Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition/archive

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Image size[edit]

For the standard image size, I put prefer a 7:1 width to height ratio, instead of it must be that size. The rationale is I think while 7:1 works well in most situations, it starts to look awkward when we have two rows in the TOC (e.g., for Country articles) or sometimes it's just too short to make a good image (e.g., Garibaldi Provincial Park). I'd prefer there to be some flexibility on this. Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it starts to look awkward when we have two rows no matter what, but what I think looks much more awkward is having the banner be different sized on different pages. This, for example is completely unacceptable to me; it's more than twice the default size and on my screen here, it pushes the entire article off the screen except for the first line. I feel strongly that 7:1 should be mandatory rather than preferred, for consistency's sake, to have the articles start at the same place when clicking through breadcrumbs or the random page button, and to not push the article off the screen. I would go as far to say that it should be, if possible, built into the template to automatically switch back to the default banner if the selected banner is not at or very close to 7:1. If it's "too short to make a good image", then you simply haven't found the right image yet. Texugo (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "right" image may not exist. I experimented with Xiamen. If I use the image that is currently in the lede paragraph, it only fills part of the image box (maybe 400 out of 700) and looks awful. It comes out left-aligned; centering would improve it but would not completely solve the problem.
Commons has many Xiamen images. I tried three from the Xiamen:skyline category and all showed the problem Texugo describes above; they use quite a bit of vertical space. Some look fine on my large screen, but they would certainly be problematic elsewhere.
Just using {{pagebanner}} is a partial solution, but not ideal. It would be better if there was a continent-specific map (preferably chosen automatically, but just available & documented would be fine); it looks a bit silly to show a map of Europe & North America for a Chinese city.
Is a version that uses multiple images to fill the 700*300 space worth considering? Pashley (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must confess I have a bit of trouble composing good banners at 7:1, since the banners are so slim vertically. Could we change the recommendation to 6:1? --Peter Talk 23:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really feel like 6:1 is too tall, taking up too much of the screen before the article gets started. I especially think it is too much space to take up with the default banner, which is what about 98% of our articles will have for the first few years. Texugo (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we perhaps say that 7:1 is the target size and, if possible, all banners should have those dimensions (including the default one). However, where images of a destination are used, proportions up to an absolute maximum of 5:1 are acceptable, but 7:1 will remain the stated aim. --Nick (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha... I state that I think 6:1 as too tall, and you reply by suggesting we allow even taller ones? I would in no case like to see anything taller than 6:1, and would like to avoid even that if at all possible. These tall ones are just too prominent and steal too much real estate from the article itself. I would be fairly unhappy allowing more than one set size too, as I feel it ruins some of our consistent look to have the top margin of the article varying anywhere from 1/3 of the way down to practically off the page. It's not as if this would be something easy to go back and fix later once there are already hundreds of banners with images. Texugo (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Facebook users may be familiar with the wizard for uploading the banner pictures for one's profile page, which automatically crops an image to fit the banner space, and has convenient zoom-in/out buttons for helping to select the desired area. It would be fantastic to have a tool like this available for uploading new banners and ensuring they are all the right size. Texugo (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WDW banner
Epcot banner
It would be nice to have a tool to do that, but unfortunately, I think we could be waiting years before we have something that can do that reliably, particularly if we continue to store the images on Commons which would impose an extra layer of bureaucracy.
I confess that my attempt at compromise was a bit of a fudge really :); but it was worth a try! 7:1 does look good when it works, it's just a shame that not many photos are taken with that in mind. When I made the (now removed) Walt Disney World banners (see below), I artificially stretched them as they both contained lots of sky - could something like that work with certain photographs? --Nick (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think stretching photos or doing other adjustments to create a banner are fine. The default banner had a couple of filters applied plus other adjustments. Pashley's idea of blending photos or a map and a photo sounds interesting. If it can be done and look good it might be a way to deal with the odd dimensions of the banner. Although that said, I really don't think 6:1 is too tall. For Garibaldi Provincial Park, it still leaves half the screen (on my computer). I agree 5:1 is pushing it though, and the Graz banner Texugo referred to above is definitely too tall. For what it's worth, Lonely Planet [1] and Rough Guides [2] both use taller images such that you barely see any text on the screen when you first land there. -Shaundd (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, having now put some banners in the articles themselves, I agree with Texugo—6:1 does start to get too big, and 7:1 is ideal. --Peter Talk 04:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also had my hand at a few banners, but it is very difficult sometimes to fit an image into 7:1. Zell am See seemed to have worked well, but Rust, despite dozens of photos on Commons, I had a lot of trouble with. However, like Texugo, I don't want to see the banner taking up most of the page, and 7:1 is the ideal size once you actually look at the finished product. I could let 6:1 pass if we continue having issues that hamper implementation, but it's not preferable. Consistency is important, so we must only allow one size, not a flexible range. I think the key may be expanding skies artificially like Nick did with WDW. JamesA >talk 09:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have cut down the image on the Graz page to roughly 7:1. Question is does this visually work? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, I think that works just fine for Graz. Glad to see some agreement about 6:1 being too big. As you said above, Shaundd, 6:1 can take up half the screen, which I believe is already too much for a single image but apparently doesn't bother you, but I think even you will at least admit that half of the screen is a lot to waste with a default banner, which will be the case for the vast majority of articles for a good long while to come. And allowing for inconsistency is really not an option here, so I think 7:1 will have to be the way forward. People are already getting a little better at finding ways to make 7:1 images. Perhaps sharing more tips like the sky-stretching thing above will help us. Texugo (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think some flexibility is in order. If going from 2100x300 to 2100x310 allows you to frame the image properly for a banner, that should be fine. But yes, I'm getting better at forcing the 7:1. --Peter Talk 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't imagine +/- 3% would bother anybody too much but I would imagine its a fairly rare case where an extra 10px is the only possible way to fit something. I do think there should be a hard line somewhere. Texugo (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, I was just throwing the size out there for discussion. It seems like a consensus is forming around 7:1 so I'll see where it goes over the next few days and update the expedition page accordingly. -Shaundd (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that 7:1 is nearly ideal where a suitable image is available; it has high visual impact but does use too much space.
However, where no image that works well there is available, or you do not want to use one because you prefer a nearer-square image in the lede to get all the attention, I do not think the template's current behaviour of inserting a default image is correct. It should just do the horizontal menu, with neither an image nor a blank space for one, if no image is specified. Pashley (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, that sounds like a call for inconsistency in article formatting.Texugo (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pashley, I'm not sure I understood. Do you mean you want to get rid of the default banner, with the cool map/compass mashup Shaun made, in favor of just a bar with the section links? --Peter Talk 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think consistency is important, and the default banner lets users know there is a potential for a new image. If we were to remove that, we would also need to revert back to the default pageheader, which would look quiet unappealing. JamesA >talk 06:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the comments about consistency being important. The reason for the default banner is so there would be consistency between pages that have a photo banner and pages that don't. The aim is to have some regional default banners, so if someone thinks a nearly square image is better than a photo banner, there is the option to use the default regional banner (admittedly, once they're created) and then have a standard lead photo.
Another possibility is to take a 700 x 300 photo and blend it into a banner with a solid colour on the left and the photo on the right. It would require Gimp or Photoshop or some other image software -- I'm not aware of any way to do this with HTML/CSS and have it look good across all browsers (although my knowledge of CSS and HTML is fairly shallow, so I could easily be wrong). -Shaundd (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Default TOC options[edit]

Currently the default TOC background is the solid grey box. I think (and I have nothing scientific to back this up) that the translucent black box with white type will be end up being the most common. It certainly seems to look the best. Any thoughts on whether it (or something else) should be the default option. I'm trying to minimize the amount of typing needing to set these up. -Shaundd (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the black box with white text is the most common and appropriate. I'd suggest making the change now, so that future banners that look best with grey are not left at the default which may change to black (if that makes any sense!) JamesA >talk 08:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have some discussion of WCAG compliance Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#WCAG-compliant_colors_for_maps.3F. Does that standard say anything that would affect this discussion? Pashley (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really like the look of the white text on translucent black box. But the title with shadow by contrast looks kind of ugly now. Would it be possible to have a translucent black box for the title (instead of shadow), but one that would "hug" the title, rather than extend across the entire top of the banner? Let me know if that's not clear, and I'll illustrate. --Peter Talk 02:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been experimenting with that look, there's an example at User:Shaundd/Sandbox2. I was thinking we'd have to move there (to the translucent box) because IE doesn't support the shadow at all so some banners wouldn't be readable on IE or we'd have to limit our choice of banners (not a good option). Let me know what you think -- does the black box need to be darker, corners too rounded or not enough rounded? -Shaundd (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The roundedness is fine, but the boundaries of the box are too close to the text, I think. LtPowers (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved the boundaries out a bit - how does it look now? -Shaundd (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's much better, though it still looks a little odd with the top margin bigger than the bottom. Probably if there was a letter with a descender (j, g, y, p, q) in the name it'd look fine. LtPowers (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are we any closer to finding out how to hide the new banner TOC when WV pages are being viewed on mobile devices? --Nick (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you find a way to detect mobile/non-mobile, please let us know at Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition, we need this too :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Would it be possible to add in image captions so that a mouseover would popup text describing the image? For example, Vienna has a nice image, and I was instinctively trying to mouse over it to see what it was, though I did find the actual caption (City Hall) after clicking through the photo. -- Torty3 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

have added a parameter caption= to the template.--Traveler100 (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where next?[edit]

The roll-out of these banners across Austria appears to be going well - do we have any plans to go further? --Nick (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wondering whether first we should look at methods of integrating the geo, star and feature article icons into the banner first? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are still some niggly issues to sort out, I think. The biggest ones that I know of are the appearance of the page name on IE (anything under IE10, anyway, doesn't display the shadow so the page name can get lost easily) and the appearance of the banner on the mobile site. There are also some enhancements, like the geo, star and icons Traveller100 mentions and adding a description on mouseover that was raised above. Plus some regional default banners. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to look into these. The banners do look good though. Not sure if we should roll it out to another small country in the same area, or continue to fill Austria while the other issues are sorted out. -Shaundd (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with all of Shaun's suggestions. I actually think the roll-out of Austria is going quite slow, and people have lost motivation and interest. Unfortunately, we wouldn't want to roll it out to the whole site if there aren't going to be users around to make banners. Let's finish Austria first, seek wider feedback then think about more countries. JamesA >talk 11:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a pretty time intensive task, although definitely one I enjoy. It would be far, far less time intensive to do these for places I know, though—anything I know about Austria comes from the Sound of Music, a great café in my neighborhood, or the work I've just now done for this expedition ;) I'm excited to create custom banners for places like D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, Saint Petersburg, Bogotá, (Republic of) Georgia, Virgin Islands, Maryland, Sierra Leone, etc., etc. --Peter Talk 21:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted to say, too, that the generic banner ToC is already a huge improvement over the current floater, and even if we expect the custom banners to take aeons, we'll be better off making the switch anyway sitewide, sooner rather than later. The one blocker, I think, is the IE issues with shadows. I'd suggest a small title box of the same shade as the ToC horizontal box (but not one extending the whole length of the banner—just long enough to wrap around the title). Or we could let people using IE figure out for themselves that it's a crappy browser? --Peter Talk 21:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Peter -- it's more time intensive than I thought, at least for areas where I'm not familiar with it or don't have images handy. If I was focusing on Canada or other locations where I've recently travelled, it would be much easier. There's also a lot of stuff going on right now -- Airport expedition, Search expedition, Dynamic maps, these banners, the Brazil expedition -- and only so many people, so I think interest on any one project is going to come and go. I also agree with adding a small title box, I just haven't had a big block of time where I can sit down and play with it.
Re IE, it's frustrating to have to deal with MS's idiocy, but I don't like saying it sucks to be you to a potentially large part of our audience. From most of the stats I looked at, IE still holds something like 40-50% of the browser market. That's pretty big. -Shaundd (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I'd poke back into this discussion to say that this is becoming a lot less time intensive with practice. There's a learning curve, but once you start to recognize which photos will work just by eyeing thumbs, and once you get (very) familiar with where to look in Commons' infinite category system, things really speed up. --Peter Talk 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Austria is done! --Peter Talk 16:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic! Thanks for all your effort Peter! Are we now in a position where we can consider rolling this out across the site? --Nick (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, and have just left a message in the pub. --Peter Talk 17:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

title icons[edit]

So do we want to put the title icons into the page banner? If so should they be inside the image or above? If inside should there be a clear white area around them so they are readable? The current templates {{title-icons|star-icon|otbp-icon|dotm-icon}} and {{geo}} I do not think can be directly inserted so there is a need for a rewrite. I had a quick look at these, and adding them and it is a little complicated. Would be good if someone could create a test template. Alternatively the existing templates need correcting so that placement works well when a banner is present. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we have an icon that perhaps floats on top? Like this: User:Nicholasjf21/dotm-banner? It still needs a lot of refinement, but could be useful. --Nick (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably will have to restyle the star as it is not very visible over many images. I created and example (currently without if statements so can see how it looks) at Template:Pagebanner/sandbox. Needs someone who understands the code a little better as it did not come out correctly in a test at User:Traveler100/Glacier_National_Park/sandbox. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your icons look really good! I think it might have displayed differently as the template page has a hierarchy line at the top, pushing everything down slightly. --Nick (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having a rethink about this. Maybe we should keep the title-icons and geo templates as they are as separate entries in the page. Just move the position down. Currently the icons are above the title line, how about moving them to just below the title line so that they are on the same level as the location breadcrumbs? Would then work with or without the page banner without any additional complication to any templates? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, and one that keeps things simple too. --Nick (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if I understand correctly (would like conformation) the star article and similar icons height is control by {{Title-icon}} but I cannot see how the height is controlled in {{geo}}. Anyone know? Also I assume such a global change will need discussion at Travellers' pub? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure moving the icons onto the same level as the breadcrumbs will work. Some guides have a very long breadcrumb trail that already goes onto a second line. In cases like that, the icons will overlap the breadcrumbs (unless we get the breadcrumb to flow around the icons). There was also a suggestion on another page to have the icons below the page name in the banner. I'm not sure if that would work easier. -Shaundd (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point on the long breadcrumb trail. I guess this is the problem with just using height control in the existing templates to bring it into the banner, you cannot be sure of the absolute position on the page. Could some have a look at the sandbox version I created. Not to worried about the logic when they should, that I can fix later but I cannot get more than one linked icon to work. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't get a chance to look at it tonight, but I'll definitely look at it on the weekend. -Shaundd (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick update - I've looked at it a couple of times, but not sure why the links only work for one icon. I'll keep looking at it. -Shaundd (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm really not sure why the icons in the sandbox don't link, so I tried adding the code to another test page. The results are at:
The Star article, Previous DotM and Previous OtBP links worked, but I'm a little lost on how to incorporate the {{geo}} template within the pagebanner template. My idea for the title icons, for now, is to set them up as parameters in the template. It would be configured dotm=yes to have the DotM icon appear, star=yes to have the Star icon appear, etc. Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's definitely the way to go! LtPowers (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the titlebox and icons now working, I think it's time to implement the (default) banner ToC sitewide. There are more improvements in the pipelines, but the banner ToC as it stands is IMO far superior to our existing ToC, because of the formatting problems it causes. Shall we put up a notice in the pub? --Peter Talk 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Full support from me on deploying this more widely. Pub away. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me! The only other question is just where to implement it - articles in the main-space only? The project namespace and talk pages sometimes have a lot of headers, so might overwhelm it a bit. --Nick (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, just in the mainspace. --Peter Talk 21:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only destination articles? Or are travel topics, itineraries, and phrasebooks fair game? =) LtPowers (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say all mainspace articles, including those you mentioned. However, we may need to put our creative hats on to come up with banners for phrasebooks! JamesA >talk 02:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't remember where it was discussed before, but the intent is to include travel topics, itineraries and phrasebooks, as well as destination guides. -Shaundd (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just double checking, have we figured out how to get the {{geo}} link into the banner? --Peter Talk 03:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's still a to-do item. Do you think that needs to be in place before we raise it in the pub? I don't think it does, it'll in come in time, but thought I'd double-check. -Shaundd (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely don't think this is worth holding things up over. --Peter Talk 04:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to you have solved the icon linking. There is however on pages without any icons a small black area top right of the image.Traveler100 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably we now also need to remove the star icon from the 'starcity/district/airport/park/topic etc' templates, so we don't get two, but so the articles in question still sit in that category and have the bottom bar. --Nick (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's wrong with having one at the bottom and one at the top? That's been the case for years. LtPowers (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing wrong with that - my question isn't very clear. What I mean is that we are now getting 2 star icons at the top of the page: one on the banner and one above it (see Epcot). What I'm suggesting is that we remove the star icon from the template that puts the banner at the bottom, so we only have one at a time. --Nick (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops - I see the problem! {{title-icons|star-icon}} was still at the bottom. Sorry for the alarm! --Nick (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I have worked it out with a bot. Can go through pages that contain {{pagebanner}} and {{title-icons}} add the parameters to pagebanner based on those in title-icons, then remove the title-icons line. Will test today. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it will be a two step. Add banner page then move the title-icon parameters. Example run done on Ann Arbor, also removes the title-icon template if parameter already in pagebanner. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think we should keep the geo template separate as it is in itself complex and candidate for future changes. Suggest moving it a few pixels lower so that it is below the search box on pages with banner but still above the page top line. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like we need a ftt-icon option too. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be possible to get an FTT icon built into the banner too? Thanks! --Nick talk 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we need a separate FTT icon or should we just have one standard featured article icon? I personally find the OtBP icon (a question mark) a bit disjointed. Another thought I had was whether we can use or modify any of the unsuccessful entries from the logo competition. A variation of those travel luggage icons could work... a suitcase for DotM, a backpack for OtBP, something that looks like carry-on luggage for FTT? -Shaundd (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also find the current feature icons rather unintuitive, especially the question mark. Texugo (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I think some new icons would be very welcome indeed and I do quite like the idea of just a single 'featured' icon. --Nick talk 15:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Austria country page banner[edit]

Hey, since it's for the country page itself, I thought I'd submit these banner ideas for consideration:

Do any of these look good? I think I'm partial to #1. --Peter Talk 18:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They all look great actually! I think 1's probably the most well-rounded and reflects several aspects of Austria. --Nick (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that #1 presents the most aspects of what Austria is all about, but it just seems a little "busy". Of course, many of the banners on the individual articles, including ones I made, are very busy, but we have a lot of photos to choose from to create the main Austria banner. Either way, I'm happy with whichever of those you choose. JamesA >talk 02:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1 and 2 are my favourites, although I'd be happy with any of them. -Shaundd (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flip #1 right-to-left and I think we'd have a winner; otherwise, #2. LtPowers (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added #2 as the banner for the Austria page since it seems the least contentious. I'm not fussed if you want to swap it out for a different image -- just thought it would be good to have a banner on the Austria page itself before the message goes up in the Pub. -Shaundd (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading banners from other Commons photos[edit]

Not sure if people had discovered this handy little tool, but it saves quite a bit of time for me as well as ensuring I adhere to all the legal responsibilities. It's called DerivativeFX, and can be found on the old Commons upload form under upload a derivative. All you have to do is:

  1. Type the name of the Commons photo you used to make the banner on the first page, click OK
  2. Untick "Add Template {{RetouchedPicture}}"
  3. Untick any unnecessary categories below, but keep the main destination category, click OK
  4. Upload the file from your computer and type in a new file name including ".jpg"
  5. Add the appropriate "Category:Wikivoyage banners of " to the bottom of the Summary box.
  6. Tick the last red paragraph, hit Upload file, and it's done!

Sometimes it plays up a bit. I always get an error after hitting the "Upload" button where it redirects me to Commons. In that case, all you have to do is reselect the file from your computer and hit "Upload file" again. Sometimes you also need to manually enter the original author on the last page.

Other than that, it's easy as pie! JamesA >talk 02:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James, I like your "tutorial", it is really helpful. As it is a little hidden here, do you think it would be a good idea to move it to the project page? Danapit (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ack! 2100x300! That's so much easier than the huge number of 2700x300s that I've done... --Peter Talk 04:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banners and lead images[edit]

Unresolved question that I posted at Wikivoyage talk:TOC/Banner#Banners and lead images: What do we do with lead images on pages with banners? I'm inclined to exclude them, especially on region and hugecity articles where the lead image is usually taller than the lead paragraph, leading to the region map being pushed down. What do you think? LtPowers (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the banner gives us the flexibility to leave them, move them down a bit, or omit them as makes sense. The lead images are usually pretty good in our articles, so we should make an effort to reshuffle them if removing them from the current position. --Peter Talk 15:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Peter - I think you need to decide this on a case by case basis. --Nick (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree too, though I do think they should at least be moved down at least a paragraph-worth or so. It looks weird to have them snug up against the banner. Texugo (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Cough* - or you could do this... :) --Nick (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nick wins for most creative use of new technology. :D My approach so far has been not to mess with the lead image unless the content was too similar to what I put in the banner, but I haven't come across anything that looks horribly cluttered just yet. I guess it's just going to be a case of trial and error on a case-by-case basis. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black dot[edit]

All the page banners suddenly seem to have acquired a black dot in their upper right-hand corner. Is there a reason for this? --Nick (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The black dot is created by the box that holds the title icons. If there are no icons the dot shows up (I thought nothing would display but unfortunately that's not the case). I can turn the background off and that should get rid of the dot - although it may make the title icons harder to see. Once the geo icon can be added to the title icon box this should be much less of a problem because many articles have geo coordinates. -Shaundd (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! :) --Nick (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Table of Contents[edit]

Swept in from the pub

After a good deal of hard work, particularly on Shaundd's part, the new table of contents design is ready to be rolled out. For a better understanding of how this will look, browse through the Austria articles, which all have the banners in place, and which all now use custom banners. The default banner (another cool design from Shaundd) looks like what you see at the top of the Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition. For more background on the endeavor, the expedition's talk page may be instructive.

The next step will be to simply have a bot add {{Pagebanner}} to every mainspace page (we will keep the old ToC for talk and project pages). From that point, I'd invite everyone to join in the spirit of the Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition and help create custom banners like those seen on the Austria pages!

First, though, is there any reason for us to wait and work on the template further? There are a couple things still being worked on (like getting {{geo}} to produce the icon inside the banner's top-right corner), but I think it's ready. It will be fabulous to lose all the formatting problems that our current floating ToC causes. --Peter Talk 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am against this proposal. Today in the morning I tried to open Austria page in Opera. Now I tried several pages using Google Chrome. I always see white letters on (nearly) white background. Sorry, I don't have time to read through all discussions, so I will simply ask here. Invisible TOC: is it a bug or a new cool feature? I think that it leaves very bad impression from our articles. Additionally, I was trying to read pages using not-too-slow mobile internet connections, and I have to say that the banners require at least 15 sec to load. Sometime the loading stops, and I see only half of the banner. This is not good.
Sorry for criticizing without providing solutions-) I hope that someone can fix these problems. --Alexander (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any way you can provide a screenshot to show the display problems you indicate? I don't know if this was tested in Opera or Chrome. As for loading speed, the technology used to make the banner image dynamically scalable means that the loaded banner is always the 1800px thumbnail, even if it's only going to display at, say, 1000px. In the case of Austria, the current banner is over 100KB, which could take several seconds to load on a slow connection. LtPowers (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just had a look in Chrome (I don't have Opera) and the banners seem to be appearing without issue there. As for loading time, it is unfortunate, but 100kb is not a huge file size, so loading times should be tolerable if not lightning quick. Personally, I'm in favour of this change, but if there are any issues, let's try and iron them out. --Nick (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just tested with all four of the browsers I have installed. System is current Xubuntu Linux.

  • Firefox -- works fine
  • Chrome -- works fine for me
  • Dillo (a tiny browser, -- horrendous, neither the WV main page nor Austria look decent
  • Amaya (a browser/editor from W3C, -- awful; picture is OK, but title not visible & menu is a mess

To me, this needs more testing. In particular, since W3C are the standards body for the web I'd say anything that does not work in their Amaya browser should be considered broken; this currently includes both our main page and the Austria test pages. Also, I think testing with a text-only browser is essential since we care about SEO and Google has [3]

"Use a text browser such as Lynx to examine your site, because most search engine spiders see your site much as Lynx would. If fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash keep you from seeing all of your site in a text browser, then search engine spiders may have trouble crawling your site."

I did not test with a text-only browser such as Lynx. Nor did I install Opera just for testing. I can do both if required, but would prefer others do that work. Pashley (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tried Lynx. There are some oddities, but nothing major. Within the limits of a text-only format, it all works. Adding alt="" text in various places would improve it. Pashley (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just tried Amaya myself. Whilst it doesn't display either the main page or the pagebanners properly, I don't think we should be too concerned - having tested that browser with lots of different webpages it doesn't seem to be able to display any webpage particularly well, including Google and the BBC homepage. Even Wikipedia suffers when viewed with that browser, so I'm not sure it should be the benchmark here. --Nick (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Austria: only half of the banner is loaded
Styria: the banner is loaded, but the background behind the TOC is missing

Here come the screenshots. Both are from Google Chrome on Android. I can't provide Opera now, because I don't have my laptop with me. Sorry. --Alexander (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way the TOC appears in those screenshots is the same way it appears for me in Firefox while it's loading. At some point during the loading, it snaps into the proper format. LtPowers (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should also point out that the banner on the Austria screenshot didn't fail to fully load; it's there, but hidden by the wonky TOC. LtPowers (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does anything here help? Any browser site They have extensive info on how to make things that work with any browser. Pashley (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me it works totally fine with both Opera (12.12) and Chrome (newest I guess). I've got Windows 7. Jjtk (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what to do here. I've tested the pages on Opera on Mac (12.10), Opera for Android and Chrome for Android, and can't replicate the issue Alexander is having. They've all worked fine, and Opera might actually be the smoothest rendering I've seen. As LtPowers noted, the issue in the screenshots is the TOC, not the picture part of the banner. The TOC is usually rendered last (due to the specificity of the CSS) and that's what it looks like before the last bit of styling is completed. Usually it moves through that stage quickly, although I did find there was a noticeable pause when the Chrome for Android rendered the TOC (moreso than other browsers).
I'll review the CSS to see if there's any code changes that can be made to speed it up. The only other thing I can think of is have any of the default preferences in your browser been changed? -Shaundd (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I know. My user preferences are the problem. When I log out, the banner looks fine. Do you have an idea which particular setting could be the reason? I don't want to try them all... --Alexander (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you running any custom CSS or JavaScript in your profile? When we were testing and implementing the Main Page I had a few issues with things conflicting. If so, it might be worth clearing it. --Nick (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the topic of mobile browsers, I don't think we should be trying too hard to make the banners work there. Let's just see if we can hide them and leave things as they are. The banners display horribly on my Windows Phone 7.8 with Internet Explorer 9, as they don't scale properly. Overall, I support the change, but would like to see larger testing and community consultation. I've had no issues on Chrome, IE9 (and 8) and Firefox on Windows 7. JamesA >talk 10:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On my iPhone 4S, when viewing the mobile site, the banners are very compressed and there is no separate TOC, although a separate title does appear. If I view the desktop site on the phone, it displays pretty much as it should. --Nick (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
James, testing and community consultation is exactly what we're doing by bringing the subject here. LtPowers (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the new design! Tested on Win7/Firefox (no problem), Linux/Firefox (no problem), mobile Android on Samsung smartfone /default browser (here in full version looks good, but my fingers aren't fine enough to choose from the TOC; in mobile site version it looks mess). Although I can't help with this, I have a feeling the mobile version still needs attention. And I also think the mobile version is quite important, because nowadays many travellers have internet connection and need information on last minute while travelling. Danapit (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Alexander has been seeing is a partially loaded ToC (which is weird, since the ToC loads before the banner image). I can't reproduce it in any of the dozen or so browsers I've tried across Ubuntu, Windows 7, or Android OS. I don't know why there are occasional complaints about the Main Page or ToC banners in mobile, since the desktop mode on my mobile browsers shows them scaled in a way that is absolutely gorgeous.

I don't think we should avoid any design that doesn't work in every single exotic browser. I use several of them myself (love Midori), but I think anyone using them understands that they may not display sites correctly, and has a more standard browser on hand in case there is an issue.

The banner ToC, though, does not show up correctly in mobile mode (m.wikivoyage) in multiple browsers, because a) the ToC does not load, and b) the banner does not scale—it just shows the leftmost part of the banner, making for a pretty weird aesthetic. (a) doesn't affect usability, since the headers are collapsed anyway, but (b) would be nice to fix. I don't think that's a big enough issue, though, to hold things up. --Peter Talk 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're right Peter. As James A says above, we might be best hiding them on the mobile site (at least for the moment). Lots of the banners that have now been implemented already look fantastic on the desktop site. --Nick (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and do not forget the banners are fixing most of the #Text overlapping on map problems seen in IE and Firefox, which are the browsers used by most people. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I would invite anyone who is leery of this change to look at the difference between the old D.C. page [4] and the new one [5]. The new look is just so much more striking, and finally resolves that awful problem where the old ToC kicked the districts map down below a bunch of white space (in order to avoid text flowing into the map, and crushing the districts descriptions between the ToC and map). --Peter Talk 20:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback seems to be entirely positive, but I would still appreciate if someone helps me to solve my problem with banners. I don't think that I have any custom CSS (or at least I am not aware of it). It means that any user may ruin the appearance of the page by accidentally switching some setting in the user preferences... --Alexander (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, would you please post what your Preference settings are in Misc and Appearance. --Peter Talk 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how to copy-paste it. Basically, I use Vector skin, with "Show table of contents (for pages with more than 3 headings)", "Enable "jump to" accessibility links", and "Enable collapsing of items in the sidebar in Vector skin" activated. All options in the "Misc" page are deactivated. --Alexander (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's your issue: you need to tick the bottom box on the 'Misc' tab -'Floated table of contents' - which, as far as I'm aware, is ticked by default. You should then be able to enjoy the beautiful new TOCs!
Unfortunately, it's not the only button people can press that will ruin the appearance of a page, but hopefully, once the new TOC is fully implemented, people will recognise their problem as soon as they deselect that option and be able to rectify the situation accordingly. --Nick (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It worked! Thanks! --Alexander (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a way for us to tweak the pagebanner to avoid that problem? Or do we just accept that some of the non-default preferences options are just problematic no matter what we do? Or can we get rid of that tick box altogether? --Peter Talk 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Floated table of contents" Misc option is from mw:Extension:TocTree by Roland Unger and Matthias Mullie. We could delete that extension from Wikivoyage now that we have this gorgeous wowW! um, excuse me, now that we have a replacement for it. That would remove the "Floated table of contents" option. We don't need floating TOC (mw:Extension:TocTree) now that we have this banner TOC, right? Banner TOC is meant to replace the problem riddled floating TOC. So let's remove mw:Extension:TocTree, which is the source of our floating TOC and it's issues. It will be best if the banner TOC handles its own floating independent of mw:Extension:TocTree, which should be removed at this point as no longer needed complexity. --Rogerhc (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only thing is, we won't be getting rid of all the old style TOCs (for project pages and the like) - would the removal of this extension cause problems on that front? --Nick (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a problem there. The default non-floated TOC would still appear by default. Anywhere a floated TOC is desired, it could be implemented with a div tag, eg <div style="float:left;">__TOC__</div>, which could even be kept in a template, eg {{toc-left}}. Rogerhc (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The floated TOC actually is the default right now, and without that option checked (it's checked by default) the new TOC doesn't display correctly. Would removing the extension break our new TOC? --Peter Talk 23:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know for sure, but my best guess is removing the TocTree extension shouldn't break the new ToC. The horizontal ToC is based on code from en:wp, which doesn't use TocTree, and it works fine there. I actually had to find a work-around at one point because TocTree was interfering with implementing the horizontal ToC. One impact of removing TocTree though is the ToC on non-banner pages will no longer be collapsible -- so the Pub's ToC would get longer. -Shaundd (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only five lines longer (Pub has only five sub-headings currently), so no problem there.
I'm in favor of removing TocTree to simplify our equation, but I wish we had a test instance of en.Wikivoyage to try that on. I created a test wiki at but it's anemic, doesn't even have parcer functions. To be useful as a test wiki it needs to be a clone of en.Wikivoyage. If anyone with server administration clue wants to help me make that test wiki into a clone of en.Wikivoyage, please let me know. I don't know how to do it. Rogerhc (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the idea of having a more attractive top to our articles is great and the horizontal paradigm for navigation is a good one, BUT until and unless we can expand the main (secondary level headers) to have drop down expansion menus to display the tertiary and quaternary headers, then the current banners are simply not ready for prime time. We should not be sacrificing functionality for prettiness. (And in some cases the results are downright ugly and muddled).-- Alice 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

New English Wikivoyage banner sometimes produces an ugly result and currently does not allow navigation to the important secondary and tertiary section headings!
  • The image above is what you get when you roll your browser text size up to 200%, which makes most professional websites look weird at the very least.
  • The lack of third level headings is a valid concern for perhaps 1% or less of our articles. Even for your example Pyongyang, it has only 3 subsections at this level, all under the same section and (unless you do roll your text size up to 200%) they all appear on the screen at the same time when you click on the Sleep section. This is the case for the great majority of cases except for a minority of our longest pages, and though it may be something we ought to work out, I don't think it is so egregrious to be a roadblock to implementation. Which, if you haven't noticed, is already well underway.
Texugo (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly you're wrong. On my small laptop running Firefox 20.01 under XP SP3 (not an unusual combination), this screenshot was taken at 115% enlargement and the ugly overlap only disappears when it is reduced to 80%!
I agree that the lack of in-depth navigation is not so much of an issue with Pyongyang (only having 5 tertiary section headings) - but Pyongyang is the exception rather than the rule in this case - most of our lengthy and worthwhile articles do have tertiary and quaternary headings that we should display and enable navigation to... -- Alice 23:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is remotely true to say that most of our articles have such headings. The vast majority of our articles are small and medium-sized towns which have none, and the vast majority of the ones that do have such headers have such short subsections that they all appear on the screen at the same time anyway. And personally, I think that even most of the longer subsections are of the budget-mid-range-splurge variety, and I think the advantages of navigability in those cases is marginal at best, when weighed against the layout problems the banner template solves. Which leave us with the tiny percent of articles which have long subsections under Understand, Get in, Get around etc. And sure, it would be nice when we have a solution, but I do not think it is remotely so urgent as to hold up the whole project. Moreover, there is already a conversation started about it at Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition#Add a "full TOC" button?. ‎‎Texugo (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the issue of lower-level headings is real, at least for our more complex articles, but am not sure how to deal with it. See Wikivoyage_talk:Banner_Expedition#Add_a_.22full_TOC.22_button.3F. Pashley (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be great to have a full TOC in a 'collapsed' state for the complex articles that could be expanded with a button click. This is not too challenging to do with Javascript, so please let me know if I can help with that. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<UPDATE> Sorry, just noticed you linked to a similar suggestion already made. Will add to that. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the Pyongyang banner (File:Skyline Pyongyang.jpg). It was not the correct specifications, as stipulated at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition. The expedition recommends 2100x300, but the Pyongyang banner was too narrow at 2100x247. Secondly, it was waaaaaay too large at a whopping 33MB, when we are trying to get banners to be 330 times less than that at around 100KB only! I also want to point out that there are far better images that are representative of the city than its skyline. It's great that we're all jumping in to make banners, but it'd also be great if everyone could take a quick look at the project page :) JamesA >talk 10:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...we are trying to get banners to be 330 times less than that at around 100KB only!" We do? Haven't seen that at Wikivoyage:Banner_Expedition#Standards, most of the banners I uploaded are around 800KB. Is that a big deal? Jjtkk (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, those standards do appear to only refer to image width rather than size in KB. I believe it may have been mentioned sometime earlier on the talk page that we try to keep the images as small as possible without making them grainy, to keep page loading times down, which was one of the original concerns. 800KB shouldn't be that bad, but I would try cutting it in half maybe, just my adjusting the image quality. JamesA >talk 13:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is VERY important that we keep the file size to the absolute minimum, because many people access Wikivoyage from slow networks. As long as the image is being loaded, the TOC remains invisible or skewed. Now when Jjtkk mentioned the file size of 800 KB, I understand why the new banners appear so slowly even on a fast (3G) mobile internet connection. Two weeks ago I used a slower network, where smaller Austrian banners were also a problem (loading time 5-10 s). Please, keep this aspect in mind. Travelers typically do not have access to fast networks. --Alexander (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that resolution (pix/inch) is really the issue, which should be defined, I touched the issue already here. Both these files are 2100:300, but sizes are 637 and 75 KB,respectively.

Danapit (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should remember however that the image file sizes indicated on Commons are not the true values as they appear here on Wikivoyage. The pagebanner template uses a reduced size of these banners (1800px wide) which in turn uses a cached version of the image, which produces smaller file sizes. For example, the Hartberg banner above, whilst 637kb in full, on the page only uses 135kb and the 33mb Pyongyang monolith was only 88kb in situ - a large difference. --Nick talk 15:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! Size doesn't matter :) it's the ratio that counts. Danapit (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to be of assistance! :) --Nick talk 19:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Are the color combinations appropriate for color-blind users?
  2. Does the template include an alt attribute so that it can be "read" by screen-readers for blind visitors?

See w:Wikipedia:Accessibility and w:Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. The subject of accessibility came up in the pub a few months ago and a major change like this should certainly be reviewed for these conditions before being implemented site-wide. AHeneen (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you clarify the second point? The TOC elements are all text already ("Get in", "See", etc), and the DOTM and other icons all have alt tags already. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the first point, the text is white and it appears on a semi-transparent black background -- so I suspect it's not a problem for colour-blindness. I tested a couple out for their contrast ratio and the results are compliant with WCAG 2.0 AA but mixed with AAA. It depends on the colour of the background image. If we think that's a problem, the opacity of the black background can be changed to strengthen the contrast. -Shaundd (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC box options[edit]

Earlier in development, the template was designed to allow some customization of the TOC box (i.e., it could be white with black text or black with white text). Out of all the banners implemented so far, the default option of black box with white text has always been implemented. If the other options aren't going to be used, I'd like to remove them from the template. For one, it makes the code cleaner, and for two, I'm hoping it will allow browsers to render the TOC box faster. Thoughts?

I've also gone ahead and removed the option to have the page name appear in black text. Since the page name now appears within a black box, the black text option seems redundant. -Shaundd (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the other options should be removed, as we've now settled on one theme that seems to work best. --Peter Talk 05:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hierarchical Page Names[edit]

Is it worth using the new page banner to make the page names for some of our districts a little more user-friendly and a little less clinical? At present Epcot, for example, already does this, using the title 'Epcot' rather than 'Walt Disney World/Epcot', but retains that as its 'official' name, so it still fits in with Wikivoyage's article structure. If so, I'd suggest it's probably worth making a redirect to whatever name is used at the top, but this could be a nice way to improve the aesthetic of some of our guides. --Nick (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

couple of variants on the same theme:Paris/18th arrondissement, Desert (California).--Traveler100 (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I'd forgotten I'd done it for the Vatican too. --Nick (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it was standard, as we'd do with the front page banners, but now that you mention it, there's a problem. If we change the title that displays in the banner, it becomes very hard for the reader to know what the actual page title is (he/she has to look at the URL and translate underscores and HTML-escaped characters). That could be a problem, especially when we start getting to pages with parenthetical disambiguators. I would not be against eliminating the "pgname" parameter from the template and requiring all pages to maintain their proper page name at the top. LtPowers (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The real page name is displayed in the breadcrumbs, and in the page address field of the browser for that matter. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it will be too much of a problem - the 'real' name will be in the places Traveler100 listed and at the top of every tab. There are probably comparatively few situations where the lay-reader has to know a page's exact name. --Nick (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except we want lay-readers to become editors, and one of the easiest edits is to make a link where one didn't exist before. I don't know what you mean by "tab", as there's no tabs in our UI. Also, the appearance of the page name on the breadcrumb trail is a bug. LtPowers (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By 'tab' I mean within the browser itself or at the top of the window, depending on which software you're using. Either way, the page description reads "Full page name - Travel guides at Wikivoyage". If first-time editors do edit, it's very likely that they'll use the in-built linking tool, which allows them to type in the name of the destination and gives them a list of suggestions that fit it. Not only will that work with destinations that are followed by parentheses but if (as suggested above) we create redirects for the names we use, all pages should work without difficulty.
As it is, I know that in my first edits (I may just be particularly dim in this regard) I didn't take any notice of 'real' page names and created tens of links to the disambiguation page Bolton without realising that it wasn't the correct place. --Nick (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The presence of parentheticals and parent article names in the title bar is a bug too. Rome/Vatican should say "Vatican travel guide" in the browser title bar, for instance. LtPowers (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While understanding LtPowers' point, and liking the ability to quickly highlight & copy page names, I think the aesthetic benefit to dropping the parent name on the banner is compelling, especially when the parent name is long (like "Washington, D.C."). Also, if readers are laity, does that make us travel clergy? --Peter Talk 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen to that. :D --Nick (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Late for the party, but trying out the new banners[edit]

I was dinking around with the new banners today with some mixed results. I thought you guys might want to check them out. It was a little tricky to come up with some good results and I'm not happy with everything, I have some great photos that won't work in that format and some average photos that turned out really well. You be the judge. Puget Sound, Kitsap Peninsula, University District, Southworth, Livingston, Gardiner, Blake Island etc etc

I am going to re-edit some photos to make them work better, and I put in a few headers that could work almost anywhere, but generally I think this is a really cool addition. Lumpytrout (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think those are uniformly really good, FWIW. --Peter Talk 02:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks, but it was more of a learning expedition. Some banners like Purdy happened to have the 'weight' of the picture is to the right so it worked well, but for San Juan Islands I ended up flipping the photo to make it work. I set up the correct ratio for banners in Picasa so I can hammer these out pretty quickly, its more of a matter of finding the right photos now. Lumpytrout (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Livingston banner isn't wide enough. I've got a blank area on the right-hand side. All of them are great photos, though; good work, Lumpytrout! LtPowers (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? I'm doing the same process for all of them so I'm not sure why that one wouldn't work, I will look into it and figure it out. I'm looking on a couple of different computers and browsers to make sure they are working, the only problem's I've run into is with Android devices. Lumpytrout (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Lumpytrout Montana wikivoyage page banner fisherman.jpg is 1,184 × 169. The others are wider (for example File:Lumpytrout wikivoyage page banner Lakebay Kitsap puget sound Washington State.JPG is 1,600 × 228). -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, the recommended resolution is 2100x300. --Peter Talk 17:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the max width in the template is 1800, so anything smaller than that won't work for larger screen widths. LtPowers (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think I figured out what I was doing wrong, I have 2100 x 300 set up for my preferences but depending on how old low res the photo was originally it won't export that large. I will figure out how to tweek it. The aesthetic challenges are really different than other photos so I'm pretty excited to work on it. Lumpytrout (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lumpytrout, I saw your attempts with the new banner. I think you are doing really great, I like your banners a lot. I was trying to play around with some Iceland banners (I have plenty of fresh photos). I was using Photoshop Elements for cropping them, setting the crop tool 2100x300 px, but I am not sure about the resolution (px/inch, px/cm). Perhaps someone can help? Also I am not sure how to create a new country and travel topic category in commons. Danapit (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it should be 72 dpi (px/inch). Also you can try to set the crop tool to 7:1 proportion, without defining units. Jjtkk (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Danapit, I edit images often for my day job so I hope this will be a good place for me to contribute. I will check out what you have been working on. I'm trying to put in some non location specific images like Pacific Crest Trail or Bozeman that could be used for many different locations. I'm also trying to give a general feel for a location without having to repeat what is already in an article. Lumpytrout (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) My cropping tool is set at 7 in by 1 in, with 300 px/inch. I'm not sure the resolution matters as long as the image itself is 2100 pixels wide (or thereabouts). -Shaundd (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the replies. And I have already worked out how to insert a new subcategory for the banners at wiki commons. Danapit (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link color[edit]

The hover link color of blue (#17498f) does not provide enough contrast in the TOC-Banner. So maybe delete the following from MediaWiki:Common.css, or change it to white:

/* ... or except when being hovered over */
.hlist #toc.tocFloat a:hover {
    color: #17498f;

--Rogerhc (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking the link colour should be changed. I'm not sure about white though since the TOC text is normally white. What about a light grey or yellow? -Shaundd (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If not white, then maybe a very light blue, eg #bdddfd. The normal link blue is too dark, doesn't show up on the background, but a very light blue works. Maybe not yellow however, because yellow would depart from the link color expectation we have already firmly established. Beautiful work by the way! :-) Rogerhc (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that blue works very well - thanks! And glad you like the banners. :-) -Shaundd (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That blue does look really nice now it's been implemented! --Nick (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Default pagebanner image location[edit]

The default banner image is still hosted locally and tagged as experimental. Is it time to move it over to Commons and get rid of the local page? Texugo (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, if an admin there can protect it against new version uploads. Once we add it to every article, it would be a particularly annoying problem if replaced with a penis. --Peter Talk 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, but Peter, what would be wrong with that? Penises can almost certainly be found in every location for which we have an article, except maybe Oklahoma. :D Texugo (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can protect the file from uploads and moves once it's uploaded to Commons. Make sure you pick a good descriptive filename! LtPowers (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page name missing[edit]

I see a =page name heading= was added to this page to replace its missing page name. Why is this necessary? Why is the page name missing from this talk page? --Rogerhc (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the PageBanner template, which contains code to hide the page name, is transcluded several times here. LtPowers (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Backwards images[edit]

Let's not flip place images just for the sake of graphical convenience. Place images that have been flipped left to right for graphical convenient are backwards. This unnecessarily cheapens Wikivoyage. North becomes South, East becomes West. This does not help the traveler. I have reverted the "cheat" of the Austria banner image that made it backwards. Comments welcome. ;-) --Rogerhc (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it looks fine that way, actually. And I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't be flipping images unless absolutely no one would be able to tell. As in the case with the Bali DotM banner we did a while back. --Peter Talk 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a problem with flipping images where the change isn't really noticeable. The Austria image is one of those cases, as far as I'm concerned... except for the word "HOTEL" I just noticed written on one of the roofs. If not for that, I don't see the problem. The traveler is not going to be using our banner images to navigate. LtPowers (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, too, don't see what the problem is in flipping images when readers wouldn't know unless told. In the Austria case, I'm sure you wouldn't have known if Peter didn't bring it up above. However, it should be rare cases where we allow it. We don't want recognisable landmarks being flipped whereby any local could tell it was done (it would be very obvious to any local if the banner at Melbourne was flipped). Additionally, banners shouldn't be flipped if there is some kind of text or numbering within it (off signs, clocks, etc) JamesA >talk 11:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that flipping and indeed manipulating banners is not really something to be worried about. These new TOC images don't seek to be a particular aid to the traveller, but rather give an impression of the destination. Lots of banners already implemented show only parts of paintings or shells which are attractive but of no great utility. I agree with JamesA that, as long as they've not recognisably been flipped, it doesn't really matter. If manipulated images are of concern, there are many others that have been changed to a much greater extent than just flipping that are already in situ. --Nick (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should go as far as to say that we shouldn't use any image that a local could tell has been flipped. Flipping some shells around or stretching the sky is no big deal, but I don't think we should be flipping around whole panoramas of towns or valleys with castles. Texugo (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that Texugo is right, the local criteria is a good way to think of it. Lumpytrout (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New collaboration[edit]

Time for a new collaboration? I think star articles might be the right place to start. I've already started working on the D.C. and Chicago pages. On an almost unrelated note, can Template:Pagebanner be used in such a way that the bottom box and actual table of contents is suppressed? Using __NOTOC__ doesn't do the trick. (I'd like to add File:Star articles-banner.jpg to Star articles.) --Peter Talk 01:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the banner. I don't know of any way to suppress the TOC but I think it's useful. So I fixed the header levels so that the top-level headings are all h2; that makes them all appear on the TOC. LtPowers (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Star articles sounds like a good place to start. I remember Globe-trotter had a list of most important travel destinations -- that could also work. -Shaundd (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would I be right in thinking that, at least for now, we're going to implement these banners 'by hand' (so to speak) rather than using a bot? I have no problems with this (in fact it seems rather sensible); I just wanted to check. --Nick (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm indifferent to that idea. On one hand, I'd like consistency between all the articles and the default template provides that. However, doing the templates category by category ensures that a lot of the banners get done and is more collaborative. We could have a fusion of both: get a bot to put the default on an entire category (a country, state, "Star articles", etc), work towards doing about 75% of that category, then choose another one. At the same time, users can create banners for the destinations they are knowledgeable about, which has already been happening. JamesA >talk 09:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm ok with the above idea of using a bot to put the default banner on an entire category and collaborating on it for a while before choosing another category, but I wouldn't want it to take too long to spread to the entire site. I would suggest a time limit (no more than a week perhaps) for each category rather than a percentage, and I would suggest choosing large chunks at a time (continental sections rather than individual countries or, for large countries like Russia or the US, region categories rather than individual states/oblasts). Otherwise it's going to be two or three years before our site is consistent and whole again. Personally, I'd rather see a bot put the default everywhere and proceed with the coordination of such collaboration. Texugo (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds fair to me. Let's use a bot to implement them site-wide and then use this expedition to co-ordinate the introduction of custom banners to particular categories with a new one each week, perhaps starting with Star articles or Most important destinations?--Nick (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And would it be worth making this COTM at some point in the future? --Nick (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a new category each week is a bit ambitious over the longer term, but a COTM sounds good (although, we're probably getting more edits than a typical COTM right now anyway).
If we're going to roll this out site-wide, do we want/need regional default banners? Concerns have been raised before that the current default banner isn't as appropriate for China, SE Asia and the southern hemisphere. If we do have a number of regional default banners to start, what are the right ones? The current one does North America, Europe and Russia pretty well. Others could probably cover off South America & Africa, Asia and Australia/Oceania (that's three more). How granular do we want to make this right now? -Shaundd (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If those three cover our continents, that should be enough, I think. And I'll start on Antarctica's custom banners now ;) --Peter Talk 05:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shaundd, any way you can make the other two default banners in the same style as the existing one? Texugo (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was my plan. I've got a few things going on in the evenings right now so it might take two or three days to make the banners and update the template. -Shaundd (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did we work out a way to automatically configure the default banner depending on the continental hierarchy? JamesA >talk 11:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes the bot I used for Austria can go down the Breadcrumbs of a continent with a specific default image name added. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would be good to get the continent articles done because they tend to have bad problems with the current TOC opposite a large map. Plus they are the current COTM. Nurg (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did this test with Europe, however there is still a problem with an overlap of a map and the regions text on my screen. Danapit (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unable to get the regionnlist text to overlap the map now. What is your screen resolution? One potential issue might be the length of those descriptions, which is way, way longer than what we recommend, especially for a continent-level article. --Peter Talk 16:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Texugo fixed the problem by moving the Eifel tower picture down. So no problem any more =) Danapit (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love the banners but don't have many skills with images. If any banner enthusiasts with skills are wondering what to do next, look at our COTM articles that don't have them yet – Africa, South America, Oceania. The present TOC makes an awful mess of Africa. Nurg (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User pages[edit]

Over the last few days I've noticed that several people have added the page banners to their user pages. I think it looks really quite nice there and allows for a bit of tasteful personalisation too as well as a cohesive 'look' across the whole site. Is it therefore worth rolling this out as default across user pages as well as content pages, perhaps with an opt-out available if people were unkeen? --Nick (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think wiki-etiquette dictates that we not mess with people's userspace. If anyone wants a page banner on their user page it is easy enough to add, but I suspect that those who do not want a page banner would complain loudly if we automatically added one. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A fair point! Scrap this idea! :) --Nick (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating new articles[edit]

Is there a way that we can make the pagebanner template appear by default when new articles are created? That way we wouldn't need to leave a bot running to do this ad infinitum. --Nick (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, adding it to the article model templates would mostly take care of this, except for the few cases where people start a stub without choosing a template. Texugo (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the cases where people don't use an article template, there's not much you can do. These sort of guides should be found and corrected anyway, with the standardisation of headers and copyediting. When that is done, I'm sure editors can also add the pagebanner. The pagebanner bot could be run bimonthly, just in case. JamesA >talk 13:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me! --Nick (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Beauty of Generic Images[edit]

I'm continuing to experiment with banner layouts etc and I've realized the beauty of semi generic images. Banner photos that give a general 'feel' for a location but might be used in several different locations. For example the beach image for Olalla could be used for almost anywhere with a beach in the Pacific Northwest. These are going to come in handy when filling out less popular locations. For example the San Juan Islands have several very popular islands and many more less popular (but still worth visiting) islands that have little or no photos in the commons. Now I'm trying to figure out how to limit the use to keep from over using banner images and I'm trying to use general descriptions with file names. I think that having specific photos is best, but not realistic site wide. Lumpytrout (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This could make sense when it's a picture of a starfish found at the location but photographed elsewhere (or any other animal/plant/etc.), but I'd hate to allow photos of "similar" landscapes, "similar-looking" beaches, buildings, landmarks or anything else potentially recognizable as not actually being located at the destination. Texugo (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think generic banners can be useful in certain circumstances, but we should be careful. In the Flying section, the main article sections use the same banner recoloured, whilst the other, more specific topics, use the same 'plane and clouds' banner, though I may yet change that! --Nick (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, certainly travel topics and other non-destination articles are more flexible in this regard, but I was talking about destinations.Texugo (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, I'm in agreement with you - topics are much more suitable than destinations, though generic images might be alright for the latter if they're pretty plain and transferable. --Nick (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed Texugo, but there are going to be a whole lot of areas that are not going to be served well with banner images and I think that we just need to be aware that this is going to be an issue. I'm afraid that the banner images are going to separate the desirable locations from the undesirable locations that nobody wants to work on. Lumpytrout (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as I said, certain types of generic images may work in some situations, but for me having a picture that a local of the given destination may recognize as being fake or incorrect is considerably worse than having just the default image. If the subject is animals or plants, etc., it doesn't really matter so much. But if the subject of the picture shows any recognizable portion of the landscape, cityscape, etc., then I think that only pictures actually from the location should be used (not some similar destination). Texugo (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Lumpytrout's basic point, the banner images will be just one more way in which articles people care about look better than articles no one has worked on ;) --Peter Talk 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks Peter, I've been struggling with this on every aspect of wikivoyage. Urban popular areas are going to be served very well while rural areas are being ignored and banners will be a glaring example of this. Lumpytrout (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, images in general were already a glaring example of this. An article without images was, more often than not, one that received little care or attention. At least the banner adds something nice to look at... Though I don't disagree with your basic point - sadly, the very nature of a wiki means that more popular things will get more care and attention than unpopular things (save for the rare case when we get a lot of devotion from an individual to an unpopular thing, like some of our OtBP articles). PerryPlanet (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to make a parallel with the #Backwards images discussion above, I think in both cases, the criteria must be from the perspective of a local. If a local could possibly tell that an image is not from his hometown/area (or is a mirror-image or otherwise altered image of his hometown/area), it should not be used. Texugo (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd agree with you there - I think the local test is a good one. --Nick (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the local test. If you can't tell the difference it doesn't matter. Going up the hierarchy, the same banner could be used for a district, a destination, a local region, a major region, country and continent because it is actually local to all of them, but the problem comes with an image from one destination which is used for another destination but was not actually taken there. I think it is fine if a local expert would not be able to spot it as an outsider.
This means there will be a large to very large number of articles which will need generic banners, ie. banners which are not location specific. In some cases these could be created from maps, coats of arms, etc which are related to the region • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Success and Experiments Highlights[edit]

If you have not had time to poke around and look at some of what other people are doing with page banners I'm offering up a few highlights. Some areas such as Northwest New Mexico, Perth and Carinthia are naturally suited for the sweeping landscape format that works well with with the wide angle banners. While areas like Hiroshima and South Iceland have come up with some creative and I think really good solutions. Cemeteries and Northern Lights are good examples of giving a general feel for a subject without having too specific of a photo. Denver and Singapore/Chinatown are good examples of banner themes and colors that work really well with other existing photos. There are many more great ones out there, I would encourage looking around for more inspiration. --Lumpytrout (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of a panorama, one can use an interior or close-up image, of something unique, popular and/or well-known. I had trouble finding a good panorama for Stockholm/Djurgården, but got inspiration from the Vatican to look indoors. /Yvwv (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title and TOC of this page[edit]

Why do the title and TOC of this talk page have to be inserted manually? I tried taking out the manually inserted title so that the TOC didn't start out completely collapsed, but if I remove the title line and TOC, the page simply has none. What's up with that? Texugo (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's because this page contains multiple 'pagebanner' templates for Austria (see above), which inhibit both the TOC and page title, despite the fact they're half-way down. --Nick (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I reduced the size of the title a notch so the TOC comes up expanded. Texugo (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Default banners[edit]

Default banner for South American and sub-Saharan Africa
Default banner for North Africa, Sahel, Middle East and Asia
Default banner for Central America and the Caribbean
Default banner for Australia and Oceania
Default banner for New Zealand

I created some new default banners to better cover other parts of the world. They're all based on the same map so the look is consistent. I'm not sure if they work as well when it gets down to smaller areas like Australia-Oceania and NZ. I also ended up creating a separate NZ banner because I couldn't fit NZ on a banner that also had Australia and the islands in the South Pacific (and even getting those was marginal). Let me know what you think. -Shaundd (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't the compass rose have the same size and position in each banner? Other than that, I think they look fine. I don't know if the NZ one was necessary, but I'm sure the Kiwis will appreciate it. =) LtPowers (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not bad, but I do wonder why you decided to make the compasses different sizes. It think it would be nice if they had the same size and position as LtPowers said. Also, are we just going to leave out central america, the countries on the north end of south america, and southern africa? Texugo (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally don't think it's that big a deal to show only part of South America, although Central America might be nice. In any rate, I think these look great, and don't see the size of the compass as an issue, but if others do... --Peter Talk 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I didn't intend to make the compasses different sizes. The compass stays the same size but the size of the cropping box varies depending on which part of the map I was trying to capture. But it does look funny when they're stacked up like that. I'll see if I can make it more consistent. I'll also work on a Central America/Caribbean banner, it looks like a sizable gap right now. I'm not so concerned about the southern part of South America or the tip of Africa though. -Shaundd (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Default banner for Northern Hemisphere
I made a default banner based on a world satellite photo. Would it be useful for you? /Yvwv (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the set of default banners Shaundd made are better suited; the subdued, unflashy gray tones are better for the default image since it has to go it hundreds or thousands of articles. Texugo (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put up new default banners and added one for the Caribbean/Central America. The page may need to be refreshed. The compass is now more consistent in size and position. -Shaundd (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking good. They almost match - if you could fix the size of the compass on the New Zealand banner to match the others, it will be a perfect set. Texugo (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. I could have sworn it looked right last night, but obviously not. I resized the compass again, it should be very close this time. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Default banner for Northern Hemisphere
In my opinion, the current default banners are problematic for a couple of reasons. They display political borders (which are subject to change and dispute), the intentional blur of the map does not match the sharp-edged compass, and foremost: they are 2D images of 3D renderings of 2D maps of a 3D world; that is a rather cumbersome way to create an artistic effect. I have made a new default banner, in grey. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I much prefer Shaundd's banners personally. None of the things you mentioned about them bother me in the least. I definitely don't thing anybody is going to see the antique maps in the banner and freak out because the borders are not up to date. I think the plain maps ones, both the color one and the gray one, are utterly devoid of character. Texugo (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can certainly see what other people think, but I agree with Texugo. The default banners are meant to be subtle, hence the use of grey tones/sepia and antique look to the underlying map. I find the plain maps are a bit jarring to look at as a banner, even the grey one has fairly sharp light/dark contrast. A lot of this is also personal taste. -Shaundd (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree with Texugo—I find them very stylish. --Peter Talk 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I agree that Shaun's banners are the ones to go for: they look very classy! :) --Nick talk 13:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Europe? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's covered by the default default banner, which you can see at Template:Pagebanner. LtPowers (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a reason why we haven't deployed these sitewide yet? --Peter Talk 23:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we were just waiting for the default banners. Traveler100's bot should be able to apply the pagebanner to each page. LtPowers (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about similarly-themed default banners for travel topics, itineraries, phrasebooks, dive guides, and airport articles? The defaults for the destination articles could probably work for itineraries, but it would be nice to have different, matching defaults for the other types. What do you think? Texugo (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, why not? But it shouldn't delay deployment. =) LtPowers (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't think so either. Anyway, the bot to implement is going to be running category by category to give different regions different default banners. It's just a few more categories. Also, thinking a bit more, it might be interesting to use a closeup of an old highway map of route 66 or an antique map of the silk road as a basis for an itinerary default. Just a thought... Texugo (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked Traveler 100 if he can do this. If anyone feels like double checking my math, that would probably be worthwhile. --Peter Talk 04:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small test run, please comment on my talk page. Traveler100 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the destination guide deployment well underway (thanks Traveler100!), we should think about default banners for travel topics, phrasebooks, itineraries, and dive guides. Personally, I would recommend keeping them grayscale as with the other banners, to help mark them as also being defaults. Proposals? --Peter Talk 06:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed default Scuba diving banner monochrome cyan
Proposed default Scuba diving banner greyscale
How would you feel about a monochrome but not necessarily grey? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed default travel topic banner
What do you make of this? --Nick talk 22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK as a start. If someone comes up with a better one it can be loaded into the same file name easily enough for instant and trouble free upgrade. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
request for feedback at User talk:Traveler100#Pagebanners on remaining areas. Which default banner to use for Southeast Asia, Greenland, Other destinations, Antarctica, Islands of the Indian Ocean? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed default Itinerary banner

What about this one for itineraries? Danapit (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its the best we've got;-) I like the concept. Maybe a single route with a few waypoint markers would be more clear. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Position relative to hatnotes[edit]

The banner should go below any disambiguation hatnote, right? Because the banner is associated with the current article that follows, whereas the hatnote is a navigational guide to other articles and should be at the very top.

I'm thinking the "printDistricts" hatnote for big cities with district articles should go above the banner too (but below the dab note), although I am less certain about this. Compare Chicago and Vienna for the two variations. Nurg (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From an organisational standpoint, I can see why the hatnotes would be at the top. However, to me it looks disorganised and not as effective when displayed that way. From a visual perspective, I really think the banners should be at the very top of the page, above all else. JamesA >talk 07:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think the banner should be at the top of the page, look much better.--Traveler100 (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but looks aren't as important as usability. Hatnotes need to go before the banner. Template:PrintDistricts can go below it. LtPowers (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Layout is part of usability. The human eye normally doesn't read a page strictly from top to bottom. It latches on to key elements, typically in the top left quadrant (but not the very top or far left), and reads across and down. The banners are very likely going to be the first thing that most people focus on (regardless of where we place the hatnote) so the next thing the eye will see is the text below it, not above. Based on that, I think the hatnote should be below otherwise we increase the chances users are going to miss the hatnote on their first read through and potentially get frustrated. -Shaundd (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Shaundd. On pages with banners your eyes immediately jump to the banner so everything above is ignored. By putting it below, it's the first thing people will notice after the name of the page itself. --Nick talk 16:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree with Shaun—if anything, I think we should be trying to move the breadcrumbs below the banner, as my eyes naturally skip anything above it. --Peter Talk 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not comfortable forcing people on screen readers to get through the banner, caption, and ToC before reaching a hatnote. LtPowers (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not like to see anything added above the banner (though I definitely would not like to move the breadcrumbs below the banner, just because it doesn't make any organizational sense to insert the regional (extra-page) navigation between the page navigation (TOC) and page content.) Texugo (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any reason why people with screen readers have to get to the hatnotes straight off the bat, before elements like the name of the article? JamesA >talk 09:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never heard of a "hatnote" before this discussion (neither have dictionaries), and I don't think our readers will be confused by one being below the ToC. I doubt they'll be too put out by being "forced" to look below the banner, as that is where the article is, which presumably they are considering looking at ;) I do think they might miss them if they're above. --Peter Talk 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it's a good (I'd guess) 30 seconds or so for a screen reader to get through the banner and ToC before the user hears a hatnote that allows them to get to the disambiguation page -- and that's only if they already know they're at the wrong article. LtPowers (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are methods of telling screen readers what content is important and what is not (example: If someone is interested in starting a usability expedition to improve the usability of the site for screen readers and other users I'd very much be in favor, but in cases like this one (where a technical solution can be implemented to tell screen readers how to read the page) I don't see that organizing text in ways that are sub-optimal for most normal users makes sense. And by "sub-optimal", I mean that a web page section with a full-width banner and overlaid menu items is something that nearly all web pages implement as a top-level navigation aid, and thus users will see it as the "top" of the section and either overlook anything above it or see items above as unrelated to the current section. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we're not willing to consider accessibility unless an expert is willing to help guide us? Because I'm not an expert; I know just enough to be dangerous. And I wouldn't even know where to begin implementing this "technical solution", especially so on a restricted platform like Mediawiki. LtPowers (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we are considering it. But improved accessibility for the very few should not come at the cost of reduced accessibility for the vast majority. I think the issue has been stated that the proposed solution of putting the hatnote above the banner would cause it to go unnoticed by most readers, which pretty much defeats the whole point. Texugo (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Re: "So we're not willing to consider accessibility...", I don't see anyone arguing that accessibility should not be considered. As Texugo notes, however, usability for a minority should not come at the expense of the much larger majority, as I argued in my original comment: "in cases like this one (where a technical solution can be implemented to tell screen readers how to read the page) I don't see that organizing text in ways that are sub-optimal for most normal users makes sense" -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree that there's any conflict here between sighted and blind users; both want and need important navigational information above the page banner -- that's why the "Page" and "Discussion" and "read" and "Edit" etc. tabs, and the search box, and the user links, are all at the top. I had just hoped that the problems with screen readers would help throw this into starker relief. Please consider this quotation from w:WP:HATNOTE: "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates .... Text-only browsers and screen readers present the page sequentially. If a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first." LtPowers (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-wiki-savvy readers don't usually find the discussion, edit, history, etc. links for a while, in my experience. (Much less know what they mean.) They go straight for the article. There's a fundamental difference of opinion, and it's a pretty subjective one here, that I'm not sure is going to be bridged. --Peter Talk 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to do real usability testing. That's why I think we should go with what Wikipedia has found to be the best practice. LtPowers (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think there may be some confusion in how the banner is being viewed. Consider:

  • A sitenotice appears on all pages on the site, and thus goes above an article title so that there is no confusion that it is part of the article.
  • A hatnote is specific to an article, and thus should appear below the article title (which is in the banner). Putting it above the article title (and banner) takes it out of the context of the article, which is the only context in which it is relevant.

In suggesting we put hatnotes above the banner we would be moving them out of the context of the main article area and into the site context, and I can't see any logic in doing so. The hatnote is still above all article text, just not above the banner that indicates the start of the "article" portion of the page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A hatnote is meta content, not article content; it makes sense to put it above the title. LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re:"what Wikipedia has found to be the best practices". Hatnotes on WP also do not come before the article title, as evidenced by the hatnotes on the hatnote page itself. And I think it's hard to say for certain what they would do with them if they were to implement a banner like ours which fuses the page title with the TOC. As Peter said, a fundamental difference of opinion. The banner has separated the page title from any hatnotes with the TOC, which seems to be unprecedented on any wiki I know of. You are asking us to move the hatnote up before the page title, which would be equally unprecedented, and which a number of us feel would muss up the page-to-page visual consistency which has led us to standardize banner size in the first place. Texugo (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking of the same point. Our hatnote is a bit ambiguous: "For other places with the same name, see...". If the hatnote is above the article title, someone could see (or hear) the hatnote before they know which page they're on.
I did get an idea for a potential way around this this morning... so if anyone who knows HTML and/or screen readers can confirm this, that would be great. I think screen readers read the alt tags in images. So, what if we create a hatnote icon for disambiguation pages and include it with the other icons in the top right? I can change the HTML so the icon code is directly after the page title in the banner. For a screen reader then, if I understand the process properly, it will read the page title and then read the alt tag and link for the disambiguation icon. The existing text would also stay below the banner for people who are viewing the site normally. Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. By the way, I assume banners will be added to full-fledged disambiguation pages too (again, for consistency's sake). What if we give disambig pages their own special default banner? After all, many disambig pages will have destinations from more than one world region... Texugo (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any reason to add them to disambiguation pages; there's some value in keeping them visually distinct. LtPowers (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is exactly what a distinctive banner could do, without making it look like you've slipped out of the main namespace. Texugo (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Idea for a disambiguation banner at New York • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had an idea to use a fingerpost photo, something like this:
Jjtkk (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice, I thought of that but didn't have the parts to build it :)
That would fit in very well with the general theme. So well that it wouldn't be obvious that it wasn't an ordinary article page. This is not necessarily a problem. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is necessarily a problem. Disambiguation pages are a navigation tool, and they need to be visually distinct. LtPowers (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one I made and put up at New York is certainly visually distinct, but other options may work as well or better. Fortunately it can be changed site-wide by just loading a different image to the filename. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Jjtkk's banner is simply perfect. If anybody thinks that consisting of three to five lines, perhaps eight, most of them being bulleted, doesn't make a disambiguation visually different from a proper travel article must have been coming across a whole lot of very "outline" articles of late... PrinceGloria (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrolling wrong size banners[edit]

Just as some of us insisted on consistency from the beginning with regard to banner size at 7:1, I would like us to remain as consistent as possible. I have just gone and undone 10 or 15 banner additions with sizes anywhere from 4:5 to 9:1. I would insist that it is absolutely unacceptable, not even as a "just until we find a better image" measure. If already here at the beginning of the project we are getting this many non-7:1 banners added, then, if we just let this go, the whole site is going to end up being very inconsistent with regards to where each article starts on the page, which was very specifically what I was hoping to avoid by setting it at 7:1. I'm very sorry for reverting the additions of those who put these over/under-size banners, but this is something we need to work out here at the beginning before it gets out of hand. Is there, please please please, some way for the template to revert to the default banner when the image is the wrong size, or to somehow hardcode the ratio of the window so it cuts off images that are too tall? Texugo (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How harsh should the limit be? Do the images need to be exactly 7:1? /Yvwv (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think yes; the point of this is to have consistent formatting across articles. LtPowers (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think the ratio should be 7:1 in all cases (despite thinking otherwise before). I'd actually say it needs to be 2100:300. --Peter Talk 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that all banners need to be 7:1 (within a couple of pixels either side) and we need to be consistent with that. I'd be wary of instituting a hard and fast rule that we need images to be 2100 x 300. All images are ultimately scaled to 1800px wide by the banner template and hence the original size does not affect the ultimate file size or dimensions in any way except in ratio. As long as the banner is wider than 1800px, of a high enough resolution to look decent and is not an enormous file when scaled, 7:1 should suffice. --Nick talk 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that the average occasional editor is going to realise that banners need to be 7:1. Is there no way that it can be made to display a 7:1 window on any image? Otherwise we are going to see pages with portrait images being used as a banner. Automating this would also save loads of time if one could simply select the window to be at the top, middle or bottom of the file - I know this would not be as good as a manual edit, but in many cases would be usable. Alternatively can some kind of warning be displayed when a page is saved with an unsuitable aspect ratio image. AlasdairW (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you are absolutely right. That is basically what I was trying to say - it is already a problem even at this early stage. We need something in the script that will either evaluate the size and reject it if it is off, or automatically display whatever file at the right aspect ratio.Texugo (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any easy way we can document either to quickly edit an existing image into the appropriate shape or to compose something that works as a banner by combining several images in more common shapes into a banner collage? Pashley (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ick, no collages! ;) I did add a section to the Expedition page at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition#How do I help? that hopefully gives a clear explanation of how to crop images efficiently and with free software. --Peter Talk 02:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was considering a collage for Walt Disney World, actually. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any programmatic way to access the dimensions of an image from within wikicode. And besides, what if the image's dimensions change after the fact? LtPowers (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also not aware of a way to get the dimensions of an image or any means to automatically crop the image. -Shaundd (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have any way to patrol these other than eyeballing them? (Is there a tool to help find improperly sized banners?) --Peter Talk 06:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entente Cordiale[edit]

It looks like our Francophone friends are also using this template (par exemple). It's nice that we'll get some continuity and consistency across the whole of Wikivoyage; is it worth mentioning to some of the other languages? --Nick talk 12:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like fr: has either opted to number their TOC or perhaps doesn't know how to un-number it. Maybe they could use a hand?
Anyway, I plan to bring it up on pt: at some point in the near future. Texugo (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some non-traditional banners[edit]

I've gone a bit non-traditional with the banners I've been putting up. I want to make sure I'm not on the wrong track. Let me know what you think.

-- LtPowers (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks great! Non-traditional banners are specially welcome if banners from the region tend to be similar, to create diversity. /Yvwv (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're really nice! It's good not to have hundreds of banners that consist solely of skylines! --Nick talk 19:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Rochester one is pretty unusual, but the fact that a banner looks different from what someone might expect a place to look like is not a negative. I'd encourage you to go ahead and continue in the same vein. These are imaginative and good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to be nitpicky, since these are really great, but isn't that particular view of Niagara Falls from the US side? Texugo (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. The Horseshoe Falls are indented upstream, and Canada is always on the right bank looking upstream. The original is File:Niagarablue.jpg. LtPowers (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you kidding me?!? These are friggen AWESOME! I think that this is a great way for wikivoyage to stand out in the crowd and I hope you continue. Lumpytrout (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are lovely! I would like to see more of them. I certainly prefer these to city skylines. Danapit (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed that they are very good and its nice to have a break from skylines and profile photos, something which I am guilty of. Is the one of Finger Lakes an aerial shot? JamesA >talk 10:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure looks like it! I love these banners, too, but skylines are good, too, when a place has a great one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the banners too. It's good to mix in other styles with the skyline shots. -Shaundd (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joining the chorus: I think all four of these are great. While abstract/artistic shots usually aren't helpful as illustration images within an article, banners seem like a perfect opportunity to exercise creative impulses with an impressionistic image of a destination that provides a visually compelling lead to the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a satellite. I want an aerial shot, but I can't find a good one that shows more than one or two lakes. I'm also looking for a good banner for Erie Canal, but I've come up empty. LtPowers (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same banner used many times[edit]

I noticed a couple of instances where one banner is being used for three levels of the geo hierarchy. The windmills banner is being used for Europe, Benelux and the Netherlands. A beach banner is being used for Croatia, Dalmatia and Split-Dalmatia. I'm OK with a banner being reused, but prefer not on back-to-back levels or three levels in a row. What to others think? -Shaundd (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This opens up some bigger issues as there are some areas that are just not well served and have little or no images in the commons to work with. In a perfect wikivoyage every entry would have its own banner, but this is simply not possible. I'm guilty of using the same banner multiple times, but if I come across some better image options later I hope to update them. I would rather have some repetition or something generic than nothing at all but you do need to tread carefully. Lumpytrout (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think repetition in banners is something that should be avoided altogether, just as we don't repeat text (even when it applies to more than one level of the hierarchy). While it takes more work over a longer period of time, having original writing and images on each article is a big part of what makes our guides worth reading and exploring. --Peter Talk 17:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with Peter. Plus, if we leave the default until we find unique banners, it will be easier to track and find the ones that need new ones. If we fill the void with copies, the need to change them will only be evident if we stop and intentionally compare them manually. Texugo (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Peter in theory, but not in practice. I know that in Washington State there are hundreds of small towns that might have a lot to offer travelers and should certainly have an entry, but have little or no images in the commons or info on wikipedia. The classic example I'm dealing with is the San Juan Islands. There are four main islands that are very touristy and have 100's of images in the commons (and are very well covered on other websites and books) but what I find most interesting are the islands that are off the beaten path that don't get many visitors and have very little info online or offline. To me this is the real strength of Wikivoyage. Most websites and books follow the crowds and the money, they tend to write about golf courses, expensive restaurants and casinos not the everyday local things that I find the most interesting and tend to take time to uncover when you are exploring an area. I hope that eventually there will be more content for these locations, but until then we are stuck. I will try not to repeat banners, but I think that it might be unavoidable at least in the short term. Lumpytrout (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing about the presence or absence of a banner will prevent any deserving place from "having an entry". Not having a unique banner does not in anyway delegitimize an article, and copying a banner from another article doesn't do anything to legitimize an article. Also, you might try widening your image search to flickr and other sources which post CC-BY-SA images that we can use. Texugo (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I agree with all of the above. Apart from for Travel Topics (and even then we should be careful), we shouldn't re-use banners. Not only does it look bad, it also means that some articles could (at first glance) look very very similar. --Nick talk 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To respond to Lumpytrout, I find lack of proper photos in the commons to be a fun motivator during travel. Seeing that a place I'm interested has no photos, I'll make an extra effort to head out with a good camera when I get a chance. --Peter Talk 22:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@texugo, I disagree. I think photos and especially page banners tend to be one of the biggest indicators on if an article has been well developed or not. If you look at the list of which articles have page banners it tends to be large cities or at least photogenic locations. As I mentioned, I try to avoid duplication if possible but it becomes increasingly tricky when you get into smaller rural areas. I've solved some of this by using generic page banners Mercer Island, Seaview and Gold West Country for example. But I do see the point of how repeating images could start tripping people up on articles and I will go through and reassign some of those images. I used the same image for the Olympic Peninsula and Aberdeen for example. @Peter, I agree but even making an effort on my small scale has proven to be a challenge. Lumpytrout (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've run into some tricky articles for page banners such as Empire Builder, which is a train route across the NW United States. It didn't seem fair to use an image of Glacier National Park for example unless I knew that you could see that view from the train and it didn't seem fair to use an image from a specific train station when there are so many great stations along the route (maybe I'm mistaken about that). I concluded that it was a good place for a generic sky banner only to later discover that I had come to that type of general conclusion on several articles. My apologies and my repeats have mostly been corrected now. I will be more cautious in the future, but it does make me wonder how this can be policed better in the future when I can't even keep track of myself doing this. Would it be possible to make a bot that searches for and flags repeating images? Lumpytrout (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Came across this image tool. Pretty cool, it searches under category for "Wikivoyage banners" and a depth > 2 to see duplicate images, although this would only work if the banners are categorised correctly. The user search is indeed very slow. -- torty3 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have we reached any consensus here regarding repeated banners in guide articles? If so, we should incorporate it in the banner expedition page as a recommendation or a rule. I myself am against reusing them within different levels of geo-hierarchy - I find it a lazy option :-) Danapit (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here feeling like it was okay or inevitable and have been convinced otherwise by this discussion. Generally I would say that it should be avoided, but I don't think you will ever get a consensus. Maybe wording that it should be avoided and the reasoning why. Lumpytrout (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see nothing wrong with reusing a nice banner at some low level destination and a larger region (like Marken and Benelux). It may be "lazy" but we have several thousand banners to put up. But if most are against it, no problem. Jjtkk (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Count me against it. I might consider acceptable in a rare case where they were separated by at least 2 levels of hierarchy and the lower article was not among those directly featured in the city list of the higher one, but I think that would be an odd thing to aim for. I would very much like to avoid situations where someone browsing can end up clicking two or three articles in a row and being presented with the same image - that's what the default image is for, and it will be a lot easier to track what articles need a unique image if we avoid using other images as filler. Texugo (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would rather see a proper banner (proper ratio, decent photographic quality) re-used in the proper location, than a default banner, or no banner at all. /Yvwv (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW I would rather see a default banner inviting users to browse Commons in search of a good photo than complacently accepting the precedent and then having recycled banners spread through the site, becoming the norm. Making a new banner is lotsa fun and very easy, we should encourage users to be creative and do it, rather than fill every possible page with already available banners. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the problem is that making banners is not that easy, the vast majority of people that probably would have something to add to an entry would not be able to properly find, attribute, scale, crop(to correct size), edit and repost a photo to commons. I'm fairly proficient at photoshop and a handful of other editing software and it still took me a few tries to get up to speed and make these correctly. I think it will be a pretty small group of posters that are going to have to do the lions share of this work. Lumpytrout (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[indent reset] I am very surprised by your statement. To me, making a banner is the easiest activity on Wikivoyage, something I do when I really don't have time for any reasonable contribution requiring research and good copyediting. It takes me some 5 minutes per banner, and I don't even consider myself good at photoediting - in fact, I simply use the "Preview" application on my Mac, which I guess is equivalent to Microsoft Office Picture Editor in Windows. Perhaps I make lousy banners, you can check my contributions at the Commons. If I am not doing a major disservice and infesting Wikivoyage with terrible banners, I firmly believe this is something so easy and fun to do that every editor should be encouraged to do it and most probably will just to have fun. I am more concerned that it is so easy and addictive we might come to times when we will have "banner wars" between users as to whose banners are better for a given article PrinceGloria (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making banners does not have to be a trivial contribution for everyone, but I think everyone who joins in agrees it is very enjoyable and mainly rewarding. We do not have to have custom banners for each page right away, I would prefer quality over quantity. And I am sure that a well maintained article will sooner or later get a representative banner. I can imagine making a nice shot you would like to decorate your favourite article with can sometimes be a reason by itself for making a trip. Danapit (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry PrinceGloria, but I doubt that the vast majority of viewers even know what The Commons is, let alone how to properly edit, tag, load and utilize a page banner. I agree that it is easy and enjoyable for me, but for the majority it is a skill that takes not only some computer and photo editing savvy but an aesthetic sensibility as well that most people lack. Lumpytrout (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you are saying we need an inviting message and a basic tutorial in making banners? Great idea, would you want to join efforts in working on that!
I guess you are also saying my banners are hurting your aesthetic sensibility. Feel free to replace them with your own at your whim. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't referencing your banners at all, I'm sure they are perfectly nice. You and I just happen to be in a relatively small group of active posters that happen to feel comfortable editing photos, I'm sure most people will visit wikivoyage on the consumer end and perhaps throw in a few lines about an area they might happen to know well. I would be happy to help develop a tutorial eventually, but I think that a few more policies need to be flushed out first to make it effective. Lumpytrout (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tutorial idea is a great one though. As can be seen from some of the conversations above, there is a bit of a learning curve to making pleasing and effective banners at 7:1, even for those who are comfortable with photo editing, so would be great to share that wisdom with new contributors. Texugo (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually already added a tutorial a while ago. Did people not see it, or is it just not very good? FWIW every time I've seen instances of repeated banners, I've been able to find unique ones with very little additional effort—I think repeated banners (as with repeated text, which we do not allow) mostly just looks unprofessional. The whole purpose of the default banner is, as Texugo says, to fill the role when we haven't yet found a good image. I don't know why people wouldn't want to see the default banner, for which we have consensus -1 that Shaundd's design looks really cool and doesn't need improvement. --Peter Talk 19:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Peter, that tutorial seems fine. Sorry I guess I saw that awhile ago and forgot. I guess we could add some more search tips, but generally I think you're perfect. I think that most everyone is in agreement that we shouldn't repeat images. Lumpytrout (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, did we reach a consensus on this? From what I've read, it appears we agree that the same banner should not be used for guides directly next to each other in the breadcrumb hierarchy. Yet I'm still seeing users adding the same banner to, for example, a country and it's capital city. Can we please not just make this a guideline, but a rule? James Atalk 07:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I am aware of. There is some argument that suitably different banners may not be available for some destinations. How about a compromise: If anyone objects to a banner on grounds that it is a duplicate, they can replace it with a more suitable banner without need for discussion. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that is a very bad idea because it just gives license for people to go ahead and put duplicates everywhere, which makes them untrackable. If people are encouraged to leave the default banner when no unique image is available, it is easy to track which articles still need unique images. Texugo (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I accept that reasoning. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a sensible rule. The default banners exist for the purpose of covering articles that haven't had a unique banner created. I think it would be fair to allow exceptions to be made on a case-by-case basis following a discussion (similar to how we allow exceptions to our external links policy following a discussion on an article's talk page). But the onus would be on the person proposing the exception to make an argument for why duplication would be beneficial. --Peter Talk 04:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also fair enough. If a duplicate is inserted by agreement we can make sure it is categorised as [[Category:Duplicate banners]]. How will we detect unauthorized use of duplicate banners? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peter, Torty3 found this tool, which is really handy for finding the duplicates (and multiplicates), but still it is rather a pedestrian method with large amounts of banners. It would be great to automate it. Danapit (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel topics[edit]

Might it be reasonable to make a general exception to our no-duplicates rule for travel topics? For example, File:Amtrak California Zephyr banner.jpg is used for Rail travel in the United States, Tips for rail travel, and Rail travel. Is that okay, since the topics are closely related? Or should we try to come up with unique banners even for related travel topics? LtPowers (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think our flight articles have been using the same banner multiple times, and it does actually look pretty good as a way of visually grouping a set of related articles like that. But then again, we certainly could produce unique banners for each article. I don't feel too strongly either way. --Peter Talk 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'd probably be in favour of exempting Travel topics, though like Peter, I'm not hugely worried either way. I think it's nice to show visually that these articles are part of a larger topic. --Nick talk 22:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the core flying topics use a VARIATION of the same banner (different coloration). We may discuss if this is appropriate, although to me is. In principle, they conform to the rule. I would loathe to make exceptions, rules work best when they are simple and there are no exceptions. This benefit outweighs, to me, any other that would have resulted from exempting travel topics. If anybody feels any given travel topics suddenly needs more banners because of the rule, let me know and I will be happy to make some. Kindest, PrinceGloria (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like unnecessarily restrictive rules. Where an exception may be useful it should be allowed. Rules work best when they allow you to get the job done. This generally requires some flexibility as it is often difficult to foresee all possible circumstances where a given rule may apply. See our guiding principles. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section headings / banners[edit]

First off, let me start by congratulating you on successfully starting and implementing one of the most important improvements to WV thus far. I am a firm believer in graphic enrichment as a means of both communications and enticing readership and interest. Wikivoyage now looks so much more interesting and unique thanks to the banners, and different from the dire Wikipedia look or the, automatically antiquated, dreaded WT.

I believe making Wikivoyage LOOK different than Wikipedia is very important to highlight that it IS different from Wikipedia, which needs to be communicated very clearly. I believe the difference is not only in the type of content, but also the general format - while Wikivoyage is much more open to content that would not fit into Wikipedia, it is also much more strictly formatted, with most articles falling within one of the predetermined categories with set structures. Highlighting those differences would not only help distinguish between the two and show why is it worthwhile to both visit and contribute to WV (and not only WP), but also help new users better understand and grasp the driving ideas behind WV and find their way around.

Moreover, most travellers are very receptive to visual stimuli (this is what most of us seek sensually, don't we), and most popular travel sites accomodate that, continually improving their looks and layouts. One of the ways they do it is by using the best, most striking, beautiful and meaningful photos available. The other is by providing neat, uniform layouts, using bright colours, fonts, icons / symbols and such.

As a EU directive would say, taking the above into account, I believe it would be important to follow this path and move on the next level - how about pre-formatted, graphic section headings? I am talking of the headings of sections that can be found in almost all location articles, such as "Get in", "Sleep", "Eat" etc. Those banners could tremendously help navigate through lenghty articles most well-covered destinations turn into. As there is little graphic differentiation between different heading levels, a full-size banner over a significant section could help realize how the article is structured and where you are therein. I also believe it would be worthwhile to include "table of content" links to other sections, which would be very helpful when it comes to long and detailed articles.

I am not quite sure if they should use a photo, and if that should be the head banner photo or a standard heading photo per every heading (e.g. "Get in"), or a combination of both, or perhaps just a blank colour banner and an icon. It would be great if the more graphically talented of you guys, if you think this idea is going somewhere, to show your proposals for us to discuss further.

What do you guys think? Anybody interesting in visualizing my idea, which I sadly don't feel able to do convincingly?

Kindest, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might not mind a small icon at each section heading, and perhaps changing the color or thickness of the existing lines, but I wouldn't want to have different colors for each section (turning every article into a rainbow), I wouldn't want banners any taller than the section headers already are (adding length to the articles), and I think using photos is out of the questions (too distracting). I'm also not sure how possible it would be to do any of these things without breaking the automatically configured table of contents functionality we rely on. Texugo (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, an icon was what came to my mind while reading this (like a plane for Get in, a fork/spoon for Eat, a bed for Sleep, etc.), but a picture would be too distracting. Plus, I fear a banner or something really flashy over each section would serve to highlight sections that have no content in them by making them look really weird. Even sections that are just short would look odd... not to mention how banners would work in correlation to regular photos already in the article (how would the banner know not to cut into the image?). A small icon is the only way I can think of adding some sort of visualization to section headers, and I don't know enough about programming to know if even that's possible. PerryPlanet (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if it is possible, I doubt it is a good idea. Every graphic element adds to overhead on the server, on the wire and in the browser; sensible design can make this cheap, but the cost is never zero. I do not see any large benefit here, so I doubt it is worth it. Also, more graphics may complicate navigation for visually impaired users; this can be dealt with fairly easily, but I'd prefer to just avoid the problem. Pashley (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think adding an icon that matches the icons we eventually use in the dynamic maps would be nice. --Peter Talk 17:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if PrinceGloria was thinking along these lines (right).
LtPowers example
LtPowers example
LtPowers (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think something along those lines might be worth looking at, but as above, we don't want to overload our articles too much, to the point where they're distracting. --Nick talk 19:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the look of that. The pastel color scheme and the simple icons make it fairly unobtrusive while also giving the page a little pop. I could certainly live with that. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the mockup LtPowers uploaded. However, looking at how headers are built by Mediawiki, it might be somewhat tricky to implement as we'd need to style the entire heading ("h2"), but there does not appear to be a way to distinguish between different headings such as "Sleep" and "Buy" to apply unique styles. (note: heading text is distinguished through the <span id="Sleep"> element, but the full heading is always just a plain <h2>). We could maybe do it with Javascript, but that's pretty kludgy. I don't suppose anyone knows if there is a way to modify the way headings are generated that would allow us to use the section text as a class or ID in the heading element? -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I was thinking along the greenish lines in the picture on the right indeed :) On consideration, I do agree that perhaps section headings should be contained within the current height, and colour-coding and icons are a better choice than photos.

I am absolutely not buying the "server" argument, we have dozens of photos per large article, and actively encouraging users to add more (which I believe to be absolutely necessary for a travel guide), I guess every other editor clicks the "recent changes", "watchlist" and other search query buttons rather often and we already use many complex database functions built into the MediaWiki engine. I do not believe this is an issue that needs to be paid any attention with regard to adding small colour headings and icons.

As concerns vision-impaired users, I absolutely agree we need to do more to accommodate their needs, and I believe the current way the content is displayed is already ill-fitted to the needs of many of them. If we are serious about accomodating this group, we do need a separate viewing mode for them, much like many other websites have (increased font and contrast, less graphics, less on one page etc.) This should not, however, deter us from using the graphics to enrich the experience of other users.

A travel guide needs to be visually exciting and easy to navigate. This is not a legal document or an epic novel. When it comes to print guides, I much prefer e.g. the Eyewitness Guides by Dorling Kindersley, which use graphics, colours, banners, icons and many other graphic elements and layout tools to communicate information in a clearer way, better suited to the way one usually consumes it (i.e. by looking up specific bits rather than reading page after page). This is also the difference between WV and WP - WP needs to be more toned-down when it comes to content presentation, but allows much more content of different nature. WV focuses on specific, limited content, but can therefore use other tools to make accessing and consuming it easier and more enjoyable.

Perhaps I am the only one buying those Eyewitness Guides and those racks full of them in bookstores around the globe are there just for me, while the small shelf space devoted to plain-black-text-on-white-paper is due to their continually shot supply, as they sell out so fast. Seriously though - there is no doubt that good visual presentation is key in this business. And WV sure is in it.

Thanks for picking up my idea for discussion so quickly and a very constructive discussion indeed. Looking forward to further developments! PrinceGloria (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still a little concerned that color-coding would turn our 20,000+ outline articles into rainbows of emptyness. Texugo (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I gave you Lincoln's Crotch, now you return the band name inspiration favor with Rainbows of Emptyness. Now I just need a good swoop haircut and oversized glasses for the promo photos... --Peter Talk 23:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WV is, for now, emptyness per se, so why not make it at least colourful and gay? Anything to attract more readers and editors, I'd say. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the looks of this, although I'd be interested to see a full mock-up for a mid-sized article. I too believe graphics are key. We wouldn't necessarily have to implement this idea in ever single article, would we? We could always create a manual opt-in kind of style, where we manually or semi-automatically add the coloured headings to articles that we think have enough content to make it a good fit? Anyway, nice idea. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anybody can make a working template to play with, feel free, but I really believe the rainbow effect is going to be cheesy and far too flashy for our majority of underdeveloped articles, and I would be vehemently and deliriously against breaking the consistency of our articles by introducing opt-in style standards. Texugo (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I'd be in favour of one single uniform colour for all the headers on a page - perhaps it could be a complimentary colour for the banner image? Like Texugo, I'd be against breaking the consistency of the site with opt-ins, but I will have a go and see what I can achieve. --Nick talk 22:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok - what do we think of this?

  • Get in

At present it's just a mock-up: it wouldn't inhibit the normal header and the sub-headings are those I've put in it. If people aren't fans of grey, as I say above, we could perhaps make it so that a single colour can be chose for a whole page. Any thoughts? --Nick talk 22:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to see a lighter shade of gray, and make the TOC font size and divider characters match those in the pagebanner. Texugo (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also like to hear an expert's opinion as to whether it would even be possible to a) use css make section headers display automatically as banners, with the correct icon accomapanying each - it has to be automatic so as not to break the automatic functionality of the page TOC at the top of the page, and b) have it automatically include such a sub-TOC as in your mock-up - since the header still needs to be automatically generated on the standard wiki markup for headings, there will be no way to manually enter the subheadings. If these two things are not technically possible, we may be wasting our time dreaming up such alternatives. Texugo (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. You're right though - if this isn't do-able automatically then it isn't worth doing. To implement on every page with correct sub-headings, this would take (almost literally) forever. --Nick talk 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And to boot, it would be constant and very difficult-to-track source of maintenance concerns, since sub-headers are changed all the time and the headings would need to be always changed to match. Texugo (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an expert on CSS/HTML, but I'll comment on the things I know about based on my experience building the banners:
  • Yes, you can use CSS to add colour to the headings like Nick has. It should be straightforward if they're all the same colour, but it'll become more clunky if we want specific colours for specific headings.
  • I don't know if CSS can be used to display the icon
  • To the best of my knowledge, CSS can only modify content that's on the page -- it can't create new content. In this case, the Mediawiki software doesn't create a sub-TOC for each section heading so there isn't anything for CSS to deal with. The Mediawiki software also only allows the main TOC to be displayed once per page, so I don't think it's possible to write a template to pull the sub-TOC info out of the main ToC either (even if we wanted to go down the route of adding a template to every section where there were subheadings). Just based on the banner experience (and I could be wrong) I think the only ways to get a sub-TOC are to manually do it for each one or have someone write an extension so the Mediawiki software creates a sub-TOC that we can display/modify (unfortunately). -Shaundd (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we're going the route of colored headers, matching them to map icons would be very worthwhile. --Peter Talk 23:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to do that with my mockup, but Learn and Work don't have standard colors, and I missed slightly on the Buy color. =) LtPowers (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nick, that looks very good. I guess if people find "rainbow colours" and pastels distracting, a shade of gray would do the job nicely, though I agree going for a slightly larger tone would perhaps make the heading less "heavy".
I do not think the heading needs to mention the subsections of the section, it does not today in MediaWiki and it seems people find their way. I would rather have top-level heading names and links display below the actual heading to help people navigate through longer articles. If any section gets too large to navigate through itself, it is time for a new article anywya, IMHO (splitting into districts, separate article for the airport / station / harbour or using a means of transportation within an area etc.)
I am not quite sure how WikiVoyage Maps work for now. If there is a mechanism to automatically put listings on the map based on addresses or geocoordinates, then colour-coding would be the obvious thing to do, despite all the hatred for colours here. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand why you have the impression from this discussion that people hate colors—it seems to me that most people like the idea, actually. Our traditional color scheme for listings is found on static maps like this one. But we are moving towards dynamic maps, which look like this [6]. Since we haven't totally settled on icons (I think) for the dynamic maps, things are still a bit up in the air, but the switch to dynamic maps will mean a uniform, sitewide icon color scheme. --Peter Talk 07:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we going anywhere with this? PrinceGloria (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the problem is as Shaundd describes above: we're not going to be able to implement these automatically as Media-Wiki does not create sub-headings, so, for the moment at least, these would have to be added by hand which would be very time consuming and complicated. --Nick talk 14:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, technical impossibility at the moment.
At Peter: I'm not currently a fan of the idea of using color banners as a giant key to the map icons because of the aforementioned rainbow effect it would give to about 60% of our articles, but I do think it would be nice if 3 of the prominent icon colors exactly matched our WV site icon and then the other colors were chosen to complement the theme nicely... Texugo (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would oppose matching colors to that extent, as I don't think we should be sticking with the current logo color scheme long-term. LtPowers (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of whether you like the current logo, it wouldn't hurt us to stick to 7 unique colors for listings, including the 3 logo colors, instead of 10 unique colors. If the logo changes later, it would be extremely easy to change the color later. Texugo (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have an interesting definition of "extremely easy". Regardless, a logo change is no longer a matter of "if" but "when". LtPowers (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easy as in swapping out one hex color code for another. That's the first I've heard about another logo change. Where is that discussion? Texugo (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There isn't one yet. LtPowers (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More title icons for the banner[edit]

Based on comments above, I've added some new title icon options to the {{pagebanner/sandbox}}. Changes include:

  • Previous featured travel topic - uses the DotM checkmark and displayed by adding ftt=yes.
  • Disamabiguation icon - this was added so people using screen readers will hear and get a link to the disambiguation page right after the page name (rather than having to wait through the rest of the banner and TOC). This is displayed by adding disambig=yes (assumes the disambiguation page is the current page name + (disambiguation)) or disambig=page name (excluding the (disambiguation) part). It also adds the "For other places with the same name..." text below the banner. I've repurposed the question mark icon for this.
  • Geographic coordinates - uses lat and long to display the little globe icon and link to a map (basically this takes the place of the {{geo}} template).
  • Changed the icon for OtBP to the check mark icon for DotM (DotM, OtBP and Ftt all use the same icon).

Some pages where these new features are in action are:

Let me know what you think. If people are OK with it, I'll move the code from the sandbox to the main banner template. -Shaundd (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those look fantastic Shaun! Thanks for all your great work! --Nick talk 23:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is excellent! I was wondering why the FTT icon hadn't been included, and it's nice to have geo in there too. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks nice! It is slightly unintuitive to have the geo globe grouped among the status icons, but I don't really have a better suggestion. Also there has been some discussion recently of changing the geo icon and listing coordinate icons to both use a single icon that is more intuitive, which may not necessarily end up being a nice round icon that fits with those round status icons. Texugo (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks fabulous, and I think it's OK to keep the coordinates icon there—we want it at the top of the article, and there's nowhere else to put it! It's always been next to the featured article icons anyway. We'll need a bot to move the lat/long from {{geo}}, though, since it's used in a lot of articles [7]. --Peter Talk 23:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with everybody else that this is seriously great! Thanks a lot Shaundd! PrinceGloria (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, those are beautiful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has the 'geo' capability been implemented yet? It doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Thanks! :) --Nick talk 23:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And will moving the geo info into the banner template complicate our cooperation with this? Texugo (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Special:Nearby stuff should work as long as the whole {{geo}} code is put into the {{pagebanner}}. My concern would be how the German guys scrape data for their geographical database, so there's a need to inform them before anything major changes (like removing the geo template), although if they switch over to the #coordinates parser [8], then everything will be fine. It may be possible to just leave the geo template as a duplicate for now? -- torty3 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That should be fine, as long as we remove the code that generates the icon link at the top. --Peter Talk 16:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Won't it still produce an ugly red error code at the bottom if there are two #coordinate calls on the page? Texugo (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding {{geo}} code in {{pagebanner}}, it's very similar but not exactly the same. {{geo}} just passes through the first two parameters as coordinates, whereas {{pagebanner}} specifically names them lat and long. I also haven't added the if statement that is at the end of {{geo}} and the whole statement doesn't have id=geocoord. Not sure if these will cause compatability issues with Special:Nearby or not.
Nick - I haven't updated the code in {{pagebanner}} for the new icons yet because I wanted to wait for a couple more days of discussion. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's be sure to get the if statement and the id sorted and make sure we are not going to mess something up with Special:Nearby or cause lots of coordinate duplication errors before implementing the coordinate part of this. Texugo (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minimum space to left of the TOC text[edit]

On my browser at least (Chrome), the TOC text on certain pages starts almost exactly at the left margin, like the first letter is practically touching the edge of the picture. Any way we could ensure there is always at least a few pixels of space there? Texugo (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen it on one or two pages in Firefox too. It seems to be unique to certain pages; we need to find out what's causing it. I don't remember where I've seen it; do you? LtPowers (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far I've noticed it (in Firefox) on San Francisco/Southeast, San Francisco/Twin Peaks-Lake Merced, San Juan Capistrano, Malibu, San Fernando Valley, Northeast New Mexico, Northwest New Mexico, and Central New Mexico. There may be others, but that's a fairly good list. And I haven't the faintest idea what links these articles together. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see it on the same pages as you guys. I suspected it could be due to the length of the breadcrumb, but after temporarily changing one of them to simply "Europe > _____", the problem was still present. Either way, it's no significant problem. JamesA >talk 03:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The parent TOC list has class="tocUl" on the pages that have proper padding. I think that's internally generated by Mediawiki, and I'm not sure what would cause it not to be added in some cases. Could we perhaps change the "#toc .tocUl" CSS rule to "#toc ul"? -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ryan - can you pinpoint where in the code the class="tocUl"? I was looking at the Page Source (Firefox) and couldn't find it, but there's a lot of code to go through (I just like to see what I'm changing first!) -Shaundd (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like that class is added by Javascript - I saw it using Google Chrome's "Inspect element" capability. Looking at the source for mw:Extension:TocTree that class is added by Javascript only when there are sub-headings, so if an article like Malibu has only top level headings then it will never get that class. It might work for all articles if we modify the rule in MediaWiki:Common.css to something like (note: untested!):
#toc > tbody > tr > td > ul, #toc > tr > td > ul {
  padding-left: 2em;
-- Ryan • (talk) • 20:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's it then; this bug occurs on pages without third-level headings. LtPowers (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't look like the CSS ever got updated, so I added the code above to MediaWiki:Common.css. Malibu now displays correctly for me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New banners for Sweden[edit]

Several articles in Sweden have banners. Some examples are Svealand, Middle Norrland, Värmland, Malmö, Stockholm/Djurgården, Strängnäs and Mariefred, Sigtuna and LGBT Stockholm. Anything missing? /Yvwv (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marvellously great job, kudos! That said, since you asked, some comments:
Malmo's banner is great visually, but there is more to the city than just the Orseund bridge. The great image could perhaps be used for the Oresund region, if the article for it ever gets created (could be worthwhile to expand on the topics of travelling accross the sund).
I am being petty here, but how about cropping Sigtuna's banner so that the logo of the company is not that prominently displayed? It is cut off anyway, which provides visual distrubance and draws attention it.
Tack sa mycket! PrinceGloria (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even more banners; have a look at Halland, Bohuslän, Falun, Mora (Sweden), Orsa, Norrbotten County and Boden, among others. /Yvwv (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great job! Just one remark: as discussed above, it would be great to try to avoid repeating the same banner on different levels, like Falun. Danapit (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, an article for a larger region should rather have a re-used banner, than no banner at all. The banner image for a country or a region of decent size, such as Sweden or United States of America, would most probably be the same image of at least one city or low-level region. /Yvwv (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not inhibiting title[edit]

The page banner on Frequent flyer programmes doesn't appear to be inhibiting the title - any ideas why? --Nick talk 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That appears to be happening on all pages I view. It looks like a problem with the Mediawiki DISPLAYTITLE magic word, so possibly a software upgrade issue. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same here - they've all appeared now. --Nick talk 15:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has anybody reported this problem? Texugo (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:Pagebanner is using DISPLAYTITLE in a strange way - basically, changing the page title to include HTML that wraps the title in a "display:none" element. I'm not actually sure that's a valid use of that magic word, so hopefully someone who better understands what's being done can look at the issue and figure out if this is a bug in MediaWiki or a bug in our template. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey guys, what's up with some page titles not getting surpressed by Template:Pagebanner? My attention was drawn to it @ Frequent flyer programmes, but it also crops up in some of the pages I added banners to, like Zeeland, but some other where I added banners, like Rotterdam, display fine to me. As I always add the banner the same way (I believe), I think this is some systematic issue, but I might be wrong. Are you seeing the same thing that I do? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, wasn't that the whole point of Nick starting this thread? Texugo (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sure was, I started one later because I didn't notice it, so I merged both. I was looking for a thread mentioning "page title SUPRESSion" and though that if I couldn't find anything like that in a talk page, there is no such thread, rather than reading carefully and seeing this very thread exists but did not use my keyword. WHAT-EVAAAAAH. Any news on the tech front about solving this issue? PrinceGloria (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template uses DISPLAYTITLE in the way described by the Mediawiki Manual to turn off the normal title [9] -- Method 1 in the manual applies just to the Main Page while Method 2 could be used on other pages. Unfortunately, it looks like Method 2 won't work in the MW 1.22 world [10], which we were scheduled to be upgraded to anytime after May 27. At this point, I'm not sure how to fix it, I'll need to think about it a bit. Any suggestions are welcome! -Shaundd (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I'm not sure if some of our PHP settings were reset as part of the upgrade since I can't get DISPLAYTITLE to work at all. Does anyone know how to see what the settings are for these parameters?
  • $wgRestrictDisplayTitle (should be false if we want to display a different page name)
  • $wgAllowDisplayTitle (needs to be true) -Shaundd (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The redundant duplicate titles sure are silly-looking. I wish I were technically capable of helping out. Is any progress be made here? Texugo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reported as Bugzilla: 49015. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It still seems to be hiding the titles on user pages though e.g. Nick talk 16:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite often when you see behavior on one page and not another it's a caching issue. To test, try purging the cache by building a URL with "action=purge" in it: . If you look at your user page now you'll see a page title and a banner. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes - the title's back! Thanks for letting me know! :) --Nick talk 18:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we think we're now any closer to getting this sorted? --Nick talk 19:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't really seem like it. So far we have basically been told that the code we were using shouldn't have been allowed to work by the software in the first place, and now that the software has been "fixed" Bugzilla: 26547, our code is broken, but no one has suggested an alternative for us. It wouldn't hurt for everyone to go to Bugzilla: 49015 and vote up the priority level and/or make comments if appropriate... Texugo (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does anyone know of a different way to handle this? The bugzilla "fix" that broke us was started two years ago and they finally got around to "fixing" it now. Since they have identified why our code stopped working, attention to this bugzilla request has dwindled, and I don't think we want to wait two more years to fix this problem... Is there another solution? Or can we formally protest the previous bug fix to have it reversed? Texugo (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The previous bug fix will not be reversed because it definitely is a valid defect, where our hack worked even when $wgRestrictDisplayTitle was set to true. So we'll need to formally request to change $wgRestrictDisplayTitle in InitialiseSettings.php to false (in the same bug report? since technically the bug title is true better make a new one if including all wikivoyages). -- torty3(talk) 13:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'wgRestrictDisplayTitle' => array(
	'default' => true,
	'donatewiki' => false,
	'aswiki' => false,
	'bewikimedia' => false,
	'bnwiki' => false,
	'bnwiktionary' => false,
	'bnwikisource' => false,
	'bnwikibooks' => false,
	'bdwikimedia' => false,
	'bpywiki' => false,
	'cswiktionary' => false,
	'enwikibooks' => false,
	'rmwiki' => false,
	'wikimania' => false,
	'zhwiki'  => false,
	'foundationwiki' => false,
        'enwikivoyage' => false,    //added code
        'ptwikivoyage' => false,    //etc etc for the rest of the wikivoyages
OK. If that will work, let's do that. To whoever makes the bugzilla request, is there a reason why we can't go ahead and specifically request this for all language versions, since a lot of the others are starting to follow with pagebanners too? I know at least es:, pt:, and it: are all playing with them and I think el: and several other versions are implementing/considering them as well. Texugo (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can request it for all wikivoyages by simply asking to set 'wikivoyage' => false, so it's just a matter of whether all language versions would agree to it. Also depends on whether the tech people want to see a strict consensus. I'm all for it though, standardises everything. -- torty3 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering it won't really affect any versions which may opt not to use the banners, I don't know why a strict consensus would be needed. Plus the effort to effective explain what this is and get even minimal response on the individual versions would take a long time I think. I really wouldn't expect anyone on any version to actually oppose this, so if you think there is a danger that we will have to prove sitewide support across all versions, I suggest we take this up on meta first before making the request. There I think we can fairly quickly demonstrate support from various versions without having to have 13 separate conversations. Texugo (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With no Javascript
Hard to tell really, they seem like sticklers, but they have also accepted pagebanners as a valid use case. Though I would have preferred not to have brought this up at all and just made the request :) -- torty3 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welp, should have followed initial instincts. Configuration requests need a lot of consensus and may even take a full month to resolve, unless particularly urgent. I've been rude (!), so I've gone and opened a discussion at meta, but have not made the rounds in the individual WVs. It would help if you can rustle up pt and es, and I haven't found any discussion on de, nl and pl for any usage of pagebanners at all. This might take a while. -- torty3 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andyrom75 came up with a nice JS one-liner to hide the title, so I jumped the gun on the config request :( Knowing just enough to be dangerous...
So what do we do now? Because I still feel like this is technically against the rules of changing page titles, or maybe it just shows how easy it is to break MediaWiki. This doesn't work when Javascript is disabled, though that is the least of the worries. No javascript leads the contents box to look weird. Any more thoughts Andy? -- torty3 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're going to do something like that, the following Javascript might be simpler:
if ($('div.topbanner').length > 0) $('#firstHeading span').hide();
-- Ryan • (talk) • 02:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have those 2 scripts been tested? They work? Texugo (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried Ryan's JavaScript in my account and it seems to work perfectly. Is this something we could now copy into Common.js? --Nick talk 09:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tested mine and it works properly. I have made two alternatives that produce two slight different layout effect:
1) $(".topbanner").closest(".mw-body").children(".firstHeading").hide(); ... this will hide both the page title and the line below it
2) $(".topbanner").closest(".mw-body").children(".firstHeading").children("span").children("span").text(""); ... this will hide just the title, leaving the line below of it.
Clearly JS works only when user hasn't decided to stop it through the proper browser configuration. In that case, the page is shown as it is now.
Regarding rule/policy about title page I can't say much, so for this topic I left the word to others. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really like the version that hides the top line - it makes it look a lot cleaner! :) I would hope that the small minority of people who have disabled Javascript shouldn't be too much of an issue: after all, the page is still usable; it just has double titles. --Nick talk 10:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it too. You were asking if it's the right moment to add it into common.js. In my opinion, before make this adding, we should manage the position of the template Geo. Because when you hide the title, the map icon goes in an ugly position. This icon should be treaten as the other icons that you can find here. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen that the template that position correctly the map icon has been already done: Template:Pagebanner/sandbox and it's used in Vancouver (Washington). If that patch will be implemented in the "official" Template:Pagebanner, we can also add the JS patch into common.js. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Do we have any indication of when that might be implemented fully? I think there was some concern about compatibility with other things...? --Nick talk 11:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing the {{geo}} template and putting the geo coordinates in the pagebanner seems to remove the POI pins for those guides in the map. The sandbox banner code was used for Vancouver (Washington), Vancouver and Garibaldi Provincial Park, and none of their POI pins show up now that the coordinates have been moved. That somewhat defeats the purpose of having the coordinates icon so I think more work needs to be done before the geo coordinates move into the banner. -Shaundd (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok - thanks for all your work Shaun! Perhaps then we implement the above JavaScript and play with the current geo icon to move it around a bit so it fits better? --Nick talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's the right call. The double title looks pretty bad, so let's get rid of that sooner rather than later. --Peter Talk 15:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shaun, could you give me a link on where I can visualize the POI? I can't guarantee a resolution as I did with the JS, but I can have a look at it trying to see if I can understand where the problem is. --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a link to the map based on Vancouver (Washington)'s coordinates [11]. If the map was reading the lat and long in the pagebanner, there would be one of those pins in the middle of Vancouver. Hope this helps! -Shaundd (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shaun, do you know "who" store the coords into the DB read by It doesn't change in realtime when I change the coord into the article. I've made a try with Gustavus and currently I see no "flag" over the new coords, but I still see the flag on the old coord. So I guess that happens one of the following things:
1) the maps are not update in real time, ad we have to wait for a "refresh event" (whichever it is)
2) there's another way to store those info (through another template, or DB)
3) my PC/NET use some cache that avoid me to see the update ( this case please check it out...)
Please let me know, and I'll try to make other tests, --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Andy, the PoI for coordinates are not dynamic, and as far as I know, the map server is set up to scrape the geodata from Wikivoyage dumps every month from the {{geo}} template. Will have to ask Joachim for more info, but he's due for a vacation soon. The template could be left as a duplicate while removing the map icon, but that means some 14,000 articles will go without the map link until the banner is deployed sitewide (or unless Javascript is used of course). That also means transferring 14,000 different coords to the pagebanner. If it could somehow be left as a separate template it would allow for flexibility.

Coords info can be stored via the coordinates parsers, but changes will have to be made over at The tech guys did say Special:Nearby will not be implemented until they can use Nearby on listings as well. -- torty3 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Torty, so the answer is 1, and you explanation makes sense. If he check only the geo template, in my opinion he should review his parser in order to catch more than one template. In the en:voy case the Pagebanner, and in it:voy the various Quickbar* (I've organized the site and the pagebanner in a different way). Generally speaking I would say that the scheduled 1 month update it's such a long time. It's just because we are in an experimental phase or for other reasons? Anyway, we can take advantage of that. If we change with a bot all the templates and if we change the parser accordingly we can update the DB just after that. And (without any bug) the map won't have any impact. I don't any see particular issue on that. For the bot I can also personally helps, but for the parser I can only support Joachim. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this update is monthly, basis on the last database dumps. Chose layer OD in link to PoiMap for destinations overview map [12]-- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC) vacation: 15 - 29 JuneReply[reply]
I'm not 100% but I think that you can find also more recent dump (not just monthly). Plan B (that from certain point of view can be called Plan A), could you work with the online pages? I'm referring to the subset that use (currently) teh Geo Template (in the future the Pagebanner template). --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaking the Geo template[edit]

If, as above, we're going to implement some JavaScript to hide the title on pages that use the banner (personally I like the one that hides the line as well) we're also going to need (at least temporarily) to move the current Geo icon so that it fits better on pages with the title hidden. Does anyone have any idea how we'd go about doing this? I did have a look at Template:Geo, but it looks like it relies on various CSS classes. --Nick talk 22:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the late answer but I've been busy with other stuff on it:voy.
Generally speaking I would avoid a mixed JS/CSS solution because JS can be disabled by the user while CSS will work anyway, so we have to apply a solution that in its entirety can be disabled or not. This will grant in any case an exact and predictable layout.
In this case to do that I would apply the following two JS lines:
Note, if you change the second one into $("#geoCoord").css({top:0}); the map icon will be shifted in ALL the pages.
That said, I would prefer to invest time on solving the POI issue because in my opinion the final solution shall pass by integrating the Geo template into other templates (e.g. Pagebanner). --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we are discussing elsewhere how to integrate the Geo template into the pagebanner I believe, which would make moving the display position unnecessary. James Atalk 11:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely; I only intended this as a temporary solution. As Peter says above, I think we need to remove the second title as a priority and moving the Geo icon would be an interim measure until it could