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)
- 1 Archived discussions:
- 2 New, new, new, new Main Page layout
- 3 First and Business Discounters
- 4 Number of articles
- 5 Talk about Talk:Main Page
- 6 Rollback
- 7 Continents
- 8 Big comment
- 9 Genius!
- 10 Change in the Main Page
- 11 Locator port to English pages
- 12 Links
- 13 Frankfurt
- 14 Help wanted
- 15 Phrasebooks
- 16 Help
- 17 300 Articles
- 18 Please have a look!
- 19 Change to use new Romanian layout?
- Cologne Blue is evil → Talk:Main Page/Cologne Blue is evil
- Activities section → Talk:Main Page/Activities
- Romanian version → Wikitravel talk:Romanian Wikitravel
- New Main Page layout → Talk:Main Page/New layout
- Main Page policy → Wikitravel:Main Page policy
- Travel calendar → Wikitravel:Travellers' pub
- New, New Main Page layout → Talk:Main Page/New new layout
New, new, new, new Main Page layout
So, I moved the stuff from Main page/test to the Main Page. I think it looks pretty swell, and now we have a place to feature lots of pages.
I think the test page had a lot of broken links, so I've tried to merge in some pages that we've actually worked on. It seems like we've had a lot of work on North America, Europe, and Australasia, some on Southeast Asia, but not a lot on the rest of Asia, Africa, South America... probably need to get cracking on these!
If you think some pages should be brought up to the front page, please check the Main Page policy, but I think we should be a little flexible at this time. We have a lot more slots for featuring stuff, after all.
I think the Hebrew phrasebook should be featured. It doesn't have all the phrases in the template, but it will be (as soon as Baruch or someone writes "ahuz" in Hebrew) the first phrasebook with all the phrases in a non-Latin alphabet. -phma 23:23, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)
- It lacks about 80% of the phrases in the phrasebook. We have a whole bunch of phrasebooks that are more-or-less complete. I don't think having a non-Latin alphabet is a good enough reason to feature this page. --Evan 16:54, 5 Jan 2004 (EST)
First and Business Discounters
I removed the First and Business Discounters link when it was a broken link, and I removed it again once the article was finished.
- I added the First and Business Discounters and apologise for any guidelines that it broke. What specifically is wrong with it and what could I do to fix it? I intend to add more links for the different businesses, but if it's in breach of something or other then there's not much point. I was surprised that there was no information about this stuff on the Wiki. Indeed it's hard to find on the web and I only got hold of it through an ad in the L.A.Times. --Sean
Number of articles
I "cleaned" the guide section a bit. According to Wikitravel:Main Page policy we should limit the number of articles to 3-4 (I'd say 4-5, but anyway...). So I took out the last one(s) in the rows that had more than 5. I also added Istanbul to New Delhi over land to the beginning of the "Other Destinations" row. This is growing steadily into an interesting article. I took out the link to the Romanian Wikitravel under "Project". There are already two links for that: one at the top and one in the logbook. Three seems a bit over the top. Even when the logbook link will be gone, I don't think that it really belongs there: why have one at the top and one under project? DhDh 06:04, 22 Jan 2004 (EST)
I also changed the order of Tokyo, Argentina and Antarctica because the first really has not much information and the last two are but factbook imports. When new articles are going to be added they will disappear first. DhDh 06:20, 22 Jan 2004 (EST)
- So, I changed the numbers in the policy to reflect the new layout -- they were for the old one. I added back in United States of America. Also, I removed Istanbul to New Delhi over land. I think it's shaping up to be a really good article, and I think it could be a showcase itinerary. But I don't think "Other destinations" is for itineraries; I believe they should either go under "Travel topics", or we should re-org the main page (*groan*). I also think that the whole itinerary idea is in such flux right now, I'd like to get a good template set up first, then make I2NDOL fit it... Anyways, I'm not sure it's in a "close to done" state. --Evan 10:40, 22 Jan 2004 (EST)
Evan, you have a point regarding I2NDOL, but the Main Page features a few others which I think are "worse" (eg. the "factbook articles"). Secondly, the policy clearly states that (1) Do try to keep Featured links in order from newest to oldest, with newest first. Here, "oldest" means "on the Featured list longest" and (2) Do remove the oldest entry from the end of the line, and add your new entry on the beginning of the line. Why then did you put the USA back in? It was at the end of the line (BTW, Flanders was moved while it was not at the end...) Or is this a secret American conspiracy to always have the USA featured on the Main Page ;-) You also put I2NDOL back in at the third place...? I hope you understand that I don't understand why there is a policy if it's not adhered to. And yes, maybe we should think of a little reorganization if the itinerary articles continue to grow (a separate itinerary section?) DhDh 11:00, 22 Jan 2004 (EST)
- w/r/t policy, yes, I screwed up. The reason we have policies is to follow them. I tried to fix things again; let me know how I did.
- All the factbook articles are filler. We didn't have enough complete articles for South America, Africa, etc. So I threw some in. They should probably get taken out first, as we get get other guides in those regions 70-80% complete.
- I2NDOL is back in travel topics (= "things which aren't destination guides or phrasebooks", for now, at least).
- I put USA back in because it was the last item that you deleted to keep things down to 4. If we can have 5, then it goes back in. I also added it in because we want to have variety. It'd be nice to have city, country, and region guides under every continent -- although that's not a big issue. We used to have an itinerary section -- it got removed in the last reorg. --Evan 11:22, 22 Jan 2004 (EST)
Not bad, I'd say. Actually, North America has 6 items now, USA is no. 6, but no worries, we'll take out 2 next time. And either I should work a bit on Flanders or move it to the last position, it doesn't come close to the content of the rest under Europe. I think I really should do the former... DhDh 11:32, 22 Jan 2004 (EST)
I know we're supposted to take off the oldest to add something new, but what about something like Kenya which is just a CIA article? I really want to highlight Namibia-- it's really well done. Should I take off the oldest (Cario I think) or replace the CIA Kenya page? Majnoona 19:00, 1 Feb 2004 (EST)
- I'd say take out CIA imports first. --Evan 19:50, 1 Feb 2004 (EST)
Talk about Talk:Main Page
This page may be almost as important as the Main Page itself - (it may even need its own Talk page). I have changed order of notes about Editing the Main Page and Editing Talk:Main Page - I couldn't see the main page policy link immediately that I visited the page because the "IMPORTANT NOTE" that is less important than the policy appeared first. The sentence about the main page policy appeared to be part of that note and I missed it - and overstepped the Main Page policy link to Wikitravel:Main Page policy
- Also added headings to achived talk to make finding things easier -- Huttite
- -- Huttite 17:52, 20 Feb 2004 (EST)
So I rolled this back to before the Books link was added for a few reasons. First, it didn't follow our Main Page policy for when and how to add a new link (add one remove one, only point to complete articles). Second, I'm pretty sure the Books page doesn't fit our Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals per big long general lists. In fact, lists of books, music, etc are specifically mentioned (in Wikitravel:Slippery slopes I think). In anycase, just wanted to explain... Majnoona 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (EST)
So, one thing that was brought up on Wikitravel francophone (fr:Discuter:Accueil) was that the continents weren't in any particular order on this page. Or, rather, that the order used on the page was to support anglophonism in general and North American hegemony in particular.
I think that the English Wikitravel should work well for all English-speaking travellers, wherever they live -- Africa, America, the British Isles or Australasia. I don't think we particularly want to promote or favor Americans or Canadians.
So, I reordered the continents on the page to be in alphabetical order. If there's a better order, let's discuss it. Otherwise, I don't think it really messes anything up. --Evan 12:43, 23 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Just for the record: the continents here were in a particular order. If you look at a classic world map you would see that North America is roughly placed in the upper left area, Europe in the upper central area and Asia in the upper right area. The lower half contains South America, Africa and Australasia from left to right. I placed the continents at those positions on the main page. So I didn't want to favour North Americans (being a European myself ;-)
- That said, I think there was a slight subjective element in it: some world maps do not place North America in the upper left but in the upper middle. And on some maps in Australia the world is turned upside down (or should I say "downside up") and Australia is put firmly in the upper central area.
- Also, from your comments I can see that the reason for the previous layout was not immediately clear, and that people would search for other reasons, which wasn't my intention.
- I think having the continents in alphabetical order is better. (I hope we all have the same alphabet... ;-) DhDh 03:32, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)
I also added a big comment at the beginning of the Main Page, pointing people to the Main Page policy, for those who don't read this talk page first. --Evan 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (EST)
Hey, so, when you have a second, you should check out the new WikiPedia:Main Page. Probably the main thing I like -- the aha! moment for me -- is that they've split up the main page into two. One is for the encyclopedia itself, and one is for the Wikipedia project (WikiPedia:Wikipedia:Main Page). It's a really good idea -- kind of like the separation we have on our Main Page right now! I want to copy this. --Evan 21:10, 23 Feb 2004 (EST)
- So, I went ahead and did this. We now have a main page for the guides, and a main page for the project. Comments, criticisms, and changes welcome. --Evan 00:31, 16 Mar 2004 (EST)
- The layout looks pretty weird now. I'm not too happy with it, It's too empty, too stretched, and your attention doesn't move to the essentials - the links to the information itself - it is captured by the menues, and the big headings. With the news, at least the "link box" in the middle was the biggest object on the page. -Nils 03:30, 16 Mar 2004 (EST)
- Okay it's a bit better in the "standard" layout. :) - Nils 04:12, 16 Mar 2004 (EST)
Change in the Main Page
I don't understand why to remove everything about the project in the Main Page ??? It is quite difficult now to find information needed by editors. Yann 14:46, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)
Sorry Evan, I can't say that I like it. I think the project info should really be part of the "real" main page and not be tucked away on a separate "pseudo" main page which is hidden behind an inconspicuous link in the text. I fear newcomers will find it more difficult to find their way around then with what we had. On a main page it should be obvious on what to click to find the necessary information about the site and it should capture a visitor's attention very quickly. Otherwise chances are high that potentially valuable contributors move on to other sites. And that is not what we want, is it?
Dhum Dhum Akubra 15:41, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)
The project box should be on the main page. Especially the welcome links should be on the main page. -phma 19:13, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)
- OK, so, I've put the project info back on the main page. I have to say that I don't think it's the right thing to do: I really like separating the guide information from the information about the project. I think we tend to optimize the site for people who do heavy editing, and not for folks who are looking for travel information. --Evan 19:59, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)
- Isn't the "wikitravel project" - "Project" part redundant? The entries will easily fit other categories. Right now it's a nice 3x2 matrix so no need to break it up; but I am asking because I am playing around with some layouts and would like to know if it's acceptable to eleminate it :) Nils 06:10, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)
Locator port to English pages
Sunteţi aici: Europa Centrală > România > Bucureşti
would become Central Europe > Romania > Bucharest in English. I am not sure what 'Sunteţi aici' means. What does it become in English ?. Will recheck for an answer before implemnting it.
-Sridhar Pandurangiah 18:10, 23 March 2004 (IST)
I've made the headings of the remaining three parts of the "Wikitravel Guide" section into links as well. I really appreciate consistency in a user interface. I've also taken the liberty to create a page "Other Destinations" (in the tradition of Travel topics). I've moved the World Heritage List and Outer Space there, because that's where they really belong. I'm envisioning also links to "bodies of water" there (for example, say, an article about the Atlantic Ocean or whatever) and stuff like List of all Articles about theme parks. -- Nils 17:15, 8 Apr 2004 (EDT)
PS: I didn't do it for the Project part of the main page because only one of the sections has a "More", so such a change would be too early. -- Nils 17:17, 8 Apr 2004 (EDT)
- Please check out bodies of water first. I also think Other destinations should be specifically for destination guides for places that don't fall on one of the continents. Theme parks might be a good travel topic. --Evan 18:46, 8 Apr 2004 (EDT)
- Ehm, no, theme parks in themselves fit right under a specific location (Disneyland Europe under France and so on). A general article about theme parks would fit in Travel topics, say "what to bring", "what to do there", etc; but a list of world wide theme parks, even sorted by regions, would have to go into Other Destinations. The precedent is the List of all countries. Also consider Caribbean islands - if that's Other Destinations, then so would be the Mediterranean, for example (only there are no island nations in it, except cyprus which sort of is an exception). And it makes sense to put such lists there. I am not going to write an Article about the Atlantic Ocean, but if someone did, I don't see any reason to stick it anyplace except Other Destinations.
- Basically I think that if it's about an itinary, an activity, the act of travelling themselves, or about travellers, it goes into travel topics (The europe to asia overland article for example; another example that would make an excellent article are cruises). If it's about a location that cannot be plainly stuck into any continent page, then it goes into Other destinations (even if you would link to it from other, regional, articles). I find the titles of the two pages pretty self-explanatory really. -- Nils 02:14, 9 Apr 2004 (EDT)
- Well, thanks. Everybody, if you know Frankfurt... add more detail. :) -- Nils 03:12, 13 Apr 2004 (EDT)
So, I moved the Help wanted link out of the "Help" section and up to the "Project" section. It's where we list all the things needing attention, requests for new pages, that kind of stuff.
It's not about help in the normal sense of "I need help using this wiki". --Evan 09:34, 12 Apr 2004 (EDT)
I renamed the "Expeditions" link to "more...". I am a big consistency freak. I also noted that we have two links "Phrasebooks" on the page, which link to different destinations (List of Phrasebooks and Phrasebooks Expeditions). While it is clear from the context what is meant, it would still be cleaner to have differing text for the links. This becomes important when you wish to make the website easier for disabled people. It's not the biggest matter in the world, but then again, changing it costs us nothing. Can we rename the link of Phrasebooks Expeditions to either, well, "Phrasebooks Expedition" (which is a bit redundant) or "Creating Phrasebooks" (or any other applicable text really).. -- Nils 03:12, 13 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Hi I'm new to Wikitravel and have edited a few pages, but I can't find any really explicit help on how to insert links, either internal or external. What do you have to type? User:Sue
- Have a look at Wikitravel:Wiki markup. Essentially, type [[...]] around internal page names and [URL Description] for external web pages (or just the full URL with http:// in front. -- Huttite 05:03, 13 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Is that really a milestone? It's a totally uneven number. 100, 500, 1000, okay, but 300? Are you going to anounce reaching 457 articles too? ;) -- Nils 04:00, 19 Apr 2004 (EDT)
- 300 articles is not an official milestone, but it is a rounded number, and for Wikitravel, which has a low number of articles, it is important. Therefore, until 1000 articles, the reaching of every 100 articles will be reported in the logbook. Also, as the go-between, I have a responsibility to keep the English Wikipedia informed of progress at Romanian Wikitravel. The now-stagnant French Wikitravel used to announce things like how many Wikitravel: namespace articles have been created. Regarding 457 articles, I assure you I will announce when we do reach 457 articles in the logbook, if you asked. We hope that can come as soon as possible ;-) Ronline 08:25, 19 Apr 2004 (EDT)
- Hahaha. Well is that official policy? I'd have suggested 100, 250, 500, 1000 as the steps. Maybe 750 if we really must. No big deal I guess. -- As for 457... don't let me stop you! :-D -- Nils 08:54, 19 Apr 2004 (EDT)
- It's a monthly thing. The liaisons for the language versions report each month on developments on those wikis. Hitting 300 articles is a worthwhile thing to report.
- It's nice to see that the Romanian Wikitravel is doing so well, Ronline! --Evan 10:09, 19 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Please have a look!
- Looks nice! Majnoona 22:22, 30 Apr 2004 (EDT)
- Thanks for all the appreciation (and to Danutz for mentioning the new design on this page). Should we use this type of layout on the English and French Wikitravels? Ronline 03:53, 1 May 2004 (EDT)
Change to use new Romanian layout?
So, I really like the new Romanian portal layout (ro:Portal). How do people feel about adapting it for en:?
I'd like to get in the habit of having a featured city or area on the site, just because it looks nice. Also, when a place has some kind of timeliness to it, we can both show that we have info about the place, and get more input.
For example: Portland (Oregon) is having its Festival of Roses in the next couple of weeks. Featuring Portland would be a great way to attract contributors and get the page really in shape.
Another good example would be Athens for the Olympic Games.
Any input? --Evan 16:14, 29 May 2004 (EDT)
- Excellent idea! Guaka 09:44, 1 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- Yeah! That 'is' a really good idea. -- Mark 10:11, 1 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- I've been hoping we'd do this... Majnoona 11:54, 1 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- I made a sample at User:Matthewmayer/Portal, please amend as you see fit Matthewmayer 13:32, 18 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- This looks great! I say, copy it to the Main Page ASAP. --Evan 13:50, 18 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- This looks excellent! The only comments/suggestions I have are to limit the bottom left cell by length, not number of log entries so you can have 2 long ones or three short ones. That might get rid of the extra whitespace at the bottom right. Also, you might want to add a bit of cellpadding or something to give the text some space off the table borders. But this is all real nit-pickey. I'd say go ahead and copy it over! Majnoona 20:12, 18 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- The layout looks great, I think too. It's great to see that the Romanian layout has been used! Just a note - why don't we the CSS scrollbar effect for the news, so that they can be packed in a smaller space. Other than that, it would be great. Ronline 04:35, 19 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- Right, have copied to the Main Page! Matthewmayer 14:09, 19 Jun 2004 (EDT)