Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.
New users, please see Help or go to the Pub to ask questions.

Difference between revisions of "MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Link to Wikimedia fork proposal)
(Link to Wikimedia fork proposal)
Line 120: Line 120:
  
 
::::: Very nice :) --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 05:28, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
 
::::: Very nice :) --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 05:28, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
I'm reinstating the old site notice. My objections should be clear, but they absolutely mirror the objections of other respected admins on this issue. This is an abuse of the sitenotice tool, and an inappropriate and offensive way to promote a damaging fork of this site, its content and its community. This discussion can certainly continue, but while it does, the sitenotice will remain as it stands, to promote the creation of content, not the destruction of Wikitravel.org. There is the project, and there is the site, and this has become a site issue. As the site's host, we have an obligation to preserve it. Ryan is right; if this were the previous site host, this would not be done, and it shouldn't be done now, over the objections of several in this community, simply because a vocal few insist upon it. I have not drawn many (any?) lines in the last year-plus, but this is a clear case where the interests of this site must be addressed.
 +
 +
With regard to persuasion, Peter (Fitzgerald), by no means has IB given up. To the contrary, we have been working in every way possible to make Wikitravel.org the clear choice for the current admins to continue contributing, by addressing technical concerns and engaging on every level. We'll continue to make this a stellar environment in which to create and curate travel content and promote the spirit of the Project. Ultimately everyone has the ability to go where they will, which is exactly the way it ought to be. My job is to ensure that you have what you need in order to make this site the best it can be. Please continue to let me know if there's anything I can do. Thanks,--[[User:IBobi|IBobi]] [[User talk:IBobi|talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/IBobi|email]] 15:02, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:06, 17 July 2012

So, I just unilaterally added our first-ever sitewide notice on en: Wikitravel. We haven't used this MediaWiki feature before, but I don't think there's a big problem with using it. I think it should be used sparingly for notices that have site-wide import, like the Get-together, or scheduled downtime, or really really big discussions, or other such things.

If anyone thinks this looks bad or is just the wrong thing to do, feel free to change the notice if you can, or let me know if you can't, and I'll make your changes. --Evan 10:16, 28 September 2006 (EDT)

Template:Title-icons needs Sitenotice

Title icons are not placed finely without sitenotice. Please see Chicago/Near South, the icon is on the line underneath the title. I think it's better to put Plunge forward! or something into MediaWiki:Sitenotice. -- Tatata 23:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Done. "Plunge forward" seems as good a default site notice as any, and we do need a default. Thanks for figuring out what was wrong! --Peter Talk 00:22, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Given that it's now 2009...

...would it make sense to change the Sitenotice to something that's not referring to 2008? Cheers, JYolkowski 15:05, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I don't have strong feelings about replacing the message but would like to see proposals for what to replace it with - even though it's slightly out-dated, "One of the 50 best websites of 2008" sounds better to me than (for example) "Plunge forward!". Note that we need to have something in that message slot as there have been issues with some of CSS for the star icons and other elements when that message is left blank. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:43, 17 January 2009 (EST)
Personally I'd rather have the "plunge ahead" than 7-month-old news, but I'm not a major fan of it either. If the only reason we have something there is because something needs to fill the space, why not just put a blank line there (maybe a simple
would work, or if not, maybe <div style="height: 1em"></div>)? JYolkowski 19:24, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Ad for Wikitravel Press and Amazon.com

Although I'm keen to see anyone using the wikitravel guides, for whatever purposes they want, I think what is essentially an ad for Wikitravel Press in the site notice is overstepping the mark. Wikitravel Press already enjoys a privileged status on the site, but as I say, a prominent ad at the top of every page is a bit much. --Inas 19:25, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

To make sure it's clear that this wasn't done out of a conflict of interest, I do want to point out here that it was added by someone unaffiliated with WTP. But I'm perfectly fine with removing it, in particular because it could be read that way. --Peter Talk 19:48, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was anything inappropriate done by Wikitravel Press, or anyone affiliated with it (or anyone else for that matter). I'll (somewhat reluctantly) revert the most recent change to the sitenotice, (as it is always good to have something fresh). As always, it can always been changed back if it gains widespread support. --Inas 20:12, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
No worries, I didn't think you were implying anything—I just wanted to state this clearly here for anyone reading this in the future. --Peter Talk 21:04, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
I'm with Inas here, it's really great news, but I too thought it was a bit over the top sitenoticing it --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:48, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
No worries. I'd prefer "Plunge forward!" to the return of VOA News, though. I'm fairly confident we've given them more traffic than they've given us at this point. Gorilla Jones 21:22, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, I was careful to leave out any link to Amazon, to keep it as non-commercial as possible. I only linked to the page we maintain right here on WTP. I will of course respect consensus, although, I think "plunge forward", while a great slogan, is rather mundane for the sitenotice. LtPowers 12:00, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Voice of America's Website of the Week

<swept from the pub>

WT is the website of the week at Voice of America: http://www.voanews.com/english/Science/2009-04-03-voa17.cfm Worth putting this in the banner to replace the Time magazine plug? Jpatokal 03:27, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I plunged forward and made the change. LtPowers 11:30, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Update with contribution link

While important, the site update notice is fairly dated, and that screen real-estate is pretty valuable. How about changing this to something like:

Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article. Learn how.

That puts useful info in a prominent place. Thoughts? Objections? -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:38, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

I'll certainly take it a compliment (but remain unoffended in the case of an objection). --inas 20:59, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
*bump* Any other opinions? -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:46, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Looks good. --Peter Talk 15:40, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:08, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Lines

If we are indeed restricted to single-line sitenotices due to our Star and DotM/OtBP icons, isn't there something wrong with the design of one or the other? LtPowers 22:06, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

The icons are done with absolute CSS positioning and depend on there being whitespace available to display in. There may be a way to do that better, and if we could get IB to add an HTML snippet it would be very easy, but with our current setup and administrative responsiveness I don't know of a way to make both work without either keeping the site notice to a single line or updating the CSS positioning on the icons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:34, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

Update?

Given that the Time article is now a month old, is it time to go back to the Quick Contribution Guide for the site notice? That article seems like a great piece of information to highlight for contributors:

Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article. Learn how.

-- Ryan • (talk) • 10:42, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

*bump* -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:56, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
We could just clear it out if there's nothing exciting to put there for now. — D. Guillaime 23:44, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
There needs to be something there as the title icons are absolutely positioned; the alternative is that we need to update the CSS on the title icon templates when updating this notice. That said, I like the quick contribution guide a lot as a default - it seems like a really helpful little article to have in a prominent location. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
I've changed this back to the default. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:55, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

Link to Wikimedia fork proposal

Since the Wikimedia fork would have a massive impact on the site, I think we should notify the community through a sitenotice. Having a hard time distilling this into a few words comprehensible to a layman though... how's this? jpatokal 23:36, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

  • I oppose linking to rival travel guides. LtPowers 10:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm not sure rival is the right word. But I also don't know that the sitenotice is the right place for something that would arguably be against Wikitravel:External links. We certainly would have objected to such a thing for Wikivoyage. --Peter Talk 12:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Agree. In fact, this discussion is inappropriate on WT. I have edited out the link jpatokal posted here and his comment on the Pub. This topic at Sitenotice should be removed as well.--IBobi 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I have reverted your removal of other users' good faith comments. Please see Wikitravel:Travellers' pub#Moving to Wikimedia. --Peter Talk 16:31, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
  • I support linking to a discussion (either here, or on Meta-Wiki) to seek the opinions of regular viewers and users, who don't check the Pub. Even iBobi himself stated how we need more input from the 'supermajority', rather than just a select few or WT's admins. JamesA >talk 11:02, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the recent site notice change. I think the linked discussion is without a doubt a very important one for the Wikitravel community to be aware of and participate in, but the site owners (IB) have made it very clear that they do not want this discussion promoted. While I disagree with IB's efforts to censor ongoing discussions and believe that those who have contributed thousands of errors hours to creating Wikitravel should be aware of the fork discussions, I'm also not sure it's right to use the site notice to publicize something that the site owner has explicitly said they do not want the site used to discuss, and would be more comfortable with using other methods to alert the community of potential changes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:36, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Are you saying that they erred in contributing? --Peter Talk 15:51, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
(UPDATE) That should have read "thousands of hours", oops. I'm saying that I think using the site notice to publicize a discussion that the site owner has explicitly said they don't want occurring on wikitravel.org seems like a step too far. Everyone who has ever contributed to Wikitravel has a right to know that a fork discussion is ongoing, but I think we should still try to be respectful of the site host's wishes as much as possible. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:14, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
I agree with Ryan. When constantly reminding IBobi of the consensus rules, and telling him that it is not done to -as an interested party- unilaterally take action in this whole story, I find this site notice.. questionable, also for the reasons Ryan mentioned. It's not that I disagree with the idea or goal, I just find it.. not chique. Justme 16:40, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
While I very much want everyone who has and will use Wikitravel to be aware of the fork discussions, given some of the comments that have been expressed (including my own) I'm going to revert to the previous site notice version pending further discussion. This revert is no doubt disappointing to some, but I think it's consistent with how the site has been curated over the years. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
IB seems to be saying two different things here. On the one hand, they're upset that only the admins of WT are discussing the fork and the 'silent supermajority' are not aware of any discussion. But on the other, they want to keep them in the dark and not ask for their opinions through the universal Sitenotice. I think there needs to be some clarification. JamesA >talk 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
My point exactly. I found out more or less by accident. How many of the non-admin users are aware of this proposal? Do they not have a right to be informed? If IB think that they will be against the move, one would expect them to be in favour of alerting the masses. The site notice is the obvious way to inform the ordinary users, and should be used for that purpose, which is why I did just that. I know that if I was against the move I would be seriously offended by not being informed. Actually I can't think of any circumstances where I would not be seriously offended by not being informed. I would consider it an inexcusable breach of trust. In fact, as a representative of the non-admin, non IB users, I think I will have to demand an immediate public notification. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 13:34, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Just to be clear on my own position: I'd be in favor of adding a site notice. HOWEVER, had there been a proposal to use a site notice during the Wikivoyage fork discussions, and IF User:Evan had been vehemently opposed to the idea, I suspect the community would have deferred to him on the matter (note that in that instance there was no issue with censoring discussions, but use of the site notice could have been seen as a step too far). My major concern in the current situation is that we not establish a double standard. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:42, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
That's a bit hypothetical. How would the community have been able to defer to his wishes without being informed that there was an issue in the first place? One must take into account that the community here includes non-registered users, and the only feasible way of notifying them is through a site notice. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:00, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
(re-indenting) Having said my piece, I'll butt out of this issue and leave it to others. My final opinion on the matter is that I'm not sure that it is appropriate to use the site notice in a way that the site owner has very explicitly said they don't approve of, even though my personal preference is that notice of the fork discussion should be broadcast to everyone who has or will contribute content to Wikitravel. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:10, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
I think we need to defer to the traveller comes first mantra, and as such we have a duty to keep our users informed. I'm not sure where the boundary between the site owner (IB) and the content owners (the community) lies. However, I think we are quite free as a community to decide to update the sitenotice and to do so. If IB as the site owner decides not to permit this, they obviously have the technical means to do so. However, I'm not seeing a consensus at the moment to update it. --Inas 19:20, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Consider me on the fence. Peter S. is absolutely right that it is not fair that our admins are aware, and users of WMF sites are aware, but our non-admin Wikitravellers are not aware of something that may drastically affect their use of this site and the future of their past contributions. Leaving other Wikitravellers in the dark about this goes against what our community is supposed to be about. At the same time, I expect IB to remove what they view as an advertisement for users to leave the site, and will probably do so clumsily.
Ideally, we would have a frank, visible, and transparent discussion about the future of this website and this project, akin to the one being discussed by a whole ton of non-Wikitravellers elsewhere. That would include a sitenotice, and arguments presented pro/con by users and IB representatives. But IB doesn't seem interested in making their case to anyone who is not yet aware of the proposal on Meta, which I guess signals that they are essentially giving up on persuasion? --Peter Talk 00:07, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
OK, I am going to put the massage back on the site-notice on the grounds that it is the right thing to do. Those who are uncertain can continue to discuss the point, but please do not remove it it again unless you think that removing it is the right thing to do, in which case a short, ethically defensible explanation of why the community should not be informed by the only effective method we have is requested. There are times when not being an administrator can provide an extended freedom of action, and I think this is one of them. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:13, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
Very nice :) --Inas 05:28, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm reinstating the old site notice. My objections should be clear, but they absolutely mirror the objections of other respected admins on this issue. This is an abuse of the sitenotice tool, and an inappropriate and offensive way to promote a damaging fork of this site, its content and its community. This discussion can certainly continue, but while it does, the sitenotice will remain as it stands, to promote the creation of content, not the destruction of Wikitravel.org. There is the project, and there is the site, and this has become a site issue. As the site's host, we have an obligation to preserve it. Ryan is right; if this were the previous site host, this would not be done, and it shouldn't be done now, over the objections of several in this community, simply because a vocal few insist upon it. I have not drawn many (any?) lines in the last year-plus, but this is a clear case where the interests of this site must be addressed.

With regard to persuasion, Peter (Fitzgerald), by no means has IB given up. To the contrary, we have been working in every way possible to make Wikitravel.org the clear choice for the current admins to continue contributing, by addressing technical concerns and engaging on every level. We'll continue to make this a stellar environment in which to create and curate travel content and promote the spirit of the Project. Ultimately everyone has the ability to go where they will, which is exactly the way it ought to be. My job is to ensure that you have what you need in order to make this site the best it can be. Please continue to let me know if there's anything I can do. Thanks,--IBobi talk email 15:02, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages