Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Dotm)
Jump to: navigation, search

Here we determine which articles are featured on the Main Page as Destination of the month (Dotm), Off the Beaten Path (OTBP) and Featured travel topics (FTT).

Nominate[edit]

You can nominate any article you would like to see featured. Any destination, region, itinerary or event that passes the "What is an article?" test is eligible for nomination.

However, before nominating, please check that the article follows these basic guidelines:

Well-known and/or popular destinations should be nominated as Destination of the Month, while more obscure destinations should be nominated for Off the Beaten Path. Travel topics, phrasebooks, itineraries and other articles should be nominated for Featured Travel Topic. Where applicable, you should propose a good time to visit the destination as a month to be featured.

The basic format of a nomination is as follows:

{{FeatureNom
| place=Destination
| blurb='''[[Destination]]''' is a place of contrasts, and as such it...
| status=Guide
| time=March-June
| nominatedBy=~~~~
| comment=Great article and it's just luvvly-jubbly in the springtime.
| DotMImage=[[File:Destinationimage.jpg|thumb|300px]]
}}

Add a nomination to the end of the appropriate section.

Discuss[edit]

You can comment on any nomination based on timeliness and adherence to the criteria above, just add a bullet point (*) and your signed opinion.

===[[Destination]]===
Great article and it's just luvvly-jubbly in the springtime. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* Looks nice, but shouldn't the Do section contain more than just quilting contests? ~~~~

Please note that the following are not considered valid reasons to oppose a nomination:

  • "I don't like it." All objections have to be based on the guidelines above: poor formatting, missing information, etc. Personal opinions, dislikes, etc. do not count.
  • "Wrong time of year." Articles are supported or opposed based on their content. Timing can be worked out later.
  • "Wrong type of place." Articles are supported or opposed based on their content. Whether it's DoTM or OtBP can be worked out later.

Select[edit]

If an article gets several comments in favor and none against for a week or so, it's eligible to be placed in an appropriate time-slot in the Upcoming queue. If the objections are relatively minor and are being worked on, add them to the Upcoming queue tentatively (add a question mark "?" after the article). Feel free to move the queue around or swap articles if it makes sense. If a nomination clearly does not make the grade and if the objections are not easily fixable, they go into the Slush pile

Once a nomination has been scheduled, an appropriate banner image and text blurb must be selected. Go to Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners to start that discussion.

Archive[edit]

Discussions for previously selected destinations are kept in the Archive.

Upcoming[edit]

Schedule[edit]

The following queue should contain about six months' worth of upcoming destinations. Note that new DotMs are rotated in on the 1st of each month, OtBPs on the 11th and travel topics on the 21st.

Month DotM OtBP FTT
January 2015 Montevideo Saba - pending stronger consensus to support Winter driving
February 2015 Mombasa Kirthar National Park Finnish phrasebook
March 2015 Bangkok/Khao San Road - pending stronger consensus to support Ushuaia - pending stronger consensus to support Ninoy Aquino International Airport - pending stronger consensus to support
April 2015 Suzhou Sierra Vista - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Ad's Path - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support
May 2015 Vienna for Eurovision song contest - pending development of district articles and stronger consensus to support Turku Travelling during Ramadan
June 2015 Buffalo - pending completion of districtification process Iseo Sunburn and sun protection - pending stronger consensus to support


These are not cast in stone, and the order can be changed if, for example, an excellent guide for a timely event is found. Whenever a guide becomes a current feature, it should be removed from the list, the discussion archived, and a new month added to the end of the queue. Alternatives are OK; the whole point is to enable some discussion as needed.

Next change[edit]

Decisions regarding which images to use as the banners are made here.

The section below provides an opportunity to see what the upcoming featured articles will look like on the Main Page using the banners that are currently most popular on the above page.

Destination of the Month[edit]

Montevideo

Often overshadowed by its bigger cousin south of Rio de la Plata, Montevideo not only offers tango, asado and great football, but also long beaches and the world's longest carnival.

Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Saba

Once a pirate's haven, the Caribbean's "Unspoiled Queen" is now a haven for nature lovers, medical students, and—above all—divers.

Featured Travel Topic[edit]

Winter driving

Getting around on an icy and snowy road isn't just like driving in the summer. Have a look at our winter driving guide!

Updating[edit]

On the date of the scheduled change, the DotM, OtBP, or FTT should be changed as close to midnight UTC as possible. When the featured page is changed, please follow the following procedures to do so and archive content to the appropriate pages. At each stage, please double-check that you are correctly moving content.

  1. Update the featured articles on the main page by replacing the current 'banner' template section with those of the appropriate banner for the new DotM/OtBP/FTT found in the Next change section above.
  2. Update the Photo credits page with the banner's original image, title and attribution.
  3. Add the former featured article to the appropriate archive page: Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path, or Previous Featured travel topics.
  4. Remove Template:Featurenomination from newly featured article.
  5. For the former featured article, add the appropriate title icon to label the page as having been featured.
    1. For the former DotM, add to the bottom of the page: {{title-icons|dotm-icon}}
    2. For the former OtBP, add to the bottom of the page: {{title-icons|otbp-icon}}
    3. For the former FTT, add to the bottom of the page: {{title-icons|ftt-icon}}
  6. Archive the newly featured article's nomination. Simply cut-and-paste the nomination section of the newly featured article from this page to Wikivoyage:Destination of the Month candidates/Archive.
  7. Update the Next change section above by adding the banner from the discussion page. View the table in the Schedule section above to determine what next month's change will be, then update the image and blurb in the "Next change" section with that found in the upcoming featured article's nomination.
  8. Archive the newly featured article's banner by cutting-and-pasting all banner suggestions and the associated discussion into Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners/Archive.

Nominations for Destination of the Month[edit]

Łódź[edit]

Place: Łódź
Blurb: Woven by the 19th-century textiles industry, Łódź today is a intriguing cultural hotspot home to many festivals, museums and art galleries. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: Half past (formerly SUFCboy) 15:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: An underrated, culturally rich city and a good candidate for Poland's first DOTM. Article itself seems to have everything covered.

Nomination
Manufaktura fontanna nocą Łódź.JPG


  • Support. This guide is much better than I remember it being, no doubt in large part because of all the work User:Half past has done on it, lately. One concern I have is that the default scale of the map should be larger, so that the default view is of individual city streets, rather than the position of the entire city in relation to its suburbs, with only superhighway numbers showing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Followup My concern was addressed. The map now is fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As a lifelong resident of Buffalo, I've got a soft spot in my heart for scrappy, down-at-the-heels cities that are actually diamonds in the rough. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not a bad article, however isn't Lodz more of an Off the Beaten Path destination? Compared to Krakow with surroundings, Warsaw and the Baltic Sea coast, I believe one doesn't run into very many camera-waving fellow travelers in Lodz, but I don't know for sure as I've never been to Lodz (did I just answer my own question? :)Prince and Jjtkk probably know. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
To Ypsilon: Well, let's take a look at it through the six-point metric proposed a while back by Pashley, which, though it never got off the ground in terms of becoming an "official" policy, I still think is about the best barometer I've yet seen.
  • Population of the destination—Per w:Łódź, 715,360 in the city proper and 1,428,000 in the metro area as of 2013. Not too shabby.
  • Importance as a travel destination, not just for tourism but also for business, pilgrimage or whatever—The article's text leads me to believe that tourism is a pretty middling sector of Łódź's economy for now, but that the city is pulling itself together and beginning to attract more visitors. But in the final analysis, we really need someone with more expertise than myself to weigh in on that. However, it's one of Poland's major cities and a provincial capital, so it probably attracts its share of business travellers.
  • Importance as a travel hub - do most visitors to the region pass through it?—To quote the article, "Łódź lies at the centre of Poland's road and highway system", so probably.
  • Political importance (for example whether it is a national or state capital, or a major center for a minority culture)—Yes indeed. It's the capital of the Łódzkie Voivodeship (voivodeships are basically provinces).
  • Historical importance—The city's history appears to be pretty brief by European standards, but eventful: a 19th-century industrial center that played a pivotal role in the Polish resistance to Nazi German occupation, as well as the scene of the Łódź Ghetto and other important elements of Holocaust history.
  • Desirability as a destination (Would you go there if you were in the region, or recommend it to a touring friend?)—That's kind of subjective, but speaking for myself personally, I definitely would. As I mentioned in my support vote, I have a thing for scrappy industrial cities.
Judging by that, I'd say definitely DotM.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know such a six-point test existed. Pashley has come up with some good points. I always thought the DoTM vs. OtBP distinction was about Famous destination where restaurant menus are available in eight languages vs. hidden gem where you can experience local local life as it is.
However the "population of the destination" is often but not always a good indication whether it's a famous destination/worth visiting or not. Very few people live near Machu Picchu, while a (sorry to say) 50 year old collection of concrete buildings in Siberia can have half a million of inhabitants and not much of interest to visitors.
I do support Lodz as an article to be featured on the main page, but I'd also like to hear Prince's, Jj's or someone else's opinion who is familiar with the city.
(Ps. Tampere, "Finland's Manchester" was among the first OtBP's we had.) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"However the 'population of the destination' is often but not always a good indication whether it's a famous destination/worth visiting or not"
Indeed. A high population is a clue that a destination might be DotM-worthy, but no single one of those listed factors has the final word. If you read through the discussion on this page's talk page, you'll also see where it was argued that more than one of the six requirements should be fulfilled before it's no longer debatable whether or not the article really should be DotM.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hard one, but I'd say OtBP. Łódź is not considered a travel destination even in Poland, partly becaue of its negative press (addressed in the article) and, I guess, partly because it lacks typical tourist drag most cities around here have -> medieval Old Town. Anyway I wouldn't use the population as an indicator in this case. I almost support this nomination, we should add lat/long to the listings and I think Learn section is not what it should be. Jjtkk (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I really, really wish we would get away from the erroneous assumption that DotM-vs.-OtBP discussions boil down solely or primarily to a question of a) a destination's population or b) its popularity with leisure travellers.
As for population, it's only one of six factors in Pashley's proposed metric, and as I've alluded to before, a destination that has a high population but fails the other five litmus tests will probably end up as an OtBP. As for the second point, Wikivoyage's target audience doesn't just begin and end with leisure travellers. We aim to be of service to business travellers, travellers who may be passing through a particular place on their way from Point A to Point B (cf. Ryan: "I think anyone planning a trip will click on the articles for towns and regions along their route looking for things that sound interesting... and with a trip coming up, I'm using Wikivoyage in exactly this way"), folks who may be taking up a longer-term residency in a particular place, and a whole slew of other categories of people. Accordingly, the definition of DotM as opposed to OtBP is a bit more multifaceted than "places that are more popular with tourists", which is as it should be, IMO: if it were simply a popularity contest, it would follow that OtBPs are inherently inferior just because they're smaller or have an appeal that is as yet undiscovered. I think it goes without saying that Wikivoyage does not want to foster such a sentiment.
Now in a previous comment on this thread, I broke down my argument of why Łódź should be DotM rather than OtBP pretty comprehensively. And Jjtkk and I are actually in agreement that "Łódź is not considered a travel destination even in Poland". But in order to arrive at his pro-OtBP conclusion, Jjtkk completely ignored Łódź's importance politically, historically, and as a place travellers pass through even if they don't seek it out as an end destination in itself, which is really frustrating because all six of these factors are supposed to be of equal importance. It bears mentioning that Pashley's proposal gained broad consensus among the community when it was advanced, and the fact that it hasn't been officially enshrined as policy is probably due to nothing more than nobody ever getting around to editing the relevant policy page.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, perhaps less importantly, it's the only viable nominee we currently have for the August DotM slot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I should have addressed other factors, but the fact that I didn't doesn't mean I didn't think about them. As I said it's a hard one.

  • Population of the destination - already discussed, it's big, it was bigger, now it's dwindling.
  • Importance as a travel destination, not just for tourism but also for business, pilgrimage or whatever - I think it's great for 19th century architecture/industry enthusiasts. There are Fairs but not very important.
  • Importance as a travel hub - do most visitors to the region pass through it? Łódź lies in the centre of Poland so it lies in the centre of most networks. Highways pass around it, w:Łódź Władysław Reymont Airport is empty, has only Ryanair.
  • Political importance (for example whether it is a national or state capital, or a major center for a minority culture) Yes, it is a voivodeship capital cause it's big.
  • Historical importance - Litzmannstadt played pivotal role in resistance? I'd say w:Łódź insurrection (1905) was more important historically.
  • Desirability as a destination - that's subjective, not my first choice but well worth visiting - so, OtBP for me but I won't argue against DoTM. Jjtkk (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the population mostly moving to the suburbs or further away, or is the population decrease due to a larger number of deaths than births? Sorry if I missed a discussion above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
More deaths than births and young people run away to Warsaw and London (or western Europe in general) due to high unemployment rate. Jjtkk (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Lodz is a good article but lacks pictures and i agree with j that it is not a growing city. I'm fine with either Dotm or OtBP as both categories do have reasons (but would personally lean towards otbp due to airport). How about taking a bit more time and change Tallinn & Lodz in the schedule? I would oppose to slush Lodz but maybe it needs a bit more time to get it things sorted? jan (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's slush Vava'u and feature Lodz in September as OtBP. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that my concerns about the August 2014 DotM slot have been addressed given that we have a suitable candidate in Tallinn, and while I continue to personally disagree, I'm willing to recognize and concede to the fact that consensus is trending strongly in favor of Łódź as OtBP, rather than DotM. However, I remain strongly opposed to slushing Vava'u, a perfectly featureable article whose flaws, while persistent, are not major enough to preclude anyone's support (including, it should be noted, Ypsilon's, who is the one proposing it be slushed!) In addition, I am also opposed to moving it out of the September OtBP slot, given that it would in that case have to wait till summer 2015 to be featured, per its "Time to feature" and the worthiness of the July and August 2014 OtBP nominees. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Good to hear! I would also like to see Vava'u featured (our first Oceanian article outside Australia on the main page ever). Four months ago I fixed the issues with the article and gave it a supporting vote. This afternoon I could just see my support vote and Ikan's soft support and RP's "not yet", so I believed nobody really would be interested in having it as OtBP. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Per consensus, this article has been moved from the DotM column to OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for that? It's a little big for OtBP, but if that's the consensus, fine. It sure makes me retroactively reconsider Rochester, New York and Madison, Wisconsin, though, both of which are a lot smaller than Lodz. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I happen to agree with you, Ikan, but as of the category change I was the only one still holding out for Lodz as DotM (vs. Jjtkk and Ypsi in favor of OtBP, and Jan who had no particular preference). It's going to make it a lot harder to argue for Buffalo as DotM in a few months, but it is what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not too happy with this large a city as OtBP. Would anyone like to reconsider? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It's borderline, but consider this: if Łódź is OtBP, does that mean there are only 2 potential DotM articles in the entirety of Poland? That seems bizarre. I think this has to be DotM lest we limit ourselves far too much. (There is no way in hell Buffalo is OtBP. Come on.) Powers (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not even sure how borderline it is. I guess we're talking about a place that isn't on the most worn path, but that's not my way of thinking about OtBP. Something has to be more out of the way than a big provincial capital like this for me to think of it as really off the beaten path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Poland does have more than two potential DotM articles (I guess you mean Warsaw and Krakow that have a larger population than Lodz - BTW if those two would be competing for the title of Poland's most important destination I think I would vote for Krakow). IMO Gdańsk is a far more important destination than Lodz, both due to its historical significance, the Baltic Sea beaches and its role as an important port. Wroclaw is another city I would put above Lodz.
I'm not entirely against featuring Lodz as a Destination, it does have a varied array of things to see and do, even as it has no Wawel. But I do think Jj presented some very valid points above. Another reason for suggesting it for OtBP was that there at one point was a free or semi-free OtBP slot in the fall where this destination would've fit in nicely. (Ps. Prince, would you say Lodz is an important destination on a Polish scale?). Also remember that OtBP does not mean that the place isn't worth visiting.
When developing the 10 question DotM/OtBP barometer I presented on the talk page, I specifically thought about the Lodz case. Population size is not the only, and not even the most important criterion for determining how "prominent" a destination should be. If this would be the case, for example the list of nine cities in the United States article would contain places like Houston and Phoenix and I'm sure this is not what we want.
Concerning Buffalo, of course it is more of a DotM. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow why Lodz would be an OtBP and Buffalo would be an obvious DotM. I think the two cities would seem to be quite comparable, as pretty large cities that are making a transition from centers of heavy industry to something else and have lost population, and both have major universities, too, don't they? The one major difference I can think of off-hand is that Buffalo is quite close to Niagara Falls, which is an obvious DotM because it's such a huge tourist attraction, but it's a cinch to go directly from the airport to Niagara Falls or take the train directly there, thereby avoiding Buffalo. I do agree that population alone is not conclusive, and that, for example, in countries like China and India that have loads of cities of over 700,000 inhabitants, it's quite easy to imagine some of them as OtBP, but I wouldn't put Poland in that category. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm out of town with spotty Internet access, so I hadn't noticed this discussion brewing until now. Powers' comments about the implication for other Polish cities of running Lodz as OtBP cut to the heart of the reason why I was such a vocal supporter of placing it in the DotM column, but by the same token, I have tried to be very careful not to abuse my status as by far the most active participator in the DotM process to dominate the discussion and force my opinions on others. However, if this discussion can help sway the consensus, I'm all for that.
On another topic, to address Ikan's comments, I actually think that Buffalo's proximity to Niagara Falls weakens the argument for it as DotM rather than OtBP. There is plenty in Buffalo for visitors to enjoy, but the fact is that Western New York's big, obvious marquee tourist attraction is located outside the city limits. Other than touching down at BUF (which, technically speaking, is not in Buffalo either – it would be covered under the Cheektowaga article), I would say that most tourists who are in the region to see the Falls and have a limited amount of time at their disposal likely won't set foot in Buffalo. Visit Buffalo Niagara is trying their hardest to market Buffalo as a daytrip destination for tourists to Niagara Falls, but the fact is that we are and will almost certainly remain outshined. However, one counter-argument that I haven't heard mentioned yet in favor of Buffalo as DotM is our importance as an international border crossing – on the United States' northern frontier, Buffalo-Fort Erie is second in cross-border traffic only to Detroit-Windsor.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is far too much text for me to read, but I have apparently been called out to opine somewhere above. Just to think how much better the Łódź article would have been if all this effort went into it instead is quite promising. Perhaps one day we could simply have a quick process for assessing articles which would result in automatic adding to the DotM queue, with the option of suggesting a particular month if significant for the destination. And all this OtBP / DotM nonsense is just that - we should showcase our best work and not worry about labels.
Back on topic with Łódź - I would say it is among the top destinations in Poland, it surely isn't totally "off the beaten path". Throngs of Jewish tourists visit it every year due to its importance inthe Polish-Jewish collective heritage, plus the design and fashion festivals and such. This is surely a major destination, even if arguably behind Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, Wrocław and Toruń on most people's lists.
That said, I believe our selection should be based first and foremost on the quality of the articles featured. IMHO, all of the destinations in Poland lag seriously behind our standards, and need reworks, updates and upgrades before we conside featuring them. IS anybody willing to help me on that? We can start with Łódź, or any other destinations for that matter, e.g. finish cleaning up the mess that resulted from the redistrification of Warsaw. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article should not be scheduled for a feature yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, OK, I shan't get impossible. Let's make Lodz a DoTM instead.
Some minor polish ing :) perhaps would be needed, most notably Geo coordinates and the Learn section, but nothing radical. Lodz is in practice going to be featured sometimes in the upcoming spring, so we're not in a hurry.
We're around 30 regular contributors here (who drop in at least once a month), plus the occasional visitors who all too often drop in to write a splendid article about their home city and then disappear. Therefore, unfortunately, many articles "drop under the radar". I have some familiarity with Poland, so I could help out but there are a couple of travel topics and translations of some of de's Guides that have already been waiting a few months... ϒpsilon (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
OK now, thanks for the reality check! My constructive conclusion would be that with 30 contributors having DotM, CotM, OtBP and whatnot and multiple discussions over those is going a bit overboard. I'd suggest we merge everything into "actually good and reasonably updated articles for the main page" and make them automatic CotM - this can go both ways, i.e. if there is an article that should go onto the front page in a given month, like Milan for the Expo, let us rally around it to make it the best we can. Conversely, if there is an article that is being significantly improved, and by chance attracts the interest of more than one editor (as e.g. in the case of Stockholm where User:Ypsilon and the humble myself did a bit of work), let us put it in the
For now, Tallinn is scheduled to go onto the front page next month, and I found the article in terrible shape. I will do my best to improve it as much as I can, and so can you - even if you have never been to Tallinn, you can still do some research, visit official website, check and update info, add pictures from Commons and coordinates for the map etc. etc. I myself do all that when I prepare my travels even to places I have not been yet, and find it very rewarding, almost as much as travelling itself. It does require setting our fave topics aside for a moment, but then unless you really hate the destination, I guess we can make it more rewarding to ourselves knowing that others work alongside to do more, better and faster.
I also believe such efforts may be useful to recruit Wikipedians interested in the topic (as evidenced by their edit history, or rather edit histories of the relevant Wikipedia articles) to join the effort and they may stick around if they are interested in travelling in general and will find our project fun.
As regards Łódź, I believe it needs much more than minor polish'ing, I will list the issues as a checklist in the talk page in due course. I agree though that it may be a good Polish DoTM as it is not a huge destination with many districts and uncountable POIs, so it should be reasonably easy to cover. I am very much ready to put my knowledge of Polish, and the city itself, to good use if we decide to collaborate on that. I am also happy to schedule a field trip for any of the coming weeks whenever I shall be in Poland if we make a list of things to check out / photograph. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The Tallinn article isn't that bad, is it? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Now after the many changes, including yours, it is starting to take on a reasonable shape, but I believe it is hardly one of the best ones we have, or one I would like to show as examplary, which is what I believe we should promote. I also believe it may and probably will become good enough by the time it gets featured if we continue to work on it. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Going back to a couple of PrinceGloria's earlier points:
Regarding Lodz and other Polish destinations, policy states that if the article is at Guide status or better, it can be featured, full stop. Our standards for featured articles are not as high as our standards for Star nominations, and that's by design: if Guide articles were not eligible, we would very quickly run out of articles to feature. Anyone who wants to improve a nominated article in advance of its stint on the Main Page should be encouraged to do so, but let's keep our expectations realistic.
Regarding featured destinations as CotM and other radical changes to policy, those are far beyond the scope of this page and should be brought up elsewhere. Purely for the record, though, my personal take on the matter is that it would be better to simply abandon CotM for the time being because we simply do not have enough manpower to maintain interest. Same for Expeditions, probably. But as for adopting current Main Page articles as automatic CotMs, it's not a given that among our relatively small population of editors there will always be someone who has the personal on-the-ground familiarity with every destination we'll ever run that's necessary to make meaningful contributions. Nor is it reasonable, in that vast majority of instances when a DotM nominee is not of Star-perfect quality, to expect unpaid volunteers who work on Wikivoyage in their spare time to take on a top-to-bottom revamp of the article as a prerequisite to running it on the Main Page, especially when the numbers say that most likely that editor would be working alone. I think we should be very proud to have the quality of material that we do have, given the current size and activity level of our community.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that with 30something active editors, and we all know who we are, being so worked up about policies, guidelines and other formalities is quite pointless. We have probably contributed far too much time and effort to many discussions on them vs. contributing actual content. We are still a community in the making and even if we agree on some very strict and detailed policies, I sincerely hope we will soon be outnumbered by many other editors. And the majority of them may have very different views and we will end up revising the policies anyway. I guess the best thing now is to check how things work in practice and try to put down rough notes resulting from that and be ready to revise them once experience proves otherwise.
As regards what to put on the main page as DotM, I believe those should be our best articles. I am not sure our qualifications as guide or star are up to date with the developments such as dynamic maps and such, and I am not sure if our processes to confer a status upon an article are reliable enough for us to rely on them to instantly assess the article's quality. I guess that the process here, if we focus more on the quality of the article rather than whether the destination itself is "worthy", is actually a good one to assess an article's quality as it garners enough attention.
I also would say that while many good article here have essentially been written by a single person, the best articles stem from collaborations of multiple users (either concurrently or at different points in time, but I find concurrent collaboration bringing about the best results). Therefore, I believe we should essentially be featuring destinations that garner enough attention. This is a good page to gauge whether there is enough interest to help improve an article for it to be good enough to be featured on the main page, as I guess most of the truly great articles have already been featured and pretty much everything else is a work in progress.
And you are right about this discussion being more general than just about Łódź, I will copy this to the talk page of the general DotM in due course. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Andre, in view of your remarks about CotM, your views of the discussion at Meta:Wikivoyage/Lounge#multi lingual display for Destination of the month would be appreciated, as they concern the possibility of featuring Milan, which is currently Usable and will require improvement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm at the in-laws' till Monday night with Internet access limited to my phone, so doing the Wikivoyage thing has been and will be a bit tedious. But I'll check out Meta when I get back home. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No urgency about that, anyway. Enjoy your visit! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Per shift in consensus, this article has been moved back to the DotM column. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Manchester[edit]

Place: Manchester
Blurb: Manchester is a vibrant, post-industrial city, located in the heart of North-West England. Long famed for its industry, Manchester has seen enormous redevelopment in recent years and is enjoying something of a renaissance. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Oct
Nominated by: Nick talk 18:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Been working on this article for quite some time and whilst it's not quite polished yet, it will be by the time it would be featured. Another underrated but ascendant city; I've had several discussion with the Manchester Tourist Board about the article, so a feature would be a great opportunity to engage with them again.

Nomination
...And on the sixth day, God created Manchester.jpg
  • Strong support — Well done Nick, you made it. I never been to UK but the articles look very detailed but few points but very minor. You replaced the map with another which looks not fine to me so I'll begin work on improving the map soon. The suburbs district such as North and South are quite large in size however the article contains only 1 see listing each and buy sections are empty. Are you sure there's no other attraction there and nowhere to shop? I also strongly suggest to expand the get in sections all all the district articles. --Saqib (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Saqib! I simply replaced the map as the previous one didn't have any roads on. If you'd like me to make any changes, I can do and that might be easier as I still have the original files. I will add some more detail to the sections you describe as well :) --Nick talk 02:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment At a quick glance, this looks very good, but I thought we weren't nominating any other destinations right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoops! I should probably learn to read! :) --Nick talk 13:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ikan is correct that we've been strongly discouraging folks from advancing new nominees from anything other than FTT, but if Nick is willing to be understanding about waiting till next year for this to be featured, then I'm willing to support it. It's a first-rate article and Nick really did good work on it. I disagree with the Time to feature, though. Per w:Manchester#Climate, May-Sep (possibly extending into Oct) seems like a more reasonable window. On average, temperatures in the dead of winter top out at 7°C (47°F) and dip down to just above freezing at night. In a strict sense, climatic conditions like that are probably tolerable, but certainly far less than ideal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your thoughts on timing Andrew - I only suggested the end of the year as that seemed to be the next available time for featured articles, but I'd be happy to see it featured at any point. --Nick talk 13:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
On this basis, I am happy to support this article. I still haven't read through the entire thing, but it seems outstanding and rather comprehensive to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment(s) - The article looks really good and the districts look OK. I'd prefer to have coordinates for the POIs and them plotted on a dynamic map, though. BTW did you really mean the end of 2015 (after two years?) or rather late 2014 (unlikely as the table above is full) or March/April 2015 if the "tourist season" starts in May? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I will work on the co-ordinates and I've changed the date above accordingly. Thanks for the feedback! --Nick talk 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Munich[edit]

Place: Munich
Blurb: Munich is the capital of beer, brezn and Bavaria, and is also a beautiful city, full of museums, nightlife and outdoor activities around the year. Don't miss the Oktoberfest but don't miss the Alps, either. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep (start of Oktoberfest)
Nominated by: jan (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Local user and some other did a terrific job to get the innercity districts up to guide and only two are usable (rather lack of points of interest than lack of content). Maybe some pics need to be adjusted but most content is updated and fresh.

Nomination
Oktoberfest woman.jpg
  • Support Great city and article. jan (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article and its districts look good. Yes, the best time to feature it would be September. But as of now September 2014 is already taken so it'll have to wait for 15 months if we don't feature it in the spring (or if Munich looks and feels beautiful and cozy with Christmas lights and some snow maybe already in December) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ypsilon, i'm under the impression that some editors want to get a step further and bring all districts up to guide and additionally update some pics. That might need a while, so i was rather aiming for Sep 15. At the moment we are not lacking nominations, so i don't mind if it takes 15 months. jan (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The article(s) look(s) pretty good now. And by September '15 the two remaining districts hopefully will have guide status, too. Tbp386 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm delighted to support this article, and I applaud all the work that has been done to improve this article and the district articles. I respect the opinion that September is the best month of the year to feature an article about Munich, but the city is beautiful in other seasons, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for THIS October (2014) - I guess we all agree that the Munich articles are pretty much ready for sharing with the wide world. I also believe that the ideal month to feature Munich is October, for obvious reasons. Why should we wait a year to feature it if we have an October coming? I believe we can reschedule Karachi to a later month, as the original nomination therefor called for "Nov-Mar", so no harm would apparently be done if we put Munich in October and then Karachi anytime later. Besides, we seem to feature quite few European destinations. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Munich is ready now. But please explain how you would suggest reshaping the schedule. Karachi has waited a lot longer than Munich since it was nominated, let's not forget. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, Europe has traditionally been overrepresented among our feature destinations, and inasmuch as that has not been true this past year, it's due to an intentional effort on our part to diversify our offerings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: Andre - I am only active on Wikivoyage for a short time, in my time Europe has been underrepresented. It does attract unproportionally high tourist traffic and number of major attractions/destinations, this is why we have "Off the Beaten Path" where Europe is currently not present at all. I don't think we should go to either extreme. I'd say 3/12 or 4/12 DotM's from Europe annually are fine.
Re: Ikan - it is not about how long an article waits IMHO. When it's ready, it's ready. It will be fine today, tomorrow or in a few months. Munich only makes sense in October obviously, and I guess we should make amends for destinations that have a strong connection with a particular month. Like e.g. Vienna or Milan should be our DotM for May since the Eurovision will be held in the former, and the Expo opens in the latter. Let us hope either is rife for featuring by then - if not, any other destination can fill in.
I would simply reschedule Karachi to February, I don't think that would do much damage. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
In principle, I’m not opposed to featuring Munich in October of this year, but Saqib might be. If I remember correctly, he was already disappointed at having to wait so long for another Pakistani destination to be featured after Mohenjo-daro last February. Anyway, February 2015 is a no go in any case, because OtBP that month will be either Kirthar National Park or Taxila. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oktoberfest is really a party that precedes October, only a few days of the event is actually in October but most of takes place in September. Therefore September would be the right month to feature it if we want to bundle it with the Oktoberfest. Otherwise you would have quite a hurry to get there to experience even the last day of the event, especially if you're not in Europe. That would also give us the question, what to do with Calgary? Or with Karachi?
I don't see how overrepresentation would play a role in this particular case, as Munich, Calgary and Karachi are each from the regions (E+Asia+US/CA) that make up the 92% of our featured destinations, however, admittedly this year we haven't had that many DotMs or OtBPs from Europe (Asia on the other hand...). Anyway, I'm also of the opinion that when articles are ready they should be featured as soon as possible, if other articles are nominated later they will have to wait unless there are some specific reason to feature them a particular month. Also, per above, Jan and Tbp386 are fine with featuring it after a year, and plan to write up some district articles to Guides. Therefore: let's don't.
We could of course also feature Munich in the upcoming spring/summer. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, I wouldn't oppose featuring Munich article in October if community thinks that is best in the interest of WV. Even though Karachi was nominated quite earlier than Munich and I put lot of efforts into the article but honestly speaking, there's no need to give me favor if you think I would mind or upset. I may get disappointed but that will be temporary. But we need to see in this case whether Munich worth to feature in October? I've been to Munich once but I don't know much about the city as Ypsilanti Da Vinci knows and he have disagreement with PrinceGloria over featuring the article in October. --Saqib (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite simply, October is no good if we're going to highlight Oktoberfest, for precisely the reason Ypsilon mentioned. It's almost gotta be September, and that would mean September 2015. Powers (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, to be perfectly frank, it would tick me off to have gone through what I went through in finding a banner for Karachi only to have the feature delayed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We have a whole lot of people who know more about Munich (Andrewssi2, Ikan, our German colleagues and of course Prince) than myself, and I haven't really even looked at the article. However I do know that the event ends early October, and if going to Munich e.g. October 10th, you'll just see a bunch of construction workers packing down the tents and stuff for next year's event. It could be compared to featuring "Christmas in X" as December's FTT from Dec 21 onwards. Featuring it in September would mean Calgary would displace Karachi or have to wait until the spring. As well, Jan and Tbp desired to build further on the article before it gets featured.
If there's really problems with getting Karachi ready until October, it can change places with Muscat and be featured one month later. Also, remember that Saqib has done a lot of work on the article and it was nominated already last November (the same goes for Calgary). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Since I guess we all agree on September 2015, can we already schedule it for then? I see no problem with scheduling far into the future to secure place for articles that we agree are good enough to be featured. I would also move to block May 2015 for either Milan or Vienna, whichever's ready. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Especially after the way the schedule looked for most of this year, I don't agree with extending the grid further into the future than policy says. At this point in time we may all agree on September 2015, but it's pointless to talk about what we'll feature on the Main Page over a year from now when no one knows what new and exciting articles will be nominated or what other variables might come into play between now and then. This discussion will be easily accessible on the dotm page right up to the time Munich is featured, so I highly doubt that we'll "forget" about it. (As for Milan and Vienna, those haven't even been nominated yet!) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not been following this project earlier, so I do not know what you are referring to, but I guess if the policy says otherwise, the policy should thus be changed. On the one hand we say that "Karachi should go first because it waited for so long" (no issue with Karachi, I am very fine with it going on the front page anytime), and almost with the same breath you say that "anything can happen in the future". So, if we agree that Munich is rife for featuring, and that Sep 2015 is a good date, why can't we schedule it already. If something absolutely bombastic and even more urgently needing the Sep 2015 spot appears, we can always change the schedule even on Aug 31. But I'd rather make sure we book this place for Munich and, unless something really revolutionary appears, keep it that way.
BTW, I guess only the hardcore enthusiasts of DoTM would keep track of what was said when and where. I can't see myself digging through all the lenghty discussions here on destinations that are not necessarily in my area of interest, and thus I don't think that everybody coming here will necessarily read this discussion on Munich which has already grown super-long. Unless there is a "general secretary" specifically tasked with keeping track of every discussion and possible outcomes, I believe we should simply close a discussion whenever there is an agreement, archive it (for reference if anybody would want to dig through it and reopen) and just put the nomination up there in the table for whenever it is agreed. This is the way GA and FA work on Wikipedia and I guess this is a mightily fine mechanism. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) PrinceGloria - this is not Wikipedia, and policy changes here require consensus. You can read at the beginning of the "Schedule" section of this very page where the policy says that the grid is to extend for six months past the current month. The reasons why we don't put articles on the schedule that far in advance are simple: in addition to the reason that's already been brought to light, if we were to list every month between now and September 2015 the grid would be long and unwieldy, and if we were to jump right from January to September it would be confusing. Now as you've already acknowledged, the consensus is that Munich will go on the front page in September 2015, and it appears to me that everyone is on board with that, and nobody here is operating in bad faith, and there's no grand conspiracy afoot to keep Munich off the Main Page. So I don't understand why you won't just accept the community's word that Munich will be featured in September 2015 barring any truly extraordinary turn of events. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Simply because I believe that the current process and policy makes it hard for a non-involved user to gather and grasp. There is only a limited number of users involved here, and I believe we would be better served if the widest possible circle were. Moreover, "community" is not a person, and I can take anybody's word, but if all five of us are away or not looking, this whole consensus might just as well be overlooked in 12 months from now. And, as I said, I'd hate for anybody to have to read this lenghty discussion before making sure they can put something up for featuring in Sep 2014. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, as of now there are only some 3-5 hardcore enthusiasts that in practice are continuously involved with in the DotM/OtBP/FTT (all of which are supporting Munich for DotM) while average users just comment on their favorite articles now and then. In fact, I myself got involved with this section last winter when I noticed that the Travel topic section was about to entirely run out of articles. If we eventually get more people regularly involved that might have to change. Also, unless someone nominates a really bad article in which case it ends on the Slush pile within days, articles are in general not dropped out of here unless there are issues with the article which aren't fixed in a couple of months. Munich does not have such problems.
Also, when September's slots will emerge in April, this thread will be almost at the top of the page and the "Time to feature" parameter of Munich's nomination box says "September" so I don't think it will be forgotten.
Plus, the risk for someone suggesting something for only September 2015 is small. Articles are virtually almost nominated for a range of possible months, not just one. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Prince, just a suggestion but why not you start a policy discussion somewhere else rather than stretching this nomination discussion? Otherwise, for the record, I agree with Andrew and I'm absolutely fine with current queue contain six months' worth of upcoming destinations. And Your Royal Highness Prince Gloria of Poland, Andrew is serving to this tedious task since a long time now and I'm pretty sure he'll keep continue it for many years to come so no need to worry about as Andrew will surely remember Munich when September 2015 will come. --Saqib (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Montevideo[edit]

Place: Montevideo
Blurb: Often overshadowed by its bigger cousin south of Rio de la Plata, Montevideo not only offers tango, asado and great football, but also long beaches and the world's longest carnival. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Oct-May (Jan for the carnival)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Here's a sunny destinación for some cold winter month in the north. I've been working on Montevideo for a couple of weeks and think it is now fit for nomination. If successful, this will be our third South American DotM ever (the last time was in February 2010!).

Nomination
Tango dancers in Montevideo.JPG


  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The Understand section with the districts as a starter is unusal and confusing but i guess that will change until the presentation. jan (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually Wycsi#D says that districts should be in an Orientation subsection in the Understand section of the city page, so they should be somewhere in the Understand section. I put them right at the top where the districts are listed in huge city articles, but perhaps it's not a good idea. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It's been quite some time since i was in Montevideo but i remember it as rather compact city. Imho districts are need in big cities as points of orientation. They are in the correct section but i wouldn't start with it because an intro is always better to get an understanding. jan (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I moved them to the bottom of Understand. IMO the old town was compact and 18 Julio could be walked in about 45 min provided you just walk and don't stop but places like Punta Carretas and Prado seemed quite far out. The fact that there is no fast underground rail transportation makes the city feel bigger, I think. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ypsilon, good work. Unconditional support for the nomination. jan (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. That's really impressive work! It's beautifully illustrated, has an interesting, unique, and logical structure, and is a good read (I haven't read the entire article with a fine-toothed comb yet, but I've certainly read enough to approve of featuring it). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely beautiful article. I'm thinking January 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's a nice article. Before featuring, I'd suggest weeding out some of the images. There are too many and some are a bit washed out by the sun anyway. A bit more information about attractions (prices, open/close, phone numbers) would be nice to make them look more complete. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Which photos would you suggest removing or finding substitutes for? I generally love the fact that there are so many photos in this article, but I do agree that if any article might have too many, it could be this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It's hard because the quality of most are good, so I'm not sure which would be best but the tango picture and the street view towards the bottom are a little washed out, so I'd nix those. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I just skimmed the article and it seems to me that if we're culling photos, I'd start with some of the ones that are clustered together three- or four-in-a-row in certain sections (especially those sections where photos are less essential, i.e. Orientation and Get around). It seems better to me to distribute the pictures more evenly throughout the article than to judge by quality. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason to choose. Poor quality photos should be removed regardless, and of course the clustered photos are the ones that need weeded out. For me, I don't know which are "better" as representative images of Montevideo. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Suzhou[edit]

Place: Suzhou
Blurb: An ancient city famous for silk and gardens, now a booming center of hi-tech industry. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide, but needs a polish before featuring (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, perhaps best in N hemisphere spring or fall
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: There is a Chinese saying Heaven has paradise; Earth has Hangzhou and Suzhou. This is one of the country's top destinations for domestic tourism and gets many foreign tourists as well. Its classical gardens, mostly built by retired officials, are on the UNESCO World Heritage List. The suburbs are a booming hi-tech zone; Suzhou produces more laptops than any other city, and much else. There are both a substantial community of resident expats and many business travellers; the city has a range of services catering to both.

Nomination
Humble Administrator's Garden1.jpg


  • Comment: I am planning to visit here in the next few weeks, so maybe after I can add some content? Otherwise we should try and add a map if we can... Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, and other than the map issue cited by Andrewssi2, I'm not even sure how much of a pre-feature "polish" this article needs. In any event, I'm thinking March or perhaps April 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - basically yes; I'd appreciate coords, a few more pictures and maybe a map too. Sometime in the spring probably would be good, but one thing that slightly concerns me is that over the last 11 months we've had six Asian DotMs (as many as from all the other continents combined), and for the upcoming "winter half year" we already have quite a few Asian DoTMs and OtBPs both in the table above and ready to go here among the nominations. I'd say we should pick just one from Suzhou, Lijiang and Yongding County and put the other ones on the shelf for a while. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well over half the world population is in Asia so an emphasis there makes sense. I agree we should spread the Chinese destinations out some, but would oppose delaying Karachi or Georgetown (Malaysia).
Of the three Chinese destinations mentioned, Suzhou is easily the most important. Large city, central, major tourism destination, ... Pashley (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with both Ypsi and Pashley: we need to diversify our DotMs beyond Asia, especially in the winter months, but the current slate of nominees is such that the Asian ones can be spaced out fairly widely, and in any case I too would be resolutely against delaying Karachi or Georgetown. It's also worth mentioning that Yongding County is likely to be slushed anyway, given the nature of the reception to its nomination and the lack of attention given to the needed changes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Asia is also a very diverse continent from Turkey to the Philippines and we have a lot of great articles about interesting destinations there (even some Star articles). No, I do not want move or remove Karachi, Georgetown or anything else in the current table, but I'd like to see more of something else towards the spring. Looking at the history, Africa and South America together have had 6 DotMs over the ten years we have had featured articles (Andre, did you notice what just I posted in the pub?). I found it a little sad that out of 213 featured articles (D's+O's), Americas south of the US+Africa+South Pacific together account for only 19 - not even 10%. It's absolutely fine to have Suzhou and Kirthar National Park in the spring, maybe 1-2 other Asian destinations but let's not get overly excited, OK? :) ϒpsilon (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ypsi, it's not as simple as just featuring all areas of the world equally. The English Wikivoyage has 26,100 discrete articles, but only a tiny fraction of them are Guides or Stars - and very few Guides or Stars are about destinations in Africa, South America, etc. Unfortunately, the geographical breakdown of featured articles over the past 10 years actually is a pretty accurate reflection of the pool of eligible articles they're drawn from. In the short run, we can do our best to showcase those eligible articles from underrepresented destinations that we have available now, but in the long run the answer is to improve more of our articles on African, South American, etc. destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I remember the discussion, yes. In addition to that we have had relatively few featured articles from Europe lately, but I have a feeling that 2015 will make up for it (Stockholm, Manchester, Lodz, Munich, Milan?, Turku?, Lisbon?, what else?). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost "Go next" needs a little work, as it should not normally have specific listings and should have Wiki-links, rather than links to city websites. Otherwise, it seems good, from what I've seen so far. I edited some sections for style, syntax and readability. Suzhou sure has changed drastically since I visited in 1987! As for when to feature, China has a population of well over 1 billion, so featuring a couple of Chinese destinations every year would be totally fine with me, but definitely not at the expense of other worthy Asian destinations we've already approved for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote "Go next". Comments? Pashley (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Good job! The article looks good now, and I'm inclined to support it, but is there really no "Splurge" restaurant worth listing in Suzhou? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I move the Southern Cross into Splurge, but I think the Eat & Drink listings are somewhat incomplete. Places I've been to but do not remember enough detail to do listings for are a good Brazilian all-you-can-eat BBQ place near Guanqian Jie, an OK Indian place near the Southern Cross, several restaurants on Shiquan Jie including a great Mongolian one, and some expat bars in the SIP. Probably there are more. Pashley (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have done a fair bit of editing, including adding co-ords and pictures. Others have also edited, including adding a map. I am starting to wonder if this could merit a star nomination.
However, there is still one fairly major problem, a subway line the maps don't show; see Talk:Suzhou#Map_update.3F.
There are also various lesser problems. See my comment just above on incomplete Eat & Drink listings. Almost none of the hotels and restaurants have co-ords, only three out of four train stations (I could not find them for the SND station). There are some broken links. Pashley (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo[edit]

Place: Buffalo
Blurb: The Queen City is full of surprises, boasting world-class architecture, vibrant nightlife, and cultural attractions—not to mention the sunniest summers in the Northeastern United States. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Despite the fact that districtification has yet to be completed, I think it's high time we pulled Buffalo out of the slush pile and renominate it: after only about six weeks of work, I'm more than halfway done with the second-to-last district article, and with the East Side being even less of a tourist draw than South Buffalo, it's a safe bet that Buffalo will be ready for prime time before the warm months of 2015. Those who've been around a while will likely remember its first nomination; others might check out the discussion in the slush pile for all the many reasons why Buffalo deserves Main Page coverage.

Nomination
Canalside.jpg


  • Support, naturally. Aiming for May 2015; while we could probably get away with April, it tends to be cool at that time, with an outside chance of snow and many outdoor attractions (Outer Harbor, etc.) not yet open for the season. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Andrew, you've done an amazing job on Buffalo article. I don't think we've such a comprehensive article on a destination other than Buffalo. Buffalo articles are very detailed and mentions every little information. While two district haven't started yet but I hope by May 2015, you'll be able to finish the work. --Saqib (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. After many years of development, if Andrew says it's ready to feature then let's do it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Normally I wouldn't support a city article with two districts as redlinks, but seeing how hard Andre hitherto has been working on Buffalo's articles I would eat my hat if he wouldn't have made good articles for those too until next spring/summer. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks like my memory did not deceive me, and the slushed discussion actually approved this guide for a feature. The reason the nomination was slushed was to work on districts more. So I don't actually think the article needed to go through the approval process again, but I guess a new discussion can never hurt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously. Indeed one of the most comprehensive city guides we have, and no doubt the few missing pieces are already in production. Needless to repeat, but excellent work, Andre. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As a six-year resident of the Buffalo area, I'm going to take a look, and also pass it on to my wife and a couple of other native Buffalonians from her family. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mombasa[edit]

Place: Mombasa
Blurb: Once a hive of activity on the ancient sea route from Europe to India, Kenya's second-largest city is now better known for its bustling Old Town and placid white-sand beaches. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Dec-Mar, Jun-Sep (dry seasons?)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: We have a whole lot of candidates for DotM...for summer, spring and fall. For the last Northern Hemisphere winter month, February 2015, we don't. Mombasa is a Star article at fr WV, and as many prices are "as of 2014", it's reasonable to assume that the French article is up to date. Therefore I've translated the content, upgraded Mombasa's status to Guide and am hereby nominating it for DoTM.

Nomination
MombasaBeach.jpg


  • Almost - There might be some small errors in the article (misspellings, mistranslations, unfinished sentences, in the worst case even some leftovers in French plus the content that already was in our article with Improper Use Of Capital Letters), but I'll have a thorough look at it tomorrow. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Support - I've fixed the mentioned issues now. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Great work, ϒpsilon! However, it is not ready for a feature. For example, the "Communication and transport map" needs to be translated into English and is just about completely useless at its current size. Also, I feel like some of the facts in the "Geography" and "Terrain" sections are too encyclopedic, but I was loathe to just summarily delete them. I haven't read past there yet, except to look at that map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Relief et géologie ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There are issues with Mombasa#Go next, too. I posted about them at Talk:Mombasa. This'll be a very good article, but some of the standards on en.wikivoyage seem to differ from those at fr. wikivoyage, so some more changes need to be made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not Yet An awful lot of listings contain little information or just things like address, etc with little content for the traveler. Even the "See" section seems sparse. Are there no other attractions? If no, perhaps more can be said about those that are listed. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll notify the person who's written most of the French article if he/she can help. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the story with Mombasa now? We have only one support vote for it and two opposed, but most of the objections cited above seem to have been corrected. It would be great if some previous commenters here could take another look at the article and amend their votes if necessary, because if the scenario doesn't change Mombasa will likely be slushed, and I don't know that that would be a fair fate for it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed what Ikan mentioned earlier, but as I haven't been anywhere near Mombasa, anything more I'll add to the article will be third party information, if that's OK. See can likely be expanded with paraphrased WP content and the other sections with summaries from the businesses home pages or perhaps even Tripadvisor. It would be wonderful if someone who's been to Mombasa would be able to help out, but likely we don't have anyone around. I've notified the author of the French Star article at User talk:Omondi and even sent him/her an e-mail without any response...
We've featured very few African articles so far. Therefore it'd really suck to have to slush Mombasa :( ϒpsilon (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't support slushing this article, but out of respect for ChubbyWimbus and his remarks, I would prefer to withhold support for featuring this article until his points are addressed, at least to a fair degree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is a pretty spectacular article, with a nice lede, a wealth of background information in the "Understand" section, and lots of listings. Because Mombasa is not treated as a Huge City, the "Districts" section should probably be renamed to something like "Orientation" (and perhaps should be made a subsection of "Understand"). To Ypsi's comments: as long as you can distinguish between factual information and promotional fluff, it's fine to use an establishment's official website to fill out its listing. Also, I don't even think it would be a massive contravention of Wikivoyage:Be fair to source information from Tripadvisor or other such sites, so long as any opinions or other subjective content (especially negative opinions) that you use are borne out by multiple different reviewers who say the same thing. But even if we never get around to adding to the listings, I don't think the issues with them are anywhere near problematic enough to preclude my support for this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    There's nothing wrong, and a lot right, with determining a consensus opinion of a listing from other sources. Powers (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so now most of the listings have descriptions (except for post offices and such), and I've managed to find a few more sights. Many of the descriptions might sound a bit monotonous and boring, but the full marketing version is always just a click away. I haven't done anything to the Mombasa#Geography section yet, but if y'all still think it's too encyclopedic, I'm fine with axing it partially or completely. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ypsi - I'll take a closer look at your edits when I get home from work. But, preliminarily, the Geography section looks like an easy fix. Most of it is indeed pretty encyclopedic and should probably be chucked, but there are a few tidbits here and there that seem useful to travelers and could probably be incorporated into other sections. I'll have a crack at it over the next few days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I was just getting around to making the fixes suggested above, but it seems like someone else beat me to it. I did some minor reorganization of the "Understand" section as well. I can't imagine what else could be wrong with this article, so are we finally able to support it unreservedly? If not, what more needs to be done? (ChubbyWimbus?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't commented before, but do support the article as it is now. Great work. Perhaps we could spice up the intro a bit, borrowing from the first section of Understand, just to make it a more appealing first read. That said however, what's our policy on destinations for which a negative travel advise is in place? The UK simply advises against travel there, and US department warns for risks in Mombasa and Niarobi specifically and has restricted US personnel there. I'm just asking - I have no strong opinion on this. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Great work filling in the missing info! I Support this nomination however, if there is interest in further improvement, more addresses, hours, and prices could be added. I'm not personally a big fan of the separation by categories like "buildings" either. I'd prefer to see the sites organized by area like most of our guides, but once again, these are just suggestions for improvement beyond what is done which I think is sufficient for featuring. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. With the caveat that I don't personally know Mombasa, this seems to me to be an outstanding article now! Small issue: Can we have an address or Geo for Leven House? In terms of the "Buildings" category, I'm fine with it, but how about if we use that as a category and just subdivide it into "Religious" and - hmmm...not sure "Secular" is the word we're looking for. In terms of the question of risk, I would not support running the Mogadishu article if it were a Guide, but as long as Mombasa isn't an actual war zone, despite risks, I think it's fine to run it. Mombasa is a major tourist destination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent) The Mombasa Tusks are not even a building. The thought of labeling the buildings "Religious" and "Secular" make me want to eliminate those subheadings even more. Religious and "Other" are not particularly helpful subcategories and could be potentially offensive. I don't see why we would isolate religious structures when we have specific rules against isolating things like Gay and Lesbian Bars (which in contrast is probably more helpful). To be honest, with only 13 attractions, no subcategories is a viable option. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Would "Structures" be a good heading? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Without knowing the city or its layout, it seems that there are 2 main areas; that central island/peninsula that has about half the attractions and that strip along the coast. To me, it would make more sense to find out the names of those locations and make those the groupings and then have a 3rd heading for sites located on the outskirts of the city outside of these two main areas. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Vienna[edit]

Place: Vienna
Blurb: If you are heading over to Vienna for the Eurovision Song Contest, be sure to check out our comprehensive guide to the Austrian capital (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May 2015, Eurovision Song Contest takes place on May 19-23, related events start 2 weeks earlier
Nominated by: PrinceGloria (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: After much work to this article and its numerous district, it is now a guide, right in time to feature it during the most important cultural event in Europe (well, at least most-watched-on-TV).

Nomination
Schloss Schönbrunn Wien 2014 (Zuschnitt 1).jpg


  • I'll try my best to look through this article and the district articles soon, but I have yet to visit Vienna, so if those who know the city well are satisfied with the article, I'll be happy to vote to support it for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that it is a good idea to list during the song contest, but searching the site for Eurovision I didn't find any Vienna pages listed. If we are going for this timing, then song contest details need to be added (maybe just to warn of full hotels during the contest). In which district will the contest be held? On a quick look the Vienna article looks good, but I have only spent one day in the city and so I can't comment in detail. A dynamic map would be a useful addition, and the map on Vienna/Innere Stadt need to be tweaked - it is a sea of yellow crosses. AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for weighing in! The contest will be held at the Wiener Stadthalle, in district 15., which we cover as a part of Vienna/Outer West, and I guess this is a good opportunity to bursh up that district in the time remaining. The example of Malmo and Copenhagen shows that events and pop-up POIs related to Eurovision spread all over the city, or at least the central / most touristic areas. We will need to cover them as the plans unfold.
I will add the notices regarding the contest in the main page, I am not sure we need to add them in every district, we shall see if hotels are getting booked out. By now I can still book my fave hotels at the usual rates, seems like Vienna is large enough to absorb the Eurovision effect.
All of the districts seem to have dynamic maps, but it does seem they could use resizing indeed, especially the Innere Stadt. The problem with the latter is that it is so chock full of POIs (in real life, not only in our maps), it will always be hard to pan out. I also fear the wrath of Texugo and LtPowers for resizing the maps, so it would be good if you (AlasdairW) could wathclist the article to support me if I get down to it and a conflict ensues. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I remember a squad of Wikivoyagers doing massive work on Vienna, and that work is visible. Even as there are many district articles, they all seem to be at least in a decent shape. Vienna/Outer South and Vienna/Outer East seem to be at outline status (they need some more content in Get in). If we are to feature Vienna for the Eurovision month it's of course natural to have information on the event and its related events too. I've just looked at the articles now, not read them in detail, but I don't see anything big to complain about. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost - per my comment two months ago. Moreover, some of the district articles have empty sections and a some listings here and there still need coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Banff[edit]

Place: Banff
Blurb: Time to pack your skis or snowboard! Set among the spectacular Canadian Rockies, Banff has something for every outdoor enthusiast (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any (it looks like there's outdoor activities all around the year)?
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Would this be something for upcoming March's empty slot? I don't think we've ever featured a winter sports destination and I've understood Banff is one of the most popular ones in North America, therefore DotM. Banff was slushed six years ago for being just usable, having just one attraction and missing a lot of addresses and directions. This is not the case any longer, thanks to among others the main author of Calgary, currently DoTM. The article would need more pictures, some more coordinates and maybe a minor cleanup/checkup (copyedit, removal of dead links) but otherwise it's a quite nice article.

Nomination
BanffAvenue.jpg


  • Almost - per my comments. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The article definitely has potential, but as you said, Calgary just ended its stint as DotM. I'd be very concerned about placing two DotM candidates so close to each other on the schedule that are not only in the same country, but only 90 minutes' drive apart. If we feature this, it should be no earlier than winter 2015-16. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed a number of bad links and incorrect listings and added coordinates. Moved some information out to the park article and added a few images. In a better state now for consideration. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bangkok/Khao San Road[edit]

Place: Bangkok/Khao San Road
Blurb: Partying, diverse street food and cheap accommodation have made Khao San Road and its surroundings a favorite among backpackers in Bangkok (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Star (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: November-April, based on Bangkok#Climate
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Yaowarat and Phahurat was nominated for DotM, but as Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour already has been featured, let's have this one instead.

Nomination
Bangkok 2008 020.JPG


  • Support - the article looks good, at least to someone who's never been to Thailand. G-t perhaps could have a look if there's anything outdated or otherwise wrong. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a no-brainer to support the nomination of a Star article, and ditto to what you said. It looks like User:Globe-trotter substantively edited this article in the last week of September, so I'm guessing it's up to date, but he, User:Seligne and anyone else who's familiar with the neighborhood can always check on details. I trust that it's still very much a Star. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A brilliant, brilliant article and deservedly a Star. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dumaguete[edit]

Place: Dumaguete
Blurb: Both an interesting destination itself and a good base for trips to the many nearby beach and dive resorts. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: My guess is N. hemisphere winter, so late 2015, but for all I know Aussies might come in their winter
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Several people have been working on this article lately & it was just promoted to Guide. I'm in the town & will continue the work. It might be star by the time it is featured; suggestions & criticism welcome.

Nomination
Dumaguete City Rizal Boulevard.jpg


  • Support. I've been watching the progress of this article and doing some copy editing along the way. What's your feeling about this city as DotM vs. OtBP? Is it a huge draw for tourism? Also, is there a rainy season when we should avoid running the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd say DotM; it is a provincial capital and w:Dumaguete#Hotel and Tourism says it is among the top ten tourist destinations in the country. You certainly see lots of tourists, plus plenty of expats & retirees, and there are good services for them.
w:Dumaguete#Climate says the wet season is June-Nov, so I'd say run it Dec 2015 or a bit later. Pashley (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as DotM. Attracts far too many international tourists to consider it for off the beaten track, imho. Great progress has been made on the article, and I'm sure Pashley will polish it up even more. No hesitations here. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can make this DotM when Trondheim and Turku are Off the Beaten Path. Each is on its country's list of nine cities; Dumaguete is not. Powers (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
We could discuss at Talk:Philippines whether Dumaguete should be among the 9 listed cities, in place of one of the currently-listed cities, but I don't think your objection is really that obvious. For example, don't you think that the United States has more than 10 cities that would obviously be DotM, if run? Perhaps the Philippines does, too, but in any event, the remarks by Pashley and JuliasTravels satisfy me as to Dumaguete's appropriateness as a DotM. I get the feeling that you believe that every country or region should have an equal number of DotM, but I'm not sure anyone agrees with you on this, and I certainly don't. There are quite a few countries that have no DotM at all, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to explain my rationale; if I'd go to Dumaguete as suggested OtbT destination on WV, and find myself in a tourism dominated town with international visitors all around me, I'd feel mislead. I know I did not get that impression in Turku, but I haven't been to Trondheim. I have no strong feelings about this, however. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No, of course every country doesn't have the same number of DotM-worthy candidates, but I think any country (of significant size, so excluding places like Liechtenstein and East Timor) probably has at least nine. Powers (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Kirthar National Park[edit]

Place: Kirthar National Park
Blurb: A vast, rugged, arid rangeland, home to the fortifications of Ranikot as well as a wide variety of wildlife. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: October-January, December ideal
Nominated by: Saqib (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Please allow me to nominate another Pakistani destination for the featured candidacy. This article is near to guide status and will be definitely expanded in next few months but it would be great if we could put it on the slot.

Nomination
Kirthar park.jpg
  • Comment. Saqib, although your enthusiasm is laudable, it bears mentioning at this point that Pakistan is becoming overrepresented among feature-article nominees. Mohenjo-daro is on the Main Page now as OtBP, Karachi is up for DotM in October, and if we follow the "Time to feature" on this nomination and the guidelines we've set out for how far apart features from each country should be spaced, the article is going to languish on the nominees list till late 2015 or early 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Very disappointing. When it comes to US articles, its fine to feature an article with a gap of only few month but why not Pakistan? Mohenjo-daro (OTBP) is featured in February, and then a long gap of seven months and Karachi (DOTM) in October and then I think it is fair to feature another Pakistani OTBP in December or January '15. Currently we've on slot: Biscayne National Park to be feature in April, Manhattan in June, and Chicago/Far Northwest Side in August. All three US articles with only one month gap are featured candidates and last year in 2013, 6 US destinations (DOTM and OTBP) along with 3 or 4 US related travel topics were featured. Don't you think that US is actually overrepresented here? Again, very disappointed. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is slowly coming together, and that's nice. I think it's not yet ready though. I'm not sure it's a good thing that we're seeing more of these "not yet ready but I'm working on it" nominations, securing places in the slot beforehand. I think ideally, an article should be ready in the eyes of the nominator, and then still has some time to incorporate suggestions from others. For the rest, Andre is right, even if it would be ready, it should wait a bit for the sake of variety. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Its correct that I'm trying to secure the place for this article on the slot before the article is ready, steady, go (I mean 100% guide status) but fairly speaking, it seems very near to guide status to me but I know this is not appropriate practice and I agree with you. I admit my assumption can be wrong in judging an article whether it becomes a guide article or still at usable but I want to clear that I've no intention to nominate an incomplete article just for the sake because it belongs to Pakistan or I contributed to it. I want to know what information you think is missing from this article that should be in a guide article and I'll try to address your concerns and if I realise something major is missing from this article, I'll be more than happy to withdraw my nomination myself. BTW, recently, some of the nominations caught my eyes and some of them were seems not guide to me but I even though I didn't opposed the nominations except one which is today slushed because I believe the articles will be manage to get the missing details before they appear on the main page. --Saqib (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting you withdraw the nomination, I just agree with Andre that it needs some time. My remarks on completeness are general, nothing personal. As for your remarks of Pakistan vs the US: I think that's not a good comparison. We try to also spread US destinations on the schedule, and yes, the US is a bit overrepresented because we have many editors from there. But the US is also ten times as big and the number 2 tourist destination in the whole world, receiving about 67 times as many visitors as Pakistan. It's quite normal that it will get some more attention. Getting a good overall balance will be achieved by improving articles on destinations all over the world, not by over-representing other regions. That said, I think its great that you're working on Pakistan articles and with a bit of patience, there's plenty of room to feature several Pakistani destinations over the next few years :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, your point is valid and I'm sorry for over-reacting. My comparison (Pakistan vs US) was definitely not correct and here, I withdraw my nomination. But I'll remind here that Andrew actually last month said here that he won't have a problem featuring Sindh (A Pakistani destination) in February next year but I don't know why now he saying a Pakistani destination can't be featured until late 2015 or early 2016. --Saqib (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly don't think all Pakistani nominees should have to wait that long. But in the individual case of this destination, you set the "Time to feature" as October thru January, with December as the ideal. By that very definition, we have to feature it either next autumn or the autumn after that. If there are any Pakistani destinations that are good for the spring or summer, there would certainly be no scheduling problems. As far as Sindh in February, even that would be pushing the envelope under normal circumstances, but we make exceptions for timely annual events and you mentioned that the Sindh Festival took place that month.
On another topic, I took a look at the article and it looks very well-written and seems to be an interesting destination. So long as you're willing to wait for it to be featured, I would encourage you not to withdraw the nomination. I'd love to see this on the Main Page at the right time.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If I'm getting you correctly, did you mean that If I don't withdraw my nomination, this can be featured early next year? If so, thanks for doing your best to support this nomination and that will be great. Yes, December is definitely ideal time to visit but I think we can extend the time to feature until February because Mohenjo-daro (featuring in February) belongs to the same region where Kirthar National Park is so I'm sure visiting the park in February is fine as well. --Saqib (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Tell you what: Plan A will be to feature Sindh in February if you're still interested in nominating it. If not, we'll feature Kirthar in February instead. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I support Kirthar. --Saqib (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet, but close I will support this nomination when a map is inserted into it, and that map should clearly indicate where the M-9, M-10, Karchat, and the roads enabling access to the park are. This article actually is at Guide status; do some of you feel it shouldn't be? What are the main things you think are missing from this article or require editing? I did some copy editing throughout the guide, and there are a few phrases that might need a bit more clarification, but otherwise, it's a good article and really almost ready to run right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is challenging the status, and I will support this article when it's ready. My remarks were general; I feel we should include articles in the slot when all the issues already identified at their talk pages have been addressed. As for this particular article, I'm still not all comfortable with the remaining "borrowed" sentences (or parts of sentences) from other articles, it needs some copy-editing, and I also think it should have listings like we have everywhere, including coordinates. But these are details that can easily be fixed before February. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@IK, the map was already created few days back but it didn't looks good to me although its near to complete so I didn't uploaded it. Anyway, I've just uploaded it on Commons please have a look and let me know what do you think about it. --Saqib (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Saqib. I think that map is not too easy to read, partly because the gray on gray doesn't contrast well. I'd suggest using black for text and using more attractive colors like blue and green, maybe - something other than just gray. Also, you refer to the Hub Dam in the article, and on the map, it's Hab Dam. Which spelling is used more? Either way, the article and the map need to agree on spelling of names. On another matter, I think it's a good idea to have black dots to represent villages, and the resolution will need to be considerably magnified for people to be able to read the names of the villages - or the pitch can be increased for those names, which would work better if it's easy for you to do in map editing mode. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for quick suggestions. I've improved the map. Please have a look again and let me know what do you think now? --Saqib (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
That's good, and much more readable than many other maps that are now in articles. I think it's ready to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@Julias, I've paraphrased the copied do section. Do you still think it need more paraphrasing? --Saqib (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@Julias, Hello! I noticed you're quite busy nowadays in real life but I appreciate if you kindly manage to give a quick view of the article and let me know of the things need to be fixed. --Saqib (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed I don't have much time now, sorry. I'm sure it's much better already and there's plenty of time left until the feature date, so no hurry. I'm fine with putting it in the slot, I'm sure any remaining issues can just be fixed over time. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

[unindent]I'm afraid I still can't support featuring this article yet, as long as it has unintelligible passages like this:

For Khar, take the Kirthar Park Rd, which branches off from the Karachi Northern Bypass (motorway M-10) in the halfway which radiates north from Karachi.

What does "in the halfway" mean? It's no kind of English I can understand. And please understand, I'm not saying this to insult anyone or hurt anyone's feelings; I just think that it's important for the entire text to be clearly understandable and in correct grammar and syntax before this article is approved to be featured on the front page. I don't mind continuing to do some copy-editing, but if I can't understand the meaning, that's a problem. So to summarize, this article needs more editing before it should be approved for a feature; however, next February is a long way away, and the project is a worthy one, so let's keep at it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support After a few more passes of editing, I'm satisfied with this article and certainly support featuring it, provided that no more problematic passages of the type that bothered me before are introduced into it. It's a beautiful article that will be very good on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — This nomination was created mid-February and its been more than 2 months now and still no good support except a vote from Ikan Kekek. And even though Andrew has said that this article could be featured but so far no support vote means the candidate is of no good interest so I'll have no problem if this nomination is slushed. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Saqib. I do support this nomination and hope to see it on the Main Page ~February 2015, as we'd discussed earlier. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh thanks. Actually I was going to suggest a new and better nomination because I thought this one is not of good interest for the community. I'm talking about Urdu phrasebook. Urdu phrasebook is ready to go on the main page but I'm working on to make it star status phrasebook. Urdu is very similar to Hindi in spoken language and together they both makes one of the most spoken language in the world (according to some sources, maybe 2nd or 3rd). Urdu is widely understood in Pakistan, India and in many countries across Middle East where there's large South Asian communities so definitely Urdu is very useful for a visitor visiting India, Pakistan and as well for someone visiting Middle East. What do you think which is better candidate? Kirthar National Park or Urdu phrasebook? --Saqib (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
My personal preference is for Kirthar. Personally I find phrasebooks kind of dry and boring, and I think they should be placed on the Main Page only sparingly. I won't be upset if others think differently, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, I would not object if both of them were nominees, as long as you understand that it would not be until around July or August 2015 that Urdu phrasebook would be featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, Andre. I'd like to see Kirthar featured, as it's a very interesting OtBP park. It's also totally fine to feature the Urdu phrasebook, but I'd hope Kirthar could be featured first, as it seems more compelling to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Ikan Kekek and AndreCarrotflower. Thanks again for supporting this nomination but I'm no more in favour of featuring this article anymore. Even inside the country, this place is not popular and only few visit it. When it comes to national parks, majority of people, both local and foreigners, heads to Northwest Pakistan and Gilgit-Baltistan for breathtaking sightseeing. Previously I suggested to feature Urdu phrasebook but that was not a better idea so today, I've a good suggestion and that's Taxila which is recently created. Taxila is an important archaeological sites of South Asia and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, not to mention, is counted amongst the top visited tourist sites of Pakistan. The article is guide but I'll work on its expansion and will make it more polished, detailed and informative. I'm pretty sure this article will generate a good number of visitors to WV and will be helpful to those visiting Taxila. Can we please feature Taxila in February 2015 instead of Kirthar which can slushed due to lack of support and interest. --Saqib (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Saqib, I'm honestly a bit confused as to why you no longer support running this article. You said that Kirthar is not particularly popular or well-visited, but I don't understand why that is a problem—after all, it's nominated for OtBP, not DotM. I also disagree that there's a "lack of support and interest" for the nomination: as far as comment threads on this page go, this one actually seems longer and has more participants than average. Furthermore, it has three supporters including yourself, or four if you count JuliasTravels, who said she would support the nomination pending some edits which have since been accomplished.
If you want Taxila to be featured, you can nominate it on this page, but it's an open question what will happen after that: the community will either support or oppose it. Furthermore, in case of opposition (or if February isn't a good time to visit Taxila), we're left high and dry as to which article should be featured in February's OtBP slot. Even if Taxila gains support, I don't know that I would be in favor of withdrawing Kirthar from consideration. It's a perfectly well-written article and IMO there's no basis in policy to slush it.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have a good argument to defend myself other than that when it comes to Pakistan, I'm only in favour of featuring well known, popular and most visited sites. February is definitely the best time visit Taxila as the weather is cooler and navigating around the ruins makes the trip enjoyable. The community has right to oppose Taxila if they think but there's a good reason to oppose featuring such a worthy destination. --Saqib (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Saqib: I would encourage you to nominate Taxila and see what happens. If the community supports it, then I see no problem with running it in February instead of Kirthar. As far as throwing Kirthar on the slush pile, though, I honestly don't know. It might be a good article to run in the winter of 2015-16, because it is usually so hard to find articles to feature during that time of the year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew. I've nominated Taxila below. If you think Kirthar shouldn't be slushed then I've no problem but I don't think it would be a good idea to keep this nomination for too long on this page. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find a much better candidate for featuring during winter 2016 otherwise we can feature this one. --Saqib (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why Kirthar should be slushed. As AndreCarrotflower said, an interesting destination that lacks many visitors is - almost by definition - Off the Beaten Path. I'll have a look at the Taxila article later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I could support this article. It's certainly not a bad thing for an OtBP to be unknown and little visited (look at the nomination right above)! Also, looking at previous DotMs and OtBPs tells me national parks don't get featured that often. It would be a shame to throw it on the slush pile, on the other hand articles should not be hanging around here for many years. The question is what to do with Taxila, feature it later on sometimes? It's not a bad article either.
When it comes to articles to feature during the winter time; I've made a little list of almost 20 articles from the "just 8% of all features" half of the world (most of them warm and pleasant during northern hemisphere winter) that could be made into guides (by translation or even just a cleanup) and featured so finding articles for those months would not be that much of a problem. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I am not up to reading through the entire Taxila article tonight, but in principle, there's no problem with featuring both articles in successive years, or even - depending on the "Time to feature" schedule - perhaps in the same year. One or two articles on Pakistan per year wouldn't be too many. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
YPSI. Thanks for belated support vote but I think I'm no more willing to support featuring this article in February 2015, perhaps it can be featured later in 2016. As I said above, I know my argument is not solid but Pakistan is not a leading tourist country so I think we should try to give priority to those destinations that are more popular and well-known. Recently, I contacted UNESCO Pakistan and asked them to add the the link to our Mohenjo-daro article on the Mohenjo-daro page on UNESCO site. The first thing they asked me was "What is special about this Mohenjo-daro article on WV" and my answer was that it's a previously featured article. I think they're convinced to include the link but they've asked for some time. Now imagine, we'll get plenty of traffic once the link included in that page. So you can say I'm trying to do the same with Taxila as well. Once the Taxila is confirmed as successful featured article candidate, I can talk with UNESCO about it. --Saqib (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand your argument, Saqib. If we decide the Taxila article is ready to be featured, we can certainly consider featuring it before Kirthar, on that basis. However, I don't think it's good to decide to withdraw a good article from consideration for a feature after you nominated it, unless others have made good arguments for why the article is not ready to be featured, nor do I think that the nominator should have the power to simply unilaterally decide to have an article slushed. And while the quality of the destination is not supposed to be relevant to decisions on whether to feature an article, Kirthar is quite obviously a great destination, even if it's off the beaten path for Pakistanis as well as foreigners. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
IK, I'm not making any decision to slush it. I've said above, if you want to feature it, do it but do consider that I've a better candidate for featured article. In last couple of months, I felt Kirthar is of no interest for many thats why until today, it had only 2 supports vote and that made me go against featuring the article. Anyways, I've made the nomination of Taxila below. You guys have right to oppose Taxila if you think the article is not ready yet. --Saqib (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, Saqib. I'll try to have a thorough look at Taxila within the next few days. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - and oppose slushing. Any nominations for other articles an editor has come to like or expand should not lead to slushing others like this one, for which ample discussion has taken place, support gathered and several editors have taken the time and effort to assist in bringing it up to the demanded quality. I'm all for selecting interesting articles to feature, and keeping those that are less interesting to just read only as a backup: something that's gained me some criticism in the past. Slushing Kirthar National Park on a personal preference of popular sites over those less so, or of Unesco sites over parks, goes way further than that, imho. It's surely no valid reason in terms of policy. And also content-wise, I would argue it makes sense to feature a park rather than another (in many ways similar to Mohenjo-daro) ancient settlement when featuring two Pakistan destinations in a year, for the sake of diversity. I think Kirthar is an excellent example of a really off the beaten track but great destination. Just give Taxila some time and feature it too, just later. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Andrew, I saw you added Kirthar National Park into the slot above and wrote "pending improvements to Taxila". What does it means? --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Saqib - As you can see at its nomination, the community sees a lot of potential in Taxila but is not ready to support running it as OtBP until some improvements are made to the article. I'm not comfortable placing an article into the schedule that hasn't received a single Support vote. I am confident that as time goes by you will make the improvements to Taxila and we can place it into the OtBP slot for that month, but if by some small chance the article's not ready by February 11th (or if you change your mind again) Plan B will be to run Kirthar in its place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay I got it. Actually, I realised community wants to run Kirthar first rather than Taxila so it made me abandoned working on Taxila article but if still there're chances that Taxila could be featured in place of Kirthar in February 2015, I will resume my work on it soon and will try to make it up-to the standard. --Saqib (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well actually, you sure understood my concerns correctly, Saqib, and I hope you understand why. Andre, I'm a bit surprised you don't even respond to my opposition to slushing or postponing and support for Kirthar, on which I worked with Saqib. Instead, you just do the exact opposite and make Kirthar's feature a matter pending on the development of another article. Again, I don't see why the good article for Kirthar should be postponed for (the not up to standards yet) Taxila only because of a personal preference of Saqib for popular places? Especially when the park would ensure more diversity, as Taxila and Mohenjodaro are a similar kind of attraction. JuliasTravels (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I also did a lot of hard work editing this article to bring it up to snuff, so I'm glad that it will be featured. The featured articles are very often a product of teamwork, and this one definitely is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
JuliasTravels - Your comments were duly noted. Saqib is an incredibly prolific and valuable contributor and a cornerstone of our community, and his opinions (especially about Pakistan, which he knows better than any of us) ought not to be discounted. I am of the opinion that the current schedule is a fair compromise between slushing Kirthar outright, as Saqib would like, and postponing Taxila, as you would like. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, where in policy does it say "all final decisions regarding DotM are made by User:AndreCarrotflower"? By default the task has fallen almost exclusively to me over the past year or two, but the fact remains that if someone doesn't like the schedule, he or she is perfectly free to change it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words Andre. I'm flattered. --Saqib (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
His words are true, Saqib. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no doubt about Saqib's great value of course! :-) Still, this is not really a matter of knowledge about the area, but rather one of personal taste. Me not plunging forward and changing has everything to do with the respect I have for the way you've taken the task upon yourself, Andre :-) But very well then, since there's no consensus to postpone or slush Kirthar, and since several people have put a lot of effort in that article, I will do so now. For the record, I see absolutely no problem with featuring Taxila when it is ready, but if for some reason we need to feature it very soon, we should have a proper discussion about which article would have to make way for it. I don't think it's a problem to have two or even three Pakistani destinations per year either. It's great that we're getting such great articles about that country :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't care anymore whichever guide feature first. The discussion is getting too long now so lets stop discussing it anymore.But yes I won't be able to work on this Kirthar article anymore because I'm really not interested in it anymore. I hope someone else will take care of the article if someone wants to fix the issue in-case if it still have some, before articles goes on the main page. Also, I always tried to bring Pakistani article up-to standard when it's featured article candidate and I really wanted to bring this one up-to that quality standard but I couldn't able to and that's the reason why I never mentioned Kirthar on my user-page because I was not and am still not satisfied with its current state. --Saqib (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's just try to feature them both, Saqib :-) Can you explain what you think is still an issue for the Kirthar article? I'm happy to help improve it if I can. To me it seems to be quite good already, surely good enough to feature as OTBT, but any improvements are always good :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I never been to a lot of national parks so I really don't know what should be included in a national park guide. I believe this is very near to guide but actually I'm not satisfied with it. I was planning to visit this national park again after I nominated it for featuring here and wanted to add more value able content after my trip but I couldn't able to make my trip. Later, the trip seems impossible for me due to some other activities so I decided to make it on hold and thus nominated Taxila. If you read my comment above, you will see the reason why I nominated this article for featuring (securing the slot). I thought I will able to bring it up-to standard I'm aiming at but I'm failed in it. So later, I proposed Urdu and then Taxila. Now if you think It can be featured as it is then I've no opposition anymore because I don't care about it anymore. --Saqib (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you no longer care about an article that you and some of us worked so hard on, to bring it up to a good level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Saba[edit]

Place: Saba
Blurb: Once a pirate's haven, the Caribbean's "Unspoiled Queen" is now a haven for nature lovers, medical students, and—above all—divers. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Dec-Jul, preferably Northern Hemisphere winter
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: It was mentioned by another user earlier that we should diversify our "Northern Hemisphere winter" features beyond Asia. Specifically mentioned were Africa, South America, and the Pacific, but a brief perusal of our Guide articles led me to this interesting Caribbean destination instead. I'd love to run this as OtBP in January 2015.

Nomination
Windwardside.jpg


  • Support as nominator. The article is probably featureable as is, but for those who are skeptical, here are some easy fixes that would go a long way toward sprucing the article up:
1. The "Do" section - where Saba's main appeal to tourists, namely diving, is covered - could use some expansion. (The "See" section is short by necessity; other than diving, there's not much to do here but relax.)
2. Much of the information on The Road and Yrausquin Airport should probably be merged into "Get around" and "Get in" respectively, with historical details and other information that's not of immediate practical use to travellers perhaps retained in "Understand" (though not in their own subsections).
3. The article could use more pictures.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Almost. I expect to support this article very soon, but two things have to take place before it is featured: A bunch of listings need to be Wiki-listified, and the article needs to be edited for style. On style, I have a question: Does Saba use the same English-language spellings and English measures as the US? I imagine not, but right now, the article uses primarily American spellings and uses feet, rather than metres, as default measures. This needs to be resolved. Both of these fixes should be easy, but the second one requires agreement and could really use some knowledge of local practices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost - pictures and cleanup is needed as Ikan said. While it's a territory of the Netherlands at least the official tourist web page uses American spelling. As with other Caribbean destinations I believe most visitors come from the US, as does probably the person who wrote the text about the runway (and gave the length in feet). On Saba itself I'm quite sure they do not use the imperial units. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page I actually mentioned "Latin America" by which I meant to say everything south of the US, also the Caribbean (apparently the term doesn't officially include all of the Caribbean). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So it sounds like the article should perhaps use American spelling but metric units (so "meters," but not "metres"). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's just the United States, Burma and Liberia and to some extent countries with a British history (e.g. distances in the UK and Ireland) that haven't switched to the Système International (yet?). I imagine most countries in the Americas that haven't been part of the British Empire have gotten their English-language influences mainly from the US and therefore use the American spelling. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I made some edits. In my opinion, "Eat," "Drink" and "Sleep" need to be completely Wiki-listified, and then we can run this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Our German friends have collected quite a lot of information about Saba and even made separate articles for the villages (IMO this is something we don't need to do, though). Part of it are yellowpageish long lists but I believe we can make use of some of the rest of it, wherefore I put a translate de tag on Saba as a reminder. Will take on the task at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - fixed all of the above issues+added POIs, hiking trails and small bits and pieces of info here and there from de:Saba. It's a perfect OtBP for the coldest winter month and now I'm absolutely confident we can run it. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Some "Eat" and "Drink" listings still have no locations or just the name of the village where they're situated. I assume that numbered street addresses aren't used in Saba(?), but nevertheless, at least we should have clear location descriptions for every listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added what village they are in, that's pretty much everything there is both on their own web sites (one in three businesses on Saba seems to have one, and they include stuff like "Employer of the year 2007"...) and on sites like Lonely Planet and other Saba travel info sites. Businesses mail addresses seems to be "village+P.O box" and neither our dynamic map nor Google Maps seems to have any street names written out so maybe they don't even have street names on Saba. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
If that's the best that can be done, so be it, and in that case, I'm ready to support running the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for pitching in, Ypsi. I had intended to take care of that myself sometime before January, but these things have a habit of getting away from me, especially with as much on my Wikivoyage plate as I have. Bringing the Gaspé Peninsula up to Guide status is requiring more work than I thought it would. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: We have 3 votes so far in favor of running this article. Would other people like to pass judgment on it, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ushuaia[edit]

Place: Ushuaia
Blurb: At the tip of the Southern Cone, the southernmost city in the world boasts a variety of outdoor activities on land and water around the year and is a gateway to Antarctica (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar 2015 preferred, otherwise Jun-Feb
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Let's not have "?" as March's OtBP, that'd be something for April Fools day instead ;) .So, here's yet another translated Guide, this time from German where it was an OtBP in March 2009. Also been featured now and then on DotM's, OtBP's and FTT's little brother.

Nomination
Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego.jpg


  • Support - yup, I will google up coordinates for the POIs at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - a worthwhile article for an interesting South American destination. I had hoped to whip Antigua Guatemala into shape in time to nominate it for March's OtBP, but I decided against it - between districting Buffalo and trying to get Gaspé Peninsula up to Guide status by summertime, I have enough on my plate as is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does take a whole lot of work to write articles compared to translating them. If someone has some other interesting OtBP candidate for March and really would love to feature it that particular month, I won't probably oppose postponing Ushuaia. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I expect to support this article after I finish reading and copy editing it. I'm through "See" so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have finished copy editing and support running this article. I should mention that, because this article seemed to be written mostly but not completely in US English and based on the destination being in the Americas in an area that was never a British colony, I put the entire article in US English, but I'm not sure whether that's optimal, as I remembered late in the process that I had had a discussion with Frank in which he indicated that British English is actually more strongly established in Argentina. So I hope I didn't create a slight problem, and if anyone would like to turn the "car rental"s back into "car hire" and all the "kilometers" into "kilometres," be my guest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Andre, I noticed you recently changed the time to feature parameter. According to the article (and what I translated) people go there for winter sports in the Southern Hemisphere winter. "The ski resorts have snow from May to early November." (wouldn't it be interesting to feature a ski resort when most readers don't expect it?) Also, the winter temperatures aren't that much lower than in the cool summer and overall it doesn't seem to get colder than a few degrees under freezing. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
ϒpsilon: The assumption under which I was operating was that the majority of travellers to Ushuaia visit there as the starting and ending point of an Antarctic cruises, which naturally take place mostly during the Southern Hemisphere summer. I imagine most of the hikers, etc. at Tierra del Fuego National Park come in the summer too. There is a ski resort mentioned that sounds large, but is it popular enough, and/or is the seasonal variation in tourist traffic in general large enough, for Ushuaia to be truly recommendable for winter visitors? After all, there's not many places where there's literally nothing for tourists to do offseason. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
To be clear: I am not opposed to running Ushuaia in March 2015 (especially if de: also featured the article in March). The reason I altered the Time to feature was that in case some other article comes along that the community feels should be put in that slot, we can know where on the schedule to move Ushuaia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how big the variation in visitors is. At least the temperature does not seem to vary very much (you can't go in swimwear in the summer but you don't need a fur in the winter). By that I mean that hikers have to have fairly warm clothing even in the summer, and they don't need much more to be able to hike in the winter (but again if there's a lot of snow it may not be possible in the first place...). The "best ski center in Argentina of 2013", as it promotes itself, seems to be quite popular in the winter, but perhaps it's only among domestic tourists. About the cruise passengers, yes, most of them will pass through, however if you've paid the price of a small car to be one of the 30,000 persons setting the foot on Antarctica each year, Ushuaia will probably not be the highlight of the trip anyway.
It's OK to save this for a later time if needed (although I generally don't like "saving" articles for too long - what if someone would've suggested something from eastern Ukraine for this September a year ago? :P) ϒpsilon (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, ϒpsi, at this point I don't foresee any problem at all with Ushuaia being run in March. I changed the Time to feature only as an insurance policy, to avoid confusion in case something unexpected happens. I'm also not married to the Oct-Feb range; in fact, the arguments in favor of featuring Ushuaia during the Southern Hemisphere winter are also persuasive. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, a quick bit of research seems to indicate that the ski season in Ushuaia runs from June through October. I've changed the Time to feature accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Muy bien. Gracias! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Iseo[edit]

Place: Iseo
Blurb: Between Franciacorta and Val Camonica, Iseo is a delightful town by Lake Iseo. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: preferably on May or June: when the Lakes festival takes place, but also on July, August or September.
Nominated by: Lkcl it (Talk) 18:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: It has got beautiful buildings and square such as Oldofredi and Carmagnola Castle and Garibaldi square with the first monument ever built to Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Nomination
Iseo Aprile 14.JPG


  • Support - might need minor copyediting, but nothing big. Overall it's a nice little article about a seemingly nice little Italian town. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs a bit more work. [Edit as of 20 September, 2014: Nevertheless, I support it, as detailed below]. I read and copy edited through the end of "See," and there were some sentences that were ambiguous enough that I want to look at the version in it.wikivoyage to try to make sure of what was really meant. Once all the meanings are clarified and the copy editing is reasonably complete, I expect to be able to support running this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet. An interesting enough destination, but there are multiple issues that need to be solved here before I'm comfortable supporting this as a Main Page feature. To wit:
  • the article needs a proper lede, more substantive than the boilerplate (x) is a city in region (y) of country (z)
  • "Understand", "Get in", and "Get around" need to be filled out, with the part about the three hamlets Clusane, Pilzone and Cremignane possibly split off into a separate "Districts" or "Orientation" subsection of "Understand"
  • some listings need blurbs and/or geo coordinates
  • the article needs a map.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
On Italian version of voy, both it:Clusane and it:Pilzone have their own pages, if you want I can create them. About the map, can we use the one generated with listing coordinates using openstreetmap? I'll add blurbs and coordinates ASAP. --Lkcl it (Talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC) AndreCarrotflower (I've forgotten to link you before) --Lkcl it (Talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Lkcl it - To answer your question about the map: yes, since most of the listings have geo coordinates already, a dynamic map is probably the way to go. As for giving Clusane and Pilzone their own articles, if you think that the two hamlets can each support an article themselves, and you're willing to translate and/or write the content for them, I say go for it; if not, it's fine to lump them all together in one large Iseo article. It's your call. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower I've hadded all the blurbs and the geo coordinates missing and the dynamic map. I'll sure create an article on Clusane, but I'm not sure about Pilzone (I have already added as much information as I can on it:voy, I don't know if here is enhough) - I'll work on it starting from Tuesday, I'm sorry but probably I'll have no time before. Could you give me more details on what do you (and voy policies) want in "Understand", "Get in", and "Get around" sections?. Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have created an article on Clusane. I'll add some contents and the geo coordinates to restaurants and hotels tomorrow. --Lkcl it (Talk) 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Lkcl it - Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. I think the problem with "Understand", "Get in" and "Get around" has more to do with how long they are than any information that may be lacking. "Get in", in particular, covers all the bases it needs to, but it does so very tersely and without going in to much detail. In particular, if I were you I wouldn't rely so much on external links to give information you could simply include in the article. Check out Rochester (New York)#Get in for a comparison.
As for "Understand", I see that a listing for the tourist information center has been added since I last checked, which is definitely a good thing. You might want to also include information about climate, any minority languages spoken in the area other than Italian (since this is the English Wikivoyage, you might want to indicate whether there are a lot of locals who are proficient in English), and other things like that. "Get around" would probably benefit by adding tips for other forms of transportation than walking or biking - those two may be the best ways to get around Iseo, but surely some people use cars or other methods. Also, is there a bus system or any other public transportation? What about taxis?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower Thanks for your reply. I have added some information in Get in and Get around. But I have a question about taxis: the only company in Iseo is Iseo Taxi but you usually don't use it to move from different parts of Iseo, but from Brescia or from Orio al Serio international airports. Should I add it to Get in section? No, there aren't any bus systems or other public transportation. --Lkcl it (Talk) 14:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, Iseo Taxi is probably worth a mention in the "By plane" subsection of "Get in". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added as much information as I was able. Let me know if it is enough. --Lkcl it (Talk) 17:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lkcl it - Great work! It still needs some minor copyediting and a proper lede, but that should be easy enough for anyone to do given the information you've added to the article. I'm going to go ahead and support this with the understanding that these things usually do get taken care of before they come on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
As Andre says, this article does still need some more work. Aside from writing a real lede, we should also insert some more photos. However, after copy-editing the article, I'm happy enough with it to support its nomination for Otbp. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek I have a question about photos: Where do you think is better to add some more photos? See section is full, can I add some photos of some monuments in other sections? Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 14:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Photos can be put anywhere in an article where there's room and they look good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Turku[edit]

Place: Turku
Blurb: The university city at the mouth of Aura river has medieval roots and springs into full life each summer. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep (June and July have a lot of events)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A fine article, mainly thanks to Jontts and LPfi. Yes, it'll be a very European 2015 but hey, 7 of the world's 10 most visited countries are located here! Turku could be a DotM too, though Tampere which is slightly larger was also featured as (one of our first) OtBP's and DotM is practically fully booked for a year. Also, PrinceGloria recently noticed that European OtBP's often are small towns or villages.

Nomination
Turku Castle.jpg
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, this appears to be a well-developed and polished article, and despite Turku's size it certainly lies off the beaten track for most English-speaking tourists. I have two major comments. First one is that the map is pretty much unlegible, a higher zoom level would be much better, not all of the outlying POIs have to fit. I also believe this is a good candidate for a non-standard-size map, as the POIs come very dense and the city seems to have an East-West orientation so the map needs to be wide. Secondly, such a long article could use more photos. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I've liked this article for a long time, though it's been a few months since I last looked at it. It's really good! I do agree with PrinceGloria about the map, but there are a lot of photos, so if there are no more good ones, the ones in the article now are quite sufficient. This article will be great on the front page! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Danapit (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A beautiful article, exhaustively detailed, lots of photos. I took the liberty of changing a few section headers to more closely match our style. A few little nitpicks (which aren't even remotely serious enough to preclude my support): from my cursory skim of the article it looks like some minor copyediting may be in order, and is it really necessary to include such detail in the entries in "Read" and "Watch"? It seems like one-line descriptions would suffice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sierra Vista[edit]

Place: Sierra Vista
Blurb: Not far from the Mexican border, Sierra Vista offers canyons, birdwatching and military history. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-Jun, Sep-Nov (according to the climate table it can be both hot and cool all around the year?)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: April's OtBP, maybe?

Nomination
Fort Huachuca -a.jpg


  • Almost - the lead section needs expansion and the article could use an additional photo or two towards the end. Eat and Sleep could use price categories. Otherwise the article (which even has a docent) looks good. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. I like the article very much, and it might be acceptable to leave the lede as short as it is, but the none of the "Eat" listings has price information. Also, minor point, but per policy, the "Learn" section should be deleted unless these colleges run some courses that last 2 weeks or so for non-matriculated students. Otherwise, if you want to mention the schools as part of the character and identity of the town, they can be mentioned with a link in the lede, or if they're interesting to visit, they could be made into "See" listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - suitable destination and an already very useful guide. I agree with Ypsilon that the place should get a proper lede, and preferably short introductions for some other sections too. For anyone finding themselves in Sierra Vista, I'm sure everything they really need is there. And that's sufficient to meet our standard guide criteria. But as someone who's never heard of this place, a quick glance through this article doesn't really tell me why I would want to go there. I have to read through the lists of sights to get an idea of the place, and I'm likely to lose interest within seconds. Therefore, I think we should strive to create good introductions for our featured articles, grasping people's attention and encouraging them to read on and just discover and consider the destination. I'm rather sure that otherwise, few people will really read them. That said, I do support the feature when the small changes mentioned are made JuliasTravels (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe. I'm quite surprised this article was nominated, as personally I would recommend nearby Bisbee for being more interesting to travelers (disclosure: I grew up not far from Sierra Vista). Unlike Bisbee, the town of Sierra Vista itself is rather charmless and is simply the largest population center of southeast Arizona; however the immediate environs are I think very interesting and quite scenic. I'd been hoping to eventually get the regional article up to guide status, but still have some way to go on that. However if there's enough interest I can continue to work on the Sierra Vista article. Regarding restaurant prices, it will likely be a few months before I will be able to confirm prices in person. –StellarD (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be fine with Bisbee too, that article is at guide status as well. Remember, a certain "WTF-factor" is never a drawback for Off the Beaten Path's :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ypsi - Though it's classified as a Guide, Bisbee is not in any way feature-worthy at this point. (See my comment on this thread timestamped 20:36, 3 June 2014; there've been no substantial edits to the article since that time.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Palmyra (New York)[edit]

Place: Palmyra (New York)
Blurb: The birthplace of the Latter-Day Saints movement (also known as Mormonism), Palmyra is a village steeped in history and enriched by the dynamic presence of the Erie Canal. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: July or June (Hill Cumorah Pageant is mid-July), elsewise anytime between March and October
Nominated by: Powers (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Blurb needs work. Been working on it off and on since 2012, before the move to the WMF. This is what it looked like when I started. It's definitely off the beaten path, but its attractions include the holiest sites of a significant world religion with more than 15 million adherents.

Nomination
Hill Cumorah Pageant heralds.jpg


  • Support. That's a lot of really good work! I haven't read through the entire article with a fine-toothed comb, but I feel very satisfied that I've read through enough of it to be able to testify to its high quality. A few more photos, if available (perhaps one of the canal?) would be welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    Free photos are hard to come by, in part because searching produces false positives with Palmyra. There are some options out there, and I've got a couple of my own I might be able to use; I just haven't added them yet. I appreciate the reminder, though! Powers (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've added a couple of photos; feel free to look for some more to add! Powers (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work, Powers, though I echo Ikan's request for more photos. Let's put this on the Main Page in July 2016, to coincide with the Hill Cumorah pageant (and to avoid running too close to Buffalo's DotM run, which I envision for June 2015). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    Small nitpick: in an article with nine other places in the Eat section that aren't national chains, do we really need a listing for Subway? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    Need, no, but the list isn't strongly curated, so it seemed odd to omit it just because it's a chain. In small towns like this, without local specialty cuisines, sometimes consistency and predictability is desirable for a traveler over greasy spoons and diners with unknown standards. I'd thought about just mentioning it without giving it a full listing, but I thought its location inside a gas station was best explained in a full listing. Powers (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The article looks good, I can't really find anything big to complain about though I do notice there are quite many redlinks in the article. Yeah, and of course some more photos would be great. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    Are redlinks a problem for some reason? And there are now six photos in the article; if you find any more you'd like to add feel free, but policy does request we don't go overboard. Powers (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe we have enough photos at this point. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed, with the two that Powers added since this discussion started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Altai Tavan Bogd National Park[edit]

Place: Altai Tavan Bogd National Park
Blurb: Explore nomad culture, ancient Turkic petroglyphs and the nature of the scenic Altai mountains where the golden eagles fly. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: “The busy season is from June to October...”
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Here’s a good looking article of a true OtBP destination - I believe one of those places other travel guides unjustly neglect. The article looks comprehensive and tidy. By the time it will be featured the required 2+ years has passed since nearby Ölgii was OtBP (that was Jun 2013). Last but definitely not least, the park seems like a fascinating place to visit!

Nomination
Tavan Bogd Mountain.jpg


  • Support. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I had forgotten this article had never been featured. The high quality of the article is mostly due to the great work of User:Altaihunters (formerly User:Eaglehunter), who also did such great work on the previously-featured Ölgii article. I'll inform him of this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Magnificent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Davenport[edit]

Place: Davenport
Blurb: The largest of the four Quad Cities straddling the border between Iowa and Illinois, Davenport boasts revitalized historic neighborhoods, a buzzing arts scene, and panoramic vistas along the shore of the mighty Mississippi. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct; Aug or after somewhat more preferable due to higher risk of tornadoes in spring and early summer
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Summer 2015 is shaping up to be the anti-Summer 2013: rather than more U.S. nominees than we know what to do with, as of now we don't have any American destinations on the docket other than Buffalo. Here's a pretty good one.

Nomination
Davenport.jpg


  • Support as nominator. Needs a lede, but other than that, it looks ready to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. The article is beautiful, but there is a well-justified style tag on the "Eat" section that needs to be addressed before this is run. I also had thoughts of nominating Seattle, by the way, but not a soul has responded to my questions at Talk:Seattle#DotM?. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ikan - It looks like Davenport#Eat should be an easy enough fix. The listings themselves are fine; they just need to be reorganized by price point rather than type of cuisine. Assuming there is nothing else wrong with the article, I should be able to get it whipped into shape in no time. As for Seattle, I will take a look at that as well and weigh in on the thread at the talk page, but assuming Seattle falls under DotM rather than OtBP, I doubt there would be room for it on the schedule until 2016. As far as I can tell, summer 2015 is booked solid either with destinations that have been waiting an inordinate amount of time to be featured (Buffalo, Łódź, Manchester), are timed to take advantage of a special event (Vienna), or both (Munich). October 2015 might be a possibility, but I'm not sure that would be an ideal month to feature a destination that's so far north. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Seattle would definitely be a DotM. Once the restaurant listings are fixed, I'll be delighted to support running Davenport. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Was thinking about nominating some American town or national park for OtBP for the upcoming summer but wasn't sure which one to choose. I also wanted to wait a bit to see how André's interesting Quebecois project is growing — that one plus Iseo and Altai Tavan Bogd National Park would fill up the summer months. Davenport has my support but I would love to see the listings in the Eat section arranged into Budget/Mid range/Splurge before we put the article on the Main Page.
Seattle is definitely a DotM. It's one of the largest cities in that part of North America, has a major airport and I believe welcomes quite many visitors. As of now the DotM schedule is completely full for the upcoming summer and as the weather doesn't seem to be particularly good in October, I foresee that Seattle probably will have to wait until 2016. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ypsi - regarding the Gaspé Peninsula, that's looking more like a summer 2016 feature (mostly because I'm having a hard time learning how to write Usable articles rather than Guide-level ones!) After the New Year, I envision shifting my focus away from Quebec and several offwiki projects I'm working on toward breaking ground on Buffalo/East Side, so we can consider one summer 2015 OtBP slot as yet to be filled. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Trondheim[edit]

Place: Trondheim
Blurb: With a downtown of beautiful wooden houses, a Gothic cathedral, two fortresses and an exciting nightlife set in the middle of a typical Norwegian landscape, Trondheim is deservedly the hub of central Norway. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep (in practice: Aug or Sep 2015?)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Yes we have a ton of European destinations and should maybe not have more of them in 2015 but as I've edited Trondheim extensively during and after two visits to the city 2-3 months back, it was just too tempting to nominate it for OtBP. I think the article looks OK as of now.

Nomination
Trondheim view 1.JPG


  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Trondheim is one of the nine cities listed on the Norway page. Are we sure it's off the beaten path? Powers (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Powers makes a good point; I would argue that this is better suited to DotM. It's not likely to be placed on the Main Page in either category until 2016, so I propose we re-categorize this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, in that case we should upgrade Turku as well/instead, if we want to be consistent. Turku is not only among the nine cities listed in Finland#Cities, but also in Scandinavia#Cities (which Trondheim is not), has a larger population, functioned as the capital when Finland was a Swedish province and is as least as popular for visitors to Finland as Trondheim is for visitors to Norway.
Let's just slush this nomination. It's silly to have it up here on the nominations page for a year and a half. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right about Turku. Should we change it to DotM? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Turku is fine where it is, IMO. Switching it to DotM would mean either delaying it till 2016 or packing the summer 2015 schedule with yet another European nominee. The question of DotM vs. OtBP is at least partially subjective, and Estonia is a much smaller and less touristed country than Norway. Furthermore, I would oppose slushing Trondheim. It's a perfectly worthy article, and there are many nominees on this page (Palmyra (New York) is one, off the top of my head) that are still going to be here in 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, Turku is in Finland, not Estonia. Does that change your opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Alas, I'm confusing Turku with Tartu. I think a case could be made for Turku as DotM, but as I described above, it would cause a good deal of disruption to the schedule, so I still prefer the status quo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, the rationale for making Turku OtBP is that despite its size, few people from the English-speaking world travel there. If that's equally true of Trondheim, what then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I think they're both gray areas and should be placed in the schedule where it's most convenient. For Trondheim it's a toss-up, though my personal preference remains DotM; for Turku OtBP is clearly the path of least resistance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering how far in advance we're talking about all this, I don't think inertia should keep us from placing these destinations where they belong. Ypsilon certainly makes a good argument for Turku not being off the beaten path. Powers (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't really an issue that will change with time; as none of our current DotM nominees are slush pile material, none of them will be removed from this page except through being featured, and it's ludicrous to make articles wait until 2016 that have already been waiting over a year in most cases. Łódź is another gray-area case that many of us have been clamoring to recategorize; switching it to the OtBP column and Turku to the DotM column would probably be the least disruptive way to rearrange the schedule. Ikan, Ypsi, Powers, others: how do you feel about that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, first of all, I wasn't the one who objected to Trondheim being OtBP. My point was that if Trondheim is a DotM, then why wouldn't Turku also be? I have no stake in either of those being OtBP. I do not agree with Lodz being OtBP. Isn't it considerably bigger than either of these other cities? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This is hurting my head.
Okay, let me rephrase the question. On our nominees list we have three European cities – Łódź, Trondheim, and Turku – which, it has been argued, could be featured as either DotM or OtBP. However, for 2015, there is space on the schedule for only one of them to be featured as DotM. Or, if we really want it to be DotM rather than OtBP, we can hold Trondheim off until 2016, which, since it was nominated at the tail end of 2014 and given how long nominees have generally had to wait lately, does not strike me as unreasonable at all. How do we work this?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have a role in giving you a headache. I just want us to base decisions on logically reasonable bases, that's all. I'm OK with however you solve it, except that Łódź should not be OtBP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent reset) All those cities could be featured as either DotM or OtBP, I think all score something around five on the ten-point test I suggested on the talk page. As we currently have more nominations for DotM waiting for their month on the Main Page, if new nominees could be featured as OtBP instead then they should.

Above I wanted to say that it'd be dumb to have Trondheim as DoTM while a Turku is OtBP. My preference would be having both Trondheim and Turku as OtBP — that's what I've nominated them for after all.

Turku is already in the schedule and I believe there is still room for Trondheim in the September OtBP slot. On the other hand if you think we have too many European destinations in the upcoming summer, just say it, I fully understand (in that case, let's just slush or postpone Trondheim). Concerning Lodz, I'm fine with having it as DotM per all those discussions above. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed still one summer OtBP slot up for grabs, and while we currently have a glut of European DotM candidates, the number of European OtBP candidates on the docket is much more manageable (only Iseo and Turku as of now). I'm not opposed to featuring Trondheim as OtBP in summer 2015 so ,long as no superior candidates come along. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, though, if Trondheim and Turku are really off the beaten path, why are they listed at such high levels in "Cities" sections? Whether a destination is a DotM or OtBP should be based on the qualities of the destination, not on scheduling convenience. Powers (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
From w:Trondheim: "With a population of 181,513 (October 1, 2013), it is the third most populous municipality in Norway." From w:Turku: "As of 30 September 2014, the population of Turku was 183,811, making it the sixth largest city in Finland." The fact that a country has small cities, other than the capital, doesn't automatically entitle them to be DotM. Unless there is a great deal of tourism to these cities, it's quite appropriate for them both to be OtBP. Conversely, in a country that has dozens of cities with a population of over 1 million, such as China or India, the mere fact that a city has a population of over 1 million shouldn't guarantee that it would be a DotM: That would also depend on how well-known and well-touristed the city is, and how important it is as, for example, a provincial capital or major center of commerce and/or education. I think it's fine for both Trondheim and Turku to be OtBP. What would be a little stranger to me would be for both of them to be DotM, and stranger still would be for Trondheim to be DotM while Turku is run as OtBP. That might be justifiable, partly on the basis that Trondheim is the 3rd-largest city in Norway, whereas Turku is the 6th-largest city in Finland, but also on the historic basis of Trondheim being the former capital of Norway, but since Turku is Finland's oldest city and seems to be similarly full of interesting things to see and do, that criterion is blunted. I think that the best way to treat both these smallish cities is as super-interesting OtBPs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're focusing on the population numbers; I didn't mention population at all in my question. I should also point out that tourism isn't the only reason someone would visit a destination. My question revolves around this issue: If Turku is one of the nine most important destinations in all of Scandinavia, but it's off the beaten path, that implies that there are no more than eight possible DotM cities in all of Scandinavia, while there are hundreds of destinations that would have to be considered OtBP because they're less important than Turku. Similar reasoning applies to Trondheim and Norway. I think that kind of imbalance between the two categories is far too extreme. Of course there will always be more OtBP-eligible destinations than DotM-eligible in any given geographic region, but it seems like this division goes too far. Powers (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I focus on population because it makes both of these non-obvious DotM candidates. I agree that tourism isn't the only reason to travel. So are these cities really big draws for international trade, nowadays? How about for international students? All those could be salient criteria. Also, how populous are their metropolitan areas? That could be salient, too. All that said, the possibility that the 7th, 8th- or 9th-most important destination in Scandinavia might be off the beaten path for international passenger traffic is hardly a revolutionary idea, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that, with the exception of extremely clear cases like Manhattan or London (or Childs or Wake Island), anyone who argues vehemently that a destination absolutely has to be a DotM rather than an OtBP, or vice versa, is probably taking the whole thing a bit too seriously. Notwithstanding recent efforts to establish guidelines as to how to identify DotMs as opposed to OtBPs, the decision-making process has a great deal of flexibility built into it, and that's by design. I see absolutely no reason why scheduling factors can't play into the decision of where to place gray-area cases like Trondheim and Turku - as far as I can tell, the system was set up for maximum convenience in that regard. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Unlike e.g Italy or France, Scandinavia has very few destinations that would absolutely have to be featured as DotM and under no circumstances ever as OtBP — those would be the capitals plus Gothenburg and maybe Malmö. About 2-4 other destinations from each Scandinavian country can be featured as either DotM or OtBP (including Turku and Trondheim). As of now we have less OtBP than DotM candidates, therefore it's better to feature Turku and Trondheim as OtBPs. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
But that still doesn't address the issue I raised, which is that assigning these destinations as OtBP implies that there are several orders of magnitude fewer DotM destinations in any given geographic area than OtBP destinations. Powers (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Au contraire, ϒpsilon addresses that issue squarely, directly above your latest reply. You might not like what he has to say, but if you think he didn't address that issue, reread his post. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, but I'm not seeing it. He's asserting exactly what I'm questioning, but not with any justification or solution to the problem it raises. Powers (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
What's the problem that needs solving? I guess you disagree that Italy or France has a larger number of obvious DotM candidates than Scandinavia, but that doesn't mean other people consider that a problem or anything to be solved, just a statement of the way things are, as they see it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
My earlier comment, as well, contained an alternate answer to Powers' question, namely "does it really matter that much?" The world isn't going to come to an end if we figure Trondheim and Turku as larger than average OtBPs rather than smaller than average DotMs; in fact, I just now briefly skimmed Previously Off the beaten path and found several cities that should probably have gone in the DotM column (Tampere, Niamey, Petra). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
My concern is running out of DotM candidates by limiting the pool. Powers (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That seems like a remote problem. Don't forget that London/Hampstead is also ready to go and currently in the Slush Pile only because its feature was postponed in favor of the City of London article for the Wikimedia conference. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not as remote as you think; our attempts at greater geographical diversity will be made much easier if we have a larger pool to choose from for DotMs. And there's always the possibility we decide to move up to weekly features in the future. Also, if Hampstead is ready to go, it shouldn't have been slushed. Powers (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If there might be a problem with a limited pool of articles, then we definitely shouldn't move to weekly features. Hampstead was slushed because it would have had to wait so long to be featured. I think I can unslush it, though, and maybe now's the time to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure if it's time to unslush that nomination: AndreCarrotflower, it was judged that no part of London could be featured again until 2016. Should we wait longer before unslushing London/Hampstead? Also, that's another European OtBP nomination, not a DotM. Would that present a scheduling problem at this point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm not worried about running out of DotM candidates, we would run out of OtBP candidates before that would happen. Our guides are mostly written by people who have some familiarity with the place. Therefore, places like Manhattan have plenty of content and usually at least Usable status, while very little is written about destinations that are OtBP (by definition, few of our contributors have been there). Sure, for each DoTM candidate we have at least ten articles for destinations off the beaten path... but too many of those consist of "X is a town in Y", a restaurant without an address and the default banner on top of it all. Of course, we do have good OtBP articles too — just look at Altai Tavan Bogd National Park for example. Browsing through Category:Guide articles from A to Z a few months back I found tens of good looking articles that could be nominated right away or need just a little formatting. So, I don't think we risk running out of destination article candidates anytime soon (though it'd be nice to have some more travel topics for FTT).

Concerning Hampstead, I too thought we had a rule that there has to be two years between articles located in the same city? In that case it's guaranteed that Hampstead won't be on the Main page before late spring 2016, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to bring the Hampstead back to this page yet. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Powers: In slushing London/Hampstead, I was following the precedent set by Jan when he slushed Buffalo the first time around: the article was not slushed because it was unfeatureable as it was, but because it had lingered on the nominees page too long. You can see the play-by-play of the discussion to slush Hampstead at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#Hampstead, again, and I might also note that you yourself seemed to be in favor of doing so on November 15th of last year.
Ikan, I don't know what good it would do unslushing Hampstead now if the goal is to keep nominees from lingering in limbo too long. The purpose of placing nominee destinations on the dotm page is to attract support or oppose votes, no? By the time Hampstead was slushed, there was already a pretty ironclad consensus that it was worthy to be placed on the Main Page, so any further support votes would be redundant, and in that light its presence on the nominees page eighteen months or more ahead of its featuring seems fairly pointless. (And, in anticipation of one possible rebuttal: the reason Buffalo was unslushed so far in advance of its projected feature date was because, unlike Hampstead, the Buffalo article had been altered so radically since it was slushed that any yea or nay votes on its previous nomination were effectively meaningless.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. Articles that languish here risk becoming out of date, which is why I agreed with slushing Hampstead. I'd forgotten about the 2-year moratorium on districts of the same city. Powers (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of photos, copious and properly formatted listings in all sections, well-written. An exemplary article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I just looked through the article, tweaking a few wordings. I've never been to Norway and now want to visit Trondheim! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for Featured travel topic[edit]

Winter driving[edit]

Place: Winter driving
Blurb: Getting around on an icy and snowy road isn't just like driving in the summer. Have a look at our winter driving guide! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Northern Hemisphere winter, if in December (or perhaps even November?) readers would get the most out of it
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Kinda funny to nominate this while it's +20°C outside, but the winter will eventually be here again whether we want it or not...

Nomination
Masku winter road.jpg
  • Support. After a relatively brief check I do think it's an extensive article covering all aspects of driving in winter conditions. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite. It is basically a good article on an important topic, but it needs polishing before it is ready to feature. There should be time for before the next Northern hemisphere winter. Things I noticed in a first perusal were some duplication (e.g, washer fluid is discussed in four places) and heavy use of external links, I think contrary to policy. Pashley (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll give it a full overhaul within the next couple of weeks if the main authors aren't quicker than me. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done. Also added some more pics. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. I looked through most of the article and did some copy editing, but there's one thing that we have to decide on: Will we use British, Canadian or US English for the article? Right now, it is a combination. For example, British spelling is tyre while American/Canadian spelling is tire, but Americans don't hire cars, we rent them (and a cursory look at web search results suggests that "car rental" is also used more often than "car hire" in Canada, though a Canadian will confirm or refute this). It's probably a good idea to put any possibly confusing terms in one English-language version with the other version(s) in parentheses, much as is done in most of the article with Celsius and Fahrenheit, but we should make a decision on which version to favor and stick with it. I'm not sure it matters much which type of English is used. Otherwise, this article looks ready to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm Canadian. Cars here have tires, hoods and trunks, not tyres, bonnets & boots. They are rented, not hired. Pashley (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that and adding more info. Do you have an opinion about what form of English we should give primacy to in this article, or whether that matters as long as it's consistent and all ambiguous terms are explained sufficiently? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it matters much, or that things like tire/tyre need explanation. Canadian English is an odd mix, following American usage for words like 'tire' and 'program' but Commonwealth spelling for 'traveller', 'colour', etc. We could use that & irritate nearly everyone a bit, Pashley (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Country Wife has written most of the article, presumably in Canadian English. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all, agreed on tire vs. tyre. However, this article is not consistently in Canadian English, as I pointed out that, for example, "tyre" is used, as is "car hire." I would have no objection to the article being in Canadian English, with explanations only for terms speakers of other varieties of English are likely to find confusing, but we need to pick a single variety of English and use it throughout the whole article, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
+1 support for Canadian English. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no better place in the Anglosphere to experience winter driving than Canada. I vote Canadian English as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd call that a consensus, as it seems quite reasonable to me for this article to be in Canadian English. So let's go with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Weighing in a bit late here, I realize, but Pashley is quite right about car "rental" vs "hire" in Canadian English. I'll do an editing pass with an eye to standardizing on Canadian English. The more eyeballs, the better, as it's a fairly long piece. Country Wife (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks, Country Wife! Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks like Country Wife fixed the article on August 7. I therefore support running it and thank her. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Country Wife is a superstar! Can we get one more support vote to take the "pending stronger consensus" disclaimer off the schedule, please? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportSure :-) Good work indeed. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Travelling during Ramadan[edit]

Place: Travelling during Ramadan
Blurb: Ramadan is a month like no other. Know what to expect and how to get the most out of your trip if you are travelling to a Muslim country during the month of daily fasting, when many restaurants are closed by day and open from sundown to well past midnight. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May or June, 2015 (Ramadan is 18 June–16 July, 2015 and Travel Topics are featured starting on the 21st of each month)
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This great article was started by User:Saqib, with some input from me, User:Pashley and others. It's an important topic for business travellers, tourists and expats (including English teachers) alike.

Nomination
Iftar in Istanbul Turkey.jpg


  • Support as nominator. Kudos to User:Saqib for starting and putting so much content into this beautiful article, and thanks to User:Pashley, User:JuliasTravels and other contributors for helping to make it what it is. Any further improvements and additional relevant information (including things discussed at Talk:Travelling during Ramadan) would be wonderful, and I'm sure some will be forthcoming during the ~year before the best time to feature in 2015, but I think this article would be good to run as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support or should I say "Strong support"? I'm fine with featuring this important travel topic in June next year so it can run along the month of Ramadan. I really want to further expand this article so I'll think over what can further enhance the article. --Saqib (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, at a first glance the article looks quite good. The Ramadan is obviously the right time to feature it. Saqib is probably the one who knows most about Ramadan can come to think of different things travelers need to know and take into consideration. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. A lot of this is obvious to locals, but to an outsider travelling or working in a Muslim country it is not at all obvious, at least not the first time, and can be very useful. I think the article as it stands is Guide level, good enough to feature, but I wonder how much more it might be improved. Pashley (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting topic, good article and plenty of time still for finishing touches. Nice work! JuliasTravels (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work, Saqib (and others). This is a spectacular article packed with helpful information. I took the liberty of doing some copyediting, so it should be good to go now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As for "time to feature", I prefer May 2015 to June. If we feature it in May, the article's stint on the front page will be just wrapping up as Ramadan begins. Perfect timing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
That does make sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ad's Path[edit]

Place: Ad's Path
Blurb: Hike or cycle in the Belgian nature while exploring the artworks of Ad Wouters (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct (weather-wise, Northern Hemisphere winter is probably not a good time to feature this one)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: An interesting itinerary through the nature of Belgium.

Nomination
Woodpecker Ad Wouters.jpg
  • Almost - could maybe use some minor polishing, but we have plenty of time for that, as it won't be featured before spring 2015 at earliest. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. It's already a good guide. Here are the things that I see need more work: (1) I think the "Prepare" section needs some rephrasing. The hike describes something? (2) We need to decide whether the start of each bulleted direction in the "Go" section should be capitalized or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Pinging User:Polyglot ϒpsilon (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I saw your nomination and thank you for the honor. I looked at the article back then with the above comments in mind, but didn't see how I had to go about improving it further. Since June I have added 30000 bus stops of the Walloon (South of Belgium) transport company to Openstreetmap. Now I'm working on adding the tram rails and routes in Brussels. And at this very moment I'm adding nodes and itineraries of a hiking network into Openstreetmap, which I surveyed this afternoon. I feel more comfortable contributing there than here. I'm glad I created the article. I learned a lot while doing it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm not a very talented writer.
The hike/cycle ride doesn't describe anything. It connects the artwork Ad Wouters was permitted to create here and there and it's a nice way to see the woods and enjoy the surroundings and good air.
For me it was also a way to see whether I could accomplish creating the map which was included in the first versions. (It's still in the Ad Wouters article on WP).
What I probably should do is reupload the pictures which were removed from Commons, because of this silly lack of Freedom of Panorama we suffer from in Belgium.
To think that I went to visit each and every one of those statues to make sure I knew the exact position for Openstreetmap and make pictures for Commons... Oh well. Another lesson learned.
It's funny how investigating linking to Wikidata from OSM, lured me into contributing a bit to WP and then WV. But now I'm back to Openstreetmap full time, I guess.--Polyglot (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In any event, it seems the fixes that Ikan and Ypsi have suggested are fairly easy. Pending those, I support this nominee and would like to see the article on the Main Page in spring 2015. Polyglot, I hope you continue to come to Wikivoyage from time to time, and know that you don't have to be a topnotch writer for your contributions here to have value. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Polyglot, I'm glad you came by to make some comments. My criticisms of this article are very high-level and based only on the difference between an article being a good guide and one that's featured on the front page, so please don't feel like I'm calling you a bad writer; far from it! I like the fact that the various Wikis and similar sites really provide people with a way of discovering the areas of work they're most interested in volunteering for, but though Wikivoyage doesn't concentrate singlemindedly on transportation, we do have articles like Urban rail that someone with expertise like yours could really add spark to. Anything you can do to further polish the articles you've contributed to or others you're covering on Openstreetmap would be welcome. We'll leave the light on for you (without wasting energy :-) any time you'd like to drop by. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Glad that the "e-mail user" function worked :). Personally I'd say the bulleted points should be turned into complete sentences, this would make the article more comfortable to read. The "Prepare" section is indeed a bit short but I think we could add a paragraph about the sculptor (from WP) and perhaps another about the physical properties of the path (e.g. Is it paved? Are there potholes that bikers have to be aware of?) — Google maps — and then Prepare would be sufficiently long. In any case this is stuff anyone can fix in an hour or so.
Polyglot, you're welcome to contribute here anytime - you don't need to write a whole Guide like this one but if you notice a nice café in your home town is missing or there's some bus ticket price you notice is outdated, don't hesitate to edit! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Ikan said we should decide if we should capitalize the letters for the bulleted directions in Ad's Path#Go or not. As of now both upper and lower case are used randomly. In my opinion they should all be written in lower case, but I'm pretty bad at exact punctuation rules in English, so I'd prefer to hear your and André's opinion. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with that. I think that the first letter of every bulleted line should be capitalized, as if it were the first letter of a sentence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That whole section reads weird, frankly. I agree with Ikan about capitalization, but far more importantly the directions need to be reworded so that each bullet point is a complete sentence or at least a stand-alone fragment, rather than the whole of it being in narrative form. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Finnish phrasebook[edit]

Place: Finnish phrasebook
Blurb: Yes, most Finns are proficient in English. Still, why not try to impress them by talking to them in their native language? (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Yet another candidate for FTT, as nobody else seems to come up with any suggestions...

Nomination
Kuopio from Puijo.JPG


  • Support - as the nominator. At the first glance it looks quite OK, but if there are any errors, I can fix them.ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — I've to agree with Andre above, phrasebooks are actually boring yet useful but we should avoid featuring them too often and in my opinion, we should only feature a phrasebook when its star rather than just a guide. Sorry YPSI but you can take this as oppose vote. --Saqib (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it's fine to feature Guide-level phrasebooks, but since they're not so exciting, I feel like we should save them for times when we have no more interesting travel topic to feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet. To address Saqib's comment, I also argued repeatedly above that the mere fact that an article is "boring" should not be an absolute barrier to running it as a feature. Ikan's suggestion to save it for a month when we need a slot-filler article makes sense, but I do not know of any grounds in policy to oppose this article outright simply because it is a phrasebook. However, before I can support this article, pronunciations need to be added to the "Common verbs" subsection, some of the entries in "Clock time", and all sections below and including "Lodging". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, phrasebooks are not as exciting as travel topics related to sights and activities, but as we have around 40 Guide phrasebooks, why not show one or two of them per year? Well, as I just picked it quickly out of Category:Guide articles rather than having been actively working on it, it's OK to slush it. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Ypsi, there's no basis in policy to oppose the article simply because it is a phrasebook. You are right, we have many Guide-level phrasebooks that are useful to readers and they should not be treated any differently than other potential FTT's. However, as to slushing it, I'm going to leave that decision up to you. It should be a relatively simple matter, especially for a native Finn such as yourself, to add pronunciations to the translations that are already typed out in the article. If you choose to do so, the article will have my unreserved support. But if you really feel that it should be slushed, I won't stand in the way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, in order to further gauge how much support we have for the article, it would be good for Ikan to clarify whether or not his comments above amount to an "Oppose"/"Not Yet" vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I can fix the things in the article, not just to get it featured, but because it's useful to the reader. If many Wikivoyagers think phrasebooks should not be featured unless we have no other choice, well, let's not feature them. Also, if this would be an article I've been working on for days or weeks I'd been protesting in ALL CAPS :), but this is not the case. There are certainly other, more exciting travel topics that we could feature.
In general I think it's good to feature electrical systems, winter driving tips and phrasebooks now and then to show that WV is about all aspects of traveling! ϒpsilon (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I think featuring one phrasebook each year would be enough. --Saqib (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's about the right amount of time to feature a phrasebook each year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, it's hard for me to judge a phrasebook in a language I don't know, and I don't really feel qualified to do so. What do you think about the external links at the end, though? Are they OK, given the site's external links policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm absolutely fine with having just one phrasebook per year. For 2015 that would probably be Urdu, as discussed above. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
No YPSI. That would be Finnish phrasebook. I wanted to bring Urdu phrasebook up-to star status but I couldn't managed to so I'm not willing to feature that ugly phrasebook. Finnish phrasebook will get my "Support" vote once the issues raised by Andrew resolved. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Ikan - I don't know why, but I didn't see your comment above till now. I'm not sure how I feel about the external links at the end, but I'm leaning toward keeping them. The first one contains audio samples which are a big help in learning any language, especially a difficult one like Finnish; the second one would seem to work well as a continuation of the colorful, sometimes irreverent tone we try for in our articles themselves. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe 1 phrasebook per year might be a good frequency. The Finnish one looks very useful and I had a chance to test it in action myself :) Danapit (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the problems I cited above have been resolved. I can support this article now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no way to pass judgment on the content, but the article is attractive, and if people who know Finnish are happy with this phrasebook, I'm glad to be the 4th vote to support it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ninoy Aquino International Airport[edit]

Place: Ninoy Aquino International Airport
Blurb: If visiting the Philippines, chances are that you'll pass through Manila's unpopular airport. Check out our guide and be prepared! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Looks like a complete airport article. Do we need coordinates or is it featureable like this?

Nomination
PAL operations.jpg
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I read through some of the article with a fine-toothed comb and skipped through the rest. I think it could use some more editing for elegance, but it seems to be a very complete article, so I'd be OK with it being featured tomorrow, which obviously won't happen. If there is a way to place all the eateries and points of interest clearly onto a detailed airport map and these small edits for style take place, it would be reasonable to nominate this article for Star status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sunburn and sun protection[edit]

Place: Sunburn and sun protection
Blurb: In addition to enhancing your holiday, the sun is perfectly capable to ruin it too. Check out our guide and protect yourself from looking like a boiled lobster! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any (if it isn't summer where you live you might travel to the Canary Islands, Thailand, Mexico or some similar destination)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps some headings need to be improved, content shuffled around and a few pics added but otherwise the article is in a quite good shape.

Nomination
Sunburnt back (2).jpg
  • Almost -per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. The photo issue seems to me to be the major one - the article lacks any at all, and is thus technically ineligible for featuring - but that's a fairly easy fix. I also agree with Ypsi about the section headers, which need to be more descriptive. Aside from that, I get the sense that the article is missing something, though I can't put my finger on exactly what. I'd like to hear some input from other Wikivoyagers, because while this article definitely has potential, I don't think it's quite ready for the Main Page yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Added some nice and meaningful photos + moved around stuff. Hopefully the one showing an example of a facial burn isn't against our people in photos policy (hey, the pic is from Commons!).
Something missing? Can't come to think of anything in particular right now. Perhaps there could be some more details about how to treat sunburnt skin? Dr. James, if you have a few minutes, is there something important missing from the article? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The text says "UV-A radiation which does not cause reddening or pain but may cause other damage", but the adjacent graphic states that it's UV-A that's responsible for sunburns. Powers (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting it! Apparently the text is correct and the author of the picture didn't check the facts. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making these necessary changes, Ypsi. I especially like the photo of the facial sunburn caused by reflection from the glacier, which shows that sun protection isn't only for folks visiting tropical latitudes. I think I can support featuring this article now, though I would still like to see some of those section headers tweaked a bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hiking in the Nordic countries[edit]

Place: Hiking in the Nordic countries
Blurb: From the barren Norwegian mountains to the archipelagoes of the Baltic Sea, Scandinavia offers some of the largest wilderness areas of Europe. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any — preferably Northern Hemisphere summer but other seasons are fine too
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment: LPfi and Erik have made a comprehensive and tidy article — at least a couch potato like myself :) can't come to think of anything missing. Who knows, maybe we even have a future Star article right here?

Nomination
Kalottireitti Meekonjärvellä.JPG
  • Support. This is a very impressive article. It seems quite unlikely to me that any important substantive edits are needed or even appropriate in this article; at most, it may benefit from a bit more copy editing (I did a bit just now). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)