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 "Talk:Main Page"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Star nominations: okey-dokey...)
m (Star nominations)
Line 98: Line 98:
 
:::::::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 &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 21:02, 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 &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 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 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.  [[User:Asterix|Asterix]] 15:24, 11 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.  [[User:Asterix|Asterix]] 15:24, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:37, 11 September 2008

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)


Contents

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. 82.33.114.90 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)

Disclaimer

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)

YIPPIE!!!

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. :) --70.48.59.216 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)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages