MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussing additions to MediaWiki's Sitenotice system, which is sort of like our very own w:public service announcement system, to inform users across the project of sitewide issues that may affect them. This is implemented via the large banner at the top of each page, as may be seen here as well as elsewhere (if you have not dismissed the cookie that keeps the banner in place yet). Administrators: Be sure to increment MediaWiki:Sitenotice id when updating the site notice in order to ensure that users who have dismissed previous site notice banners will see a new notice in place.

So, I just unilaterally added our first-ever sitewide notice on en: Wikivoyage. 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. --(WT-en) Evan 10:16, 28 September 2006 (EDT)

Template:Title-icons needs Sitenotice[edit]

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. -- (WT-en) 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! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:22, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Given that it's now 2009...[edit]

...would it make sense to change the Sitenotice to something that's not referring to 2008? Cheers, (WT-en) 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. -- (WT-en) 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>)? (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:24, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Ad for Wikivoyage Press and Amazon.com[edit]

Although I'm keen to see anyone using the wikivoyage guides, for whatever purposes they want, I think what is essentially an ad for Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage Press in the site notice is overstepping the mark. Wikivoyage 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. --(WT-en) 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. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:48, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was anything inappropriate done by Wikivoyage 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. --(WT-en) 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. --(WT-en) 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 --(WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:00, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Voice of America's Website of the Week[edit]

<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? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:27, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

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

Update with contribution link[edit]

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 Wikivoyage grow by contributing to an article. Learn how.

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

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

Lines[edit]

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? (WT-en) 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. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:34, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

Update?[edit]

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 Wikivoyage grow by contributing to an article. Learn how.

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

*bump* -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:56, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
We could just clear it out if there's nothing exciting to put there for now. — (WT-en) 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. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
I've changed this back to the default. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:55, 1 November 2010 (EDT)


Link to Wikimedia fork proposal[edit]

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? (WT-en) jpatokal 23:36, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

  • I oppose linking to rival travel guides. (WT-en) 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 Project:External links. We certainly would have objected to such a thing for Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) 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.--(WT-en) IBobi 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I have reverted your removal of other users' good faith comments. Please see Project:Travellers' pub#Moving to Wikimedia. --(WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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 Wikivoyage 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 Wikivoyage 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. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:36, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Are you saying that they erred in contributing? --(WT-en) 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 wikivoyage.org seems like a step too far. Everyone who has ever contributed to Wikivoyage 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. -- (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) Justme 16:40, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
While I very much want everyone who has and will use Wikivoyage 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. -- (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. • • • (WT-en) 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:(WT-en) 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. -- (WT-en) 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. • • • (WT-en) 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 Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) 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. --(WT-en) 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 Wikivoyagers are not aware of something that may drastically affect their use of this site and the future of their past contributions. Leaving other Wikivoyagers 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-Wikivoyagers 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? --(WT-en) 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, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:13, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
Very nice :) --(WT-en) 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 Wikivoyage.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 Wikivoyage.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,--(WT-en) IBobi talk email 15:02, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

The link wasn't to a promotion of a fork, it was to an on-site discussion, that IB is welcome to contribute to, and do all the persuasion they wish to. But it seems obscurity is to be preferred. --(WT-en) Inas 17:10, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
Right. IBobi, you need to decide whether you actually want to have a conversation about this -- in which case, it's a conversation that every Wikivoyage user should be a part of -- or if you want to try to hush it up as much as you can. To answer your request "if there's anything [you] can do"... There is much that your employers could have done in the last six years, but right now I believe your role is limited to making the split as amicable as possible. You've not made a good start in that regard. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:51, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
OK. For the record: I have made an open attempt to notify the larger community of Wikivoyage contributors and other users of this discussion and the rapidly deteriorating rift between the site host and the project adminstrators, and the response from the site host has been to shut down the message. This speaks for itself. I do not think I need comment further. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:05, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Site Notice[edit]

Swept from the pub:

Do we have any policy for the site notice? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:24, 26 September 2012 (CEST)

Nope, we've just used it via consensus. I think it's editable by any registered user right now, which we might want to change (I had actually thought it was limited to admins), and just have changes discusse first on the MediaMessage talk page. --Peter Talk 17:25, 26 September 2012 (CEST)
OK, I have noted this as a 'nutshell' on Policy outline, so it is now technically policy that it should be discussed on the talk page first. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:19, 27 September 2012 (CEST)
It used to be editable on Wikitravel, but now on Wikivoyage, all Mediawiki messages including sitenotice are editable by admins only. sumone10154(talk) 16:21, 27 September 2012 (CEST)

Note about preference for cleanup[edit]

Following on from Atsirlin's post in the Pub, I think we should make it clear in the Sitenotice that users should be focussing on the Cleanup effort rather than travel-related edits. We're starting to get a small influx of new editors who are here to propose major travel-related changes, but we just don't have the time or energy to focus on that right now. I don't know the exact wording. Maybe something like "Due to this, we would prefer if edits focussed on the migration and cleanup rather than travel." put below the current bolded heading. JamesA >talk 13:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it's necessary. There's some pent-up demand, and I don't know if we want to turn off new contributors who may not feel comfortable assisting with cleanup. LtPowers (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we want. There is very little activity on image tagging. en.wikivoyage-old.org is open for editing since 2 days, and only 18 out of 7500 images have been tagged so far. We will never do it without new people involved. --Atsirlin (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want to turn off new contributors, then I think we may have a problem. LtPowers (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it is fair (I mean, the explicit site notice is fair) as long as we are running in beta version. Otherwise, we have only two options: stay in beta for months, or skip the full image cleanup. We have done 50% in about 10 days, but we won't do the rest even in one month because things have slowed down dramatically. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Launch[edit]

What should the sitenotice say at launch? I'm thinking we should link Wikivoyage:Welcome, newcomers and/or Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians, along with Wikivoyage:Plunge forward. Anything else? LtPowers (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The photo hunt should still be up there--that's above all else what we'll need help with right now, and it's an easy thing for newbies to work on. Let's remove the "view the old site" link, though, because that's going to confuse newcomers. I think it would make most sense to have both welcome options up there, and we should put the "migrate your account" information in the welcome pages. --Peter Talk 02:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Since much of the launch traffic may come from Wikipedia, it might be sufficient to link to the Wikpedia welcome page and a few other key guidelines that will be of most interest to Wikipedians:

Welcome to Wikivoyage! Please join Wikimedia's newest project by contributing to an article today!

Rather than linking specifically to the photo hunt page, which is fairly limited in scope, would it make sense to add a section to the quick contribution guide so that we can link to a single page that gives individuals a variety of ways to help out? Hopefully some of the new Wikivoyage contributors who came from Wikipedia could chime in with their suggestions since they'll have a fresh perspective on what a Wikipedian would need to know when coming here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think Photo hunt is a good task but i would love to see a phrase like welcome home to attract also the former active users that might only see that the community has moved. Not all regulars are already on WV. jan (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't state the most important reason for linking the photo hunt: we'll want people to see the explanation for all the red-linked images right off the bat. It's a big eyesore still.
Also, can we not link the pub? There's a link in the left bar... and the pub is already crowded and noisy ;) --Peter Talk 05:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with doing away with the pub link. As to the photo hunt, I'd really like to combine that request with others so that if someone doesn't want to chase photos they might grab another task - what about resurrecting Wikivoyage:Cleanup? That way we can highlight the photo hunt but also solicit help with other tasks that need attention? -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You really don't want the photo hunt on there, huh? What other cleanup tasks do you think new contributors will be able to help with? --Peter Talk 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If it's the photo hunt or nothing then I'd rather have the photo hunt, but we also need to review Wikivoyage images on Commons, and there are other open tasks like addressing pages tagged with Template:Style or Template:Merge. If we're soliciting help and expecting a lot of new, knowledgeable volunteers, it seems like it makes sense to have a prioritized TODO list so that people can join in where they're most comfortable rather than limiting things to just image cleanups. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
That could work, but the cleanup page needs a thorough rewrite, and the confusing directions need to be buried—maybe a subpage for each task? The file migration stuff is really daunting even for experienced wiki editors. --Peter Talk 21:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I've re-written Wikivoyage:Cleanup and removed most of the file migration stuff, which is now out-of-date. Is the new version more acceptable for inclusion in the launch site notice now? And if so, would we perhaps want to redirect the photo hunt page to the cleanup page since they contain duplicate content? -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
You did a nice job cleaning up Cleanup, and yes, Photo hunt should have a section link redirect.
I was kind of hoping someone else might chime in—I'm fine with your proposal, but still concerned with how to ward off thousands of questions/blog posts/critical newspaper articles about red linked photos. --Peter Talk 03:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The only thing chiming is my clock app, so let's plan on going with Ryan's proposed version below. I'll update it now. --Peter Talk 09:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No link to Plunge forward? LtPowers (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the first thing on the "contribute to an article" linked page. --Peter Talk 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed site notice[edit]

1a[edit]

Welcome to Wikivoyage! Please join Wikimedia's newest project by contributing to an article today!

Comments:

  • No, the Main Page already says "Welcome to Wikivoyage" at top. We don't want to be redundant like that right on the Main Page. --Rogerhc (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1b[edit]

How about this:

Please join Wikimedia's newest project by contributing to an article today!

1c[edit]

With a border:

Please join Wikimedia's newest project by contributing to an article today!

Comments:

  • I like the absence of bold text. This notice will show on all pages. It need not have bold text I think. --Rogerhc (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    That works for me. --Peter Talk 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    Fine with me as well. Question: do we want any kind of border or coloring around the site notice to call attention to it? Typically when Wikipedia runs a site notice they add a border to distinguish it from page content - see 1c above. I don't feel strongly about a border or not, so if others object to the idea then please ignore the proposal. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think we don't need the border. Could one of the admins update the site notice to version 1b above for now please. Thanks, --Rogerhc (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Huge margin[edit]

Why such big margins each side of the notice? It makes the list of 5 links wrap unnecessarily. Nurg (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not seeing what you are seeing, it's not wrapping for me, unless I shrink my browser window pretty significantly – cacahuate talk 06:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Line wrapping[edit]

When a link like "Migrate your account" gets lined wrapped and part of it like "account" or "your account" shows on a line all by itself, this is suboptimal and introduces unnecessary potentially confusion to newcomers. This is easy to prevent.

To fix this, I suggest using &nbsp; in place of normal space between the words we do not want individually wrapped. An admin (only admins can edit site notice) could replace the site notice with the following, in which I have put &nbsp; between words that would be better wrapped together (try narrowing your browser window to see how it wraps):

Using &nbsp;[edit]

Please join Wikimedia's newest project by contributing to an article today!

(click edit to grab the wiki markup)

Using CSS white-space:nowrap property[edit]

Line wrapping can also be controlled with CSS's white-space property but for the above case maybe &nbsp; is just easier. Anyway, here's how it could be done with CSS's white-space property:

Please join Wikimedia's newest project by contributing to an article today!

(click edit to grab the wiki markup) --Rogerhc (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook endorsement[edit]

Hi all,
I am surprised to see that the current SiteNotice is advertising a Facebook page. Facebook is a proprietary service that doesn't seem to fit at all with the goals of Wikivoyage or the Wikimedia foundation, I find it strange to endorse it in such a blatant way.
--A3 nm (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't understand why you believe Facebook doesn't fit our goals. Many businesses and organisations use Facebook for a variety of reasons. It increases the exposure of Wikivoyage, bringing in more viewers and editors who can use our guides. It also allows us to interact with the community and update them on the latest content on the site. Note that the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia and other WMF sites also have Facebook pages. JamesA >talk 12:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
James, I do agree with the opposition of showing FB link in the SiteNotice. There is no problem having pages on FB or any social networking website but none of the WMF project ever gave links of their FB pages on the main pages or in the SiteNotice. --Saqib (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand the reasoning to remove it. Is it because other wikis don't put links to their Facebooks? We're not other wikis. Most other WMF sites are fairly conservative, but we here are moving with the times and will not conform to "social norms". JamesA >talk 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that your arguments are in support of having a Wikivoyage presence on Facebook: I also don't really like this, but my main concern is the advertisment of this Facebook page in the SiteNotice, and it seems your points aren't about this. Other Wikimedia projects don't usually distract from their main content by requesting users to "like" them on some closed platform, and I think that's good: they aren't asking for "social media" attention, but are just offering great content and allowing people to participate. If you start advertising the Facebook page in this way, why not add "like" buttons to individual articles, or promote Facebook as a replacement of article talk pages because it's a better way to interact with the community? (I'm not implying this is your point, I just fail to see where to set the limit if we go down the slippery slope.) I don't think it's a good idea to direct users to a certain specific closed platform like the SiteNotice does. (Edit: thanks for having removed it! ^^)--A3 nm (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Since this is attracting some negative attention I've removed the Facebook link in the site notice for now. I do think we want to promote the visibility of that page, but apparently we may also need to tread carefully given the norms that people are used to with other Wikimedia projects. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict] James, could you explain the rationale--is it designed to increase readership here or there? And how does that work? (I'm not a Facebook user.) --Peter Talk 15:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The Facebook page should increase readership here, but the link the in sitenotice would increase attention on the FB page. The idea is that people such as you and me Like the page on FB. And then our friends see it pop up now and then in their FB news feeds, either because we shared something that was posted on the Wikivoyage FB page, or because FB's algorithms decide to show them "Hey your friend likes this page, maybe you should too." Then they like the page and the cycle continues until we're reaching a large audience on FB and letting them know what a great resource we have here. LtPowers (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
What LtPowers said. Getting the people who read Wikivoyage to like our page means that others will also become aware of our community, therefore helping to fulfil our goal of creating an up-to-date free travel guide with a wide audience and wide editing community. I would actually be in favour of having a "like" button in the sidebar that allows users to like useful guides. That is probably one of the best ways to promote our community there, but that's an issue for another discussion. I see a lot of benefits in promoting the FB link in the sitenotice. I'd like to know what the downsides are, apart from preconceived norms of other Wikimedia sites that have different communities and different focusses. We can take this project where this community sees fit, and don't have to always "fit in" with the others. JamesA >talk 05:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the objections are about "promoting" Facebook itself, as opposed to whatever other social networking site. But if Facebook is where we're working to increase our social media presence right now, then I think putting a link to it in the sitenotice would be fine—we're promoting our own initiatives. Increasing our visibility is a principal goal for Wikivoyage right now. --Peter Talk 06:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added a note about the Facebook page to Wikivoyage:Ways to promote Wikivoyage, which should be acceptable given the subject matter of that page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO, Facebook is "just" a website and a society with no particular positive point, of which I'm not a member, and I feel really upset when every (news/blog/other) website advertising its page <<Hey, look ! We're also on faceboook! Like us!>> I feel a bit like they are begging me for something i cannot give them (since I'm not on facebook), and not willing to do (If I like what I find somewhere, I'll talk about it to friends on IRC or IRL, or link to it, not use some third party website who is only interested in profiling who I am and what I like to send me targeted ads). I'm not saying either that no-one or that WV should not have a facebook page but I do not quite approve such an message in the sitenotice... --Ereicros (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm, too, opposed Facebook like buttons on Wikivoyage. I don't want to see Facebook Like buttons or any other spammy network du jour buttons on Wikivoyage, thank you. Rogerhc (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reason, or just a visceral dislike of self-promotion? LtPowers (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Process for new Logo selection - Urgent[edit]

Please consider whether we should use the site notice to inform users of the discussion on meta about the process for selecting a new logo. If we want our people to know that they can have input, this should be done very soon or it will be too late. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead Peter. Site notice is a superb way to spread the word. --Saqib (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Seems to work. Feel free to improve if necessary. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make the Sitenotice reappear to those who hid it, +1 to the number at MediaWiki:Sitenotice id, if you think it is necessary. We don't want to make the sitenotice reappear too often, however, so it may be better to make it reappear when we're having the actual vote/decision? James Atalk 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean change the "1" to a "2"? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this should stay up for a couple of days at least. Not everybody edits every day. New notice when voting starts would be appropriate. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Update[edit]

See Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Update_sitenotice. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page 2[edit]

Could we perhaps have some sort of message, inviting people to come and comment on the new Main Page idea that's floating around?

Something like:

We're currently working on a new idea for Wikivoyage's Main Page and we'd welcome your comments and suggestions. To view the discussion and page click here.

Thanks --Nick talk 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Done. --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally I still think the ideas you guys have come up with for the Main Page have a long way to come before even being ready to get wider feedback. I just tested it and it's very buggy and doesn't work how you'd expect. We should be correcting technicalities first. James Atalk 23:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The reason we're asking for wider feedback is because it works for us. We can't correct what we don't yet know about! :) If you have a previous version of the CSS, I would suggest clearing it as it may be conflicting with the code that Saqib has copied across to MediaWiki:Common. --Nick talk 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes James, please remove the codes from your css file and in-case if you still see any issue, please upload a screenshot. --Saqib (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about the main page seems to have died down, so can we revert back to the default sitenotice now? If not, how long should this current sitenotice run for? -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure! --Saqib (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
By "default", do you mean what we had before, or our historical default of "Plunge forward!"? LtPowers (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Ryan meant what he had before. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitenotice change process[edit]

Would it make sense to formalize a process for site notice changes? I'm mildly concerned about using such a prominent piece of the site code as essentially a more visible "RFC" in cases where feedback doesn't appear to be critical, although I may be in a tiny minority. My thought is that we implement something like the Wikivoyage:Script nominations process:

  1. Add the proposed text to this talk page, along with a note stating how long the site notice should be displayed for (1 day, two weeks, etc).
  2. If 2 administrators (in addition to the proposer) voice their support for the change and there are no unresolved objections, the site notice can be changed. If objections arise later, the site notice change can be undone.

Thoughts? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --Saqib (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree - it would be good to formalise this part of the site. --Nick talk 18:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Too much bureaucracy for my taste. I trust our admins' judgement on when to change the site notice, and any mistakes are easily revertable. LtPowers (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
True, but with that being said, a sitenotice is not something to be taken lightly, and using it frivolously should be considered misusing the tools. If an admin is unsure, they should informally ask first. --Rschen7754 00:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
What Rschen said. We don't have any clear guidelines on when a sitenotice change is warranted, so adding some process is a quick way to ensure that the proposer can get feedback before making the change, and that anyone with concerns can raise them. Two support votes is a pretty minimal barrier to overcome. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there's also MediaWiki:Watchlist-details for something less obtrusive. --Rschen7754 01:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that we should consider "frivolous" changes to the site notice to be misuse of administrator tools. It's never really been a big deal before. LtPowers (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Any edit to the interface is using the administrator tools, so care must be taken whenever editing any MediaWiki: page. Not every misuse of the tools requires action to be taken by the community, however. --Rschen7754 02:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The suggested process sounds reasonable. Personally, I'd have waited until we had some kind of problem before we implemented a fix, but a little proactivity never hurt. --Inas (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know we have no guidance for what can go in the sitenotice beyond the nutshell on the policies directory page:-
"Nutshell: The site notice is a feature which can be used to alert the community about important developments. Site notices should be discussed on the talk page and published by consensus" Is this not sufficient? If the message is urgent, I think we should assume good faith from our admins, and accept that the occasional message that we don't agree with entirely may occur, or that we may not agree on how urgent a message may be.
Misuse of the tool is not specifically defined, but one could assume anything that contravenes a guiding principle, a core content policy or a community policy would be misuse. Is anything more detailed actually necessary? When uncertain of the urgency or appropriateness of a proposed message, discuss first.
A note on this page indicating how long the message should be displayed would be useful. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change[edit]

Since the launch in January 2013 the default site notice has stated "Please join Wikimedia's newest project by contributing to an article today!". Now that we've been a Wikimedia project for more than a year and we're not exactly "new" anymore, would there be any objection to changing that to "Please help improve the Wikivoyage travel guides by contributing to an article today!"? (use of "travel guides" partially inspired for SEO value). Alternately, does anyone have any other suggestions for improvement? That banner is one of the first things new visitors will see, so it's important to make it as useful as possible. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The sitenotice does seem to be getting a bit old... --Rschen7754 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
What about this?
Welcome to Wikivoyage! Please help us to improve our travel guides by contributing to an article today!
I've tried to make the opening message more of a welcome and less of a plea, whilst including the important words 'travel guides'. I've also (more controversially) replaced the link to Wikivoyage:Cleanup with links to our social media presence. I'm under the impression (though I could be wrong) that the vast majority if not all of the cleanup is pretty much complete. By encouraging people to 'follow us' on other sites around the web, we can spread our message further and attract even more new users. --Nick talk 21:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I know plenty of other Wikimedia sites advertise social media links (though not the English ones). --Rschen7754 21:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with Nick's version, although if the Facebook & Twitter links prove to be controversial then let's do the update in two stages, with the welcome message change first and the social media changes only after any concerns are addressed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Given we've not had any objections, are we ok to implement at least the first part of this site notice? --Nick talk 18:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
In the spirt of Wikivoyage:Plunge forward I've pushed the update, including the social media links. If there are objections then we can partially revert. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! --Nick talk 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice to get Wikivoyage:Plunge forward! in there somewhere, if only for tradition's sake. =) Powers (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That would be a nice idea, Powers - whereabouts do you think it should go? We could put it on the end, next to the social media stuff? --Nick talk 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems like it should be part of our exhortation to action. Powers (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
How about either:
Welcome to Wikivoyage! Please help us to improve our travel guides by plunging forward today!
or
Welcome to Wikivoyage! Please help us to improve our travel guides by plunging forward and contributing to an article today!
I think I prefer the 2nd one, but is it too long? --Nick talk 14:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Changed. Any thoughts? I haven't incremented the id number as it comes very soon after the previous version. --Nick talk 14:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence now wraps on my browser, meaning the site notice takes up more vertical space than would be ideal. Could we instead do something like:
Welcome to Wikivoyage! Help us to improve our travel guides by contributing to an article today!
-- Ryan • (talk) • 15:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that - I'll make the change. --Nick talk 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Whoops! Missed the 'please'! --Nick talk 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
We've never been an overly polite bunch :) If there is a way to keep the text brief that allows us to re-introduce the pleasantries then go for it, but seeing as vertical space is a precious commodity I think it would be good to keep the site notice to two lines for as many browser resolutions as possible. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the links might be backwards. Perhaps "Help us" should link to the contribution guide, while "contributing to an article" should link to Plunge forward. But I could be wrong. Powers (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter links[edit]

Since facebook and twitter servers redirect http to https, could we change the two links to https://www.facebook.com/wikivoyage.org and https://twitter.com/Wikivoyage respectively? Thanks! Chmarkine (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

dismiss[edit]

Hello, good news! Thanks to FreedomFighterSparrow and Brion, unregistered users can now hide the sitenotice again. Previously, they were forced to see it continuously.

In all cases, please use the sitenotice with care, and keep in mind that occasional visitors see sitenotices on all their visits, if they visit less than once a month or they don't click "dismiss" and save a cookie. Nemo 15:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove the sitenotice?[edit]

We currently use the Sitenotice as a general all-pages header, with navigation elements. While arguably useful, that's not the intended use of the feature. Using it in this manner is out of step with practices on other WMF wikis and risks making a true sitenotice (should we need to post one) less noticeable. I suggest we remove the sitenotice until such time as we have an important notice to display. Powers (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

100% support this proposal, for the reasons given above --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Also support for reasons stated. Indeed, I'd like to see a future Sitenotice spruiking the features that our site has over that other competitor site, other than superior content. I think we need to sell ourselves better, and a page to highlight our major features may be useful. I was working on something at User:JamesA/Features, but that's a discussion for another time. James Atalk 06:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but can we keep the current all-pages header by moving it to a different file? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything that serves a similar purpose. Powers (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Why do you guys want to remove this header? I'd support changing it to promote something at times, but as long as that isn't being done, what's the harm in the current header? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The sitenotice is meant to be a way of temporarily informing the community of a particular piece of news, event or another matter. Right now, it's been sitting there like it's a piece of the site navigation, that belongs in the Sidebar, or even like it's a permanent welcome message. James Atalk 14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Reading the earliest discussions on this page, it appears the only reason we ever had a permanent sitenotice was because blanking it caused problems with the alignment of the DotM and star icons. That hasn't been an issue since we implemented the banner images. Powers (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
But the message is a good one. Is there a problem with somehow keeping it, irrespective of the use of the sitenotice for temporary information? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
As James noted, most of the links are better suited for the sidebar, which is the navigation element designed for that purpose. Many of them are already there. The rest of the message outside of the links is fairly generic boilerplate that might make sense on the Main Page but not on every page. Powers (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)