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:


Main Page, tools, permanent Link

Swept in from the pub

Sorry but I can't find a place to mention this in Main Page discussion. The subject link ("permanent link") is dead. I don't know how to fix it.ShoreCrab2000 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to work fine for me—when I clicked on it, it led me to this URL: . —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of edits to this page are from spambots

I know that semiprotecting a talk page is an unorthodox measure, but it's an obvious solution to the above problem. Is it really that much of a hurdle for the tiny (in fact, as yet nonexistent) subset of new editors who have a problem with or question about the Main Page to have to establish an account and/or do the minimal work required to achieve autoconfirmed status before taking their concerns here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As if to put a feather in the cap of this idea, I just reverted some vandalism on this page a few minutes ago that wouldn't have been possible if it had been protected. Does anyone want to opine here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead and semiprotect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes Done-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
How in the world did this edit get past the protection? Don't tell me the spambot was autoconfirmed despite not having any previous edits on this site... -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The only requirement for autoconfirmation is having been registered for four days. See Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users. Powers (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there any way to change that? I would think we'd prefer a certain number of noncontroversial edits under a user's belt before being autoconfirmed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's any way to specify non-controversial edits. But if you look at Wikivoyage talk:Autoconfirmed users there was a narrow consensus to increase the number of edits (controversial or not) to 10, to match Wikipedia's settings. This apparently has to be done via Phabricator ticket and no one took the action item to create the ticket. Powers (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure we're overreacting here... Surely reverting a spambot is not that much work? And we may have the occasional somewhat challenged reader who wants to ask a question or whatnot and sees the talk page of the main page as the logical place to do so... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting a spambot is not that much work, no, but reverting a spambot manually over and over again is fairly pointless. Regarding the second half of your comment: I would think that if "the occasional somewhat challenged reader who wants to ask a question or whatnot" were a caveat we need to be concerned about, we would have seen that happen at least once since the new Main Page went live in 2015, but we have not (and this isn't the page for that anyway; questions of that nature belong in the pub). And as I said in my original remark, if there's a legitimate question about the Main Page in particular that a new editor may have, the hurdle isn't hard to clear: establish an account, make a nominal number of valuable contributions to the site. If a user wants his concerns about the Main Page to be taken seriously, it's good policy in any event to demonstrate that s/he is invested in the outcome to a certain degree. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Powers - feel free to read "noncontroversial edits" as "non-spambot edits" for the purposes of this discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Even so, I don't think there's any way to exclude them from the autoconfirmation process. Powers (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Increase the size of the Discover image.

The current 100px size of the images used in the Discover template makes the pictures so small that their presence is barely an improvement on having no image at all. Now the mainspace obviously has three massive images on the rolling template (that are always incredibly well-chosen; congratulations to the relevant editors on that one), so the Discover pic doesn't need to be huge, but if it could at least be large enough to fit alongside all three of the template's items, that would be an improvement.

An approximate example of what this would look like (you'll just have to imagine the blue background and Get involved tab):

Yungang11 2010.JPG
  • The Yungang Grottoes (pictured) in Datong are filled with 51,000 Buddhist statues, ranging in size from a few centimeters to 17 meters.
  • Mormons make up a majority of the population of Utah, and their beliefs and practices are one of the strongest influences on public policy in the state.
  • The history of Erlangen was shaped by the Huguenot refugees from France.

Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, 200px should be fine. Powers (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I support the idea. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
No objection here either. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Still a bit small, no? I don't object, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, but space is limited. Unless we redesign the page, 'Discover' has to fit alongside 'Get involved'. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
True. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input. The new size pics will appear from January. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The speed of the carousel

The carousel changes every 10 seconds, which in my view is too fast to comfortably look at the picture, and read both the title and description. If possible, the length of time between moves should be increased to 15 or even 20 seconds. If this is not possible, we should look at reducing the length of the description on future entries. Alternatively and / or additionally, would it be possible or desirable to put in a 'pause' button to stop the carousel moving automatically? Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think 10 seconds is enough; we want to make sure people see that there are other options. I'd be very reluctant to go past 15 seconds. Powers (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no trouble both reading the blurb and taking in the picture in the 10-second window the current settings allow for. For those who do, there are directional buttons on the sides of the banner for viewers to scroll backwards if they want. I think the status quo is fine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Also possibly worthy of note is that the average length of the textbox descriptions has been gradually creeping upward since the banner format was introduced (though I do think 145 characters, the original upper limit, is quite unrealistic). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, when you don't personally have a problem reading the whole thing in the given time, of course the status quo is fine. However, if it were fine for everyone, I wouldn't be raising the point. Please understand that the two of you having no issues keeping up doesn't make any difference to the fact that many people do have trouble.
Speaking from experience, when you have a problem with reading, having the screen suddenly change as you're reading it is distracting, and in the time it takes to find and use the back button (or in the case of slide 3 moving back to slide 1, the forward button), it's easy to lose track of where you were. This effect is enhanced when reading unfamiliar words or concepts, which given our topic is world travel and we are aimed at an international readership, are always going to be present. It's also distracting knowing that you have to hurry up and read or else keep one eye on the navigation buttons for when the screen moves.
Many people are slower readers for numerous reasons, among them due to learning disabilities, dyslexia, types of autism, sight problems, delayed visual processing, being elderly, speaking English as a second language... why should these people be disadvantaged in this way for the sake of a few seconds that don't inconvenience anybody else? Don't we want Wikivoyage to be accessible to as many people as possible? Many visitors to the main page will be first time visitors to Wikivoyage, so even though their reading speed may not be particularly slow, they need extra time to read and understand the titles ("DotM", "FTT" and "OtBP") as well as the blurb that regular contributors and repeat visitors will not.
To flip around Andre's point, if within 15 seconds, a faster reader would like to move on to the next slide, they can press the navigation button and move it along. Having finished reading, this will cause none of the problems I describe above. It is clear that there is more than one option because there are scroll buttons and the slides are numbered. Alternatively, if speedy readers find themselves overly inconvenienced at having to press the button, the other idea I had was to put in a pause button. Is that possible? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that if the carousel does not move within the time a casual visitor glances at it, people might not notice that more than one article is featured. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, but there are navigation buttons and slide numbers clearly visible. Even with a frequency of every 15 seconds, it would need a very casual visitor to not spend the required length of time to see at least one change. Quite often when I arrive on the Main Page, it moves instantly or within a couple of seconds. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Reducing the length of the blurbs may be the way to go if we want to be accessible to people who read at slower speeds but also let them know that there is a variety of featured content available. Gizza (roam) 00:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
What about compromising on a length of 12.5 seconds? Would that be acceptable? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Any alternative to the current status quo is to be welcomed, so my sincere thanks to User:DaGizza and User:Ikan Kekek for trying to get things moving in the direction of a solution.
I am perfectly willing to compromise, as ever, but that really depends on what others' positions are. Nobody has specifically said that 15 seconds is too long, so as far as I am concerned 15 seconds is the compromise length of time versus the 'ideal' 20 seconds, which Powers at least has argued against. With regard to an increase to 12.5 secs, I'm not sure whether an extra 2.5 seconds is enough time; I'm not saying it isn't, but that I'm really not sure. It may be enough for me, but I'm just one person and not representative of everyone with literacy problems. It would be probably better to err on the side of caution, and add an extra 5 seconds to the current delay.
A reduction in the length of the blurbs would also be a good alternative, as would the pause button I keep bringing up; I'm not at all dogmatic about which solution should be adopted, just that a solution is needed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
By the way, if anyone still doubts there is a problem, take a look at this article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
And this may give you an idea of what it's like for a slow reader to tackle our carousel. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to 15 seconds. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
15 might be okay, but really we're all just guessing in the absence of usability studies. My gut reaction is that if 10 seconds isn't enough to read the text, then the text is too long, or we shouldn't expect people to read the entire blurb before it changes. Powers (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────why not get rid of the carousel altogether? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I do like it as a feature, but I do wonder the same. I agree that 15 secs is a guess, but would certainly be better than 10. Just out of curiosity, does anyone have anything to say about the option of a pause button? Nobody has said anything, and that could be because it wouldn't work, or because nobody knows how to make one, or just because it's a shit idea, but if nobody says as much, then I'm none the wiser. But it seems to me that if there were a pause button, we wouldn't have to get rid of the carousel, and wouldn't have to guess as to the optimum length of time each item should have. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year! Now that the various winter festivities are out of the way, and Wikivoyage has returned to normal levels of 'attendance', could I draw people's eyes back to this discussion? It would be nice to agree on some sort of resolution. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Earth calling Wikivoyage? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Roger, do you read me? ;-) Seriously, a pause button is a good idea, but I don't know how to create one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Copy that, and thanks for replying. It may of course not be possible to put in a pause button, not least if nobody knows how to do it! If this ends up being the case, we should still be looking at changing something, either reducing the length of the blurbs (the Bozeman blurb is impossible for me to read within the 10 second limit, and I only just finished the EU one before it changed) or upping the interval between changes. Over, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd be comfortable with longer intervals, or even a carousel that works only by manually flipping pages, if there were some way to upsize the directional buttons at the side of the banner. Reducing the length of the blurbs is possible, but a less favorable solution IMO; it's already difficult enough as is to cram all necessary information into such a limited amount of space. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This is still an issue. The blurbs of the latest entries remain too long for the allotted time. Something's gotta give. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Scaling issue on Main Page

Left: 27", 1920x1080. Right: 15.6", 1920x1080.

I've been used to the look of the Main Page for quite some time now, and I'm not used to seeing the first two elements of the page fitting entirely on my screen, but I think it's at least useful to make a note of it. (To be honest, I only noticed the difference when I compared both of my screens with eachother.) I believe the issue (the first two elements not using the available onscreen width perfectly) has been around for me ever since I've started editing here. Either way, I believe the issue is caused by the elements being rendered in a set width (px) instead of a percentage of the width, whereas the third element (Discover and Get involved section) is rendered with a width defined in percentages. I don't really find the look bothersome per se, but if this is how our homepage looks on 1920x1080 screens, imagine how they would look like on a 4K screen, which are slowly becoming more and more purchasable and popular. I'd just like to start a discussion on whether or not we should rework the page so the elements take up equally as much size on any screen.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wauteurz: My workplace's monitor is ultrawide (3440x1440) and there's a big white space to the right that's enough to fit a second element! OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
And I use a vertical monitor and the map in the top panel does not fit fulling within my screen. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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


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


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)


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 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)


@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.


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)