:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't have a special style sheet set up, and I see it as a visited Wikipedia link (Dark purple, underlined). Pretty distracting. Maybe it can be placed as alternative text for the wikipedia logo on every page (or is that already done?). Ksheka 22:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Then your CSS is cached (or you're not using MonoBook). Clear your cache and/or hit ctrl+F5 on IE/Mozilla. Tom- 22:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Looked like I had a cached copy. :-) Ksheka 01:46, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Why not make the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}? This may counter all that crap that our mirrors have been giving us. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in doing that, and I don't think templates work anyway. I've now re-linked "the free encyclopedia", people shouldn't have the cached CSS anymore (apart from people with custom skins, but we can't base changes around them). Tom- 00:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "{{NAMESPACE}}" and "{{PAGENAME}}" things are in fact variables, not templates - it would mean a link back to the originating page, you see.

James F. (talk) 08:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When I used a variety of skins it still came up as a rather distracting link. Tom, have you tried all the different skins to see ho it looks? Since this is one of the few changes that someone can make that affects how every page looks, I think that this is rather important.

BTW, here's how it looks with my skin: Missing image
MediaWikiFromwikipediaimage.JPG
Image:MediaWikiFromwikipediaimage.JPG

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Um, first of all, I was thinking: OK, so this is kind of clever, cos those who need it will see it, but no-one else will. Then I read that some people were seeing it, and thought that there was probably a nicer place to put such a link, and that it should be built into the skin itself. Then I looked at the left hand side of my screen:

navigation

• Main Page

Oh, hello. Was this, too, some kind of CSS trick, I wondered? Nope, there it is, in the source:

<li id="n-mainpage"><a href="/wiki/Main_Page">Main Page</a></li>

I'm guessing Tom- just hadn't noticed that one, but since it is there, I guess we can get rid of the link in the MW message... (I'd just do it, but I'm not an admin/sysop) - IMSoP 19:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That link is below all the content, so not accessible to non-CSS users without skipping through the content. It would be much more preferable to have a link to the Main Page near the top, or failing that have a "skip to navigation" link (but I can't easily do one of those the way I'd want to). Tom- 08:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the skin could be modified to have such a link, but styled to be invisible with CSS. That way, anyone with CSS should see the navigation at the left anyway, and anyone without can jump to it easily enough. (And IIRC, the navigation stuff was originally all at the top, and this was considered even more annoying). Admittedly, not a change you can make without access to the source, but not a big favour to ask of a developer, and certainly a nicer solution than this rather arbitrary link. - IMSoP 12:222, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clicked accidentally

Oops, I just clicked on that link accidentally. What's the point of a link to the main page disguised as ordinary text, when there is already a clearly labelled link from the sidebar, and a link from the logo? This isn't a porn site, there's no need to try to fool users into visiting pages. I'm removing the link. -- Tim Starling 07:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Smaller text

Why is this not smaller text now? -- Vít Zvánovec 18:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)