Talk:Main Page

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please read Main Page guidelines before editing the Main Page. You are welcome to try out changes in the Main_Page/Sandbox.

Our current version of the Main Page was implemented on 2013-03-26. Discussion of prior versions of the Main Page can be found at Wikivoyage talk:Main Page Old

For archived main page discussions see:

{{{2}}}

Should "Get involved" links be moved to the menu?

In my opinion, the get involved section at the bottom of the main page would fit better on the general site menu. Not only would this make sense, it would also add more room for the "Discover" section. Also, I think the Wikimedia Foundation Family section needs more space. Any thoughts? Selfie City (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

While not against a reformulation of the page on principle, I think it's helpful to have a 'Get involved' tab on the main page. Despite always being there on every page you go on, the menu sidebar is somehow less prominent than anything on the main page, and we should strive to keep anything that encourages more editors to start editing. Whether its current position is as prominent as it could be, may be up for debate.
One thing that should be changed about the section, however, is the image still shows a world map that was apparently used for a 'Continents' collaboration; maybe it should now have a picture of Buenos Aires. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Bold text

If there any particular reason why every text element below the DotM banner carousel is showing up boldfaced? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It happens to me too since yesterday (ie. 12 h ago), but only when I'm logged in. When not logged in, it looks normal. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Is nobody else having this problem? --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I am, but have no solution to offer. Sorry, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Ryan sorted it out. Many thanks to him. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, Ryan! ϒpsilon (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Showcasing Pyeongchang Olympics article on the Main Page

Swept in from the pub

Copying my comment here from Talk:Pyeongchang 2018 where nobody sees it: Compared to the articles of recent Olympic Games (both summer and winter), this one is IMHO (while not perfect, but) in a decent shape. Should we link to it from the Main Page in some way? --ϒpsilon (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should post it somewhere. Not sure where though. It would be a good idea to post it on Wikivoyage's Facebook and Twitter pages too. Topical articles are always more popular. In a few weeks, it will cease to have any relevance, so promote it while we can. Gizza (roam) 08:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with showcasing it on the Main Page, Facebook.... It would benefit from another review by an experienced editor. I just went through it a couple of times and found outdated info, formatting and language problems. Ground Zero (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm supportive of this in the abstract, but opposed to doing so before problems of the type Ground Zero mentioned above are expunged. Given that these Olympics are happening in tandem with an edit-a-thon that's putting a lot more eyes on Wikivoyage than usual, I see a Main Page feature for PyeongChang as something that could either be a great boon for us (if we put forth an article that's high-quality) or a great embarrassment (if we slap it on the Main Page prematurely without copyediting and correcting the factual errors that may be present). I'd say the same goes for Facebook posts or tweets, though perhaps not quite to the same degree. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ready to be featured

First, thank you to Hobbitschuster for taking a look at the article. I've made some further edits, and I think it is now ready to be featured. If anyone disagrees, please identify specific problems or help out by fixing them let's not miss this opportunity by fussing about getting it perfect. The games have started, let's not delay. I don't know how to go about putting this on the main page, Facebook, Twitter, so I hope someone can handle that. (Do we suspend the current DOTM during games, and repost it after?) Ground Zero (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pyeongchang should absolutely not replace anything on the featured articles carousel. Those articles deserve their 30 days of exposure just like any other DotM/OtBP/FTT. I would much prefer to either have Pyeongchang as a temporary fourth banner on the carousel, or else find some other space on the Main Page for it (maybe where "Get involved" is now? The only people who've shown interest in CotM are regular contributors, and they know where to find the relevant page even if it's not linked to from the Main Page, and most of the other links in that corner are redundant to what's already on the left sidebar - "Policies", "Help", etc.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If nothing else we could make it a "Discover" fact and delay one of the others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting shortening the time of any of the others - they should get their 30 days. A temporary fourth banner sounds like a great solution. Ground Zero (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
A 4th banner sounds good, or a temporary infobox right above or below the carousel. Whatever is technically easiest to implement. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Adding a fourth banner to the carousel would be very easy indeed and would probably be more aesthetically pleasing than an infobox. The only thing to do would be to make the banner. I'm sorry to say I'm probably not going to have enough free time to do that today or tomorrow. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know how to create another banner, so I've implemented Andre's suggestion of using the Collaboration of the Month space (I managed to keep the rest of "Get involved"). I think it works. If someone had a better solution, please go ahead and do it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Thank you, Ground Zero, for attending to this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ground Zero. I think a precedent has been set for dealing with future high-profile, current event articles that we want to post on the Main Page quickly. Adding it above "Get Involved" is a good idea. Making a temporary fourth banner would also work. Gizza (roam) 03:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Two thoughts... 1) Someone should fix the "Pyeongchang 2018 has concluded" in the box because it's looking silly at the moment. 2) I think the article should be expanded to include Paralympics. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If you see something that needs fixing or you think can be improved, please plunge forward and fix or improve it. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

I agree with Andre's comment above about CotM being really of interest to a small group of dedicated editors. While it may sound great to give this project high profile by having it on the Main Page, I don't think it is appropriate for our public face. First time readers aren't likely to participate in CotM, and if they do, they might get it wrong, and that would be frustrating for them and for other editors. The Get Involved links are good entry points for new editors, but I think that CotM is kind of insider stuff. If my positioning of the Pyeongchang 2018 feature is okay, then we have until Feb 25 to decide what to do with the space. Ground Zero (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We could leave it until March 18, the last day of the Winter Paralympic Games, changing the words after the Olympics closing ceremony. AlasdairW (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
That would be good, but the article would have to be overhauled after 25 Feb to cover the Paralympics. I'm on the road, so I won't be in a position to do that. Ground Zero (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It does not need to be so prominent but is another way to get people involved. Agree better to have a changing logo in the section based on events. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Showcasing coming events

Discussion

Since people seen to like the idea of featuring the Pyeongchang2018 article during the games, I'm starting a list of other articles that we could feature on the Main Page for coming events. These articles should be improved so that we can put our best foot forward. Events should be major international events. Other ideas? Please add to the list. Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm moving the list and the discussion to Wikivoyage_talk:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Temporary_featuring_of_Valentine's_Day,_Olympics,_etc?, where a similar discussion has popped up. Ground Zero (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion is on-going at Wikivoyage_talk:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#List of temporarily featured events. Ground Zero (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Error in "Travelling during Ramadan"

The paragraph about travelling during Ramadan currently says "15 May-14 June May 2018". I'm guessing that's supposed to be "15 May-14 June 2018". Could an admin please fix the error? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Main page design

The main page for Wikivoyage is quite good and works pretty well. However, I have a few thoughts, concerns, and possible improvements about the main page in relation to its design (it was created all the way back in 2013).

First, it was stated above that the Wikivoyage homepage features do not all come out at the same size. Some parts of the page are only 2/3 the width they should be on some screens, but then come all the way across a different screen. If there's any way to solve this, that would be great.

Second, the map at the top of the page would look better with a lighter color for the ocean.

Third, the section at the bottom has a rather blue background that is rather dark. I think a lighter color (maybe even white) would look better.

Fourth, a useful addition to the front page could be a separate section for park areas that would be changed every so often like those are. It could have a similar design to the DotMs but just be a section of its own, and it would be a chance to give those visiting the site a picture of some really staggering scenery to impress them. I was thinking it would be something like this:

National Park

Yosemite

One of America's best known national parks, the centerpiece of Yosemite National Park is its beautiful Yosemite Valley.

I just think these would be some ways to make our home page look even better than it does now. Glad to hear any thoughts. Selfie City (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, this would require a lot of nominating as well. Selfie City (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mobile

Swept in from the pub

Hey all. Our main page for mobile sucks.[1] Not sure what we can do about that?

Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One thing that might be helpful is a feature called TemplateStyles. It's something the Readers Infrastructure team is working on at the foundation. It allows templates to have custom CSS styles without having to place them in MediaWiki:Common.css. This means that non-admins can update the CSS for templates used on the Main Page (and anywhere else) that can use more CSS rules and be responsive to any device - like mobile).
We have some help documentation if folks are interested in learning more. We have deployed to a few wikis and are looking for more communities to adopt and advocate. I'd be happy to help put English Wikivoyage on the list if there is community consensus (and folks interested in helping to implement). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's get back to this idea, especially if User:Seddon (WMF) is going to run another reader-oriented banner for us. I had a look at some of the other Wikivoyage's mobile main pages, and here's a few that I think you should look at:

If you're looking at this on a desktop device, then make your browser window skinny, to get a notion of what the smartphone layout would look like. Compare it to https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page which has no images and no color.

Are any of these more (or less) appealing than the others? If we like one of these designs, then it might be easy to copy the style here. Alternatively, we could combine elements from different ones to make something better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad this discussion is happening. I think I like the fr and zh versions the best. I might suggest combining most aspects of the fr version with zh formatting for featured articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree the start page of English Wikipedia on mobile needs some serious improvement. The other reason why the mobile version is not useful to use is that to get the map of a town with points of interest to show my current location is very difficult. As mobile surfing is the main use of the web today we really need to get this sorted. For me it is unclear how to edit the mobile version. Can someone provide some information on this so we can get an activity going? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


New Mobile Design - PLEASE BE KIND, THIS IS ONLY A PROTOTYPE CONCEPT

@Doc James, CKoerner (WMF), WhatamIdoing, Traveler100, DaGizza:: Hey all. So in a show of just how serious I am about wanting to run some readership growth experiments here. I decided to go ahead and build a prototype main page for mobile. The following caveats come before I share this:

  • Rome wasn't built in two days - which is about what I've spent working on this. It's rough and has many edges.
  • This is a concept and not a product - I've not bothered with linking or anything like that for now and the images just view themselves for the moment
  • Make sure you aren't accidently viewing this on the wikipedia app - It gets like..... really broken.

Link (VIEW ON MOBILE): https://test.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seddon_(WMF)/testmobile

Seddon (WMF) (talk)

first impression is positive. Clear simple text and logo at top. Nice the way you have done the features. Think it would be a good idea to have the continents' world map and list underneath, and somewhere a link to tourist office.
Unfortunately the continents map doesn't world well on mobile but we can place some button links to the continents. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The French mobile site does a resonable job. And as an aside how do I get a signature when using mobile UI?
I would have assumed the same way as desktop? With "~~~~" . Unfortunately image maps aren't responsive in either size or placement. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I lie in terms of positioning. I've now included some buttons and the map. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it looks like a big improvement over the current mobile main page. I agree with Traveler100 that a link to the tourist office would be nice. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree it is definitely an improvement. Thanks for taking this on User:Seddon (WMF). A few thoughts. Our logo is make up of three colors. It would be cool to use one of each of those colors in each of the main headings.
Initial logo is a little big on the phone I am on. I am able to click on the world map and it works. It does not take up the whole width of the screen though and IMO it should. Happy to see it moved lower. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your work Seddon. It looks much better and cleaner than the current mobile main page. As other have said, we could add a few more links like the Tourist Office, Discover and the temporary featured events. But it's more important to have a clean and user-friendly look than have every single thing on the page. Gizza (roam) 01:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seddon (WMF), WhatamIdoing, Doc James, Traveler100, DaGizza: This discussion seems to have stalled. What do we need to do to get something like this implemented? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The underlying code is HERE. Does someone want to work on it more and than we can put it live? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Seddon (WMF), WhatamIdoing, Doc James, Traveler100, DaGizza: I just copied the code to User:SelfieCity/homepage; the slideshow did not work after the copy but the rest came out fine. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
What about something along these lines, I was just playing around with the code: [2]. Made it on desktop, though, and it came out strange when I viewed it on mobile. Just an idea. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Putting this here in case it's helpful: mw:Mobile Gateway/Mobile homepage formatting. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding banners

Hi, I have decent amount of knowledge with Wikipedia but I'm new to Wikivoyage. It seems like we can't actually add a image from Wikimedia commons to Wikivoyage as a banner. How to add a banner to an article? Is there any specific file type which we should add?

—The preceding comment was added by IM3847 (talkcontribs)

Welcome! Have a look at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition, especially the "Creating a banner" subsection of "How do I help?" If you're not clear on anything after that, post to Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It is possible, just add the file name to the pagename template (without prefix of File:). But please crop to 7:1 ratio first. Also these sort of questions are best ask at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Gyeongju

This is nothing important, just noting that the image for Gyeongju is absolutely breathtaking, surpassing even the usual high standard for carousel images. Big props to the original photographer (User:Goytex from Commons) and for our own User:AndreCarrotflower for choosing it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, truly a good image. It should be added to our banner hall of fame, which hasn't been edited in a few years. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the kind words! I was actually going to suggest the same thing that User:SelfieCity did. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Temporarily featured events 2019

Since we're going to continue this feature, I think it makes sense to move the discussion to a project page here: Wikivoyage:Featured events. Please join the discussion there. Ground Zero (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Temporarily featured events on the Main Page

Swept in from the pub

I've started a discussion about this element of the Main Page to discuss whether to continue this feature, and of so, what events to include. Comments are welcome on the Main Page talk page. Ground Zero (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Popes

I changed the picture of the former pope Benedict XVI for the current incarnation, Francis. If there's a good reason why Benedict was depicted, please revert.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That was my bad. They all look alike to me. Thanks for fixing it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No harm done. Happy new year, Ground Zero! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes — happy new year. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Updating image at top

The image at the top of the home page could use an update. First, it cuts off awkwardly in northeast Russia, which is a small error, but one that should be fixed for the highest-visibility image on the whole site. Second, it's a little hyper-realistic, whereas something more stylized like the image used at Wikitravel's home page looks better, imo. Most importantly, it's not clear from just looking at it that you can click on a region to navigate to it. It'd help if someone with graphic design expertise could change it so that it's clear that you can use it to navigate (e.g. maybe have the continents turn a different color when you hover over them). - Sdkb (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I know you’re new here, but word to the wise: comparing us unfavorably to Wikitravel and/or suggesting that we should be more like them is going to leave a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise, AndreCarrotflower; that's good to know and I'll keep it in mind for the future. - Sdkb (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the look of our image over Wikitravel's, but I do agree that it could be improved. The light-up regions would be a particularly good idea. Anyone else? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the technical aspect: the whole thing could be replaced by an SVG to add functionality. A well-coded SVG file can have hyperlinks and hover styles on elements, but an image+map can't have individually-styled components (so no hover effects) and also has some other problems. The SVG can also be precise in its clickable areas, whereas the current image map uses rough polygons over the continents.
Now, technically, the current map can be re-implemented as an SVG, with each continent being an embedded raster image. However, doing so would not have the scalability of a true vector image. If we do decide to simplify the map, then it could be drawn as a true vector.
To make a long story short, hover effects shouldn't be too hard to implement. The question of whether to simplify the map should be decided first, though.
As for my opinion, I kind of like the current map and would be sad to see it go, but it can probably be simplified without changing the overall aesthetic. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Updating welcome title/tagline to better differentiate from Wikitravel

The basic purpose of the welcome text at the top of main page should be to describe what Wikivoyage is. As much as we might prefer to just stand on our own merits, the presence of Wikitravel stealing much of the traffic from people looking for Wikivoyage is a reality, and I'd guess that some fairly significant percentage of visitors to the home page are going to be arriving with the question "So is this the legitimate Wikipedia analogue for travel or is Wikitravel?" I'm not suggesting we link to Wikivoyage and Wikitravel (that'd be a bit overly much), but I do think we could phrase the welcome text to make it easier for visitors unfamiliar with the whole saga to recognize that we're the "legitimate" site. Currently, what we have is

Welcome to Wikivoyage
the FREE worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

and what Wikitravel has is

Since 2003: the original free, crowdsourced travel guide with 300,000 writer/travelers visiting every day.

For an uninformed user just comparing the tops of the home pages, there doesn't seem to be any reason to see Wikivoyage as more legitimate, and Wikitravel probably has a bit of an advantage with its "original" claim. The user would have to scroll down to the "part of the Wikimedia family" box at the bottom of Wikivoyage before they'd get any hint, and even that box might not be super helpful, as most users aren't familiar with the whole structure of the Wikimedia Foundation.

So, to fix this, two main potential changes come to mind. We could adopt both, or just one might be sufficient.

  1. Emphasize Wikivoyage's larger size/higher quality. Now that Wikivoyage has finally surpassed Wikitravel in terms of article count (and also has more pages/total edits), we could use any of those metrics to claim to be the largest crowdsourced travel guide on the internet.
  2. Emphasize Wikivoyage's non-profit status. We could include something like "from the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia" (that's a little clunky, but you get the idea).

Also, as a minor aside, I think we should uncapitalize "free", since given all the ways "free" things have been advertised in our capitalist society, seeing that word triggers connotations in people's minds of hidden catches and low quality, neither of which we want, and seeing it in all caps reinforces those impressions even more. Basically, it makes the site look unprofessional. - Sdkb (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what's written above. We should be selling ourselves as the largest travel wiki on the internet (although we need to be careful with wording, as TripAdvisor could easily claim to be the "largest crowdsourced travel guide"). We should be making the most of our membership of the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly due to Wikipedia, which is one of the most-trusted sources of information on the web.
With regard to Andre's "word to the wise" comment above, I also think it's high time we moved past being sensitive about comparisons to Wikitravel. The fork was now six years ago, and in that time Wikivoyage has proven to be by far the better travel guide with a much stronger and more resilient community. Wikivoyage has dozens of genuinely engaged contributors from all over the world; Wikitravel has a handful of real contributors, coupled with a bunch of employees, and several thousand spammers. So we shouldn't shy away from addressing why, in terms of readership, we still haven't overtaken Wikitravel. Recognising how they advertise some of their USPs and adapting our main page to capitalise on our USPs can only be good. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
My comments were without prejudice to the merits of Sdkb's idea. But it remains true, for a whole host of reasons that go beyond the sensitivity of certain users in our community, that the dispute between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel is territory on which new users who aren't familiar with all the nuances of the issue should tread very lightly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"Largest and most up-to-date". That other site is a repository for historical travel information. Ground Zero (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think our main page needs to make comparisons, explicit or implicit, to Wikitravel. The current sentence is quite good and mirrors our sister project Wikipedia's main page. I agree with decapitalizing "FREE", though.
If we do say "largest and most up-to-date", we should be careful about the phrasing. We're not larger or more up-to-date than TripAdvisor. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
TripAdvisor isn't a travel guide, it's a crowdsourced review aggregator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that we should emphasise the non-profit, non-commercial, no-advert nature of our site. There should be a clear link to an about page which explains that we are part of a non-profit / charitable organisation, with a link to a WMF donation page which mentions Wikivoyage. This can also explain the link to Wikipedia and other WMF sites. To readers who have only spent a few minutes here and on WT, the absence of adverts is likely to be the biggest difference, but some may suspect that we are funded by some commercial organisation (hotel chain, booking site etc) that would give us a bias. (As an aside, I see that we have had 214,845 pageviews per day in the last 90 days in the main 10 languages, and 104,643 in English, for comparison with the 300,000 figure above.) AlasdairW (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to changing the text. Definitely, "FREE" doesn't need to be written that way; I'll go in and change the capitalization Wikivoyage now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A specific proposal

There seems to be interest in updating the tagline, but it is hard to get movement without a specific proposal, so here is my attempt to get the ball rolling based on the discussion above:

Current version:

Welcome to Wikivoyage
the free worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

Proposal 1:

Welcome to Wikivoyage
the largest and most up-to-date free worldwide travel guide. Wikivoyage is a not-for-profit project that is part of the Wikimedia family of websites.

Combining the ideas discussed above leads to a fairly long tagline. Is this a problem? Ground Zero (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

One observation on this is that it is a lot easier to see what words are links than it is on the actual page. I hadn't realised that Wikivoyage (in the top line) linked to Wikivoyage:About. AlasdairW (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that proposal 1 is a little long, though there's nothing wrong with what is said. But what if we just said: "a free, not-for-profit worldwide travel guide that is part of the Wikimedia family"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Also think the proposal is long, especially since these are used in the window/tab title, in addition to the main page. I like SC's modified proposal, though Wikimedia could probably be linked in both proposals. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Are "free" and "not-for-profit" the only unique selling propositions we want to highlight? I kind of think that "largest" and/or "most up-to-date" are bigger selling points for readers. Ground Zero (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I would guess most of our readers probably don't care much that Wikivoyage is not-for-profit. That's something that's important for contributors choosing to volunteer our time, but I think most readers just want to get the best information.
Maybe "from the Wikimedia Foundation" would be clearer than "that is part of the Wikimedia family". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "Wikimedia Foundation" is better. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree about the Foundation, but I think "not-for-profit" is important because of what it implies: more like a charitable organization than a company. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the term "foundation" already imply "not for profit"? I agree that being large and up-to-date are more significant pros for readers, while potential editors will be more likely drawn in by namedropping the WMF. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Everyone knows Wikipedia (at least by name), but WMF? I think a wording that associates to the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" on Wikipedia has its own merits. There seems to be a lot of empty space below the search box. I think there could be a short paragraph explaining what we are. --LPfi (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The problem I see is that, with the current picture, that would put the text right over Asia (at least on my screen). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)