A proposal in the European Parliament threatens thousands of educational photographs of modern buildings and sculptures located in the UK.
Learn more...
This is my suggestion, I have a little experience with banners :)
Dark text on light background is much easier to read
We can tweak the wording, but I think this is suitably to the point
The blacked out images are a really powerful way to get the message across about the effects of this proposal, and should be included. We can also customise the selection for different countries.
The whole banner would link to the info page, and have a hover effect when the user's pointer is over it. I can't do that here, but it's easy to add in CentralNotice.
Nice, I admit that light background looks better. I just made a minor modification to see that also such banner can contain both title and subtitle. --Mirefek (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The title must be something that the readers easily understand and all would agree with. For the moment, the best I can come up with is: "Photos of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia". The line below should explain what is going on. First suggestion: "A proposal in the European Parliament brings thousands of images on Wikipedia in danger." Please give suggestions for improvements! Romaine (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a banner for Commons is certainly possible, I think pretty easy to make. We have not just the intention to inform the Commons community, but to inform everyone who uses Commons and Wikipedia. But the big question is: what should the banner show? Romaine (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practise to have files in banners link to a landing page as well, otherwise many people click on it and end up on the wrong page. To respect copyright in such situation, the used files can be linked in small at the bottom of the landing page or on the talk page of the landing page. Romaine (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice for the images to be clickable (with appropriate Wikipedia page) but I am not able to do it in this interface.--Mirefek (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I love banner E. The "not all black" works really well — and would probably be a little less controversial on enwiki, where about half of the people who've given their opinion are opposed to any banner at all. — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the title of the banner and the title of the landing page should be different. That's why I prefer the title "Imagine a world without free pictures" in the banner (it causes more impact) and then "Photos of modern buildings..." in the landing page. --Davidpar (disc.) 22:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found a bug: all those div-elements in E are actually a table with one row and six cells (logo, text, 3 images, close button). In E2 you added a paragraph outside of all cells (and outside of the only row), that kills the mobile view. In my sandbox I converted E2 + E to ordinary tables, both working for mobile view. Maybe tweak that for an improved E2. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is the place for it, but: the idea for the images is great, but the implementation needs work. I know black is the traditional censorship color, but for many of the example thumbnails, if you don't look at them closely they simply look like low light/backlit photos. A neutral gray, white, or pattern would probably work better. Kolbasz (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a world without pictures. Without ours and without yours. (Or something like that. I know it might sound a little confusing, but it will involve people. And that's what we need at the moment - in my opinion title is very important. Colors are ok. After the click they can read for further details, but they are already in.) --Vodnokon4e (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of modern buildings and public art must remain on Wikipedia
Don't let EU steal the Freedom of Panorama!
A proposal in the European Parliament would require removing thousands of images of modern buildings and sculpture from Wikipedia.
Propose your suggestions for the smaller font subheading here.
A proposal in the European Parliament brings thousands of images on Wikipedia in danger
A proposal in the European Parliament brings thousands of images on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in danger
I don't think the above are correct, grammar wise. Here's my suggestion:
A proposal in the European Parliament threatens thousands of images on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons
Or more informative:
A proposal in the European Parliament may require deletion of censorship of thousands of images of modern architecture, hosted on Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere
Resources for localized banners and messages[edit]
Hi, suggestion for francophone countries: trying a "general message" type is less efficient than a targeted image. I think it's better to have a banner with a message like "Bienvenue à Bruxelles" with an image of the w:atomium censored (File:Atomium 010-censored.png) or a "Paris, Ville-Lumière" with Eiffel tower phased-out (File:Puhane Eiffelturm Nacht-censored.jpg) and a subtitle like "Une proposition du Parlement Européen nous conduirait à illustrer les articles de Wikipédia de cette manière. En savoir plus.". My 2-Eurocents... --Zeugma fr (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "brings them in danger" gets all of 9 hits in google compared to 400,000 for "brings them into danger", which tends to confirm my belief that the former is just bad English. It looks bad if we can't even be grammatical. Zero0000 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What information should be on the Learn more page?[edit]
Where readers can find more information
Voting is on 9 July in European Parliament
How they can find the e-mail addresses of Members of the European Parliament to send an e-mail
How they can find the Twitter accounts of Members of the European Parliament to send a tweet
Links to press releases from WMF/chapters
We need to know what amendment exactly MEPs will be signing up to/voting for to save FoP. Working on having this information soon, but probably the exact number won't be known before 1 July.
Why permission for non-commercial use is not sufficient for Wikipedia.
Call for communicate to Members of the European Parliament
That could be great, how it works? works for all entire wikipedia or only by user? How can we get installed in other wikis? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the people from the Czech community have expressed such a gadget would be what is necessary for the campaing. I would like to discuss it being used across more european language versions. --Aktron (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the gadget is not on by default, but my feeling from the discussion is that it will be enabled for all visitors and that you need to login and deactivate it to be able to see pictures. It can be installed by copying the page above, this page and add a line to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition on your wiki. You can try it out right now on svwiki if you want to see the effects, just enable the gadget called Panoramafrihet. Ainali (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: this vote is for discussion on whether to use some sort of banner or no banner. For discussion and vote on which banner to use, please see another section.
Support, of course, but… «Use translated banners based on user geo-location»? Why? The proper way to do i18n is to match each users’ preferred languages as done in things like {{Autotranslate}}. Translations of the banner should be provided in all official languages of the EU (incl. Gaelic Irish and “Luxemburgian”) and also a couple others (namely, Catalan). -- Tuválkin✉✇06:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer the black background with the language of E2 - make it clear that we will have to delete pictures. But a banner should run in any case across all EU countries --Trödel22:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Banner A is the most esthetical, the Wikipedia icon is clearly visible and recognizable. Any law does not work backwards. What was already uploaded cannot be removed. Abrimaal (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use any banner. Wikimedia Commons should accept whatever EU parliament decides without voicing our opinion.
Support
This is a highly biased statement, making it almost impossible to support. For this statement to be true, then project banners would be the only way of 'voicing our opinion', blatantly untrue. MEPs are the ones voting in parliament, not project users.
The introduction states "this vote is for discussion on whether to use some sort of banner or no banner", the way this vote section has been laid out has not put that question. Any consensus resulting from it will be flawed and may be subject to later challenge. --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cannot support any political advocacy on any Wikimedia project. Our goal is to provide free knowledge, not to do political advocacy. Thus, I think our efforts would be better spent if we do this on a site that is for political advocacy, such as starting a petition on change.org (I'd sign if someone started one). --Jakob (talk)17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lads, as we are short of time, we have to choose a banner and post it to focus people and involve them. Otherwise we can continue with banner discussion till 9 July. Below are three short tables with several possible options, that we need to choose and post tomorrow morning UTC (24 June, lets say 8AM) and spread in other languages. Please choose 1 or max 2 options. We will calculate at the end of the day. I think we can continue with the discussion about better solutions after that, but we need to act and to act now. If it is a normal project - perfect, we have plenty of time; but it itsn,t. And we can keep landing page to be Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015, until we fully prepare Learn more or FAQ page or other subpage after day or two.
I agree we should vote soon, but I am sorry, I find the table below confusing. I've been involved with this since the beginning, but I am not sure I understand all choices. To make it simple, we should have votes right next to a proposed image. This way people won't be confused. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk03:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is confusing for me, I thought that slogans will be voted separately from the apperance. I have no preference in slogans, but I want to vote for pictures in the banner. --Mirefek (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses Unless there is wide-ranging and explicit community consensus for having any banners at all, this organizing is extremely premature. The proper thing to do here is to seek opinion from the wider community--most likely through a vote--first, and only then start organizing banner campaigns. odder (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banner E. I am not really happy with any of them, but that's the closed. But yes, this vote needs to be organized in a better way (I thought we would have more graphic variants, too...). And where is the vote whether to do it or not? We can hardly do it based on <10 votes here. I have started a vote above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk02:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banner A from a mostly aesthetic level, and that globally the Wikipedia logo may be the most identifiable – and in my opinion just inspiring. On the contrary the images of blacked out structures in banner E speak many words... perhaps a combination of the two somehow. — MusikAnimaltalk03:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banner E2. Having censored pictures conveys the message much better than a big black banner that's not really that interesting. I do however thing this design doesn't take as much attention than the completely black ones. So perhaps elements from both banners be merged? I'd also wish to see the banner shown world-wide, not just within EU. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Banner E gets my vote. Its visually attractive and not to gawdy. Black backgrounds should be avoided because its hard for a lot of people to read it. I prefer the bold font in E over the normal font in E2. Reguyla (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind much which banner, as long as there is one. I've added a suggested one for the UK if that is possible. I think the problem with the totally blacked-out photos is that many readers will not appreciate what they are photos of. -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like E, E2, E3, might be even displayed for German langauge. Just make sure they scale better (currently the text is squeezed between the images on smaller resolutions) -- Rillke(q?)19:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banner E probably E3 for UK, I think a balance should be struck between informing and campaigning. E achieves that and is visually preferable.Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banner D I actually saw this on the Spanish Wikipedia before the English one, it really caught my attention. I think the message is clearer than A, B, or C and I like the graphic design better as well. It's the most depressing of the four banners because it gives the visual impression of all the images slowly sinking into a void. Soap (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banner E However, the phrase "and sculptures" is not appropriate. US FoP laws, which Wikipedia & Commons must follow, only allows exceptions for permanent structures, not permanently-installed artwork. If I'm not mistaken, we don't allow images of permanently-installed artwork on either site, so saying that we would have to remove sculptures is inaccurate. I don't feel like searching for the discussions, but I recall this was an issue a couple years ago with a large group of photos of artwork from Israel (obviously not in EU, but that's not relevant for my point). AHeneen (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As this banner falls under the subject Promotional Use of Website Assets, the legal team of the Wikimedia Foundation is involved in the organisation. As a banner has a big impact, they have requirements for a banner. A statement must be:
Credible
Compelling
Accurate
Fit in the strategy of the EU policy group
It's more productive and encouraging to state our position positively, like has been done with SOPA. A positive wording would help on the long term with other copyright issues as well. Romaine (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As a banner for an advocacy subject is a rare exemption with big consequences in the future, the legal team of the Wikimedia Foundation has to aprove the text of the banner. Romaine (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
–Be..anyone (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Support --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hold your horses Unless there is wide-ranging and explicit community consensus for having any banners at all, this organizing is extremely premature. The proper thing to do here is to seek opinion from the wider community--most likely through a vote--first, and only then start organizing banner campaigns. odder (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)