MediaWiki talk:Tagline/Archive 1

Wikipedia Trademark
Based on some recent conversations on Foundation-l, I'd like to suggest that we modify this message thusly:

From Wikipedia TM , the free encyclopedia

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  tags - the HTML entity &amp;trade; corresponds to the symbol itself. Thus From Wikipedia&amp;trade; (etc) 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 (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)

Protected?
Someone added an extraneous comma which I was going to remove, but the page is protected. Has it always been? Are admins performing all these changes? In any case, could someone please remove the comma - it's just grammatically wrong. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a well formed noun phrase, it needs no comma. You could maybe make a case for "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which anyone can edit", but it's less elegant. Definitely preferable to the ", that" option currently in place. Maybe this is correct in some regional dialects of American English, but afaik it's just wrong.Stevage 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) In any case, this is an important discussion which deserves more coverage than this little talk page. Stevage 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a MediaWiki namespace page, which have always (and will always) be protected. Tom- 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, why on earth are the admins changing it willy-nilly between them. Surely we should reach consensus first on what it should be before they go changing it? Admins' personal preferences shouldn't really come into this. Stevage 08:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting the tagline to show up
Hey... I'm trying to figure out how to get a tagline to show up. Over at ia:, ia:MediaWiki:Tagline has been translated, but I can't figure out for the life of me why it's not displaying. Almafeta 16:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I'll go ask at the reference desk. Almafeta 18:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know also how to get it to display. I have my own wiki and I need it to display. Any ideas? 202.63.51.171 02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (I am User:Rmccue but I can't be stuffed to log in)

Hiding it
How to hide this annoying message? Something with display:none?  Sala Skan  22:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the code

display:none }
 * 1) siteSub{
 * will hide it. Jon513 (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

april fools?
What's with the april fools tagline yet this is unchanged? Was it implemented directly in code or something? D\=&lt; (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind I see that it is actually this page being changed and caching was being confusing D\=&lt; (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools 2009
While it will likely take some of the fun out of it, I think we should have a (dare I say it) community discussion for an acceptable April Fools Day version of the tagline. Like I said, planning these things ahead of time takes some of the fun out of it, but I guess in that same way a writer doesn't get the same experience his reader does, but can take some joy in giving that experience to the reader. I haven't read the ANI thread or any of that other mess yet, but I figured I'd mention this while my mind was still objective and calm (for a lack of better words). -- Ned Scott 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That could be something to think about. It could be funny if it was done right, something funny but tasteful, and hopefully semi-encyclopedic. Obviously, no mentions of nether regions and whatnot. I wouldn't have any objections. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to have accidentally posted this on the wrong page. Here you go.  —David Levy 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you do have a sense of humor. -- Ned Scott 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See? :-)  —David Levy 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I proposed my edit beforehand, but no one seemed to notice, so I just went with it. It was really meant to encourage others to continue in the same direction, though. I was expecting to see many different taglines throughout the day, and then back to normal on the 2nd. I forgot that you can't do anything on Wikipedia without someone overreacting. We'll have to plan it out ahead of time next year. — Omegatron 01:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See April Fools' Day — Omegatron 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Day suggestions
Thought we could leave the above section for discussing the idea of planning the tagline, and have a new section for the actual proposed taglines. Here's mine to start:

In regards to the reputation for accuracy: from Wikipedia, of course it's true, every single word of it In regards to the goal of waiting until there is scholarly or media coverage: from Wikipedia, you heard it here first second third Pull in some pop culture reference: the Great and Powerful Wikipedia has spoken! Pay no attention to the editors behind the curtain.

And so it begins - it never is too early to plan for April Fools. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my suggestion:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * —David Levy 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From Dickipedia, the free encyclopedia Fahadsadah (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit
Editprotected Click here to see my requested edit -- IRP ☎ 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Denied for now. Better to get consenus for this (like on the Village Pump). I also see no reason to have a link to the Wikipedia article when a person who reads this already is on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted a request at Village pump (proposals). -- IRP ☎ 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: request rejected. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit - change "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" back to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Editprotected Adding "that anyone can edit" to the tag was rejected in a lengthy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#Straw_poll. straw poll] in 2005/2006. The current discussion about doing so has been short and included only 4 "support" votes (one of whom later agreed with me that it was too soon to actually physically change it). The tagline's not been changed in six years. A broader discussion of this topic - like the one in 2005 - should be undertaken before the tag is actually altered. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I declined to revert my edit earlier. For some background see User talk:MSGJ. I'll leave this request for another admin to assess. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the request and commented on the village pump. I fully agree that a much broader consensus needs to be obtained before we go changing the site wide tagline. We have WP:RFCs and WP:CENT for a reason. -- auburn pilot  talk  02:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent RFC
For future reference, the recent RFC on changing (expanding) the tagline can be found here. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2005-07.
From Wikipedia, the free, user-written encyclopedia. What do you think? See Village_pump_%28policy%29. - Omegatron 17:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's great! How about making it say From Wikipedia, the free, user-written encyclopedia that anyone can edit? - 66.91.79.69


 * I was (very) bold and changed it to say:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


 * So now it's a little more like the main page, which says:


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

2005-08.

 * We'll see what people think... - Omegatron 18:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No way. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 01:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Changing the appearance of every single page without prior discussion strikes me as being a little too bold :) Might want to bring it up on the Pump or somewhere that people see more often than this talk page.


 * That aside, I think the new version was too wordy. Tualha (Talk) 01:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Bring it up on the Village Pump, you say? - Omegatron 13:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

A change to the current Wikipedia tagline has been proposed for discussion and adoption at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. Interested contributers please visit this page.
 * Oppose that update, although if you really want to do something with the tagline, go look at Wikipedia talk:Official Wikipedia motto. Almafeta 10:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Response: Your link has been added to the proposal. -- Sitearm | Talk 15:59, 2005 August 5 (UTC)


 * I support a change to the tagline, but oppose this particular wording. - Omegatron 11:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Response: What wording would you prefer? -- Sitearm | Talk 15:59, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I changed it to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", as a compromise between the current wording and the wording on the main page, as I figured people would think the main page wording was too long.  Seems some people don't want anything to change, though... - Omegatron 21:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added your version to the list (5 now). Wyatts says to give it time :) -- Sitearm | Talk 03:22, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
 * Support. Vote posted on the related page. De ryc  k C.  08:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

2005-09.

 * I too support changing the tagline, as many first-time readers dont really understand the concept of Wikipedia, however the wording the be better. I would support something like "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." that was mentioned above. --Gpyoung talk 02:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

2005-12.
Let's make clear that this is a work in progress, as per Brion's recent message to the wikipedia-l mailinglist. I'd like to be bold... Gerrit CUTEDH 14:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Jimbo has requested that this is made clearer. We've come up with From Wikipedia, the community-written free encyclopedia. I think I'm going to be very bold and try this tagline. Tom- 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Jimbo asked you to do it, so feel free. &mdash;  BRIAN  0918 • 2005-12-7 02:57
 * Baaaa... er, that is to say, I like it too. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's reasonably pleasant. I would not scream too much if it went live. :) --Brion 03:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure this fulfils the objective of making it clear it's a work in progress. Why does this need to be done with the tagline anyway?  More words there are a bit visually distracting in my opinion, and this particular wording strikes me as a little bit awkward.  Also, I'm just curious, when you say 'We've come up with...', who and where are the we? Worldtraveller 03:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO Community written sounds like we're a closed community. How about 'that anybody can edit'? R  e  dwolf24  (talk)  Attention Washingtonians!  05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When did Jimbo ask this? He specifically disapproved of similar changes last time I made this change and someone else started a mini-campaign to think of alternatives.  I asked on his talk page but it was never replied to.  — Omegatron 14:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He asked Tom- to come up with something in IRC on #wikimedia last night, witnessed by mav, mindspillage, and brion. &mdash;  BRIAN  0918 • 2005-12-7 14:24


 * Oh.. You mean that the WP is a work in progress; not the tagline.  :-)  I'm glad that he wants this. — Omegatron 16:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"From Wikipedia, the community-written free encyclopedia" I pulled up the wrong MediaWiki message while paying a little too much attention to TV, but here's my comment:


 * "The free encyclopedia" is the project's byline, and has been for quite some time. Changing the sitenotice to bring it out of line with this warrants more than a few minutes' discussion on IRC, without mention of the fact that the wording is extremely awkward. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 03:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm mildly annoyed that it says "anyone can edit" which is not factually correct (like "WP, The F. Encyclopedia" was), not everyone can edit (banned users), and not everyone can edit everything. Having said that I don't have a suggestion for better wording of the new one, guess I just liked the old one. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I dislike like it more than moderately. Sure, Wikipedia isn’t the only free online encyclopædia, but I feel its ‘freeness’ is its defining characteristic and principal, not that anyone can edit it – which is a conditional statement. It should remain “From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”, because that is our objective. --cj | talk 11:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is also short and to the point. Anything longer is too long for a tagline. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I reverted it back.--cj | talk 14:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please re-add "anyone can edit". It's not obvious to newcomers. — Omegatron 14:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Tom- was simply following through on a suggestion made directly to him by Jimbo. Not everyone will like any suggested version. It is better to put something up than to debate about it forever. &mdash;  BRIAN  0918 • 2005-12-7 14:16


 * "Anyone can edit" is misleading because it is a conditional statement. In any case, that Wikipedia is editable is an aside to the fact it is free. It might not always be editable, but it will always be free.--cj | talk 14:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then the current tagline is misleading. I've met editors who thought "free" meant "write about whatever you want".  It could also mean "free as in beer", which is not necessarily the case.
 * It does mean "write about whatever you want". Of course, other people are free to revert your changes.  Obviously no system can guarantee total freedom for everyone - freedoms are incompatible.  The "free" in the tagline is fairly meaningless though - it could be replaced with "copyright-free" or something to actually communicate something to readers. Stevage 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll also have to change the misleading Main Page message:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. — Omegatron 14:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but that's one page. I still think that being editable is not a defining principal. Ævar's point about it being too long for a tagline is valid as well.--cj | talk 14:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree about length. — Omegatron 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also inconsistent with our logo and other language Wikipedias.--cj | talk 15:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So? Where does it say that the slogan and tagline need to be exactly the same?  They are also both inconsistent with the Main Page.  This has never been a problem before.  — Omegatron 16:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Respect people's right to fear change :) &mdash;  BRIAN  0918 • 2005-12-7 16:11
 * I don't know if I should resent that statement. Please refrain from making gibes.--cj | talk 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I like "anyone can edit", and I've wondered why it wasn't on there before. Of course if we're being picky then not everyone can actually edit every page, but if we're being that picky then I'd like to point out Wikipedia is not "the" (i.e. the only) free encyclopedia, merely "a" free encyclopedia. Nor is it "free" if you factor in the amount of time you waste here if you get sucked in, not to mention all those technically unfree fair use images. And as for encyclopedia... well I guess I can't argue with that. Perhaps it should have a ligature ;-)

Anyway I think the fact that "anyone can edit" is certainly a defining feature of Wiki-pedia. The clue's in the name. Not to mention it being one of Jimbo's core principals (where he states "this is how wikipedia will be run, period") I also agree with Redwolf24 that "community-written" doesn't quite get it across. We mustn't forget there are people coming here who are completely new to the concept of Wikipedia and wikis in general (and after all it is still a pretty new idea). the wub "?!"  23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points.
 * The current tagline is actually wrong, too, since "free" isn't capitalized, so it only means free as in beer.

I like "anyone can edit", and I've wondered why it wasn't on there before.
 * It was on there before, but we got reverted. :-) — Omegatron 23:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant for more than one day. :-) the wub "?!"  11:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I've argued this on the mailing list, but it's irresponsible not to inform viewers that anyone can edit the text. Not accurate? It's accurate for 99%+ of people.  Anyone can edit almost any page.  Certain, banned, users will have to go to more trouble to edit any page.  I also suspect 90%+ of people interpret "free encyclopedia" as meaning "Goodie, no subscription fee" and nothing more.  So a tagline that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is basically adding nothing but a little branding.  Those who understand the term "free encyclopedia" already know that Wikipedia is free-as-in-free-speech and editable, and those that don't would do well to be informed that anyone can edit the text.  This isn't just a question of aesthetics (wordiness etc) - we have to be responsible to our readers. Stevage 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a note that I support the addition of "anyone can edit", although "Wikipedia, the freely-editable encyclopedia" would be OK, too. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just some suggestions of taglines
 * "Wikipedia, the largest and most comprehensive encyclopedia." — It's big, isn't it?
 * "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia." — A bit egocentric in emphase on the
 * "Wikipedia, the worlds encyclopedia." — The whole world is part of it
 * "Wikipedia, everybodys encyclopedia." — Everybody can be a part of it.

→ Aza Toth 23:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a couple more here. -Splash talk 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also here. — Omegatron 03:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just "From Wikipedia"? It's vaguely hypocritical to talk about neutral point of view when there's a (subtle) POV on every page. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, if the point of this change is to draw more attention to Wikipedia's potential volatility: --TidyCat 05:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "From Wikipedia, the collaborative encyclopedia."
 * "From Wikipedia, the freely-editable encyclopedia."
 * "From Wikipedia. Written by you, for you, with no copyright." --Stevage 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If people object to the "tagline" being long, why don't we have a tagline followed by a disclaimer. "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" / "Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress that anyone can edit".Stevage 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Link "anyone can edit" to Introduction? If we're going to have the phrase "that anyone can edit" in the tagline, how about linking "anyone can edit" to Introduction, like it is on the main page? It might help get new users off to a good start. Carbonite | Talk 17:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's hear others' opinions on this first. People might not like the idea of a link in such a place, even if the link can only be beneficial for novices. --  BRIAN  0918 17:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a link in the tagline is a good idea - the point of a tagline isn't to hold links for newcomers; we have those already on the side and bottom. While I'm at it, I preferred the old version of the tagline, but the current version ("...that anyone can edit") doesn't really bother me. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think a link is a good idea either, it will be distracting and unbalance the page. the wub "?!"  11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't like a link there, and the change bothers me a bit (it's too long, and it screws up Special:Cite), but I'm not going to get into a wheel war to take it out. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was this change made? The Wikipedia tagline was "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" for longer than I can remember. The addition of "that anyone can edit" is jarring, visually unpleasant (too much text there now for people to even bother reading) and does not really even satisfy what Jimbo supposedly asked (for the work-in-progress nature to be made more clear). All we have now is basically a word-for-word copy of what is written in big letters at the very top of the most-visited page on the wiki, Main Page. I am going to be bold and revert to the original text, pending the thinking up of a better and more original tagline, and/or the community reaching a consensus about this. There are more Wikipedia editors out there than just the admins, and they aren't capable of editing this system message. - Mark 07:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted it last week. While I think the original is better (and should remain), of the suggestions made since then, "the collaborative encyclopedia" was one I liked. --cj | talk 07:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The additions suck, please keep it short and simple (i.e. F. WP, the f. encylcopedia). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It says "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" right on the main page, but it should say it on every page, not just the one page that nobody can edit, so that people know the nature of the content they're reading. It is alright to experiment with changes, we should not cower in fear at any slight change to our layout. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:35
 * Also, see the various discussions further up on this page, where others support this change. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:36
 * I fully support the "that anyone can edit" clause. &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Ævar. Short and sweet is better, and it just plain sounds better. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 18:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We're not going for style here, we're going for accuracy and clarity. Every page should make the nature of its content clear. We're not out to please the editors, but to make the readers understand. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:48
 * If you're going for accuracy and clarity why not make it: "From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that most user agents can edit"? A Tagline is supposed to be a short and to the point slogan, not something that approaches a full blown sentence. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen some fairly long taglines, and there's no reason to be overly technical. I'm just following the text on the main page. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-14 23:41
 * Can someone point me to any kind of reference which would support the notion that a tagline can be 5 words, but that 9 words is too long? Is this some kind of strange branding exercise? There is a major need for the nature of wiki to be explained to users - the main page may be the most visited, but plenty of users never see it, if they go straight to wikipedia.org and search from there. In any case, could the admins please stop treating "be bold" as a licence to put their own personal preference into action, and could we get more users' opinions on this? This is an important topic, but the arguments for and against aren't showing much evidence of serious thought...Stevage 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "The free encyclopedia" has been long-established as Wikipedia's tagline. Regardless of whether users realise it refers to free as in licensing as opposed to beer, the addition of "that anyone can edit" does not emphasise the intended meaning of free (since you can have a free content encyclopedia that is not freely editable). Further, the original tagline continues to be used on the Wikipedia logo (almost every Wikipedia, actually) and in every page's title.
 * Brian0918's revert edit summary ("please read the discussion further up before believing that nobody supports this version") is insulting to say the least. I read the discussion further up, as was demonstrated by me referring to topics discussed further up this page. I simply do not accept that Jimbo and four other users in a random IRC channel constitute consensus on whether a change should be made. Brian0918, it is also bad form to be marking your reverts as minor on a disputed page like this.
 * The catalyst for this change, it seems, was not Jimbo asking in the Wikimedia channel for it to be changed, but instead a message by Brion to the Wikipedia-l mailing list claiming we should put a disclaimer at the top of every page saying "this is a work in progess, has not been formally reviewed, may contain factual inaccuracies or vandalism, and *should not* be used for reference without a very large grain of salt". He wanted to emphasise our draft nature. He actually supported the "community-written free encyclopedia" version.
 * So, following brian0918's advice to examine the support on this talk page for the changes, here is a list of who on this talk page supports which version (based upon whichever one they have expressed the most (if any) support for on the talk page):


 * [Moved down and made a straw poll.]] -- Jeandré, 2006-02-18t20:13z


 * In addition, according to this diff, Jimbo Wales doesn't like the new version either, as that was his response when it was going to be changed to something identical back in August. He thinks (or, at least, he thought) that "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is "short and sweet". I'd be interested to read the logs of the conversation in #wikimedia to see what he in fact said to Tom-, and whether he told those present to go ahead and make this change without asking the community.
 * That is quite an old comment of his. He asked Tom- only a week or two ago to change this. That is why the "community-written" version was used, which of course was reverted soon after. But, feel free to dig up any old comments from Jimbo that supported your current view. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-15 02:43


 * As for the admins "treating "be bold" as a licence to put their own personal preference into action", it has become out of hand. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle provides that the bold change should be reverted once, then discussion continue on the talk page, until what seems like a consensus is reached. The practise is not to be bold, make the change, then discuss whether it should be changed back to the original version, but to discuss whether the original version should be changed to the new version.
 * I have put a notice about this on the Village Pump, hopefully some fresh opinions will surface. - Mark 02:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The tagline is fine staying the way it always has been without being dumbed down by this phoney addition. The word "free" is indeed ambiguous, and in that context that's the way it should be.  The tag line does have a marketting quality, and that's just fine too.  When you have an effective tagline don't spoil it with an anticlimactic qualifier.  Others may call themselves "the free encyclopedia', but that's their concern, not ours.  There is no need to tell people repeatedly on every page that they can edit. Let it come to them as a eureka moment; the lesson will be better learned that way.  The proposed addition is lame and based on the premise that the user is an idiot.  It can't be removed fast enough. Eclecticology 01:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I totally oppose this addition. "The free encyclopedia" has been our tagline for a long long long time. There's no need to put a disclaimer on every page. Those who have blamed Wikipedia for inaccuracies do it only because they know anyone can edit. Also, the big edit this page tab might give it away (no? Maybe I'm being a little bit too optimistic about humanity?) Either way, as Mark says, let's please keep the old version and put the new version on if there's a consensus. &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  04:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I oppose this change as well. I don't object to changing something of the layout at the top of the page to make our nature clear to visitors, but changing the tagline isn't right -- this should be short and simple.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also prefer the existing, harmonious tagline. Among other things, changing your tagline just as your brand is catching on, and doing so to emphasize one of your most controversial attributes, isn't smart. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Will someone just get Jimbo to comment on this talk page? — Omegatron 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Although Jimbo's comments would be helpful, I hardly think he'd dictate a change.--cj | talk 06:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't remember which versions I had previously called 'aesthetically awful' here, but Brion's email to the mailing list persuaded me the other day that we ought to do something a little bit different. The idea is to brainstorm something which is neither too long nor too boring nor too timid, but which helps the reader understand that Wikipedia is a work in progress, so that they can evaluate it properly as such.  I don't know what the right answer is, exactly.  'that anyone can edit' is my current favorite, but I wonder if we perhaps haven't yet thought of the right answer.--Jimbo Wales 11:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe a huge black and yellow striped theme as our default (construction stripes, y'know) &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would welcome something very bold that every reader sees when they read a page, clarifying that everyone can edit -- another stylistic element to the page layout. Perhaps just above the sitemessage.  I don't think the tagline is the right vehicle for that message; as taglines go, three words is a good length; and many people just don't see or process taglines. +sj + 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this must have been discussed and shot down a thousand times before, or it's just lame for some other reason, but what about From Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was the first to change it to "that anyone can edit", so I obviously like that one the most. If you want to emphasize that it's a work in progress, though, instead of emphasizing the source of our content, you could say something like "the ever-expanding encyclopedia", "the always improving encyclopedia",  "constantly changing" or something like that.
 * I was trying to point out to the first-time visitor that the source of the articles is regular people. — Omegatron 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "From Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including you."? Of course, there are a couple of problems with this, such as not taking banned users into account, and the name "Wikipedia" being used more than once. Denelson83 07:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to realize that a lot of people end up at a particular article without having seen the main page first. In fact, Wikipedia articles generally get listed on Google search pages very near the top. I know that I personally used (and blindly trusted) the content in Wikipedia for at least a few weeks before discovering what "wiki" meant. "That anyone can edit" is honest, clear, and unintrusive, and it lets everyone know right up front what we're about. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that proclaiming on every page that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with all the connotations of that word, and without any qualifier, is misleading and frankly immoral. Adam Konner 12:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adam; while people know what the "-pedia" refers to and expect certain things from a site with such a name, very few may know what the "Wiki-" refers to. — Jeandré, 2005-12-21t16:16z
 * I'm possibly being harsh here, but most of the comments in favour of keeping the short version boil down to: This is our club, it's always been this way, if no one else understands what it means the too bad for them. I don't think that's a positive attitude for further growth of wikipedia, or dealing with the problems that evidently large numbers of people do *not* understand what it means. Stevage 16:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that +sj's comment (six comments above) is the best way to go -- let's work on a 'stylistic change that incorporated the apprpriate words in some other way than adding them into the tagline, since they are not noticed by most people (in the same way that most of us completely filter out Google ads or messages at the bottom of Hotmail or Yahoo emails). BCorr | Брайен 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2006-02.
It would be appreciated if those thinking "that anyone can edit" shouldn't be added, can come help out at info-en@ answering all the emails by people who find Wikipedia via searches for specific articles and don't see the "that anyone can edit" on the main page. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-10t11:31z


 * The phrase "that anyone can edit" should not be added to the tagline for one very simple reason: It is not true. Plenty of people have been banned, hundreds of articles are protected/semiprotected at any given time, there are an infinite number of edits that people would like to make but will never be allowed to because they would violate WP:NPOV, etc. Wikipedia has enough of an image problem right now as it is; why hand critics another issue on a silver platter? --Aaron 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then it should be taken out of the Main Page, About, Wikipedia, Introduction, ...
 * Oh no! People without computers can't edit the Wikipedia, either?? The main page is sooo misleading! — Omegatron 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, it should be taken out. Go for it. --Aaron 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That was sarcasm; I don't want it taken out. I'd bet that if you tried taking it out yourself you would be insta-reverted and opposed, too. — Omegatron 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-03.
Annapolis (Md.) Senior High School science teacher Neill Russell agreed. He was calling Wikipedia "one of the best sources out there" -- until he learned anyone could edit it. "I think teachers like myself, that are having kids do research, we're not aware of it," he said.

We've received thousands of emails at helpdesk-l and info-en from people who don't know what the "wiki" means in Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-03-07t20:28z

Straw poll.
Which alternative taglines do you prefer?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (22)
(Don't change it.)
 * 1) Austin Hair
 * 2) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
 * 3) cj
 * 4) Flcelloguy (Well, I guess this was compiled from my old comments, but I still support this version. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
 * 5) Titoxd 02:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Mark
 * 7) Eclecticology
 * 8) Tfine80
 * 9) R. S. Shaw
 * 10) Aaron
 * 11) Lar
 * 12) Ilyanep
 * 13)  xaosflux  Talk / CVU 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Christopher Parham (talk)
 * 15) De  ryc k C.  07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) WB 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Ashibaka tock 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Short=good.Geni 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) 71.112.127.130 01:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Shanes 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) —Ruud 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Quiddity 04:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the community-written free encyclopedia (6)

 * 1) Tom-
 * 2) Mindspillage
 * 3) Brion
 * 4) Brian0918
 * 5) mav
 * 6) cohesion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (18)

 * 1) Omegatron
 * 2) Steveage
 * 3) the wub
 * 4) JesseW
 * 5) Matt Crypto
 * 6) brian0918
 * 7) mav
 * 8) Jeandré, 2005-12-22t10:55:26z
 * Some people don't understand what the "wiki" in Wikipedia means, including judges. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-06t22:10z
 * and immigration officers -- Jeandré, 2007-04-22t19:31z
 * and more judges. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-07t12:29z
 * 1) Chairman S.
 * 2) User:Todfox, 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Nicolasdz
 * 5) Polaris999 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Adam Konner 09:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) — GT 02:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) A.Z. 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) It makes everyone aware, if they didn't already know, what the implications of the "wiki" in "wikipedia" are. Tisane (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Xnquist (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia (5)

 * 1) I don't really like any of the above.  How about From Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia? &mdash; MSchmahl 20:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) It is short and snappy, with 'open' implying both free and editable.  rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I like the more verbose ones, but if the choice is between "free" and "open", I'd prefer "open".  To the typical Google visitor, "free" means "no credit card required".  "Open" could mean a few different things (which they might actually look into before ranting in their blogs about our inaccuracies or suing us for libel). — Omegatron 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I prefer "open" as well, for the same reasons as Erikssond. Blackcap (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) "Open" has always seemed far clearer than "free" to me. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit

 * 1) It's shorter than "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", plus "free" doesn't mean much to me anyway. A.Z. 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I'm disappointed (and surprised) at the straw poll, but I'd like to point out that ~50% favor an expansion of the tagline (though we don't agree on which). — Omegatron 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I too am surprised by this as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

2008
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia we build together

Having read through the old discussion, no harm done? in adding to it. The above is a way to combine the "you can edit" concept with the community collaborative aspect. The "we" can be taken to mean "the world", "the community", and "everyone else and you". "build" has (paradoxically) better connotation than "write" for our purposes... the idea of a continuing effort to assemble notable human knowledge into a comprehensive whole. --Marcinjeske (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

2010
Recently discussed again at Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_1. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the situation (and reasons for change) has been best characterized by Adam Konner above, who wrote: It's important to realize that a lot of people end up at a particular article without having seen the main page first. In fact, Wikipedia articles generally get listed on Google search pages very near the top. I know that I personally used (and blindly trusted) the content in Wikipedia for at least a few weeks before discovering what "wiki" meant. "That anyone can edit" is honest, clear, and unintrusive, and it lets everyone know right up front what we're about. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that proclaiming on every page that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with all the connotations of that word, and without any qualifier, is misleading and frankly immoral. Xnquist (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree for this reason and for reasons of empowerment -- not letting everyone who sees Wikipedia know that they too can edit that page, is misleading and in a way counter to the project's morals. –SJ +  05:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A rather unusual request
Can you make it from what it is now to. This will remove the tagline from my userspace as it looks rather weird the way it's currently set up.— cyberpower Chat Online  22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * &lt;title&gt; tag doesn't allow any HTML tags. Additionally, why is your user page is important enough to impact performance of the entire site?  — Dispenser 23:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an important request. I thought I'd ask though.— cyberpower  Chat Offline  01:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Search results tagline
Where is the MediaWiki namespace page that puts in the page title that appears at the top of the frame of your browser window, and in search engine results, "- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" after the title of the Wikipedia page that you're at or searching for? E.g., in this case, "Editing MediaWiki talk:Tagline (new section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"? Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's MediaWiki:Pagetitle except at the main page, which uses MediaWiki:Pagetitle-view-mainpage. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding link to authors / contributors
Is being discussed here on the village pump. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

MFD of subpage en-gb

 * I did update the the en-gb; en-au, and en-ca versions to the main version. — xaosflux  Talk 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to hide tagline
There is a proposal to hide the tagline at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 142. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm coming across this in 2020. Looks like the proposal never got full attention. Personally, I'm neutral on it but going back and forth in my head. Sdkb (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Smaller font.
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.

&mdash; 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! &mdash; 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)

Why is this not smaller text now? -- Vít Zvánovec 18:21, 3 Feb 2005 (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/: ? This may counter all that crap that our mirrors have been giving us. &mdash; 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 " " and "  " 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: [[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: Main Page 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)

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)


 * It's not??? Hmm...  Maybe that's the problem. - Omegatron 18:56, July 24, 2005 (UTC)