YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 20:44, 14 July 2012 by Justme (talk | contribs) (Link to Wikimedia fork proposal)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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: 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)


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)


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 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)
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 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)