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).


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:

| 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.


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

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.


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.


Discussions for previously selected destinations are kept in the Archive.



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
April 2014 Xiamen Biscayne National Park Swedish phrasebook
May 2014 Hue Vianden Rail travel in the United States
June 2014 Manhattan - pending stronger consensus to support Travemünde - crosswiki feature with de: Kimono buying guide
July 2014 City of London Iqaluit Travel photography - pending stronger consensus to support
August 2014  ? Chicago/Far Northwest Side Trans-Siberian Railway
September 2014 Calgary Vava'u - pending stronger consensus to support El Camino Real
October 2014 Karachi Mitzpe Ramon Electrical systems - 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]


History and sublime beauty abound in Vietnam's old imperial capital, blossoming anew a half-century after some of the bloodiest fighting of what locals call the American War.

Off the Beaten Path[edit]


Luxembourg at its most impossibly picturesque: this small town sits in a lovely valley dominated by an impressively restored 11th-century castle.

Featured Travel Topic[edit]

Swedish phrasebook

Need help reading the metro schedule in Stockholm? Hailing a cab in Göteborg? Ordering your lunch in Malmö? This guide is for you.


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. 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}}
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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]


Place: Stockholm
Blurb: Home of the Nobel Prize, the Woodland Cemetery, and Stieg Larsson's Millennium series, Sweden's capital is an intoxicating blend of old and new. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: June-August
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: A lengthy guide, with many district articles.

  • Maybe. I'm going to take a closer look at this article later, but right off the bat there are a number of listings in the "See", "Buy" and other sections that need to be moved to the district articles. The article certainly has potential, though - there's tons of information here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The main article has been made slightly shorter. /Yvwv (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The map is non-standard and some links are not mos but in general a very good and districted article. jan (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment—User:Blist did lots of excellent work on the Stockholm articles on WT after we had already migrated. It might be nice to see what new content he added there can be integrated into our articles here before featuring. --Peter Talk 05:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. The listings that Andre said needed to be moved must have been moved. The article is extremely informative (even rather long, but not in a bad way) and beautifully illustrated with photographs. I just did a bit of copy editing. More is needed, but I think it's actually good enough to feature now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Question: Why is this article getting so little attention here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, for starters, per "Time to feature", Stockholm won't be on the Main Page till next year, so there's perhaps no real sense of urgency. Secondly, I wonder if it has something to do with my "maybe" vote above. I distinctly remember that at the time I made those remarks, there were stray listings in the main article that needed to be moved to the district article; those now appear to have been moved. I see no reason why I wouldn't change my vote to "support" now; once I look over the article to make sure everything else is in order, I will likely do that. But in the meantime, perhaps my reticence has influenced others. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Soft support. As my earlier, retracted vote stated, this is one of the most detailed articles on Wikivoyage not written by myself. :) My pet peeve, though, is the "See" section, which has a very troublesome format given the fact that Stockholm is districted. Those bullet points look deceptively like listings, and all those subsections probably should be converted to prose. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose This article is riddled with issues. None of the districts are particularly well-covered, and many of them are barely more than lists. I don't think Stockholm warrants this many districts anyway. The content that does exist is improperly formatted from the listings to the district names themselves (Ex: Norrmalm, Stockholm should be Stockholm/Norrmalm). There are strange random subdistricts of the districts that make navigation difficult, as well. Two of the districts have the same grey color on the map... There is a lot of work that needs to be done to get this article up to standard. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Per policy, the content of the district articles has nothing to do with anything. They're not the ones being featured on the Main Page. That leaves the color issue on the map, which is easily fixable, and the issues I brought up in my comment in August, unless they've already been addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
My opposition is entirely valid. The content of the districts are part of the feature, and most of them are rather bare outlines. These 'mega-cities' are treated as regions and regions with subsections must have a reasonable number of districts that are at least usable. In fact, I don't believe this city even qualifies for 'guide status' and therefore should not even be eligible for nomination since part of achieving guide status requires a significant number of the districts to be at least usable.
Beyond that, though, why on earth would we want to feature such a mess even if policy allowed it? The features are supposed to show off what great articles can and should look like. This article is what our articles can look like but a far cry from what they should look like. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be regarding the district articles as part and parcel of the main Stockholm article. I don't think they are - any more than Buffalo should be regarded as an integral part of the outline-grade Northtowns article, the only marginally more substantive Niagara Frontier article, and on up the hierarchy - and as far as it seems to me, policy doesn't take that view either. Regardless of what may or may not be in the district articles, the information in the parent article is comprehensive and presented well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Your analogies are incomparable. You're talking about different cities; I'm talking about Stockholm's own districts, such as Södertörn, Ekerö, Stockholm/Kungsholmen, Stockholm/Vasastan, Sigtuna, etc. These are all listed as part of Stockholm City's districts and along with others, they're outlines. Mostly just lists or lacking content completely. The parent article is useless without its districts. It says directly to "refer to the district articles" for details, but if the details aren't there, only there as a list with no information, or presented with strange formatting then the parent article is also rather useless. They cannot be looked at independently. If you delete Manhattan, Queens etc. how useful would our New York City article be? Mostly useless. That is what I'm talking about here. We have a parent article (with an improperly formatted See section) and then a lot of hollow content beneath it. That's not acceptable, and this article should only be at "usable" status. Discussion on the article's talk page also suggest what look like much more reasonable district breakdowns than the current district overload that I believe is contributing to the great lack of content in many of the articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You said my "analogies are incomparable", but you also said "'mega-cities' are treated as regions". I think we're getting into uncharted territory here in that I've never heard this particular issue brought up regarding a nominee. Let me ask you this: if we were to feature an actual region article as a DotM - say, New York (state) - or even a country article, would you make the same argument if the article's subregions on the next lowest rung of the hierarchy weren't up to snuff? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have never visited Stockholm, so I'm not sure why some of the district articles that are classed as Outlines are Outlines, rather than Usable, but that aside, I think ChubbyWimbus' points about district articles are valid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that regional articles cannot even be classed as Usable unless all the cities linked from them are at Usable status? Perhaps that should be true of city articles, too (or at least that they can't be Guides unless all their district articles are at least Usable), but even while it isn't, it seems to me that his arguments - especially inasmuch as readers are referred to district articles for specific listings - are pretty unimpeachable. I know that several of us spent a lot of time getting all the district articles in Manhattan to at least Usable status. Still, the point has been made below that there aren't enough geographic coordinates in the district articles for Manhattan. Cities and their district articles are to some degree a package. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a Huge City article should not be at Guide status unless all of its districts are at least Usable. Powers (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should hold a front-page feature of this article in abeyance until the problems that ChubbyWimbus identified are rectified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I noticed Andrew put up Manchester for DoTM but reverted it later, because that would make two UK articles in a row which is something I think we do not want. CW is right, the requirements for a city article to be a guide requires all districts to be usable or better in the case that the city is districtified. Now this is not the case, so we need to find some other article to feature or fix the problems with Stockholm, which I think is a fairly easy task. Currently there are a whole lot of districts each of which contains relatively little content. It wouldn't be too hard to combine some of them and get fewer but more comprehensive district articles. I guess I could do this to some extent, but it would be better if Yvwv who I believe is a local and suggested Stockholm for DoTM would at least comment on this. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Georgetown (Malaysia)[edit]

Place: Georgetown, Malaysia
Blurb: A place of traditions both colonial and homegrown, Penang State's capital is a large yet laid-back city that's a haven for fans of delicious Southeast Asian cuisine. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: December-July
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: From the "Eat" section: "Penang is widely considered to be the food capital of Malaysia, and Georgetown is the best place in Penang to eat." It's also a city that maintains more of a traditional feel than its sometime rival, Kuala Lumpur, with its ultra-modern skyline.

Masjid Kapitan Keling.jpg

  • Comment I think this is a good article and a good place to feature, and if featured, it definitely should be a DotM, not OtBP. From the article: "Modern-day Georgetown is one of Malaysia's largest cities with 600,000 inhabitants." One thing the article is lacking is a "climate" subsection, but perhaps it would be best to just insert a link to Penang#Climate. Another weakness is that the article lacks a map. What do you all think? Not quite ready, perhaps? I think it's close, if not completely ready yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is well-written, rich in photographs, and with robust and lively "See", "Do", "Eat" and "Sleep" sections ("Drink" is a bit short, but perhaps that's to be expected in a majority-Muslim destination?)
Aside from the lack of a map, which Ikan mentioned, information on prices is a bit scanty. I see both of those as minor quibbles, though.
I'm not sold on Georgetown as a DotM rather than an OtBP, though. A population of 740K in the city proper and 2.5M in the metro area (per Wikipedia) is pretty impressive, but the metric I use for distinguishing OtBPs from DotMs is the question of whether the average citizen of a different country than the one where the destination is located would ever have heard of the destination. I'd never heard of Georgetown myself prior to this nomination. However, I'm somewhat less familiar with Southeast Asia than other regions of the world, so I'm willing to be convinced. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Andre, have you heard of Penang? That's what the city is usually called. And it's a well-known city, such that someone who's heard of any Malaysian city other than Kuala Lumpur has probably heard of Penang. Georgetown is the formal name of the city, so as to distinguish it from the state of Penang (Pulau Pinang in Malay, which is also the Malay name normally used for the city).
To the comment about the "Drink" section: Penang city is actually a mostly non-Muslim city, primarily Chinese. I actually haven't visited Penang since 1976 (I didn't make it there on my last trip to Malaysia in 2003, and that's already 10 years ago, anyway), so I couldn't add any bar listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Support, though I wonder if the nomination should be for Penang as a whole.
On the DotM vs. OtBP question, I come down firmly for DotM. I'm often rather conservative on such questions — for example I argued that Madison should be OtBP — but I see no doubt here. Penang is one of those places like Santa Fe in the US, not among the greatest cities of the region but still DoTM because it is a fascinating place and a substantial tourist draw. Pashley (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Pashley's points regarding Madison are convincing. Despite the fact that by my own metric Madison should have been OtBP, I pushed hard for it to be DotM for the sake of consistency (Rochester's nomination as DotM rather than OtBP was uncontroversial) and because it's a state capital and the site of a major university. Georgetown is also a state capital, with thrice the population of Madison no less. DotM it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
To reply to Pashley: The Penang state article is only Usable, so if that status is accurate, it can't yet be featured. I'm not actually sure why it isn't classed as a Guide, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
One thing I'd like to look at, and I realize this isn't the place for such a discussion, is establishing some hard-and-fast guidelines as to how to distinguish OtBPs from DotMs. I recall that this subject has been broached several times in the past, with responses ranging from indifference to outright opposition. The protracted debate on what to do with Madison is still a relatively recent memory for me, and we could easily have gone down the same road with Georgetown.
I'm given to understand that the metric I cited above for how I make this determination is maybe the most dominant one among the community at large - I've heard the same method cited by several others, or slight variations on it. One of the arguments I've heard against having guidelines in place for this purpose was that the community should have these debates, and consensus should determine the disposition of each featured article on an ad hoc basis. What I'm concerned about is that, after all, this is the English Wikivoyage, and any attempt to define "off the beaten path" in the way I've cited will inevitably be filtered through the prism of Western culture. I'm afraid that if we "wing it" completely, we'll inevitably shortchange into OtBP-hood many DotM-worthy destinations that are not located in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, or maybe South Africa or Latin America.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think your concern is well-placed, and I don't like your metric, if you hadn't heard of Penang, but the discussion might best be broached on Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
For the record, as a great fan of Asian cuisine, I had heard of Penang the island - just not its capital in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Which points out a problem with your metric, since the city is officially called Georgetown but commonly known as Penang. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Or you could say it points to a problem with the name of the article, but I think it would cause more confusion than clarity to rename the article "Penang (city)". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I really like the article and even remember some stuff! jan (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It still needs a map and I suppose I'll put in a link to the climate data for the province of Penang. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Instead, I copied the "Climate" section from Penang. If that's not OK, please let me know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It is my first time playing part in DotM nominations. I am very fond of Georgetown and Penang so I will gladly bolster this article over the coming months. It is a very diverse and interesting city that will keep me coming back many more times. One thing I would like to mention is regarding the blurb; I have never heard of Georgetown being referred to as 'Penang City'. Though I do get that people just usually refer to the whole area as Penang for the fact it is part of Penang (State) and on the island of Penang. But saying that, I assume blurbs are not final anyway. Correct? DTW (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct. I've usually heard it simply called Penang, or Pulau Pinang (referring to the city), but in a guide, some kind of differentiation has to be made between the city and the island.
Thanks for your great edits that have made the article so much better! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Place: Hue
Blurb: History and sublime beauty abound in Vietnam's old imperial capital, blossoming anew a half-century after some of the bloodiest fighting of what locals call the American War. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: April-May, September
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This is a pretty place and an informative article.

KhaiDinh Guardians..JPG

  • Comment My only real hesitation with this article is that it lacks a map. Otherwise, I think it's very much worth considering. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As Ikan said, the lack of a map is the only real problem that sticks out to me in this otherwise magnificent article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I've never been to Hue, but the article seems fairly complete from and outsider's point of view. Indeed no map, and if it's "A place of beauty and tradition" I imagine there might be a more travel-inspiring banner to be found, and some even better pictures, but that shouldn't keep it from being featured. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I should clarify that I have not been to Hue myself, and composed the blurb based on some of the photos and other information in the article itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Danapit, the article has a beautiful new pagebanner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Okay, so this is a good detailed article but lacks a map. I'll do the map so can it be added to slot now? --Saqib (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I never followed up on this. Please add a map at your leisure. Thanks a lot! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This article has a pretty good map now. It could use a few more well-chosen photos, if possible, but it's ready to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

City of London[edit]

Place: City of London
Blurb: The area that was the Medieval City of London is now part ultra-modern, part traditional, and contains some of the most famous institutions in Britain. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: July or August 2014
Nominated by: Saqib (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: During Wikimania 2014 conference in the area.


  • Support Wikimania 2014 organising team expressed that they would like to see this article more improved and I think it would be a good idea to nominate it for Dotm during the conference so it can be served as a guide for conference attendees. --Saqib (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - and given that we'll have to choose either this article or London/Hampstead in 2014, my vote goes with this one. Demonstrating to Wikimania participants how useful our site can be is something I'm behind 100% as long as it doesn't involve unnecessarily rerunning an article, as would have happened the previous year with Hong Kong. Especially because Wikivoyage seems to be seen by the wiki community as sort of the redheaded stepchild of the WMF family. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
London was featured for two months just two years ago, so this would be somewhat of a re-feature. Hong Kong would have been re-featured 8 1/2 years after it was first DotM. AHeneen (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I edited a few deviations from our current external links policy, and there may be others, but I didn't see them. The article looks very good. I don't have any strong opinion about whether to favo(u)r featuring this article over the Hampstead article, but since the Wikimania 2014 organising team would like work to be done on it, that's all to the good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, even with the London overlap. Only minor issue. I hoped that either June or July 2014 will be the cross WV place of Travemünde. I will talk to the German WV community. Regards, jan (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I like the idea of featuring the article to coincide with Wikimania. As noted above, though, this is a district of London, which was just DotM for two months in 2012 (for the Olympics). AHeneen (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Place: Muscat
Blurb: Historic trading city and modern capital. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Mar
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I stumbled on this article while patrolling recent changes and was amazed at the quality. The city is fairly important, capital of Oman, once a major port on the Maritime Silk Road.

Grand Mosque Setting Sun.jpg

  • Support, preferably not in the May 2014 slot as that's a bit too close for comfort to the Musandam Peninsula. My only complaint is the map, which is of astoundingly low quality - I'm not sure how it would be addressed, though; from the looks of it Muscat's attractions seem widely spread-out, so zooming in probably wouldn't help much. Is there any way to alter the aspect ratio of dynamic maps? Would it be feasible to break it up into two or more separate maps? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although the 'Understand' and 'Go next' sections still need work, and 'Get in' and 'Cope' need to be updated. Regarding the map, Muscat's sights are indeed very spread out. Including a map for each district could be an option (I don't believe the city is large enough to warrant subdividing into separate district pages). Seeb however (to the west of the airport) could be broken off into a new article, and perhaps the outlying areas of Al Bustan and Qantab to the east could be broken off (although in most guides they are included with Muscat).
Also, in May it's already broiling – it's best to visit from October/November to March. I'd like to add I find it a much more interesting city than Doha which is slotted for February, though as someone who's visited several times I'm admittedly biased. StellarD (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the criticisms, especially of the map, which is pretty much unusable, but nevertheless, it's a very good article and makes me want to visit the city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This was nominated to be featured between November-March then waiting for what? Let's add it to the slot (probably November '14). --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Per dotm#schedule, the schedule grid should only consist of about six months' worth of destinations. We currently have nine. If you'll notice, there's an HTML-hidden note placed above the schedule that reads "PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY NEW MONTHS TO THE SCHEDULE FOR NOW. WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY AS IT IS". We'll feature Muscat at the appropriate time, don't worry. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Place: Manhattan
Blurb: New York City's iconic borough, with its concrete canyons and inimitable skyline, offers attractions and experiences befitting its fame. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: April and October are optimal, but any month from September-December and March-May would be OK, with June as an iffy one. July and August are generally awful, and should be avoided, and January and February are variable but on average the coldest, snowiest/freezing-rainiest months.
Nominated by: PerryPlanet (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: In the last few years, a lot of work has been done on the Manhattan guides, which have been shaped into an excellent travel resource, with maps, nice banners, and splendid pictures in each district page. There's also been a few innovative touches, like subway lines in the route boxes and the recent addition of subway icons in the directions on a lot of listings (still being tweaked and expanded, but coming along nicely). A lot of contributors have pitched in (fitting for one of the world's biggest tourist destinations), and we've had the extensive help of native Manhattanite Ikan Kekek to guide it along and develop some really splendid district pages (as well as rein in the more overreaching edits of an outsider like me! ;) ). So for your consideration, I present Manhattan.

Manhattan from top of the rock, hdr.JPG

  • Support. Perry has done a wonderful job with this guide and various district guides, and other folks have helped out. I've edited the "time" tab. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. An absolutely essential travel destination for everyone, and more to the point, a first-rate article. Huzzah to Perry, Ikan and the rest. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The guides listing could gain more coordinates entries. On a side note I looked for the New Yorker cheesecake, but didn't find recommendations.--Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I take your point on coordinates, but on your other point: Specific listings are in district articles, and the overall guide to New York City covers New York cheesecake a bit in its "Eat" overview and mentions a few places where you can get it. Are you suggesting that each borough's guide needs to give an overview of where to get cheesecake, pizza, bagels, and other New York-style food in that borough? That seems too duplicative to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think I do take your point on coordinates. Coordinates should be in district articles, presumably not on the main page for Manhattan; isn't that right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Clearly if articles like Russia and Canada have coordinates, Manhattan should as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding what coordinates are? They're latitude and longitude coordinates, given for listings, correct? Or are they something else? So far, I'm not finding latitude and longitude coordinates on either of those articles. Am I confused? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ikan Kekek, So the cheese cake thing is a side comment. I happened to have visited Manhattan 4 weeks ago and didn't check the New York page and was disappointed to find no reference of it in Manhattan. As the New York article mentions mostly places inside of Manhattan this direct hints could go into the Eat section of Manhattan, with the New York City mentioning that one finds good cheese cake in Manhattan?
Concerning the coordinates, which is the real comment is that in Manhattan mostly all listings of see, do, eat or sleep miss the long and lat coordinates indeed. The coordinates are very useful for a stranger with gps phone plus all listings with coordinates show up in the dynamic pages. See Frankfurt or Vienna's subpages. Best --Axisstroke (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Axisstroke. I think I understand now: The problem is that listings in Manhattan district articles lack coordinates. I guess the thing about food coverage is something worth discussing, and maybe I should be less concerned about duplicating things in the overviews of New York City and Manhattan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Axisstroke, I finally had the chance to take some time and revamp Manhattan#Eat. Some of it duplicates things in New York City#Eat, but I've changed the tone, and I hope the New York way of speaking comes through. Let me know what you think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ikan Kekek, Great work indeed, I do think this is very helpful indeed. Can't wait to revisit. (: Best --Axisstroke (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this sufficient for you to support featuring the article, or not yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ohh, hmm didn't know that I have a vote. Some district of Manhattan improved a lot in 2014 concerning the geo-tagging, so I'm happy to vote with Support. --Axisstroke (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to vote can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Place: Calgary
Blurb: Where the prairies end and the foothills begin, this energetic boomtown is both the gateway to majestic Banff and Jasper National Parks and a worthwhile destination in its own right. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I think it's time to recognize User:Country Wife's fabulous work on this article.


  • Strong support as nominator. Copious listings formatted properly, a full slate of events and festivals, a street map and a map of the public transit system, as much info as you could want in "Understand", "Get in" and "Get around"... what an article!
Could use some more photos, but that's an easy fix as far as I can tell. It shouldn't be hard to find material on Commons. I'd like to see it on the Main Page in September 2014.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I've followed the progress of this article, too. It's really good, and we definitely should feature it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is an easy call. Great work. Pity that not all of the wide range of listings are on the map, but that might be changed in the future, and it's still a good guide. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah, the article does look comprehensive, User:Country Wife has done and does a great job on this article. Some more pictures wouldn't hurt, though and like Julia I'd really like to have the coordinates in all the listings by the time Calgary gets featured. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
All listings now have coordinates, and I've completed my first pass on the article. I also just added another half-dozen stub listings which now need details & coords :( I've been really impressed by the great work that has been done by the WT/WV folks who came before me; it's a pleasure to work on an article that's already in such good shape. And the existing photos are awesome! I'll have to see what I can do about adding more photos, but my city isn't at its most photogenic just yet.Country Wife (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Place: Karachi
Blurb: Previously a British colony, Karachi is now Pakistan's largest, most diverse and cosmopolitan city, offering everything from beaches to malls, to upscale restaurants and hotels. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Mar
Nominated by: Saqib (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Pakistan's largest and culturally diverse city. Seems like a very complete article to me or perhaps the only complete travel guide on Karachi (AFAIK).

Tomb Jinnah.jpg

  • Strong support — I'm too late to get it at guide status. I know its not perfect yet, and still required a lot of things to be done but please lets put it in the queue and feature it as first Pakistan DotM early next year. I promise everything will be fixed and sorted out before it goes live on the main page. I'm pretty sure I would not be disappointed. --Saqib (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a good guide with a lot of information in it. I gather the reason there are no district articles is that some of the districts wouldn't have enough interest for visitors, but the question of why such a large city isn't districted is an obvious one. I also think the "Stay Safe" section might profitably be divided into titled subsections. But overall, I like the guide and think it would be a fine one to feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we need a better blurb. What do you suggest? --Saqib (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at that: "Karachi, known locally for its beaches, is the largest and most cosmopolitan city in Pakistan." It's not terribly creative, but at least it's a clear statement and not overly long. Is there a way to fold in something about the way its architecture expresses different historical periods/styles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add "Former British colony" since Karachi is the only city in Pakistan where one can still see the glimpse of British era by means of architecture. What about something like "Formerly a British colony, Karachi is Pakistan's largest, most diverse and cosmopolitan city and a truly mega city." --Saqib (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The entire Indian Subcontinent was formerly a British colony. To make it clearer, I'd say "Previously an important British colonial city" or something like that. Or perhaps better yet, something like: "The diverse, cosmopolitan megacity of Karachi has modernized while preserving the British colonial architecture of yesteryear." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Stupid me. You're right. I would go with "Previously an important British colonial city". --Saqib (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: well-written, appropriately formatted and complete. To Ikan's point about districting: it seems to me not to be as simple as all that. To my understanding, articles are districted based on how much content is included, not how large the city may be (which is why it was justifiable to district Buffalo). It could well be that everything in Karachi that's of interest to tourists is already included, and it may not ever be appropriate to treat it as a Huge City. I have no familiarity with Karachi, so I cannot even begin to say whether that's true or not, but hypothetically it could be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Simple as what, Andre? I summarized the discussion about districting in Talk:Karachi. I wasn't making an argument, just an observation or two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"...the question of why such a large city isn't districted is an obvious one". -- AndrekCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is indeed an obvious question, in my opinion. That the answer may not always be the same is another matter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Majority of the content belongs to South district, so I'm definitely not certain that districtification is necessary and work out. --Saqib (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: A really nicely written article that Saqib's done a great job of improving. It reflects the excitement and bustle of this city really well. --Nick talk 23:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs copyediting for spelling and grammar issues. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Definitely, but I regret I won't cause I'm not not native English speaker. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


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: Any
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.

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)


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: Some time in 2015?
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.

...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)

Nominations for Off the Beaten Path[edit]


Place: Travemünde
Blurb: Full of attractions for families and site of an annual sailing competition, Travemünde is a major port on the Baltic Sea and a popular summer resort. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Starnom (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Sep
Nominated by: jan (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Great resort and very popular with Scandic and German tourists. Summer 2014 slot

Travemuende-Faehrhafen 05.jpg
  • Support I know it is missing a map but OSM resulted in errors for the last two days. I will do this later. Drink is weak because most bars are not permanent and changing every season. jan (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This seems like an interesting place, but the lack of any listings at all in "Drink" prevents me from lending this nomination my unreserved support. I understand that the bar scene in Travemünde is flighty and changeable, but I can't believe there aren't at least a few relatively permanent establishments that can be listed individually. Other than that, it's a well-written article and a great candidate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There are some permanent bars but that are either the "seedy waterholes" or posh hotel bars. I can list them but i feel not really comfortable...jan (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Added listings and the map. jan (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments The tourism office should be listed under the heading "Tourist Information" at the end of the "Understand" section (unless this has changed). The lighthouse information should be placed in the "See" section and I would add a little information about the Maritime Museum inside the lighthouse. Also, more information about the "Old Town" would be nice. It seems to be the main tourist area aside from the beaches yet the article doesn't tell us much about it except that it is old. Articles like this that have only a few attractions should give more details about what makes the places interesting. The picture of the old town is beautiful, but the descriptions leaves me wanting to know more. (ex: Can I tour the buildings? Are any of them museums? Are they shops? Any interesting information about some specific buildings?) ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@CW: As this article is now a star nom, i check the mos requirements and other star articles and most list the tourism office in the intro section (if their is one). I'm open to move it but don't want to start an issue with different opinions. Concerning the maritime museum, it is small but i will add some info. Most buildings in the old town are private but the public buildings (aka shops, restaurants) can be usually visited without problem. I will try to improve. Thank you for the ffedback. jan (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Visitor information goes in Understand; see, e.g., Chicago. LtPowers (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Changed, our star Lausanne is different. I will change that then as well. jan (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Lausanne doesn't look different to me; the travel bureau is under "Understand". LtPowers (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I had used other articles that listed tourist information under "Understand" as a model when I created the Franklin (Venango County) page, so I just assumed that was the standard. Personally, I like these in the 'Understand' section instead of the lead, but I guess this isn't the place for that discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a pretty interesting small town. I'd love for there to be some more listings, but I figure the ones in the article are probably the only ones worth listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Chicago/Far Northwest Side[edit]

Place: Chicago/Far Northwest Side
Blurb: This residential area has none of the world-famous sights of the Loop, but if you want to travel to Poland without leaving the U.S., go here, and enjoy the kielbasa! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any time but winter, but as far away from the time the nearby O'Hare International Airport is featured as possible
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This article is really well written and fun to read, not only in the introductory sections, but in the colorfully-described listings. Even if for that reason alone, I think it deserves to be featured.


  • Comment The article needs a pagebanner, and some of the photos may need to be enlarged, but the writing is so entertaining. I think we need to discuss whether a neighborhood in Chicago can really be off the beaten path, though. Would this be more appropriate as a DotM, even though this part of Chicago is not really a tourist destination? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments: I'm not going to officially register my support or non-support of this article until I read it (see below), but to address Ikan's question about OtBP vs. DotM, my own opinion is that similar guidelines should apply to districts as to city destinations. When we have cities as featured articles, the question we ask is whether the average resident of a country other than the one in which the city is located would have ever heard of the destination - if so, DotM; if not, OtBP. So I think it would be good in this case to ask whether those outside of Chicago's metro area have ever heard of the Far Northwest Side. Now there are some pretty famous neighborhoods in the world - New Orleans/French Quarter, London/Westminster, and Tokyo/Shinjuku come to mind - that, assuming guide or better status, would work great as DotM's. But other than the Loop (and the Magnificent Mile, which redirects to the Near North), I don't know of any Chicago neighborhoods that are famous enough outside Chicagoland to justify featuring them as anything other than OtBP.
As to when to feature it, I envision May 2014 as the ideal month: well after O'Hare's tenure as FTT, and before the worst of the blistering summer heat.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel like there's an awful lot of Chicago on this page. We already have O'Hare and the skyline guide nominations, and now a district? I grant that the Chicago guide is quite arguably our best city guide, but this is starting to feel like overkill.
I'd also want to point out that if we do feature this, we'd be setting quite the precedent. We've never featured a district article in this manner before, and I think we should be aware of the potential implications of doing so. The strength of a district article relies not only on the content of the district article itself but also the quality of content on the main city page (and to a lesser extent the strength of the other district articles), seeing as there is plenty of info there (Get in and Get around info in particular) that would also be necessary for travelers to know. That isn't a problem with the Chicago guide, but it should be something to keep in mind for other cities. I'm not necessarily opposed to featuring a district, but just want to point out that it would be setting a precedent for others. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Perry's point that Chicago is being featured so much is a very good one. Therefore, we could consider waiting until 2015 to feature this district article. I'd also like to explore further his other points about district articles. To what degree does the strength of a district article rely on the quality of the main city page and articles about neighboring districts? Perhaps this should be discussed further on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Another comment. We actually have featured a district before: New Orleans/Lower 9th Ward, after discussing and agreeing (I think) that it may sometimes make sense, particularly in the case where the huge city has already been featured a while ago, and when the district has a character sufficiently distinct from the rest of the city. See Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#Single district as destination? and the individual nomination discussion here. I think a good case could be made for this one on the basis of the notion of visiting Poland in the Midwest! Still, though, I think the really best Chicago district feature would be Chicago/Bronzeville to coincide with Black History Month in the U.S. (February), since it's one of the most historic African-American neighborhoods in the country after Harlem, but unfortunately not well known to non-Chicagoans. Anyway, if featured, this should definitely be OtBP—it's pretty rare to visit this area for any visitor to Chicago. --Peter Talk 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Reply I see that Chicago/Bronzeville is a star article, so yes, it's definitely better to feature (or at least feature first, with plenty of time between featuring that neighborhood and this one). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, this would be a star article too if nominated. I think that's true of all the Chicago districts, actually. --Peter Talk 19:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, I totally forgot about the Lower 9th Ward. Well, that basically nukes most of my argument out of the water. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support wholeheartedly. This reminds me of some of the hidden-gem neighborhoods on Buffalo's Far East Side. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Place: Iqaluit
Blurb: The capital of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, home to just 6,700 people, is a unique town and a good base for exploring the incredible Arctic beauty of Baffin Island. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: April-October
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: A lot of good work has been done on this article, and it's a unique, interesting place for an OtBP feature.

Iqaluit St. Jude's Anglican Cathedral 2012.JPG

  • Comment: I am not completely sure this is yet ready to run. The obvious remaining tasks are to put prices in the restaurant listings and create a map. But Baffin Island is extraordinary beautiful (I haven't been there but have seen a lot of photos and I believe I remember overflying it, too), and this article is close to ready if not yet quite ready. What do you all think? By the way, part of the appeal of Iqaluit is to learn about Inuit culture, and the photo is of St. Jude's Anglican Cathedral, built to resemble an igloo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Further comment Though Iqaluit is a very considerable distance from Churchill, I could understand if a consensus develops to take a year or more between different Arctic Canadian featured articles. That said, how long are we going to take between Soltau and Travemünde, both small German towns? My feeling is, let's first see if we agree on putting this article in the pipeline, and then we could talk about scheduling, but I thought I'd preemptively address the issue of similarity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Soft support It lacks a banner (don't know if it is difficult to get pics) and prices would be good. Concerning distance, Soltau and Travemünde will be at least six month apart, same should go for these artic articles. jan (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply Good point about the banner, Jan. I don't think we should feature the article until it has a customized pagebanner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Banner in. Jjtkk (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Nice banner. Thanks! I'll add some of the great photos from Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Danapit (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • We definitely need prices in the listings, but given the fact that we now have an individualized pagebanner, I don't think the lack of prices alone would be enough to make me vote anything other than support. Per Ikan and Jan's comments regarding Churchill, as well as "Time to feature" and the information in the article itself, I think June or July 2014 would be an ideal timeframe. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mitzpe Ramon[edit]

Place: Mitzpe Ramon
Blurb: This remote town in the Negev Desert of Israel contains the world's largest erosion crater. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Starnom (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: September-November, March-April
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Great work by User:Tamuz on an article about a place that seems unique, fascinating, and definitely off the beaten path.

Israel-2013-Aerial 00-Negev-Makhtesh Ramon.jpg

  • Support. As I said, I think this is a fascinating and really good article. What do the rest of you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A really nice article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good! --Danapit (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, and thanks for your positive feedback --Tamuz (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (the article's main contributor)
  • Support Well done, seems like an interesting place too. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support & Suggestion The article looks really good. BTW there isn't any OtBP for April 2014. How about featuring Mitzpe Ramon already then? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding scheduling, if it were run in April it would coincide with Golan Trail, March 2014's FTT, which is also located in Israel. See Golan Trail's nomination discussion for more details. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I didn't notice that. Then I guess we need to look for some other article for April. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Place: Vava'u
Blurb: Vava'u is a group of islands in Tonga famous for whale-watching and an ideal springboard for exploring Polynesian culture. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: June-November for Whale-watching
Nominated by: Rastapopulous (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I was browsing through guide-status regions in hope of finding some nomination-worthy diversity, and happened upon this. Needs some stylistic work (Eat needs to be broken up into sections, notably), but otherwise this looks like a fairly solid article for a region of the world that AFAIK we've never featured outside of the big country (Aus and NZ) or really really unreachable places (Wake, Pitcairn, ...)


*Not yet. I will support this nomination after the red-linked photos are dealt with, a map is created and inserted, a pagebanner is created and inserted, and all the old-style links are changed to the current external linking practices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Not yet. I agree with you Ikan. I just thought I'd put ahead and nominate it to invite myself and others to plunge forward, since it's otherwise really good for OTBP. The earliest it could be featured at any rate is November 2014, which is plenty of time. Rastapopulous (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet, but I will say that Rastapopulous' strategy of using a DotM nomination as a catalyst for improvements to a "close but no cigar" article is interesting. I think there's definite potential in this article, and I imagine I'll be in full support of it once the fixes Ikan cited are executed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, folks. I'd love to see this article improved as discussed above—but if we're not going to do it, this nomination needs to be slushed. We should not be in the habit of keeping nominations alive for a long time contrary to consensus solely to remind us to get to work on them (especially because that tactic doesn't seem to be terribly effective anyway). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. My feeling is that it's fine to nominate an article you're not sure is completely ready, but if you know it definitely isn't ready, it's best to improve it first, then nominate. It's worth noting that two of the problems I mentioned above have been dealt with: The red-linked photos are gone and the external links have been converted to current practices. However, it still needs a pagebanner and a map, and it could use a few more photos if possible (though it does already have 4). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A pagebanner has been added. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
And a beautiful one at that! I'm almost ready to support featuring this article. It still needs a map and something in the "Connect" section, and then I think it'll be ready to go. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I've created and added the map to the article. --Saqib (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
And now I've added some information to Connect (harvested from 3rd party sites using tweezers and microscope...). It would be nice if we could find some Voyager who's actually visited Tonga. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Ikan: when you're able (I know you're travelling at the moment), could you please weigh in on whether this article is featurable at this point? I'd like to run Vava'u in October 2014 if possible, and your support appears to be the deciding factor. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the article, guys! I'm a little concerned that we don't have on-the-ground info in "Connect," but the map is now OK (I enlarged it to 450px, so that the individual features are viewable). I'm OK with running the article, and for now, I give it my soft support, though with the hope that there will be an update between now and feature time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, I'm so shameless that I'm giving this one a supporting vote. As this is a relatively small destination I guess we're already covering a relatively large part of the island's points of interest. BTW I also weeded out all the dead links in the article earlier today - it was a bit sad to find more than ten of them in such a short article. As I said before it would really be wonderful to if someone who's actually been there to have a look at the content of this article (User:Nurg who is based "only" a couple of 1000km away?). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Place: Vianden
Blurb: Luxembourg at its most impossibly picturesque: this small town sits in a lovely valley dominated by an impressively restored 11th-century castle. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep, based on Luxembourg#Climate
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: User:JuliasTravels did a great job creating and putting content into this article. It's pretty well-edited now, I think, and ready for its closeup.

Vianden castle.jpg

  • The thing I haven't been able to fix yet is a proper map, with geo-locations for the listings. Frank did add a general overview map and this place is so tiny that a map is hardly necessary, but I'll see again if I can get it to work. Until now any coordinates I add seem to show up in the wrong places, so I'm doing something wrong (any help is appreciated, see the article's talk page). I do think it's a charming destination, not at all OtBP for Dutch or German visitors, but small and probably far less known to the rest of the world. I've changed the time to feature, and the general climate section in Luxembourg. Summer is in fact high season here. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, and I see the article now has a dynamic map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. For the record, Support from me too. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Pashley (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in case my remark in the nomination that the article is "ready for its closeup" wasn't sufficiently clear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Kirthar National Park[edit]

Place: Kirthar National Park
Blurb: A vast and rugged dry rangeland, home to wide variety of wildlife and archaeological sites. (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.

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)

Nominations for Featured travel topic[edit]

Rail travel in the United States[edit]

Place: Rail travel in the United States
Blurb: The Land of the Automobile also happens to be one of the world's greatest—and most affordable—places to explore by train. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: PerryPlanet (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This may be a tad redundant, given the nomination of Across Canada by train (although to be fair, that's an itinerary where this is a travel topic), but I'm going ahead. I'd argue this is one of the best travel topics we have on the site and has been for some time, and lately I've been expanding the article to sufficiently cover the topic. As someone who has ridden Amtrak on multiple occasions, I can vouch for the accuracy of the content. Indeed, given how many accounts of Amtrak are either overpraising or pure horror stories (my actual experiences fall somewhere between the two), I think this article does a great job striking a balance and being honest and straightforward about what to expect. Any month is a good one to feature this, because quite frankly there's just no bad time to take a train trip in America.

Acela old saybrook ct summer2011.jpg
  • Support. Let's try to schedule this as far away from Across Canada by Train as possible ;) --Peter Talk 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, and I echo Peter's caveat re: Across Canada by train. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with the above said. jan (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I also agree with the comments above. Good, informative article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support sats (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Kimono buying guide[edit]

Place: Kimono buying guide
Blurb: Attention, travellers looking for an authentic, affordable kimono for a gift or souvenir, or even to wear occasionally: this guide is for you! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: anytime
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Here's an offbeat travel topic that would make a good feature.


  • Support. A well-written guide by an author who obviously knows what he's talking about. I took the liberty of addressing what few issues the article had (namely, a complete lack of pictures and liberal use of first-person pronouns), and I now think it's clearly ready for featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to schedule this for April 2014; however, if Saqib manages to address the issues brought up by the community regarding World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka in time for the International Day For Monuments and Sites, I'd gladly put the kimono article off till later—we certainly have enough ?s in the FTT column. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, please feel free to schedule this for April 2014. I'm going to focus on improving Pakistan articles so no time for World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka anymore. --Saqib (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Andre, you did a great job whipping that article into shape. It's a fine article to feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Confirm it for April 2014. --Saqib (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Great cleanup, Andre! It would also be good to have a picture of those outer elements of the kimono like the belt and the special shoes . The ones I can find on Commons are only about the kimono itself. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Travel photography[edit]

Place: Travel photography
Blurb: Something most travellers do, and some care passionately about. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: anytime
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: There are also two child articles, Travel photography/Full systems and Travel photography/Film.


  • Strong support, as someone whose own travel-photography portfolio encompasses thousands of images. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support You've done a lot of work on this article. I like to photograph but know much more about art than about sophisticated photographic equipment, so I'll defer to the knowledge of others. As long as experts on photographic technology and techniques are satisfied, I am, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A concern is that it may focus too much on the gadgetry, not enough on how to actually use it — visual design and useful techniques, Is that something that you could improve, looking at it from the artistic side? Pashley (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me give that some thought. My artistic sensibility in regard to photography is greatly influenced by my understanding of how to read space and appraise the composition of a painting, and I think my views wouldn't necessarily be shared by everybody. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

El Camino Real[edit]

Place: El Camino Real
Blurb: The 21 Spanish missions of California and the road between them: places of history and beauty. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Starnom (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-Nov
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Wonderful article, beautifully created and developed by User:Purplebackpack89 with editing assistance by several other folks.

Mission Santa Clara.jpg

  • Comment I'm not sure about the blurb; if you can think of anything better, please change it. But this is a really good article, and even if its starnom is slushed, it's still plenty good enough to feature on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (as article creator). I beefed up the blurb a bit Purplebackpack89 00:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Pashley (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Swedish phrasebook[edit]

Place: Swedish phrasebook
Blurb: Need help reading the metro schedule in Stockholm? Hailing a cab in Göteborg? Ordering your lunch in Malmö? This guide is for you. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime , but upcoming July or August would be a good time
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Stockholm will be August's DotM, and we don't have any FTT for July or August so I thought our Swedish phrasebook could be a nice "sidecar" to the Stockholm article.

Visby evening.JPG
  • Support - Well, I proposed it for FTT. It's a guide article and I've looked through it, fixed some minor things and added some pictures to give it a bit more life. If there's anything that needs to be fixed, please tell me. Yeah, and the blurb is ripped off the article... ϒpsilon (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If native or other highly advanced speakers are satisfied with this phrasebook, then so am I. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support assuming the translations are accurate. It's extremely comprehensive and I especially like the abundance of photographs (unusual for a guidebook). However, I would oppose running it in July or August as I feel that would violate the spirit of our "one feature per country per month" agreement. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I just thought those two articles would be cool combination. Let's save this one for some later time then. BTW we have many other phrasebooks and other travel topics that are already guides and could be nominated for FTT after a brief check by someone familiar with the topic. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, Ypsi, I have no issue with putting it on the schedule, I just would prefer to stay away from those two months in particular. On the contrary, we're short on FTT candidates, and I'd frankly rather save myself or someone else the trouble of slogging through Category:Guide articles in search of a suitable replacement. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I also don't speak Swedish so I can't vouch for the translations, but if Ypsilon fixed it himself I'm confident they are good. Otherwise, seems a useful and comprehensive guide. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I spell terribly in Swedish and get confused by the pseudo pronunciation guide, but from skimming it everything seems to be correct. Though, one could argue about the necessity of phrasebook for the Scandinavian countries, as virtually everyone speaks English. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 02:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Electrical systems[edit]

Place: Electrical Systems
Blurb: Visiting another continent or even just another country? Take a minute to make sure that your electrical equipment will work at your destination. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: We need more FTT articles and here's a decent travel topic article about an important topic.

  • Comment - Plenty of information, and I would almost support it, however I'll still look at it more thoroughly before giving it a support. As it's going to be featured in a couple of months there's enough of time to fix anything that needs to be fixed. And it's already got a banner! What do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. What a wealth of well-presented information on a topic that's quite neglected in many other areas of travel literature. Articles like this one are where Wikivoyage really bests the competition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to thank ϒpsilon for his (her? I should know this by now; I apologize) work in finding FTTs to fill the empty slots in our schedule. Slogging through Category:Guide articles and filtering the ones that obviously aren't up to snuff can be tedious, but it's a big help in keeping the DotM feature running smoothly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Merci! There are quite a few other articles too that are already at guide status (it's really not that much work, just check out the entries in Category:Guide articles that don't sound like places). Ps. I'm male. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Very useful topic and well covered. It might use a few more pictures. Danapit (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Now I've gone through the article, fixed some minor things and added pics. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll play devil's advocate here and oppose.
Yes, the article is comprehensive, well-written, well-illustrated and has useful maps. It either meets or is very close to the criteria for a star nomination.
However, for featuring on the main page I think we need topics that will catch visitors' interest and lead them to explore the site. This topic gives useful info on coping with one of the annoyances of travel, but it is very long way from exciting. Pashley (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Pashley, what if I nominate an guide status article on a very non-touristy place to be featured as DotM. Will you oppose that nomination because its very non-touristy place thus unexcited? --Saqib (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd probably suggest it would work better as 'Off the beaten path'. Pashley (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why you think "non-touristy" is the same as "unexciting"? For a good part of travellers (including me), it's quite the other way around. I have to agree with Pashley however that the number of visitors who get excited by such practical nuisances as electrical systems is probably very small. I too believe it's probably not a good article to invite people to further browsing, even if it's an excellent article about the topic. I'm afraid we'll be told that's not a "valid reason" for opposing, though ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I meant either DotM or OftB so that means you won't oppose. Thats good. Now back to topic, If articles like Fundamentals of flying, Leave-no-trace camping, Bargaining, Kimono buying guide, and Travel photography could be featured as FTT then why not this. I didn't found anything exciting or interesting in Fundamentals of flying, Bargaining and Kimono buying guide either. On the other hand, sometimes we don't care whether destination is touristy or not and we still featured them as OtbP then why are we picky on FTT's? --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not defending this nomination nor I even didn't casted my support vote yet. I'm just trying to say that we don't have much articles to be featured as FTT so lets feature those what we've currently. --Saqib (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand what Pashley and Julia mean. Electrical systems for travelers aren't that "exciting" (or I could add exciting stuff about DIY transformers and modifying devices but that'd be out of WV's scope and irresponsible as well). It's something you will have to deal with at certain destinations, like a sunburn or malaria whether you want it or not. And flying and bargaining is something that you do, not because you must, but because you want to and therefore it is exciting and maybe even a reason for going somewhere. I figured any comprehensive travel topic would be eligible for FTT, not just the interesting ones, but I can have a look at other topics in the Guide category then. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(reindent) JuliasTravels's prediction was absolutely right: arguments about whether featured articles "catch visitors' interest" have no basis in policy or precedent. The sole requirements for an article to appear on the Main Page are that it's at Guide status or better and that it hasn't been featured previously. Arguments in favor of changing policy belong on Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates, but right off the bat, I'll tell you that my response to any such argument would be that our pool of eligible articles (and especially eligible FTT's) is shallow enough already without additional requirements further constraining us. What's contained in this article may not be edge-of-your-seat stuff, but it's essential information and it's well-written to boot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that's your interpretation of policy and opinions and I know you fee very strongly about it so yeah, I saw that coming :-). I don't share it though, and I also think we shouldn't be all that uncompromising when it comes to discussions. There's a difference between blunt personal dislikes about a destination ("I don't like it doesn't count") and the issues Pashley mentioned above. The good of the main page, although not covered in the examples of issues mentioned in policy, is also not ruled out and seems like a rather valid concern. If policy becomes a thing of letters rather than spirit, we're on the wrong track. I also think the shallow pool argument was a pressing one a while ago, but fortunately is increasingly less a problem. In fact, we have waiting lists of a year for destinations, and half a year for TT's now  :-) Since there's nothing wrong with the electric systems article (in fact, I think it's well written indeed) it would be no problem to feature it. But we also don't have to feature anything. Why not keep it on a kind of backup list, and just see if something more exciting comes up in the next half year or so? JuliasTravels (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
To JuliasTravels: It really doesn't have anything to do with my "interpretation" of policy; the policy is pretty unambiguous. I realize that no one is really debating anymore whether this article belongs on the Main Page, but in a larger sense, your concerns cut both ways: while it's not good for us to be too conservative or overly hung up on the letter of the law rather than the spirit, neither would it be good for us to be too reckless. I'm not just talking about DoTM, I'm taking about all areas of policy. It's hard enough to get Wikivoyagers to all fall in line behind any initiative - we're a community of people with strong wills and wildly divergent opinions, and while that's great from a standpoint of coming up with creative solutions to problems we may face or innovative ideas for directions to take the site, it makes it essential, if we want this place to run smoothly, for individual users not to simply ignore policy whenever they get the inkling. Status quo bias dictates that we'd better have a pretty convincing consensus behind changes to longstanding policies or precedents - the question of whether DotM nominees should be disqualified for any reason that's not spelled out in policy has come up several times (i.e. Udupi for OtBP in March 2013 and Ann Arbor for DotM in June 2012) and in all cases, the general sentiment was that we should not be needlessly restrictive - but if we're being asked to accept a change without even undertaking a policy discussion, how are we even supposed to establish a consensus? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Mmm... I was discussing the article too, actually, proposing to keep it as a back-up option :-) If you want to move the rest of the discussion to a talkpage, please go ahead. I'm sorry to say my point is much the same as in other places. You're talking about a change in policy and ignoring consensus, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't see this particular discussion as a change in the first place. As I see it, there's policy to set ground rules, but it's not an all-embracing set of permitted reasonings and it's also not cut in stone. I still don't see why arguments that are not explicitly mentioned in policy (whether positively or negatively) would have to be off limits or against consensus. In such cases, not predicted by policy, it seems just fine to work towards consensus on a case to case base. In this case, (the electrical systems) I'd much prefer that discussion over trying to catch it in policy, as it's more flexible. It allows for other arguments (e.g. the availability of alternatives, making difference between really unsuited or fine as a backup or whatever) to be taken into account. If any argumentation leads to a regular lock up of discussions, we can always make it part of policy, but let's cross that bridge if we get to it. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian Railway[edit]

Place: Trans-Siberian Railway
Blurb: The epic train journey across Siberia is the longest in the world, spans two continents and few train travel enthusiasts don’t have it on their wish list. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime, however in Dec-Apr it’s probably unpleasantly cold
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A nice article about an IMHO interesting journey. It’s by no means a bad article but could probably be expanded.

Trans-Siberian railway map.png

  • Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost support. It is a great topic, one of the world's classic routes, and the article is basically fine.
However, there are links in the footnote format which we decided to stop using a while back, some external links that are broken and some that may be questionable. I think it needs a final polish before it is ready for prime time. Pashley (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've made some copyedits and removed dead links. The German article is quite good and I plan to translate some of that content too. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Translation from German completed (although it would perhaps not hurt to have a native English speaker to fix any funny sounding passages I've possibly introduced). I've also added a bunch of pictures to make the article more lively and colorful. Wouldn't this awesome itinerary be something for for instance August and then we could save Electric systems for the last empty slot in the table above? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. One concern I have is that the article is classed as an itinerary, yet the vast majority of it is given over to background information ("Understand", "Get In", information on ticket pricing and visas, etc.) A tiny, context-free list of places that the train passes through does not suffice, IMO, for the "itinerary" portion of this... itinerary. If it were me, I'd use Across Canada by train#Itineraries as a model for how that section could be expanded. I might even take a line or two to describe the main attractions in or significance of the towns along the route, especially the more important or tourist-friendly ones. I would go so far as to say I'd be hesitant to feature this article without a revamp of that section, but we have a great deal of time between now and August.
Those concerns aside, there's great information here. As ϒpsilon said, the article could use some attention from a native English speaker, but that seems an easy enough fix to me. As far as timing goes, I still don't quite see eye-to-eye with JuliasTravels on the subject of Electrical systems, and I would be dead-set against either disqualifying that article entirely or instituting a "backup list" or any other formal process of ranking articles according to subjective interpretations of how interesting or worthy of Main Page coverage they are. However, it's certainly not unprecedented to shift the schedule around because of concerns about time to feature, and in the case of pretty much anywhere in Russia, travel-friendly weather conditions occur for a short enough time of the year that your argument for moving Trans-Siberian Railway to August in favor of Electrical systems is definitely compelling.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, you're right that the article doesn't really have a proper itinerary section. I'll try to make a list of cities and towns that the train passes through and some stuff from our articles about those places. The German version has a list of important stops but it's a bit messy (the distances written in a confusing way) so I'll have to polish it a bit. But as the Trans Siberian is very high on my personal travel wish list I have absolutely no problems working with the article.
Electrical systems should most definitely not be thrown off the list. After all, I spent two evenings expanding and reviewing it before nomination. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sure, some polishing up here or there - but essentially a great article. I've travelled most of this route and this itinerary combined with some destination articles along the way should be an excellent guide. I agree a somewhat more complete list of stops or perhaps two or three suggested itineraries for when one doesn't have time to do the whole trail would be useful. Plenty of time to fix that. It's not a no-go for me without that, though. We've had great trans-continental travel topics with limited practical route advise before (eg. Silk Road). Still, better if you can add it. Good work! JuliasTravels (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I've done a pass through it adding wikilinks and copy editing; I found very few non-native speaker oddities and no serious ones, but did fix a few. Pashley (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cruise ships[edit]

Place: Cruise ships
Blurb: Several destinations on one journey, no need to change hotel rooms and a lot of different activities on board—cruises are popular for a reason. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This novel needs a couple of pictures and likely a thorough review but it does certainly not lack content.

Cruise ship deck.jpg

  • Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with ϒpsilon that we should find more pictures, but I don't know if we should necessarily do a lot of pruning on this article: the information given is thorough but rarely excessive or redundant. I'd suggest running this article in the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2014-15 as most cruises serve tropical destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It is a good article. I have added a couple of pictures, but it needs a few more, including inside cruise ships. It might also be improved if smaller ships got more mention - river cruises etc. AlasdairW (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Three days in Singapore[edit]

Place: Singapore
Blurb: A stopover in Singapore? Make the most of it! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but a good “filler” when the weather is cold and crappy in the Northern Hemisphere where I believe most Wikivoyagers live.
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Well written, the maps that you need are included, otherwise Singapore is probably our best covered country and I’ve personally used this guide and found it very helpful. Who says “personal” itineraries are necessarily bad?

  • Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Pashley (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not too keen on it, as it's a prime example of how good itineraries can be and yet how personalised and outdated they become. It's something like five years out of date without mentions of some major new Marina Bay, Orchard Road and Sentosa developments, and the last huge update to it has probably been even longer ago, but still pretty useful as Ypsilon pointed out. -- torty3 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons outlined by Torty3 as well as the fact that Wikivoyage now discourages the creation of itineraries of this type, and many articles similar to this one have been deleted on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's getting dangerously close to "I don't like it", which is not a valid reason to oppose. If there is information missing, that's a different story. Powers (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right that "I don't like it" is not per se a justification for opposing a feature. But it would be a bit hypocritical if we delete One day in Hong Kong, which is currently in Vfd, for being merely Usable and then feature this "personal itinerary" for being a Guide, wouldn't it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)