This page is to discuss a possible banner-style TOC. Preliminary discussions and some background info are at Wikivoyage:TOC#Muddying_the_waters.

Proposal

The existing TOC causes a number of layout and formatting issues, primarily taking up a lot of space, disrupting the flow of text (particularly with pictures and the region list template) and moving bullet points around. The idea of a horizontal TOC has been tossed around since it should solve the layout issues. This takes it one step further... what if the lead image was combined with the TOC to create a more eye-catching start to our travel guides?

Usage

• Use for any main namespace page: destinations, phrasebooks, itineraries, travel topics, etc.
• Not used for non-main namespace pages: talk pages, project pages, templates

How it works

• Use the {{pagebanner}} template at the top of each page
• The banner takes two parameters:

1. The name of the image that will be used as the banner. If no name is specified, it will use the default banner that is at the top of this page.
2. The page name. This is optional and should only be used if we want to display a name other than the official name of the page (e.g., it could be used to display "Georgia" instead of "Georgia (state)").

• From there, it displays either the image that was entered in the template, or the default image, with a horizontal TOC immediately below the image.

Examples

Here are some live examples of the banner:

• Wikivoyage:TOC/Banner - Uses a picture banner and translucent white box, and changes the display name. By comparison, this is how the page looks right now with a lead image, TOC and region list template.
• Dewdney - Uses the default banner and TOC box with the official page name.
• User:Shaundd/Pagebanner - Picture banner for a Country article with default TOC box.
• Garibaldi Provincial Park - Picture banner with a slightly larger picture and a translucent black TOC box.
• Glacier National Park - Image ratio not as wide as 7:1, will need to move some images down in the page if large image need top of original page.
• Bremen (state) Works in Firefox and Kindle HD but title text not so clear in IE.
• Marlborough (New Zealand) - Title different from page name.
• Graz - Finding panoramas in urban areas may be a challenge. Is this too tall?

Issues

Here are some known issues. I'm sure this isn't exhaustive, so if you think of or fine other issues, please raise them in the Comments section below.

• What is the ideal size? - Large banners take up too much of the screen and a standardized size will look consistent across the site. Most of the examples above use a 7:1 width to height ratio (i.e., 2100 px wide by 300 px high). The Garibaldi Park banner is the exception, at a 6:1 ratio. Which one works best or should a different size be used?
• How many levels of headings? - Should we display all headings and subheadings, or just the first level headings (i.e., Understand, See, Do, Eat, etc.)? The template currently only displays top-level headings.
• Readability - The banner uses white text, which works great until it encounters a light background. The text is shadowed, which helps a lot, but the shadow feature doesn't work with Internet Explorer. One option around that is to put semi-transparent boxes behind the text, although that is also flakey in Internet Explorer. A rule about the background colour of the images could also be used to work around this issue.
• Mobile site - The mobile site seems to have issues displaying the banner image. I haven't spent a lot of time on the mobile version of the site, so I don't know if there are other issues or if the banner image problem is easily fixed.
• Default image - Does the default image work? Should there be more than one (perhaps one per continent)? Is it feasible to have more than one default image (it may require multiple templates)?

Comments

So, what are your thoughts -- does this look like a good idea, needs some work, send it to the slush pile? Thanks -Shaundd (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks promising. This goes well with the new main page look. The breadcrumbs should really go below the banner though.

How does it deal with large ToC?

Does not deal elegantly with very wide or narrow pages. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you describe more what happens on very wide or very narrow pages? -Shaundd (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the top and bottom margins of the TOC section are unnecessarily large, plus I´d like to see how it looks with the font size taken down another notch. I don´t see any reason to make the TOC section particularly prominent, since it's always going to contain pretty much the same options. The narrower (vertically) we can make this thing overall, the better it will look and the better it will adapt itself to wide screens.

I also think having the expand arrows on there just makes it look confusing (i.e. does the arrow expand what's to the left or what's to the right?), and the expansion is not working anyway (and never worked gracefully). I suppose the issue of making the template automatically generate the TOC has been resolved? Or is it not currently possible to remove the "expand" arrows?

As for making the font always legible, maybe having the template allow us to specify black or white text would help? I don´t like the example with the shaded band across it...

I don't agree that breadcrumbs should come after the banner, since it doesn't make sense to me to have regional (extra-article) navigation placed between the in-article navigation (TOC) and the article itself. Maybe if the breadcrumb navigation were also incorporated into the banner as another gray strip above the image, mirroring the TOC on the bottom (again, the vertically narrower the better)?

Texugo (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It adds a distinctive look to Wikivoyage compared to other Wiki sites, more a travel guide look. Moving the contents to the top of the page will remove the cramped area lower down where the contents tends to clash with maps and images.

Would be good to have less white space in the content list and no plus signs, but I have also been experimenting with this and could not find a better format. If we cannot remove the plus sign then I suggest keeping the option to explode the sub-sections. It would be possible to have continent specific bots by getting it to run down the Category:Region categories. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From comments about. Give the contents a margin left and right so smaller than the image and bring it into the image a little using minus margin. Something like this:- Central Europe/sandbox but with the image rather than text used in this example.Traveler100 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is looking really cool. I agree that it might be nice to reduce the top and bottom margins of the TOC box. If there were a way to do it, having a translucent box for the TOC elements that would be placed on top of the bottom part of the banner image would make it possible to have slightly larger banners (vertically), which would be nice. And yes, we need to get rid of those plus signs ;) --Peter ^Talk 16:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A horizontal TOC on Wikivoyage is always grey and large amount of spacing. On wikipedia the same syntax shows white and less blank space. So what controls this? Traveler100 (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments! Some of my thoughts are below, hopefully I've caught everything.

• Top and bottom margins of the TOC box - I agree it would be nice if there was less space. I tried to shrink it tonight with the standard margin:0 and padding:0 properties, but didn't have any success. I'll try to come up with some different approaches tomorrow. If anyone has ideas, please speak up!
• Expand arrows - I'd love to get rid of these, but I can't find the code that controls them. I think they're related to the TocTree extension Wikivoyage has installed to enable the expandable/collapsible TOC. If we go with these banners then maybe we can un-install the TocTree extension and they'll go away. Thoughts?
• Auto-generated TOC - Yes, the TOC automatically generates because it's just the normal Mediawiki TOC dressed up a little differently.
• Choice of font color - Letting people pick black or white could work, although it takes away some of the consistency. What do people think? Would the translucency work if it was just a box around the page name rather than a bar across the screen?
• Breadcrumb placement - I also prefer to see the breadcrumb trail at the top, above the banner. I'm not sure I like the idea of putting it in a grey bar above the picture though, I think it would take away from the visual impact of the banner. It would also be tricky since it's not part of the normal wiki markup. A box would have to floated underneath it from outside the normal flow of the page, which might get moved around depending on screen sizes.
• Translucent box for the TOC - That can be done, although translucency is flaky on Internet Explorer. I could also set it up so the box is translucent for Firefox, Chrome and Safari, but grey on IE. Will the TOC stand out enough if we go that route?
• Horizontal TOC colours - Yeah, the reason the horizontal TOC is grey on WV but off-white on WP is because I changed the background colour in the Common.css file. Right now there's just one style for the horizontal TOC, but more can be set up if needed. -Shaundd (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I really like this design. Not only does it work complement the new Main Page rather well, it also makes articles look a lot cleaner, whilst also allowing for a bold header and start to a topic. My one request would be that the text is made a tiny bit bigger as it's seems to be very small at the moment. Other than that though, it's great! :) --Nick (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think small text is better (and the gray box still needs to be smaller). The text is practically always going to say

Understand - Get in - Get around - See - Do - Buy - Eat - Drink - Sleep - Go next

with little variation, so I don't see why the text can't be a little less conspicuous. Even if it's small the first time you see it, after that you know it's there, and you pretty much already know what it says.Texugo (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather see the text just a little bigger, and the box translucent and placed over the bottom of the image itself. Here's a mockup of what I mean (the banner image is admittedly too tall, but the position of the translucent box is what I mean to convey). Using a translucent box on top of the image would give us a little more flexibility in choosing images, but I don't know how feasible my request is. --Peter ^Talk 20:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I was working on the code for the translucent box last night, hoping to finish it tonight. I'm not sure if it will look good in all situations though so I may give an option for the solid box as well. I also find the TOC text is too small but I wanted to see what people thought of a much smaller size instead of slightly smaller. Thanks for all the feedback! -Shaundd (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

So there is an in-between size we can try, not as big as before, but not as small as this one? Texugo (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can use % or em to get a size in between, it'll just take some trial and error to find the right number. -Shaundd (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I played around with the CSS a bit and changed the template to accept three varieties of TOC boxes so there are some updated banners to look at. The font size is a bit larger now but I also made it bold so it's more readable. There was some marginal success in shrinking the white space at the top and bottom of the TOC box so it doesn't take up as much real estate now. The TOC box now aligns to the bottom of the picture and comes in three varieties: solid grey, translucent white and translucent black. I made the options because I find one type doesn't work best for all images. The different box options are selected through a new parameter in the template. Type box=black for a black translucent box, box=white for a white translucent box, and do nothing for the default solid grey box. Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, almost there I think. I think the the font size and bolding has made the text just perfect, and the translucent bars look really sharp, and much better without the silly arrows. By the way, your Sandbox2 example is broken somehow, not displaying the headings. And I still think the Garibaldi example is too tall; I'd say let's standardize the 7:1 ratio used for the others. Texugo (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is really good. I think we should move forward with discussions on how to deploy. I assume it is going to have to be added to the top of each article so that people have the opportunity to edit what image is displayed? Would be no problem to write a bot for this. Do we want to have a different default image for articles in each continent or a different style depending on whether the article is a country, region or city/location? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks great - definitely something that's worth implementing! The translucent bar is much better and the text size is a big improvement. I also like your default background - perhaps one to use where a banner is undefined? --Nick (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is looking really good! I'd just like to iron out some outstanding kinks, then get a lot of feedback from the entire community and the entire site viewership through the Sitenotice. The final problems I see:

• The banner displays horribly on my smartphone. So we would need to add a class to the template that hides it from mobile devices until we can sort that out at a later date.
• I would still like to see the breadcrumbs incorporated into the banner somehow.
• The banner would look better and save space if it was aligned right to the top of the page, just like the Main page.
• It may be worth incorporating the 'Geographical Coordinates' map button into the banner somehow.
• Did we sort out the IE dropshadow issue?
• When the default banner is used, such as on Dewdney, the contents are aligned to the far-left with no spacing for some reason.

There are others that I'll post about when I come across them, but I like the progress this is making! JamesA ^>talk 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we need feedback from more of the community. A site notice sounds like a good idea. And thanks for the heads up on the mobile site. Does anyone know the code for turning it off on the mobile site? Other thoughts...

• There's a workaround for the IE dropshadow. The template will take a black=yes parameter, which will display the title in black text, otherwise the white text is used.
• The alignment of the Dewdney banner puzzles me. It also happens on the Bremen (state) banner, so it's not related to the default banner.
• I agree it would save space if the banner was aligned to the top of the page like the Main Page, but the Main Page is like that because there is CSS code that removes the Title and the Subtitle. My understanding is that this kind of code either applies to the entire site or specific pages listed in the CSS, neither of which helps us much. It looks like there's about a line of white space above the banner, so I'll see if I can make use of that.
• I'm very hesitant to adjust the breadcrumbs. For one, they're not part of the in-article navigation so I think they should be left at the top and not very prominent. A bigger problem I see is it's difficult to move them around precisely. As far as I can tell the breadcrumbs can't be included in the banner, only moved around the page so they appear on top or below the banner. I can make it look good on my screen and its resolution, but on another screen with a different resolution everything may not line up. Doing that would also impact every page that has the breadcrumbs (or anything with the subtitle class) so it is likely to impact pages that don't have banners too. If anyone knows more about the technical side of the breadcrumbs and can clarify how it works it would be very helpful! -Shaundd (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is ready for implementation, and we can always continue tweaking as we have for the new Main Page. I'm not sure if a sitenotice is worthwhile, and think an rfc/pub notice should suffice. At the risk of elitism, I think we get better feedback when targeting an audience that is willing to look at the examples, actually read the relevant discussions, and consider the advantages of the old and new TOC designs thoughtfully.

The only variant I don't like is the top translucent box for the article name, as I think it robs the images of their pizazz. Since that text is already big and shaded (and duplicated in the article lede just below and the mediawiki generated page title just above), it should be clear enough, especially with a parameter to go black or white. --Peter ^Talk 17:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Peter's right here - this is ready to be implemented and too much publicity might starve it of oxygen. I really do think this is a great initiative and one that really adds to the project.

One final thing - having previewed this in the Pub, it doesn't seem to work particularly well on pages that have very very large numbers of sections (the Tourist Office would probably suffer too) - should we retain the default TOC there/on project pages? --Nick (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I think this proposal is only applicable to main namespace pages: destinations, itineraries, and travel topics. Very few of these if any have insufferably high numbers of top-level headers. Texugo (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Texugo. Although a banner for the pub could be fun. A customized banner for the pub with no TOC could probably be put together if we wanted to.

About implementation, I agree the banner is pretty much ready to go and too much discussion could be unhelpful, but this is impacting over 20,000 pages... I'm not sure if it's good to go straight from here to there. Maybe we should roll this it for a single continent or a handful of countries (particularly if there is a good supply of images) first to see if there are any unexpected issues? -Shaundd (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea. What about, say, Central Europe? I also like someone's suggestion of using different (but similarly themed) default banners for different continents/continental sections. If such parameters are added to the template we could eventually even have a default specifically for things as low as states, etc. in any case where someone is willing to create an approriate banner.Texugo (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, maybe even just a single country would be enough to get a representative variety of articles for a test run...Texugo (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How about one of Austria, Slovenia, Czech Republic or Slovakia?

And how would different default banners work? Would the user enter a parameter, say banner=Europe, to select the right one? -Shaundd (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the default banners, that's what I was thinking, yes. Then when we come up with a good default for a new region or subregion, we can just add a line to the template.

I don´t know. Maybe see for which country you can dig up the most pretty banners adaptable to 7:1 ratio and start there? Texugo (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier to have just a single default banner as per the example above? Finding a single image that encapsulates 'Europe' for example would be extremely difficult - a photograph of the Alps on an article about Dublin would seem rather incongruous. The banner above is, to my mind, neutral, but still infinitely bolder and more exciting than the current titles and TOCs. Rather than asking WV-ers to insert the name of the continent on each article's banner, would their time not be better spent finding actual 7:1 images for that particular page? Could a bot not be used to implement the above, default banner with the particular page name inserted, ready for an image to be chosen? --Nick (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I was imagining similarly old-map-themed defaults rather than photos of things. This banner, for example, would seem a little odd for destinations in the southern hemisphere. Inserting a default name doesn´t actually take a lot of time and can largely be set up by bots tracing the category hierarchy anyway. Texugo (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me then - sorry for the misunderstanding! :) --Nick (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still very hesitant to just unleash this on the site. Don't get me wrong; I love this layout and also can't wait to sit there and make banners for as many places as I can (could be a possible new "Banner-making Barncompass"). However, I still think that there are numerous issues. On IE 9, the white text does not display well on some of the banners. Bremen (state) and Glacier National Park particularly are difficult to read, and also Garibaldi Provincial Park to some extent. I understand that the text can be reconfigured to be black, but if users are creating and viewing banners in Chrome and Firefox, they will think the white looks just fine and not bother with IE users.

Also, what are we going to do about duplicate banners throughout the breadcrumb hierarchy. For example, the same banner of the Pyramids could be used for Africa, North Africa, Egypt, Lower Egypt, Cairo and Cairo/Giza. Where do we draw the line?

There are some mainspace pages that will have issues with too many headers, most of them travel topics. Namely, UNESCO. In that case, a vertical TOC would be better which may mean we need to develop an option in the banner template to disable the horizontal TOC. We had a bit of a backlash with the New Main Page, which I thought at first may just be due to users who are opposed to change, but there are actually some readability and display issues that we never came across when implementing it and still persist today. Implementing on one country, then obtaining feedback through the sitenotice may be good. Any of those mentioned above are fine with me, but preferably a lot of the articles should have photos. JamesA ^>talk 01:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking to implement it for one country and then get more feedback. I'm leaning towards Austria right now, there seems to plenty of good images at Commons. Hopefully this translates to banners.

Re your pyramid example, I'd prefer not to see the same banner, although if they were a few levels apart it might be OK (say Egypt and Cairo/Giza in your pyramid example). For something that's synonymous with the destination, like the pyramids, maybe it could be used at the city and district level if the shots were different angles or different time of day, something anyway that makes the banner unique if it is the same subject.

A second template that is just a banner without the TOC could easily be made to accommodate pages like UNESCO or the Pub. Alternatively, another parameter could probably be added to the existing template to turn the TOC off, as well. -Shaundd (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to allow a preliminary test on a specific country; I was also leaning towards Austria as a well-known and well-travelled destination that should have some photos and content to show for it! Will we have a bot simply go through and add the templates? I'd also like to see a category hierarchy at Commons, just to keep everything together. Possibly commons:Category:Wikivoyage banners which then has Wikivoyage banners in Europe, followed by Wikivoyage banners in Austria. Regional subdivision may be necessary in rare cases (USA, Australia, Canada, UK).

It may also be worth developing this idea into a Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition. Not only would it deal with creating banners for as many destinations at possible, it could also handle new functionality and features such as incorporating a map, the breadcrumbs and possibly new ways to display over the banner that an article is a Star, has been DotM, OtBP or FTT. The Expedition could also deal with the proposed preliminary stage.

Regarding the instances where the TOC should not be part of the banner, I guess it's preferable that it is only a matter of adding an extra parameter, but if that is not possible, a new separate template will suffice. I cannot imagine a huge number of instances. JamesA ^>talk 04:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An expedition is a good idea. I was thinking the same thing but wasn't sure the best time to kick it off. A bot would be helpful in placing the default banners. I'm not experienced with them at all, so I was hoping someone who has that experience could write it up and run it when the time comes.

The code to prepend articles in a region (country/continent) with the pagebanner tag took 2 minutes to write. Just need to decide when we are ready to run. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Could start with just the default image but do we want to create a specific dark map image for each continent? Any specific on the bot please add to User:Traveler100bot. Traveler100 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be very happy to see the default image used - as I've said before, it's very clean and it's already made! Plus, Austria is almost in the dead-centre, so for the test at least, it's ideal.--Nick (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's go with the default image for now. I'd prefer to focus efforts on getting the banners up and running in Austria first, and then work on the default regional banners. -Shaundd (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin support vote #1 - JamesA ^>talk 10:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

as no seconder here, have made request at Wikivoyage:Script nominations#User:Traveler100bot pagebanner. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I should second it, since I'm the one who initiated the banners. When were you planning on running the bot? I was thinking it would be better to hold off until we have a few photo banners ready. -Shaundd (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done 4 to see how the bot runs. Notice with the first it marked as minor, have changed that. If you are fine with these will run on the other 97 pages. (Note I will be on a plane for a good 10 hours later today so, either now or much later today or in the week.) --Traveler100 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Austria. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Words can't communicate how much better Austria looks without cramming the understand section between that floating ToC monster and the Quickbar. --Peter ^Talk 22:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a separate category at Commons. Will it cause a fuss if we create a new category and associated sub-categories? (I seem to recall our Travel maps category caused a bit of a stir at migration, but maybe there were other factors involved) -Shaundd (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want the energy and focus around this project to wane, so seeing as this whole thing was your idea, did you want to kick the Expedition off? It is a logical next step, and I can't see anyone opposing. It can always be closed later if people voice concern or the idea falls through. I'll be happy to add to the Expedition once you've launched it.

I also remember some agitated people over at Commons, but I don't actually recollect what it was about! I think it may've been that they were just surprised with the huge influx of categories and images, and were getting used to us being around. We should also remember to categorise the banners into multiple categories. So a banner of the pyramids wouldn't just go in "Wikivoyage banners of Egypt", but also "Great Pyramid of Giza", "The Pyramids", "Historical monuments in Egypt", etc etc. JamesA ^>talk 04:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy today, but will have time this evening. I'll put together an expedition page then (unless anyone wants to start earlier). Any name suggestions? "Banner expedition" seems pretty straightforward and accurate, although not very catchy. -Shaundd (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, the Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition is now created. Still need to set up some progress/status charts, but feel free to sign up and/or discuss further there. Thanks! -Shaundd (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Banners and lead images

I'm not sure why a banner was added to Walt Disney World, since it's not in Austria, but since it has been, I see a problem. The banner image followed quickly by a similar lead image seems to look a little weird. I think we may want to consider moving lead images down to the second article section and leaving just the lead paragraph under the banner. And if the lead image depicts the same subject, consider removing it entirely. LtPowers (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the removal of the page title causes the titleicons to be misplaced. LtPowers (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault (again!). I'm plainly not with it today! I put them there more as a personal experiment, but I'll get rid now. I think you're right though about the clash between images - in some cases removal is probably best. --Nick (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. --Nick (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What about moving the title icons into the page banner box? The current approach for absolutely positioning title icons is a kludge that breaks anytime the vertical page layout changes, and putting them into the page banner box might be a good way to use that space to highlight the icons and make it clearer that they are specific to that article. In addition, this would give us more control over presentation of the icons and allow things like larger icons, a transparent background, or any other UI changes that people wanted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of that as well; for example, a simple parameter passed to the pagebanner could replace our titleicons template, allowing placement of DoTM, OtBP, and Star icons to be handled by the banner template code. Perhaps we could use the space under the page title to display the icons? LtPowers (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a possibility, I think the top right corner could work too. -Shaundd (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Top right is likely to be where banners are 'interesting', so the icons may not show up well there. LtPowers (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)