Wikipedia talk:Jordanhill commemoration

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

It has been expressed by many users that the Wikimedia Foundation should contact the authorities in control of the Jordanhill railway station, and request a plaque be placed at the station, in commemoration of the 1 millionth English article. This is not meant to be tacky, self-obsessed, or put an emphasis on quantity over quality. This commemoration simply is to provide a physical commemoration of the efforts of thousands of people worldwide who raised the project to the level it is at.

If you agree with this concept in principle, you may put your username here. You must be logged in to a valid user account, with at least 5 unreverted main namespace edits, at the time of signing.

Please let the Wikimedia Foundation organize contact. Please do not communicate with the station authorities by yourself about this; show support on this page, your user page, your blog, etc.

Votes (145 support, 13 oppose)[edit]

Supporters[edit]

  1. user:Jh1977
  2. user:zanimum
  3. user:smurrayinchester
  4. user:BillyH
  5. user:gsreynolds
  6. user:ksyme99
  7. user:RealMontrealer
  8. user:jollygreengiant
  9. Gurch 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian13 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose Ian13/talk 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. User:Dtobias
  11. Modest Genius 21:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. TechnoGuyRob 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Joewithajay 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jjinfoothills 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Lisiate 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. User:American Patriot 1776
  17. User:Fys 22:21, March 2, 2006 (UTC)
  18. Tvaughn05 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Moon Stone 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. StoneStone 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. God Ω War 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. James S. 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Redquark 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Will 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Stormscape 23:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Gustavb 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Shultz III 23:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Whitepaw 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Master Of Ninja 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. EWS23 01:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Jeremy Banks 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Angelo 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Tphi 01:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Cutler 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. joturner 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Stormie 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Pegasus1138 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Curtisf14 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. THE KING 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    L33th4x0r 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not qualify under five edit rule, and edits in bad faith.
  40. Max 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Micahbrwn 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Hamedog 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Ilya N. 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Banana04131 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Deus Homoni 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Jaranda 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Kimchi.sg 04:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. JDoorjam 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Cyde Weys 05:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Jon Harald Søby 06:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Drivera90 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Samrolken 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. AceMyth 06:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Bduke 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Sceptre 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. FiggyBee 09:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Witty lama 09:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Nach0king 10:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Robdurbar 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Alexp73 12:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Malthusian 12:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Zocky 13:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Lumos3 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Splette 13:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Gophergun
  66. Kilo-Lima 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Ouuplas 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Zappa 18:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Danthemankhan 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. The Disco King 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Gflores 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. EamonnPKeane 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. The Halo 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. SFGiants 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Greatigers 01:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Dash 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Thryduulf 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. V0rt3x 10:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Eclecticology 11:39 per Wikien mailing list
  80. Phantom784 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. WAvegetarian 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 20:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Husky 18:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Sommers 23:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Cyde 06:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Mieciu K 15:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Fieari 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. T-rex 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Ashibaka 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. tiZom 04:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Yaco 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Grue 11:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Ianblair23 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Ac1983fan 23:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Phl 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Tyrhinis 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. zappa 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. bruce89 (I live only a few miles from the station. 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 05:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Willing to donate a few quid (OK, USD) to cover part of the cost too. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. --Skoorb 14:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Cynical 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Jpeob 11:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) A great idea![reply]
  106. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. IanManka 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Tim1988 talk 16:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. User:Dbmag9
  110. the_ed17 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. PlasmaDragon 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. *drew 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Nice. bd2412 T 15:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114.  — MrDolomite | Talk 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. --cloudo 10:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. --JuntungWu 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. JIP | Talk 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. --Barrytalk 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. --K-UNIT 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. NauticaShades(talk) 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Jickyincognito 10:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. User:ShaneKorte 71.81.46.119 19:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Athænara 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Kingjamie 19:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Vizjim 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Raystorm 12:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Simfan34 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Adolphus79 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. -Uagehry456|Talk 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Adambisset 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Zginder 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Shibo77 03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Avala 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. GizzaDiscuss © 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. [[Wannabe Wiki (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
  143. Gophergun (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Delete... oh wait, it's not an AfD. Support. ~-F.S-~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 21:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposers[edit]

See also #Where can people put oppose votes? below.
  1. Celcius 20:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC) As much as I dislike to be the first to vote against I feel I should be bold and voice my opinion. I think a plaque is unnecesarry and gives the impression of the wikipedia community taking itself a bit too seriously. It's an encyclopedia - not a cure for cancer. Did Britannica erect a plaque for themselves when they hit 100k and would it generally be considered good form had they or Encarta done it? In addition, it focuses on quantity rather than quality which I feel is the wrong path to take. Summa summarum: Regretfully, I oppose.[reply]
  2. Oppose - see arguments below. I think this is an inappropriate and over-the-top response. Carcharoth 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ian13/talk 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC). Per Celcius.[reply]
  4. This may not be meant to "be tacky, self-obsessed, or put an emphasis on quantity over quality", but it will certainly be perceived as such, and rightfully so. I think we should celebrate if we ever get the number of embarrassing articles down to 100,000. AxelBoldt 18:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose as per Celcius. Shmuel 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I agree entirely with the comments made by Celcius and AxelBoldt. This idea comes across to me as utterly absurd and a case of Wikipedian pride getting out of hand. Just calm down and think about it for a minute- Putting a plaque in a train station, because that train station happened to be the subject, by one estimation, of the 1,000,000th article on an online encyclopedia. And holding a ceremony to honor that this train station happened to have an article created about it such a precise moment (??). I see this bizarre move as tasteless marketing at its worst. Sarge Baldy 09:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as per Celcius, Axel and Sarge. — Trilobite 15:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose It was mere chance that this article was the millionth, and chance that it was something which could be adorned with a plaque. This isn't following any rational thought. And frankly it seems against the plight of Wikipedia. Are we documenting what the world has created, or creating ourselves? --Grocer 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose as per Celcius, AxelBoldt and Sarge Baldy /AB-me (chit-chat) 10:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I hope you have a team of volunteers to patrol the station waiting to fix the plaque when it gets vandalized. ;) But seriously now, this venture does strike me as a fairly bad idea. Arbitrary username 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. The number 1000000 is special because it's 10^6. But there is nothing special about the railway station. --Zoz (t) 18:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Let's wait one hundred years before putting a plaque there. If Wikipedia is still there then, I am sure historians will have a lively debate about whether Jordanhill railway station was really the 1,000,000 article. Let's step back and wait... No vanity. --Edcolins 21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, considering "articles without links to other articles" as not being articles (see Special:Statistics) is an arbitrary discrimination, and non-sense. A web page without any link to other web page is still a web page. I suggest swiftly removing from Talk:Jordanhill railway station the banner "This article has been certified as the Millionth English Wikipedia article". What kind of certification is it? "To certify" means "to attest as certain". I don't think it is certain that this article was the millionth article. It may have been the millionth article created with links to other articles, but nothing more. Guys, I am afraid to say Jordanhill railway station was not the millionth article of Wikipedia. --Edcolins 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, actually, i'm fairly certain some people went and backtracked through the database to confirm the number of articles at the time, not just Special:Statistics. Homestarmy 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. I feel Wikipedia is taking itself too seriously here. I know I'm going against many people who I would normally be alongside here, but think.. "This plaque commemorates Jordanhill for being the 1,000,000th entry on a website". It just doesn't sound right. To be honest, if I saw that plaque, I'd laugh, even though I am a fan of Wikipedia. Anyhow, my oppose does not make much difference, I'm just saying. Wikipedia is no big deal. Jack?! 12:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I feel if the foundation pay for say, a bench, that would be a better idea. A plaque just seems so.. over the top. The bench could certainly have a plaque on it, but having just a plaque on the wall seems strange. A plaque normally commemorates a death or something historic in my opinion. Jack?! 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Placing a plaque at Jordanhill Station, would be a very fitting act. As a local (and alumnus of Jordanhill School), to discover that my local rail station was the subject of the millionth wiki article is very suprising - and very cool - to say the least! I think that the Wikimedia Foundation should at least approach SPT and suggest the idea. It would certainly be significant if there was a plaque on the ground commemorating the millionth article - and advertising this to locals - rather than this being limited to the Wiki community.

--Gsreynolds 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention we'll lure some more of those rural Brits to such a great place. ;-) -TechnoGuyRob 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My job is to persuade local councils to grant planning permission for things and I am myself a local councillor who serves on a planning sub-committee deciding on these things. If you want a plaque, the thing to do is to get in touch with the people who own the station and the people who operate it to see if they would allow a plaque to be put up. If they say yes, then you need a planning application to Glasgow City Council to be approved. David | Talk 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emails have been removed, as we don't want people contacting individually. I'm posting the complete info to the Wikimedia Foundations Communications Committee mailing list, where the Foundation will help coordinate efforts, presuming more users express their interest on this page. -- user:zanimum
Please make sure the Foundation has the link to the Board of directors of Transport Scotland, as well as the non-email contacts for the planning development city board which you also removed. --James S. 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good publicity. Redquark 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thas as shoorlay a thang too be toktaboot! Fantastic Idea! Will 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure I support that! I could even come there from Pisa to participate! ;) --Angelo 01:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm personally in favour, but sceptical of success. Generally speaking the British authorities only put up plaques to commemorate famous deceased personalities. Not sure they'd consider making such a solid memorial to an electronic entity. Lee M 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this idea. People make way too much out of a big round number. Putting a plaque in a train station because by some estimations it was the 1,000,000th article in an online encyclopedia? And hold a ceremony? I find that marketing gone way out of hand, although amusing in an absurdist sense. Sarge Baldy 07:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "do not contact them"[edit]

What is the evidence that "volumes of emails from individual contributors will do nothing but irritate those in charge"? If I was a sysadmin at Transport Scotland or the Glasgow City Council, I would be proud to correct the situation should it become intractible for the users. I think the people who have to wade through ticket refund requests and arcane legal process every day would be thrilled to zoom through a couple dozen emails letting them know that they were in charge of the subject of the millionth Wikipedia article. --James S. 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should anyone remain concerned about this, I urge those choosing to write to remember to include "Wikipedia" in the subject line of their emails. --James S. 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that says they won't get totally annoyed. It's always better to play it safe. Also, the Wikimedia Foundation has not given permission for such a plaque to be placed; it is possible the Foundation will not want to commemorate the milestone in such a manner. Also, independent Wikipedians may be misinterpreted as Wikimedia "staff", and the organization will look as if it was a disorganized "company" where no employee knew who's duty contacting is. -- user:zanimum
I don't know what will or won't annoy; but it would be great if the Foundation were to take this on as a project. I don't see why people shouldn't send them email congratulating them on being the subject of the millionth article, which is what I think James meant; that sounds like a joyful reprieve from the daily grind. +sj +
Okay, congratulatory messages would be fine, just don't talk about the plaque in the message, and no one represent themselves in a way that could be misinterpreted to suggest anything but you are a volunteer. -- user:zanimum

Wow, 5 unreverted namespace edits...we're really setting the bar high. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's much too low, but we're trying to include bonafide newbies, who discover us through the 1M-EN PR. -- user:zanimum

What should the plaque be made of, should it be approved?[edit]

The plaque should be of a low value material. I note that the commemorative plaque to the runner killed near the station in 1898 was made of lead and has now gone missing. See [1] see section 4 Accident on the railway, 1898 Lumos3 13:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just the average Plak-it type of thing would do, so then we can afford to replace it to make up for wear and tear. Plus, we don't want to waste too much money on the thing, the Foundation needs to spend money on other things. -- user:zanimum
Maybe we should just put a bit of blackboard up with some chalk and let people write their own plaque? --Cherry blossom tree 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. That is the most hilarious idea ever. Nice one. Although, it would be interesting! -zappa 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Stainless steel, brushed to the shade of platinum, per tradition. The difference between the cost of the platinum and the cost of the actual plaque should be donated half to Transport Scotland and half to the City of Glasgow, neither of whom should be required to pay for the instalation, but both of whom should be offered the chance to do so. Right of refusal is with the author of the 1,000,000th article, and either of the other local authorities. --James S. 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the letters and frame should be plated with chrome to contrast with the dull grey brushed steel. --James S. 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, blue is the typical colour chosen for plaques, as a result of the blue plaque scheme. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if the plaque were a blue circle, as with the blue plaque scheme, but the circle itself was, in fact, the Wikipedia logo with the commemorative text written on it? I know, we're getting into Photoshop territory now.... JDoorjam Talk 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! A nightmare to mock-up with tables, but good! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Wikimedia Foundation's visual identity guidelines, such coverage of the Wikimedia logo is prohibited. -- user:zanimum
Try to only suggest materials (ie platinum and paint), not appearance (round and blue). The actual design will likely be dependent on Wikimedia the style guide, or the stylistic conventions of local historical plaques. -- user:zanimum

What should the plaque say?[edit]

I've put a proposed plaque on the project page. (Please, please) please feel free to change it. JDoorjam Talk 18:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion moved there. --James S. 19:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanhill railway station is the subject of the millionth article added to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. - I don't think you need to mention the English part on there, since the plaque is in English, I think it would maybe just be assumed. Also, "millionth" is easier to read than "1,000,000th" I think. All IMHO! -zappa 18:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I like your suggestion about millionth, but the English language distinction is important, because I think they're up to about 3.3 million articles for all the languages and sister projects. I could be way off. --James S. 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the correct stat. Perhaps the precident for official Wikimedia plaques is one for every millionth article in any language, and one for the every millionth article overall, if such complex stats can be calculated. -- user:zanimum
That assumes every landmark article is a place. What would happen if the 2 millionth was George Bush III or custard soup (please don't anyone create those articles!)? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then we could put a plaque in the town were George Bush III was born, or in the town where custard soup was invented or popularized. No matter what, let's not get ahead of ourselves, there's no saying that the Foundation will agree with this plaque, let alone a series of plaques. -- user:zanimum
I hope that all the Foundation does is simply acknowledge that the plaque exists, and helps with coordination of how it is going to be set up and presented. Any financing for the plaque ought to be done by supporters alone, and no general funds for the plaque should come from the Foundation. Presenting the plaque would serve a good P.R. function, however. --Robert Horning 18:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- user:zanimum

(moved back left) Regarding the proposed text - British style would require the use of 'one-millionth' rather than 'millionth', and any statement should be in the past tense (ie WAS the subject of the one-millionth article) Modest Genius talk 03:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another point, re the proposed plaques, they should start 'On the 1st March 2006,...' to conform to British style, rather than just '1 March 2006,...', and 'encylopaedia' rather than 'encyclopedia' (although the latter is debatable) Modest Genius talk 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modest Genius is wrong- any Google search will show you that what 'one-millionth' means is the fraction, i.e. one million times smaller than one. "One millionth" is correct. Why would there be a hyphen? Would you write "one-thousand"? No. You would write "one thousand". And so on. Jh1977
Whoops, you're correct. I meant that the 'one' was necessary, the hyphen was a mistake Modest Genius talk 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where will the plaque be put?[edit]

If Jordanhill railway station is only small, then a wooden bench might offer a good site to hold the plaque, and allow that bloke reading his paper to sit down. Noisy | Talk 19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bench is perhaps the most sensible suggestion, really. It improves the station, and isn't some glitzy thing on some wall. And unlike welding a plaque onto the wall, it can always be moved or temporary removed during a renovation, without being destroyed. I like it. -- user:zanimum
Anyone with a large van and a Saturday to spare live near Pershore? Noisy | Talk 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend bolting into the local masonry, after publishing a call for masonrywork bids in the Herald, and on Craigslist here and here. --James S. 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jordanhill station platform.jpg seems to show a masonry wall at the back of platform 2, although it may just be an adjacent building and nothing to do with the station. Thryduulf 10:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good wall, but isn't that a little far to strain one's eyes? Like, can anyone stand over there without jumping over the tracks? -- user:zanimum
There is a bridge (between the two platforms) to get over there - with that wall being part of an adjacent fabric shop/warehouse. --Gsreynolds 16:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be a really big plaque; in which case I would retract my proposal about the difference from the value of platinum. --James S. 17:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think a bench is a good idea - it would likely be torched/stolen/pissed on by the local neds. Cynical 12:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would be vandalised... in the real world sense of the term... --h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How large should the plaque be?[edit]

No larger than it has to be, to be seen by people with regular eyesight. -- user:zanimum

Who will coordinate this?[edit]

It has been suggested that either the m:Special projects committee or m:Wikimedia UK should make an official application to the relevant body. Any opinions on this? To clarify, the former would be from the Wikimedia Foundation and the latter would be from the (now legally recognised) "local lackeys" of the Wikimedia Foundation. Cormaggio @ 11:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special project likely should organize this, but Wikimedia UK would be used to strengthen the plaque proposal, proving Wikimedia does have a major and sustainable prescence in the UK, and isn't just some random "dot-com" commemorating some random article. -- user:Zanimum

Where can people put oppose votes?[edit]

Seriously. I thought this was a joke. Why is this article, or the number 1,000,000 so significant? I agree it is a landmark achievement, but I think this is over-the-top. Carcharoth 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the 10 millionth Model T was built, the car was paraded down Broadway in New York, made a grand tour to San Fransisco, and the owner took a letter from the NYC mayor to the SF mayor. New papers noted its license plate number, a random number.[members.tripod.com/~Ogden_Dunes/lincolnh/10M-Ford.html] The 20 millionth Model A recieved the same sort of hoopla, and now is in an auto museum.[2] Should we not consider doing the same. -- user:zanimum
I suspect the building of the 10 millionth Model T might be a source of embarassment to some in years to come: "They built 10 million of those polluting monstrosities"? It's all about POVs you see. IMO, a commemmorative tag on the article itself is sufficient. I just wanted to record that opinion. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying we'll regret ever creating Wikipedia. -- user:zanimum
No. I never said that. I said "I think this is over-the-top". I then pointed out that your example is something that not everyone would celebrate. I'm all for celebrating the 1,000,000th article, but I just think this is an inappropriate way to do it. I'd hope that, in years to come, commemorative plaques appear at places that hosted the Wikimedia servers, but I wouldn't do more than that. It is easy to overdo these things and get the emphasis wrong. Carcharoth 10:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,000 is significant because we use base-10 numbers in everyday life. I suppose there's a case for taking the 1,048,576th article since computers use binary. David | Talk 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number in itself is not significant - it's meaningless - a lot of the articles among that 1.000.000 dosn't live up to encyclopedic standards. Had it been 1.000.000 featured articles I would probably support it because that would really be significant. It's simply wrong to assert that the number of articles in itself is significant when an encyclopedia should aspire for quality above anything else. Celcius 09:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bench[edit]

I saw this was added on the special project committee talk page on meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_committee). To be fair, I really thought it was just a joke. I am quite surprised to see it is not. I will limit myself to say I hope the Foundation will not pay this with donators money. If someone wants to gather the money specifically for it, fine. Anthere 16:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it, if it can be done for under 500 USD. Is that possible? Maybe a 10cm x 8cm plaque. How much would that cost? I think after reviewing my budget that I would rather spring for a platinum-painted bench. --James S. 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why platinum painted? I agree that the Foundation has no business in paying for this, but it would be nice if they formally acknowledge such a commemoration. If and when a seperate fundraiser were to be held, a bench would be the most practical, and the most likely to be approved. -- user:zanimum
So, how much does a Scottish bench cost? --James S. 11:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean a bench bought in Scotland. Elsewise it sounds like something unique, like a Muskoka chair. Another question to ask, what major home renovation stores are there in Scotland, their sites would provide us with the answer. -- user:zanimum
£249.98 for a wooden bench at B&Q, they don't offer metal. -- user:zanimum
That's not too bad, but I reserve the right to pass the hat among supporters listed. There are enough so that if we all throw in $10, we will probably have enough. How much would B&Q charge to paint 225 characters on the back? --James S. 17:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for support[edit]

This page currently has the following in its inception: "This is not meant to be tacky, self-obsessed, or put an emphasis on quantity over quality. This commemoration simply is to provide a physical commemoration of the efforts of thousands of people worldwide who raised the project to the level it is at." Is it not possible that some people support a commemoration thinking it is tacky, self-obsessed and putting emphasis on quantity over quality, but recognising the "marketing" opportunity? -- Grahn 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and with that I want to point out that the ingress should not be argumentative on behalf of the supporters. Since this seems to have become some sort of referendum it should only state what is being voted on, letting those supporting or opposing the suggestion speak form themselves. -- Grahn 01:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a blue plaque...[edit]

Then why not see if English Heritage want to place it? They already commemorate events as well as people. 213.78.79.39 21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where they commemorate events? All the criteria I can see relates to specific Brits, not events. -- user:zanimum
No, English Heritage do on rare occasions put up plaques for historic events - for example there is a plaque to mark the site on which the first V1 Flying Bomb fell, and a plaque to mark the site of the first public demonstration of television, and to mark the first regular television service. However they generally like these events to be very significant and long in the past. In any case, Jordanhill is in Scotland and not England where their writ does not run. David | Talk 13:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you meant Historic Scotland (the article does say "Scotland", right at the very top, but perhaps some people just skim over the boring bits, like where it is). I'm not sure if they are the best agency, but I'm sure that they would point you in the correct direction. Other people to ask? -

I am not saying that these are the right people, but they may well know who the right people are.--Mais oui! 21:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Scotland certainly doesn't put up plaques, it seems. -- user:zanimum
I know for a fact that the Saltire Society do, because I have seen several of them pinned to the side of buildings:
--Mais oui! 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the main website is a .org.uk, but the New York branch is a .com... do they become a commercial enterprise when they cross the Atlantic? *Dan T.* 13:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another couple of possibilities:

--Mais oui! 00:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also these:-

-- Pencefn 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk board[edit]

Some people have opposed this idea because it is too self obssed. Honestly that is why I like it. Wikipedia is already a huge website, and it needs to take more pride in that. Personally I don't care what colour the plaque is, and I think that Wikipedia should just get permission form the owner of the train station and put one up ourselves, not to get some official goverment thing going. I kind of do like the suggestion above that we put up a chalk board, (which is really just an old school wiki). Maybe put it up as a one year annaversity of reaching one million? --T-rex 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two benches and a chalkboard? --James S. 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The chalk board idea is excellent. Make it permanant however, in a corner, giving a small paragraph with one sentence each for explaning what Wikipedia is, telling why the chalkboard is there, instructing people to make their own plaque, requesting vandals leave it alone. IMHO, zappa 07:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the chalkboard idea, but a "one year on" commemoration may be too long. In fact, a year on we may be nigh on 2 million articles. I suppose we can't guarantee that the proposal would be transferrable to the subject of the two millionth article though. BigBlueFish 13:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support the chalkboard idea. It looks better than the other proposals, and it is basically a (old-style) wiki format. Plus it seems less likely to be stolen or vandalised. Daniel (‽) 18:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A mock-up of the chalkboard idea is now on at Wikipedia:Jordanhill commemoration/Plaque copy. Feel free to edit. Daniel (‽) 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the chalkboard idea. Let's keep it nice and whimsical. BrokenSegue 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the idea of a blackboard. It's not too serious, it symbolises what Wikipedia stands for, and will get people's attention Lurker your words/my deeds 15:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another support for the Blackboard idea. Lisiate 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chalkboard sounds about right. I support it but I have doubts about the transport authority liking it. --Acamon 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we are getting some support behind this idea. Perhaps this idea should be explored further? Lurker talk 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an Etch-A-Sketch or Magna Doodle styled device not be better in terms of who will replace the chalk and duster and you know it rains a lot here in Glasgow. You would have to get it to telephone booth standards of anti vandal / anti theft / weather proofing... The station has railings all along both platforms and a shelter on each platform which could house it... (and for the bench people, there already are some benches, they are painted metal (anti ned / weather). --cloudo 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the chalk board. Just imagine, a real-life wiki! JIP | Talk 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Who's going to replace the chalk when it runs out or gets stolen? It's a novel idea but a plaque is more practical. 84.71.136.94 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I think the idea sounds really neat, but it wouldn't last. Someone would just vandalize it with a set of keys or something. A plaque made of metal would be much more durable and easy to clean, so I think it would be a better idea. ---—JeremyBanks Talk 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBoth of these oppositions could also have been applied to Wikipedia in general (it could be vandalised, it's not practical, it won't last) but look at it now. I think that a plaque which embodies the same concepts as the encyclopedia it honours is a truly great thing. —Daniel (‽) 20:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight technological difference between a chalkboard and a wiki. The practicality of one has no bearing on the practicality of the other. --Doradus 00:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Who is going to supply the chalk on an ongoing basis? We'd be better of with an industrial-strength Etch-A-Sketch. --Doradus 00:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unabashed Oppose. Unlike Wikipedia, it's very easy to vandalise a chalkboard or blackboard permanently with a set of keys or a rock. Glasgow (where I lived most of this last year) is one of the most graffiti'd up cities in the UK, and waiting for a train will bring out the ned instincts in every teenager. Chalk would disappear on an hourly, if not minute-by-minute basis, and nobody from the train company will agree to continuously supply it. Within a month, you'd have a destroyed symbol of everything WP's detractors say it is, but none of the positive points. Gigantic Etch-A-Sketch sounds great in theory, but this is an unmonitored provincial train station in Glasgow. It might last a week before also being destroyed. Vizjim 09:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose chalkboard. – b_jonas 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web kiosk and/or WiFi?[edit]

Please note that the station has no public WiFi or "web kiosk." Wouldn't either or both of those be a better commemoration gift than a plaque, bench, or chalk board? Since it looks like those things are supported at some stations, let's get a quote and see whether the supporters can collectivly share the cost. I'll ask Nach0king to get a quote. --James S. 16:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote on my talk page -
Any previous attempt I've made at contacting the relevant authorities regarding Jordanhill has been met with absolutely no response. I very much doubt that they'd be willing to accept outside donations for something like this. Even for something as simple as providing a brief run-down of alterations to the station is seemingly too much work for the powers that be :)
It seems like this has all largely "blown over" anyway. Still, it was a nice enough idea while it lasted :) Nach0king 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you think we should do? There was an early effort, above, to keep people from contacting the authorities. If people from all over the world made an organized effort to contact them, do you think they would at least tell us how much it would cost to endow the station with wifi and a web kiosk? --James S. 07:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there'd be room for a web kiosk. These unmanned stations are very bare-bones, you know. Also, as the station has no public amenities besides for the purpose of getting on a train, and a low level of traffic of those, wi-fi demand as well as web kiosk demand would probably be pretty low. I'd stick to a plaque. (A plaque would be needed anyway to inform people of the wi-fi coverage and why on earth such a small station has been given it.) BigBlueFish 13:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will the plaque be put there?[edit]

When will the plaque be put there? I want to go an see it. I've been to the UK three times, but never to Scotland. I want to visit Jordanhill in Glasgow and take a photograph of the plaque. JIP | Talk 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely never, because the Foundation has stated they won't pay for it, and no one's officially "passed the hat". -- Zanimum 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to contribute, but without the foundation how can we be sure that the money doesn't go to some scam? Fishal 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's nearly a year - is the plaque there?[edit]

It's nearly a year (or maybe more?), when this was suggested. Is the plaque there or it will never be? --Have a nice day. Running 01:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandals[edit]

so, when the vandals come and deface the plaque or bench (which they will), who will pay to clean it up? in real life, it's not as easy as clicking an undo button.. 131.111.24.187 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a lot of vandalism there? I mean, you could say the same thing about a meteor colliding the station and destroying the plaque with it, albeit not that unlikely. You could just wrap it up in some sort of easily removable plastic wrap too, I guess. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Glasgow. It's an unmanned railway station. Of course it'll get vandalised. Either of those would be sufficient to virtually guarantee that it would. Both of them means there's no doubt. --ascorbic 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea...[edit]

I am Scottish myself, and was in Glasgow last year, although do not live there. I went on a train through the city whilst there, too. I knew about this being the millionth article at the time, but was not thinking about it then. If I go back again I may take some proper photographs, although at the moment that is very unlikely.

As for the idea of a commemoration, I find it interesting but ultimately I do not think it will happen.

-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, after months of considering, I have found that this is the stupidest project ever attempted in commemorative plaqueing(?), well, it was fun while it lasted though. I can finally remove this link from my signature. Show's over, everyone, this project is dead. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Jordanhill_commemoration&oldid=1188502472"