Want to help improve the guide? Create an account now to get started!

Talk:Main Page

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 00:11, 30 January 2009 by Raffikojian (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

BEFORE YOU EDIT THE MAIN PAGE: Please refer to the Main Page guidelines before editing the Main Page.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please take general discussions about Wikitravel to the travellers' pub. This talk page should be about the Main Page itself, not about Wikitravel in general. -- Evan 11:18, 3 Oct 2003 (PDT)


Archived discussions:

Wikitravel Press and Extra into Featured articles?

Any objections to adding a Wikitravel Press one-liner to "Featured articles"? I was thinking along these lines:

Books from Wikitravel Press:
Chicago, Singapore, more

More on Wikitravel Extra:
blogs, forum, photos

Opinions? Jpatokal 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)

At the moment, with Wikitravel Press being the only one producing books, I don't have any specific problem with that, but as soon as there are more everyone will want to use the limited space in Featured articles. Maybe we should look at creating a Get your wikitravel hardcopy link from the main page to somewhere (travel topic maybe?) that contains detailed information about all places one can buy wikitravel articles in book form. Wikitravel Press may be the first, but with the quality of articles constantly improving and it being easy to reuse, I'm sure others will follow soon. --Nick 02:21, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Actually, Wikitravel Press has an exclusive license with IB, so no, I don't think we'll see competitors on wikitravel.org anytime soon. (To be clear: there's nothing at all stopping you from making your guidebook. However, the site, the logo and the name are IB's, so you can't call it "Wikitravel" and neither can you advertise it here without their permission.) Jpatokal 03:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Ah, in that case I can't see any problem with using Featured articles then, since it will only be Wikitravel press --Nick 03:44, 1 February 2008 (EST)
How can there be an exclusive license to cc-by-sa content. 12:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Bump. Any other opinions? I'd also like to add Extra and have updated the demo above. Jpatokal 05:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

That seems reasonable to me. Gorilla Jones 08:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)
OK by me. OldPine 13:49, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Done. Jpatokal 12:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Page protection.

I have placed a one-month protection against anonymous users editing this talk page due to continuous vandalism (see Wikitravel:Protected page policy) and also because the vandalism appears to be from Spambots (a violation of the Wikitravel:Script policy). Since the script appears to use anonymous proxies, we cannot screen them without also harming individuals who legitimately use anonymous proxies. -- Colin 21:26, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Travel News

Should the recent earth quake in China be added to travel news? It seems like quite a major event.--Kanata Kid 09:04, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Big Sur ablaze, dated: July 3rd... on the main page?? Still?? This news is so old. How dated and irrelevant can Wikitravel get?

In general we don't want to be completely irrelevant, but instead aim to be approximately 80% irrelevant. Thanks for asking! -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:54, 2 August 2008 (EDT)


Discussion copied from Wikitravel:Votes for deletion:

Quick question—don't we have a disclaimer somewhere absolving Wikitravel & contributors from lawsuits deriving from harm arising from following Wikitravel advice? I can't seem to find that anywhere. --Peter Talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I just happened across it in shared:Copyleft#Things for users to know, and remembered reading this query back here. Perhaps there should be a link titled Disclaimer on the Main Page that links to it? Tarr3n 05:53, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Sorry to have wandered off topic on the vfd page, but that seems like a good idea to me. I'll copy this discussion to Talk:Main Page. --Peter Talk 01:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

In summary, I think it's worthwhile to link our "you're responsible for yourself, we're not" disclaimer on the Main Page. I'd think the best place to do this would be on the bottom bar, along with CC-by-SA, Terms of Use, etc., but I'm uncertain of how to change that. --Peter Talk 01:06, 17 August 2008 (EDT)


I live in ottawa, and its destination of the month!!!!! for good reason to, its a beautiful city. :D i know i shouldnt post this here, but i just got sooo excited. i promise i wont do it again. :) -- 20:27, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Star nominations

...discussion carried over from Wikitravel talk:Star nominations

Instead of placing the extra burden of reminding everyone on the nominator, how about just making the Star nom process more visible to users. Why not put another heading under the "Featured Articles" info box on the Main Page informing everyone that there is an article under review for a star and asking them to join in. If possible (from a technical standpoint), it would have an auto-updating banner saying "Three days left to comment!" If we don't advertise the nom process better, then it's always going to have a limited pool of people who participate, as mentioned above.

Does anoyone agree or disagree with adding this to the Main Page? Asterix 18:10, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok, so I'm going to leave this for another 2 weeks and then, barring any objections, I'm just going to go ahead and add it anyway. I was thinking that it would take the form of a new heading under the existing "Newest Star Articles" heading... Under this would be a link to the newly nominated article(s) itself. I guess that the heading above would stay there permanently and the individual article links would be added and removed 3 weeks later by the nominator as an extra step in the nom process. Asterix 14:00, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd rather not see this on the main page, mostly because I think it may draw more attention from new users, who are less familiar with our MoS and what a Star article should be. Those who've been around a while and know what we're looking for in a star article probably already have that page watchlisted, though it is unfortunate that many of us haven't been commenting lately. Sadly it takes a lot of work to critique it right, and while I used to be really into that, lately I'd rather be working on maps! – cacahuate talk 20:44, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Objection noted... thanks for your comment. Personally though, I don't see anything wrong with drawing new users into any process on WT. Isn't that kind of the point of a wiki? Anyone else have an opinion? Asterix 12:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I'll side with Asterix on this one, part of the point of drawing attention to the star nominations on the main page would be to bring new users aboard, who would then develop familiarity with our manual of style & become future veteran Wikitravel editors. --Peter Talk 12:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Well I don't feel that strongly about it, but I would definitely say if you move forward with it to make it an addition to and not replacement of the "new star articles" section, I think it's far more important to have quick access to our best articles and promote those – cacahuate talk 20:21, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, the front page retail prices are what would give me some pause, although I'm very much on the fence. We've had a lot more voices in this latest round of 2, so perhaps just putting a well-phrased plea in the pub will help with things. Another option for this, if we decide not to put it on the main page, is to put a big advertisement for the star nom process on the Project Page. --Peter Talk 20:36, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
That's a MUCH better idea, that seems like the perfect place for it. A plea in the pub could also be for users to watchlist the starnom page so they see new noms when they come along – cacahuate talk 21:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I’m not too stuck on either option, but it does seem odd that Collaborations of the month get onto the main page and the Star noms -- which, by virtue of being a potential star, are the ultimate in collaborations -- don't? The star nom heading would definitely not replace the star section, as mentioned already above it would go underneath it -- it's arguable whether it would be beneficial to trim the star list back to say 3 stars and not 5? If it were me I would have star articles first, star noms second, and collaborations third in this info box... I think that would showcase the "process" more. Also, it seems like the main page is a good place to entice new users and bridge the gap between "users" and "contributors." However, really I'm not all that bothered and will go along with the consensus... as long as it's a considered one. Asterix 15:24, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Protection level?

According to the protect tab for this page, registered users should be able to edit the Main Page. User:Windhorse tells me that this is not the case. Can anyone else confirm whether it is possible for a non-admin registered user to edit the Main Page? Thanks! --Peter Talk 23:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

There's no edit button available for non-admin. Log off and enter main page... You'll notice that the edit button is no longer visible. WindHorse 23:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
That's true, but you should be able to edit via the "view source" tab. --Peter Talk 23:59, 17 September 2008 (EDT
You are correct. Sometime ago I tried to edit the Main Page without logging in, and saw a tag stating that the page is locked to prevent editing. I assumed, therefore, that only admin had the special privilege. Mea Culpa. WindHorse 01:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Australasia & Oceania

Why does it say Australasia & Oceania? Isn't this a bit double? It doesn't say Asia & Middle East, or Russia & Europe, so why did they put this here? I think it's better if it just says Oceania, as Australasia is a subregion of Oceania. 06:36, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I second that. AHeneen 00:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Alright, let's go with it... if anyone objects, speak up here or change it back – cacahuate talk 03:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I agree...c'mon I hate it when people call the continent Australia. Keep smiling, ee talk 14:21, 10 November 2008 (EST).
Um, but the continent is Australia, you can hate it but you can't change it! As for the Oceania grouping, I think its the best one. Please comment on my proposal in Talk:Oceania to remove Australasia altogether. --Inas 16:16, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Discover section is broken (stuck)

Apparently the auto updates haven't been working for days... can someone swap the items manually? Thanks! Raffikojian 11:19, 16 November 2008 (EST)

title for cotm

collaboration of the month sounds like an award for an article that has seen good collaboration, rather than the current focus for improvement this month. At best, it doesn't get attention for the article it needs. at worst, it showcases what can be a poor article. I'm considering an experiment to change the title words on the main page to try and attract people there to improve it. The idea would be to leave it that way until the end of the month, as see if it attracts any more attention to the current cotm articles. if it fails, we can change it back at the end of the month. --Inas 18:26, 17 December 2008 (EST)

The idea here is to say, look at our good articles, and here are some that are not so good yet, can you help. See if it draws any more traffic to those articles. --Inas 17:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)
I donno I don't really see Cotm as an award, other than it's been awarded attention so people can help it out. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:43, 18 December 2008 (EST).
My philosophy is if someone tells you they have misunderstood what is written, there is always someone else who has had the same misunderstanding. It is easy to criticise the reader, and say that the meaning was obvious, and they should have understood what was written. This course of action is inevitably futile. It is always the responsibility of the writer, to make it clear to the reader exactly what is meant, and always the failure of the writer should this not occur.
I was using wikitravel for over a year, before I realised that CotM was not a list of articles who had had the most collaborators over the past month, but rather a list of articles that needed improvement over the next month. I'm not saying that my expression of the concept is better than the previous expression, but I am saying that it needs to be improved. --Inas 18:45, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Good point! Well, maybe you should talk with Peter as he's funneling the new Cotm, you might want to tell him to get a new name aswell! edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:49, 18 December 2008 (EST).
I don't think that is as important as the title on the main page. Once people get as far into the concept as proposing, voting, etc, I'm sure they know what it means. It is just people visiting the main page that I'm concerned about. Anyway, I'll be really interested to see if we have any more edits. Gold Coast is still sitting at close to no edits at all, after being CotM for a couple of weeks. --Inas 18:57, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Well I don't know any other way than changin the name, and if you change it 1 place, change it the other. Not to mention collaboration means "To work together", so meaning Collaboration of the Month: Articles to Work on for the month. So long as you know what "collaboration" means you should be able to get it. If not, don't guess, learn! And if you are saying we go with a simpler term, I would advise not as I did once and people preferred the one already done cause it's original. Inas, if you find it isn't getting anything, then do some yourself, you live in the country. Also, I think we need better organisation / criteria for Cotms. Like I am almost sure there'll be a bunch for the Edmonton cotm, cause I'm recruiting, I think we need that. A solid number of people who will definitely work on it, plus whoever else. Anyways, that's getting off topic. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:07, 18 December 2008 (EST).
Horses for courses. Recruiting people is good. Having a sponsor to coordinate the changes is good. Doing stuff yourself is good too. But, we are talking about the best use of the main page real estate here. Some quick punchy words to get a passing visitor involved in improving a destination article. Clear and concise, not ambiguous. The meaning of collaboration is obvious, sure, but as I just said, it could equally mean an award for the best collaboration last month, especially when placed adjacent to the star articles. --Inas 18:34, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Factually incorrect info on main page

I'm not a regular here, but the main page says "The free trolley-style buses that roam Austin, Texas are known as 'Dillos -- short for Armadillo Express." This used to be correct, but is no longer correct, the Dillos now cost $.50. http://www.capmetro.org/riding/fares_2.asp

OK. The discover section on the main page is automated from a list of interesting facts and has not been working correctly since December. As soon as that bot gets fixed, the info on the main page can be fixed. Thanks for letting us know of this! AHeneen 11:52, 24 January 2009 (EST)
It can be manually updated, I took care of it at Template:Discovercacahuate talk 17:28, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Update "Discover"

Can someone update the Discover section manually please? Thanks --Raffikojian 19:07, 29 January 2009 (EST)



Destination Docents

In other languages