Talk:Main Page/2020 Archive

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Travel warnings?[edit]

Back in the Wikitravel days we had travel warnings on the Main Page, and they still retain it. In the light of the Wuhan coronavirus situation, I started thinking if it would be a good idea to have a section for major travel warnings on the Main Page? --Ypsilon (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tentatively, I'd support that, as long as we were keeping it up-to-date and in-house. The French Wikivoyage has a similar thing in use, but for some reason they've got it as a semi-automatic template with the data held on Wikinews, where it's hard to edit or update. Each warning is programmed to stay in the template for six months, regardless of the actual length of time it needs to be visible to readers.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just some sort of simple template should do, similar to Discover. Ypsilon (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that's my thinking too.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As often happens with Main page proposals, this hasn't attracted many eyeballs. I'll make an RfC.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sort of thing doesn't happen very often. What about putting it at the top of the Discover section? We could do a public service by providing a link to accurate information about the virus, e.g. this from the WHO. Ground Zero (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than trying to keep up with the news, and the difficult decision of what is news-worthy, I think that we should have a page of news and travel advice sources. This would include the major government travel advice sites, the WHO, the FAA etc. It could also have major English language news sites worldwide - mainly newspaper sites, choose good ones that allow a reasonable amount to be read without signing up. This page could then be linked from the main page. We could update Travel news as a start. AlasdairW (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with User:AlasdairW, also probably a good idea to place down travel warnings during such global crisis? As far as I know many countries have imposed different travel restrictions.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that we have a really useful article, and it has spread to many countries, I've been bold and plunged forward and all that and put it on the Main Page. I may not have found the best way of doing so, but I think it is worth having there for a period of time. Ground Zero (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything we do on the main page should link to Travel advisories. Pashley (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I certainly do think that a travel warning panel would benefit the health of users who view this website. The Wuhan situation has now grown into a worldwide threat. Best to warn travelers of places to not to visit. We can also use this panel to warn about other threats such as floods and etc... Arep Ticous 09:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. I think that the warning about an earthquake on Indonesia belongs on the Indonesia page, and a warning about civil unrest in Peru belongs on the Peru page. I think the warning about COVID19 belongs on the Main Page because (a) it affects a lot of countries, and (b) travellers are looking for that information now. Ground Zero (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True...after or if the situation is settled sooner or later, we will have to remove the template. Arep Ticous 15:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coronavirus template[edit]

The template is obviously infected with some sort of bug, as despite the best, hamfisted efforts of Granger and I, there's still a massive between the heading and the content, followed by no gap at all between the coronavirus content and the next heading. It looks fine in the preview, but as soon as you hit 'save', the glitch reveals itself. Is there a quick fix to this? Can we display the information outside the template, perhaps? I was actually wondering yesterday whether coronavirus should be added to the carousel as a fourth item; is that feasible? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oddly enough, on my computer it displays fine on Safari but has the gap you describe on Firefox. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use Chrome. We've had display issues across different browsers before.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see coronavirus warnings in the bottom box of the main page in both browsers. Plus, do you think that we should provide a map of the infected countries? Maybe even a list? Arep Ticous 16:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arepticous, this is a serious issue, and as an inexperienced user with a checkered history on this wiki and an active indefban on another WMF site, this isn't the place for you to be sticking your nose. You've been doing good work adding content to the Mannar article - please, for your own good, stick to that kind of thing for now and trust that the coronavirus template issue is being handled by those who know what they're doing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative banner suggestion for the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic Stay healthy banner at the front page[edit]

Coronavirus Wikivoyage banner.jpg

I imported this illustration of the Corona virus from Flickr and I was the one whom cropped it to the 3:1 ration - mainly for it to be used at the front page of the Hebrew Wikivoyage. It turned out quite nice, so I wanted to suggest that we'll use it here on the English Wikivoyage front page as well. Do you support or oppose my suggestion? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a slight preference for the existing banner, because it illustrates a piece of practical advice about the situation, but I admit the alternative banner is more aesthetically pleasing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both are suitable, but I don't think it's particularly important which one we use. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the newer banner suggestion is more aesthetically pleasing, but I don't know whether we can consider that a point in its favor. I think we almost have to use a different set of criteria in judging this banner than we do in judging DotM banners. We've discussed the fact that the purpose of DotM is to promote the work of our editors rather than the particular destination that's the subject of the article, but all the same, in choosing DotM banner images, painting the destination in a good light with an attractive or engaging image can be an effective stand-in for painting the article per se in a good light. Whereas the idea of making the coronavirus pandemic "look attractive" seems almost perverse. For the Main Page banner, we want an image that's got a certain visual appeal, but with a tone (if an image can be said to have a "tone") that's sober and understated, rather than glitzy and flashy. I think the current banner strikes that balance remarkably well, while the proposed new banner seems to strike... not the wrong visual tone, but not as good of one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's really well said. I was feeling undecided about this, but I agree with Andre, for the reasons he states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corona Facebook message[edit]

@AndreCarrotflower, DaGizza: Could we please put our message about Travel writing during the pandemic somewhere on Wikivoyage and link there instead of linking Facebook. Out of principle we should avoid links to external sites (this is not a link accepted by our external links policy), and I for one can probably not read the message there, as Facebook pages are shown properly only to registered FB users. --LPfi (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the link as suggested, linking to Wikivoyage:COVID-19 message. That page could use a pagebanner—we could copy the one from 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic or find/create another one, maybe one with a low-key, hope-for-the-best vibe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely a new one, and your latter suggestion would work, or else a more 'official' look that includes our logo.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Earth banner.jpg
Cloud banner.jpg
Here are a couple ideas. The first is trying to hint at both "we don't know for sure what's over the horizon" and "the whole world is in this together", but it might be a bit distracting. The second is more neutral and is the banner used at Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Earth one looks good to me. For reference, the other one looks like this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure about these banner ideas, but I think the Earth is the better of these two. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish we could use something more relevant, such as a "stay home" sign. Otherwise, my vote is for no banner. This is one topic that could do with a dry, photoless presentation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stay Home banner
Here is a banner using a stay home sign in Seattle. I like the way this has the trees in the background, hinting at what is out of reach. However I understand if people would rather not have a banner, or have different ideas. AlasdairW (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. I'd support that banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Let's use the third banner. However, note this article about the situation in Texas. I think it could, as AndreCarrotflower predicted some time ago, mark the beginning of reopening the economy due to protests. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the cloud banner and am very much not a fan of the third one. "Stay home, save lives" is a vital message, but at this stage of the game it's also one that's been repeated ad nauseam and is becoming really depressing to keep hearing over and over again. There are ways to convey what we need to convey without gratuitously belaboring the point that there's still no end in sight to the lockdowns. It's worth noting that when I wrote the coronavirus message, my intention was to make it sound as optimistic as it possibly could without tipping over into downplaying the gravity of the situation (whence, for example, the lines about "your favorite travel destinations will still be there after the pandemic is over" and "all things must pass, and the coronavirus will too"). And I think maintaining that sort of tone, on Wikivoyage and in life in general, is becoming more and more vital as this situation wears on. Placing Banner #3 on that article would be a blow against that.
Look, I'm not the kind of person who normally likes to share details about my personal life, but this tidbit is apropos: I am a person who suffers from anxiety that's crippling under normal circumstances, and has been downright debilitating since the pandemic started. It's that, and not economic concerns or selfish frustration at business closures and event cancellations, that's at the root of a lot of the speculation I've been engaging in that SelfieCity mentioned above. And the pattern I've noticed over the course of this, judging by the tone of the chatter on social media and the news headlines, is that what's going on in my head at any given time tends to function like a sneak preview of the rest of the world's mood one week in the future. For instance, two weeks ago I was beating back the anxiety and mostly succeeding - that seemed to be the general feeling among the world at large last week. Last week I noticed myself really starting to come untethered - that seems to be the general feeling among the world at large this week. Right now... let's just say that if America one week from today equals 300 million of me, we've got a problem potentially bigger than the virus itself. Lest anyone be concerned, I have faith that I personally will manage, but I also know there are a lot of people out there who won't. The implications of that are my fear, and I suspect also a big part of others' fear. So let's not throw matches into that tinderbox and instead let's try and get the point across without unnecessary doom and gloom. What banner we use on the article may not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but every little bit helps. Especially if we want Wikivoyage to be a place people feel safe using as an escapist outlet, like I talked about in that message.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'd better hope that the small number of right-wing crazies who are conducting pro-death demonstrations in U.S. state capitals don't become the majority any time soon. (Look at https//t dot co slash 7XacARpxAW for a reference [somehow, it's triggering a spam filter; I can't imagine why], as of April 16: When it comes to social distancing, what do you think we [the U.S.], as a country, need to be doing right now? We need more aggressive social distancing measures, further limiting people’s movement: 35%. We should relax social distancing measures, letting people move around more freely: 9%. We are currently doing the right thing when it comes to social distancing: 52%. Don't know enough to say: 4%. This suggests a lot of doubt that you are anticipating the popular will by one week in this case.) Even as small minorities, they can bring a lot of death in their wake. All of us are suffering from anxiety, but the sheltering in place has saved lives - and in New York, it started too late to save thousands of people, so I'm sorry if I'm not that sympathetic to people wanting to be in crowds again. Staying at home is hard, but living in Hell is harder. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to sound callous. Of course I personally sympathize with you, but I've lived by myself with no visitors and visiting no-one for an entire month; I don't even leave my building for up to 5-7 days at a time, and I hear lots of emergency vehicles every day. Staying home a lot is nowhere close to the worst fate, and we've seen a whole hell of a lot of the worst fate in New York City over the last few weeks, plus I've had a whole bunch of friends who've been sick with this, and some are still battling it. That's reality. And my feeling is, if we can't bear to put a "stay home" banner on a page that specifically addresses writing about travel in a time of plague, we should have no banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not a big fan of the "Stay Home" banner for this page either—I think it's a little distracting, and its terse, choppy tone is dissonant with the reflective letter. By the way, I know this is a challenging time for many of us, and I wish everyone the best in getting through it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Chin up, everyone. We'll come out the other side.
Perhaps it's better not to have a banner at all; most of our "Wikivoyage space" pages don't, the Pub included.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"No banner" is a fine option as well.
It looks like this discussion is winding down, but before it does, let me just go on record as saying I am surprised and hurt by, and utterly reject, the false dichotomy that posits that if I'm expressing concerns about my own mental health and/or the ramifications of extended periods of social isolation on that of others, that must necessarily be because I "want to be in crowds again", or worse, am a closet sympathizer of the "small number of right-wing crazies who are conducting pro-death demonstrations". None of what I'm about to write has anything to do with Wikivoyage's scope, so anyone who's reading this can feel free to ignore the rest if they so choose, but I can't in good conscience let the mischaracterization of my position go uncorrected in this forum.
First off, let's be very clear about what those "pro-death demonstrations" really are. Yes, ultimately they're a product of anxiety among the public, but in the case the anxiety has been manipulated and misdirected by folks with a cynical political agenda that has much more to do with making sure the rich continue to get richer than with preserving fundamental rights or taking a stand against encroaching authoritarianism or whatever gobbledygook they're spewing. The bad faith that underpins the protests on an organizational level is completely obvious to anyone who hasn't already been brainwashed by Trump, the protests are objects of horror and derision among all right-minded people... but the underlying anxiety, in its non-distorted form, is still genuine and does deserve to be taken seriously.
Every day, each of us is faced with a choice. We can either stay inside our house, staring at four walls or staring at a screen, the sensation of being trapped only adding to the powerlessness we feel. Or we can go outside, for a walk or to the park or whatever else we're still allowed to do, and despite all the social distancing and mask-wearing not help but feel that death is stalking us at every turn. Like a soldier leaving his post, never knowing in what window or around what corner the sniper is lurking and waiting to strike. Maybe the war analogy is a touch melodramatic, but there's a reason why combat veterans, when they get home from whatever war they fought in, tend to abuse drugs and alcohol more often, find it more difficult to hold down a job, are more often homeless, commit domestic violence at higher rates, and so forth. No matter whether you're hiding inside or daring to venture out, over time the stress wears at you. It frays at the fabric of your mental stability in ways that are more and more beginning to manifest themselves in society. And the fact that social distancing remains the best tool we have to fight the virus, the fact that both of the above options are better than being intubated in a COVID ward, doesn't make a difference in the end. The anxiety doesn't disappear just because someone somewhere has it worse. There are some problems for which even the least unworkable solution doesn't meet the threshold of workability. Worse yet, when people are put in that position mentally, the fight-or-flight instinct kicks in and you become less likely to make decisions that are logical or rational. And in a nation where guns outnumber citizens, the implications of that are scary. Again, you don't need to be worried about what I'm going to do - I don't own a gun, nor at the present moment do I feel like I'm in danger of losing the plot to that degree, and if that changes, I have a therapist on speed-dial - but there are a lot of others who don't have that level of self-control. And that's what I fear: being on the other end of that exchange, or the same being true of someone I love.
Going back to the subject of the demonstrations, the thing that galls me most about them is that their prominence in the media discourse makes it nearly impossible to have an honest conversation about the real mental-health ramifications of what we're doing. My best friend - or at least the person I hope is still my best friend - is a man who spent many years in the health care industry, has many close contacts who are still at the hospital where he used to work, and as you can imagine, has some pretty strong opinions that's he's very personally vested in. I recently fell out with him after expressing my concerns about my own and the world's anxiety, the same as I did above. I forget the exact words he used in comparing me to the protesters, but it was something along the lines of me being a willing dupe in the right-wing effort to "weaponize the topic of mental health in service of the ruling class". He hung up on me before I could respond. It hurt, but in the final analysis I couldn't be angry at him. His comments were a result of him absorbing the same tone that surrounds all of us everywhere. Either you're doing as you're told without asking questions or you're the enemy. There doesn't seem to be any space in the conversation for my concerns. I've been told the same thing, or variations on it, more than once in the past few days. But in the final analysis, even if Trump's calculated exploitation of the mental-health issue in the service of his greed will go down in history as one of the most morally repulsive acts ever committed by an American president, the opposite approach of just sweeping it under the rug - essentially, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU whenever the subject gets brought up - isn't viable either.
In a similar way, it's perfectly possible to be both in favor of social distancing and doubtful of its long-term viability, as evidenced by the fact that if I had been a respondent to the survey Ikan cited, I would have been among the 52% in favor of the status quo. "What do you think we should be doing" and "do you think it will actually work" are two different questions. It would be interesting to hear how many of the respondents see it the same way I do, as the best of several bad options and maybe not even good enough to be practically doable in the long term. It would be interesting to see how the responses would change if they were given a set of hypotheticals on how long the lockdowns might last. It would be interesting if there were some way to measure how many people simply didn't want to admit to a pollster on the phone that they hold a viewpoint that's considered socially unacceptable (IIRC, a similar theory was widely suggested regarding why 2016 election polls consistently underestimated Trump's support).
You can agree with my take or not, but at the very least, please don't boil it down to "I'm bummed out because nothing fun is happening" or whatever other first-world problems you may be imagining. Just because my fear, anger, anxiety, etc. is no comparison to that of someone who just buried a loved one, that doesn't mean it's not still fear, anger, anxiety, etc. Believe me, I know how lucky I am, and if I could flip a switch and make myself stop feeling this way, I would have done that a long time ago. But I can't. And millions and millions of other people can't either.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry I upset you by misunderstanding your views, but otherwise, since I've already agreed that we are all experiencing anxiety and expressed sympathy, I have nothing important to add. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also sorry, on my part because I feel like I started this discussion. I just intended to point out that the prediction is correct. I don't think that protests are helpful right now, during the risk of contracting coronavirus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm seeing several paragraphs of what looks like Chinese text at the bottom of the main page, but only when I'm logged out. What is this problem, and how could it be solved? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I logged out of my account and saw the same thing. It's Japanese, actually, and according to Google Translate, it appears to be some sort of half-coherent psychotic rant about gender reassignment surgery (the limitations of Google Translate, especially when it comes to non-Indo-European languages, make it hard to be more specific, but fun fact: according to the little bit of research I did just now, "throat Buddha" is a verbatim translation of the Japanese colloquial term for "Adam's apple"). I reverted a bunch of similar vandalism the other night, but I don't know how to undo this - it's not on the source text of the Main Page itself, and I don't know what mechanism the vandal is using to make the text invisible to non-anonymous users. If someone who knows their way around MediaWiki better than I do could pinch in on this, that would be great, because this is a pretty severe and embarrassing problem. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I see it too if I'm not logged in. I looked at the revision history but found no weird diffs. Then I opened the permanent link for the current version of the page and the text isn't there any longer. So it seems to be content loaded from somewhere else. Ypsilon (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe check whatever templates the Main Page source text uses? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template was apparently vandalized recently, and eventhough the vandalism was reverted, the vandalistic content loads from the page cache or whatever. I assume the vandalism needs to be hidden and then template needs to be permanently protected (it has been protected due to vandalism, but just for one year, and so has been open to vandalism since January). --Ypsilon (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I revision-deleted the vandalistic edit to Template:Title-Index page and purged the cache for both the template page and the Main Page. I'm going to log out again in a bit and hopefully that took care of it, because if not, I'm out of ideas. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Success! Thank you, Ypsilon, for your help. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] A few years ago I learned that logged in users get the current version, while others get the page from a cache. I do not know whether that is still the case, but it would explain the noted difference. It might be that a purge would propagate to that cache also, even if it isn't used. --LPfi (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The good news is that I, too, now see the main page as it should be, both on desktop and "mobile" (mobile using desktop). It's working on my phone's mobile view as well, though I don't know how that looked during the vandalism. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coronavirus link not working[edit]

On mobile, selecting DOTM, OTBP, and FTT causes the blurb to be shown. However, this doesn’t seem to be working in the case of the coronavirus banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. I have no idea how to solve this, and unfortunately User:ARR8 and User:Traveler100 haven't been active lately. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I thought, as they used to have an expedition that created those. Perhaps on mobile we could instead include a link to the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the wrappers around {{banner}} are missing, which they aren't in the usual carousel. I've added a working version at the bottom of my sandbox should anyone want to verify it as working. Since I cannot edit the Main Page, I need someone to replace the following (8th) line:
{{banner|direction=left|title=2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic|section=Stay healthy|section-link=Stay healthy|image=Hand sanitizer banner.jpg|width=50%|quote=Should you cancel trips? How can you protect yourself if you're travelling? Read about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting travel.}}
<div class="jcarousel jcarousel-randomize">
    <div class="jcarousel-list">
        <div class="jcarousel-item">
        {{banner|direction=left|title=2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic|section=Stay healthy|section-link=Stay healthy|image=Hand sanitizer banner.jpg|width=50%|quote=Should you cancel trips? How can you protect yourself if you're travelling? Read about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting travel.}}
This seemed to resolve the issue during my brief testing :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wauteurz: Yes Done I checked, and it's working now. There's a small grey space, but I'm not concerned about it.
If you'd like to be administrator so you have protected page editing rights, just say so and I could post a nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wauteurz: Thank you! That fix does seem to resolve this issue. Unfortunately it also introduces an unwanted empty box above the banner (the box is grey on desktop and white on mobile). Any idea how we can avoid that? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Figured it out. Thanks again for the help! —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does look better actually. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! It would have been the spaces in front of {{Banner}} that would have caused the box to pop up, I reckon?
@SelfieCity: Thank you for the offer, but I am more than okay with my status as autopatroller. I definitely do not consider myself active enough of an editor to even dare ask for admin privileges. That may change in the future, though it will not change for as long as uni is my main priority :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wauteurz: Okay, I understand; thanks for your help with this problem anyway! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the title on the main page be changed accordingly, since the article name was changed? JRHorse (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks—I meant to do that but forgot. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small typo under 'discover'[edit]

It seems there's a small typo in the text underneath 'Discover': Now a city of over 700,000 inhabitants a popular Caribbean tourist destination, Cancún did't exist before the 1970s. I fixed it on the actual discover-page, but not sure how to fix it on the main page. --JanDeAlleman (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done. Thanks for the heads-up. See Template:Discover. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for spotting that, JanDeAlleman. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC) (unofficial curator of Discover)Reply[reply]

Move Covid Down[edit]

Can we move the covid banner down below the DotM/OtBP? It's already sad to have a featured article during this time, but to also have it pushed out of site is even worse. At this point, most of the covid page is common knowledge (and certainly the existence of the virus is) and it is linked from most country pages, so it gets wide coverage beyond that page anyway. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. I doubt there is anyone with Internet access who hasn't been inundated with Covid information by this point. Ground Zero (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, support. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, but I'm obviously going to be outvoted. How to address the disease is absolutely the most obvious thing for a travel site to do. Note that websites of stores in the U.S. often have remarks about COVID before anything else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could the Covid banner be made smaller, perhaps the same size as a regular city pagebanner? I would be happy for the Covid banner to be moved on the main page, if we also could do something that appeared on every page to tell readers that the page may not reflect current restrictions. As places in Europe start to open up, most city articles don't give the picture of what is open this week. AlasdairW (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea on the advisory, AlasdairW. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose moving it down altogether but agree with AlisdairW and support reducing the size of the banner. Covid is the caveat to all of our articles and needs to be one of the first things any reader sees. But it doesn't need to be a banner. Maybe just link it somewhere from the map at the top of the main page. Gizza (roam) 00:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Ikan and Gizza. The travel industry is hurting right now, and there's an unfortunate but growing sentiment in many parts of the Anglosphere that it's time to be done with burdensome COVID-related restrictions and return to normal life despite the ongoing situation. So there is a very real danger that our readership might construe the act of reducing the prominence of the COVID banner as a sign that we, too, don't take the pandemic seriously. Let's avoid that at all costs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I could get behind AlisdairW's proposal as an alternative. I don't think it's a sign that we are "not serious" about Covid to move it (not remove it). People are beginning to travel again whether we like it or not, even if it is mostly local/within their own countries. Some places may be in crisis mode longer than others. Part of acknowledging the real world situation is not just highlighting travel restrictions and risks but also acknowledging the easing of restrictions and reopenings. Couldn't a "member of our readership" already make the claim that we don't care about Covid because we put it 2nd below the Search map which "encourages travel"? We added an entire banner just for Covid, so I would find it a bit disingenuous for a reader to claim we "don't take it seriously". I think the Covid page itself is mostly just for show anyway. In terms of what travelers really want to know, I think that is what is on the country pages (restrictions between countries/regions, new regulations, etc.) and what AlasdairW points out that we cannot actually offer (what is currently open in a specific city/town). I think they are well-beyond learning about masks and hand-washing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have no strong opinion about moving down or shrinking the covid banner, but I support AlasdairW's idea of a message on all pages pointing out that we are not up to date on individual closures and that the most current information probably is on the country page. That could probably be done as a site notice (possibly linking a page with more thorough discussion). --LPfi (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think someone suggested having a warning on top of all articles back when all started, like the ones in nl and ru, but it wasn't added. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move Covid Down (again)[edit]

In July, opinion was split on moving the COVID banner down below the DotM/OtBP. How about now?

  • Support. Ground Zero (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment At this point, I support, but that depends on how far down. I'd support switching the positions of the DotM carousel and the COVID notice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, that what the proposal is: below the DotM/OtBP/FTT carousel, and above Discover/Get involved. Ground Zero (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support moving directly below the carousel.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support moving it below the carousel —Ravikiran (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as before. --Ypsilon (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SupportGranger (talk · contribs) 12:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support same as before. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @DaGizza, AndreCarrotflower: You two opposed last time but you haven't yet stated whether your opinion has changed. For what it's worth, I think everyone on the planet knows about COVID-19 and how it impacts on travel by now, so they don't need to be confronted by a huge static banner that comes before any travel content.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed — support. It's not that Covid-19 is no longer a concern, but rather that it isn't merely a travel concern any longer. It is a worldwide disease so it cannot be avoided, and therefore there isn't too much we can say other than what would be found on the CDC's website. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I'd prefer not changing the order, in accordance with AndreCarrotflower's position on 12 July 2020: the situation hasn't really changed and we shouldn't give the impression it has, even if some people ignore the facts. Our main page isn't about domestic travel. Over here the second wave might just have turned, unless people got the disease during the holidays and haven't got tested yet. My impression is the same is true in many countries. But I cannot judge the effects of first impression on readers, which I suppose is what you are worried about. –LPfi (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm neutral now and happy to go with the consensus. My preference as suggested before is to get rid of the banner entirely and just have a small link to information on the pandemic, perhaps next to "Travel topics". Also, the image used in the banner while not misleading is somewhat dated. With increasing research being done by scientists, The CDC, NHS, etc. have updated their guidelines and say that the virus is more airborne than first thought, making distancing and masking more effective at reducing transmission than washing your hands (though all should be done of course). [1]. Gizza (roam) 22:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, a mask-themed image would be better than the hand sanitizer one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sanitiser and mask banner
  • I support moving the Covid banner down. I have an alternative banner showing both sanitiser and masks for sale, but I expect something better could be found, or a new photo taken. (The banner is on Commons, so it may need to be copied over if it is used.) AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ThunderingTyphoons! - IIRC, my oppose vote had more to do with what I feared would be an appearance of impropriety on Wikivoyage's part in not having the COVID banner placed as prominently as possible, rather than the idea that we might encounter a reader who was unaware there was a pandemic afoot. I was particularly concerned that we might receive pushback from our readership for continuing to run featured articles during the pandemic, as well. Nearly a year on, it's safe to say those concerns have proven unfounded: apart from a single comment on our official Facebook statement on COVID-19 ("I don't agree 100% with the idea of continuing to promote the featured articles, but I understand the need to recognize the good work of the community and provide a distraction while we shelter in place"), none of the feedback we've received indicates any hesitation, let alone opposition, to the continuation of DotM. And I think it's also clear that, over this time, people have mellowed out about the issue at least enough that broaching the subject of travel as a general concept is not seen as taboo, even if the actual act of travel sometimes is (and sometimes isn't; leisure travel has indeed continued during the pandemic, albeit on a smaller and more local scale and focused more on outdoor destinations such as national parks). So I don't see any urgent need to keep the COVID-19 banner on top. On the other hand, I also don't see any urgent need for it not to be on top (ChubbyWimbus' comment that the featured articles banner is "pushed out of sight" by the COVID one seems to be an exaggeration; it's perfectly visible to me without scrolling on both my desktop and mobile display), so mark me neutral on the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we have consensus now, so I have made the change. I support updating the photo in the COVID banner as suggested by others above. Ground Zero (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can Wikivoyage's Pagebanner be like Wikitavel?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Can Wikivoyage's Pagebanner be like Wikitavel?(Click to image link) So we don’t have always to page up to Pagebanner...--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 13:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what "so we don't have always to page up to Pagebanner" is supposed to mean, but for various reasons (copyright being a major one) it would behoove us not to imitate Wikitravel too closely. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I understand; on Wikitravel the table of contents is, like here, part of the banner. But when you scroll down their articles the TOC locks to the top of the screen and follows when you scroll up and down the article and so it's always within reach no matter where you are in the article. I'd say it could be a useful feature, but not a must-have. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely useful, but I'm not sure that it's a good idea to copy them too closely. If we can find a way to do it that doesn't look too similar, that might be worth exploring. If not, no big deal.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the convenience of the reader, the more the content of the article, the more convenient the user need whant find the desired content. I think this function is very important, but I don't think it is a plagiarism method, in fact, other websites have the same function. --✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You "don't think it is a plagiarism method", but then again you're not a lawyer. Elements of website design can be copywritten, and given some of the recent actions they've taken against Wikitravel/Wikivoyage dual editors, it certainly doesn't seem like Internet Brands would hesitate to pursue litigation against us if they thought they had a case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mmm... It seems that another alternative (as like the sidebar of the mobile version) can be adopted so that it will not be similar to Wikitravel, just an idea.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's a legal concern we should ask the WMF legal team rather than speculating. I don't think any of us are intellectual property lawyers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is indeed common, but I cannot remember having seen any such sticky content on any WMF site. It might be for good reason. I have seen many sites where the sticky elements rob me of much of my screen real estate. And at least on desktop, it is not difficult nor time consuming to push [home] (or [ctrl]-[home]) to get up to the TOC and the top margin elements (or the top left margin ones). –LPfi (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Granger, if none of us are intellectual property lawyers and none of us is qualified to do more than speculate, then the proper option to choose is the most cautious one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
‘‘Scroll to top’’(or Back to top) button? This can simply solve the existing problems of Wikivoyage. Can we try to do this?—✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 22:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know many web pages have them, but so do most keyboards. I don't understand the need. Is it about people not knowing their keyboard and web browser – the latter belief reason for a lot of hacks, such as having to choose font size through cookies instead of by browser preferences. On mobile devices such keys may be absent or hard to activate, but I'd suppose the browser developers would have come to think about the need and a way to handle it. –LPfi (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok...--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 11:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]