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
March 2015 Bangkok/Khao San Road Ushuaia Ninoy Aquino International Airport
April 2015 Suzhou Sierra Vista - pending stronger consensus to support Ad's Path - pending fixes
May 2015 Vienna for Eurovision song contest Iseo Travelling during Ramadan
June 2015 Buffalo - pending completion of districtification process Turku Sunburn and sun protection - pending stronger consensus to support
July 2015 Łódź - pending stronger consensus to support Trondheim - pending stronger consensus to support Frequent flyer programmes - pending stronger consensus to support
August 2015 Manchester Davenport - pending stronger consensus to support Hiking in the Nordic countries

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]

Khao San Road, Bangkok

Partying, diverse street food and cheap accommodation have made Khao San Road and its surroundings a favorite among backpackers in Bangkok.

Off the Beaten Path[edit]


The world's southernmost city is not only a gateway to Antarctica, but has its own attractions too: from skiing to hiking to boat trips through the Beagle Channel, the adventure continues all year!

Featured Travel Topic[edit]

Ninoy Aquino International Airport

If visiting the Philippines, chances are that you'll pass through Manila's unpopular airport. Check out our guide and be prepared!


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

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

Nominations for Destination of the Month[edit]


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

Manufaktura fontanna nocą Łódź.JPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

...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)


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

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

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

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


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

Humble Administrator's Garden1.jpg

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


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


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


Place: Vienna
Blurb: The place Mozart, Beethoven, and Freud called home, where quiet coffeeshops stand side by side with magnificent imperial palaces, is also the home of the 2015 Eurovision song contest. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May 2015, Eurovision Song Contest takes place on May 19-23, related events start 2 weeks earlier
Nominated by: PrinceGloria (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: After much work to this article and its numerous district, it is now a guide, right in time to feature it during the most important cultural event in Europe (well, at least most-watched-on-TV).

Schloss Schönbrunn Wien 2014 (Zuschnitt 1).jpg

  • I'll try my best to look through this article and the district articles soon, but I have yet to visit Vienna, so if those who know the city well are satisfied with the article, I'll be happy to vote to support it for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that it is a good idea to list during the song contest, but searching the site for Eurovision I didn't find any Vienna pages listed. If we are going for this timing, then song contest details need to be added (maybe just to warn of full hotels during the contest). In which district will the contest be held? On a quick look the Vienna article looks good, but I have only spent one day in the city and so I can't comment in detail. A dynamic map would be a useful addition, and the map on Vienna/Innere Stadt need to be tweaked - it is a sea of yellow crosses. AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for weighing in! The contest will be held at the Wiener Stadthalle, in district 15., which we cover as a part of Vienna/Outer West, and I guess this is a good opportunity to bursh up that district in the time remaining. The example of Malmo and Copenhagen shows that events and pop-up POIs related to Eurovision spread all over the city, or at least the central / most touristic areas. We will need to cover them as the plans unfold.
I will add the notices regarding the contest in the main page, I am not sure we need to add them in every district, we shall see if hotels are getting booked out. By now I can still book my fave hotels at the usual rates, seems like Vienna is large enough to absorb the Eurovision effect.
All of the districts seem to have dynamic maps, but it does seem they could use resizing indeed, especially the Innere Stadt. The problem with the latter is that it is so chock full of POIs (in real life, not only in our maps), it will always be hard to pan out. I also fear the wrath of Texugo and LtPowers for resizing the maps, so it would be good if you (AlasdairW) could wathclist the article to support me if I get down to it and a conflict ensues. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I remember a squad of Wikivoyagers doing massive work on Vienna, and that work is visible. Even as there are many district articles, they all seem to be at least in a decent shape. Vienna/Outer South and Vienna/Outer East seem to be at outline status (they need some more content in Get in). If we are to feature Vienna for the Eurovision month it's of course natural to have information on the event and its related events too. I've just looked at the articles now, not read them in detail, but I don't see anything big to complain about. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost - per my comment two months ago. Moreover, some of the district articles have empty sections and a some listings here and there still need coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Umm, what Ypsi mentioned above is actually a major problem. For a Huge City to be at Guide status, all its districts have to be at least Usable. Therefore, Vienna is technically not a Guide and not eligible to be featured. Vienna/Outer South and Vienna/Outer East absolutely have to be brought up to Usable status or else we have no choice but to slush this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed PrinceGloria just upgraded those two to Usable. The mentioned district articles are sort of usable, there are sights, restaurants and hotels. The Get in sections however should preferably contain something along the lines of Vienna/Margareten#Get in or Get in in most other district articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The two district articles are not Usable. Wikivoyage:City guide status (which also applies to districts of Huge Cities) says that to be Usable, an article needs "at least a Get in section". The "Get in" section of Vienna/Outer South simply refers readers back to the parent article for information on how to get in to Vienna as a whole (rather than district-specific information); Vienna/Outer East does not have a "Get in" section at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Now those two articles include instructions for getting in from other parts of Vienna by public transport. I upgraded the articles to Usable, Vienna to Guide and hereby support the article. Prince, Stellar, Axis and other who have worked extensively on Vienna probably know better what, if anything, still has to be done with the articles to make them even better. There are still four months before Vienna goes on the Main Page. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. If we want to improve things further, I would suggest some of the district articles could stand to be filled out a bit. But as for Vienna itself, the article is well written and comprehensive, and I would be hard-pressed to find any fault with it. It has my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know Vienna, but it's a very good article. I do have a couple of relatively small comments, though: Before it is featured, there are some footnote-style external links (at least 10, I think) that need to be converted to front-links. Also, a few of the photos look a bit hazy or unfocused in places, including the beer garden photo and the photo of the InterContinental Wien, showing the revival furniture (the Sofitel photo is also a bit hazy, but I think that's OK because the interior lends itself to haziness). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I like the place, and I like the article - my favourite features include Zentralfriedhof, the tram system, and the museums and galleries. I dont like the smoking inside cafes - that really offended me. Hundertwasser, and Klimt, and the range of obscure artists that are held in the galleries might be better served somewhere in the article, but then I can remember when Ralph Steadman's Freud book came out, it gave one a sense of the architecture of the city. Jung, Freud and the cultural ambience that was in the Nicholas Roegs film bad timing dont seem to be parts of the article either. To be a good article - the specifics are all there - billiant for someone wanting to get in and around - somehow my speed read of the article suggested that some of the more obscure components of the history and cultural history might have been better served - but hey as it is it is great. sats (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


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


  • Almost - per my comments. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The article definitely has potential, but as you said, Calgary just ended its stint as DotM. I'd be very concerned about placing two DotM candidates so close to each other on the schedule that are not only in the same country, but only 90 minutes' drive apart. If we feature this, it should be no earlier than winter 2015-16. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed a number of bad links and incorrect listings and added coordinates. Moved some information out to the park article and added a few images. In a better state now for consideration. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. Most of the issues Ypsi mentioned in his initial comment seem to have been addressed. However, I still can't yet give this article my full support. There are some activities listed in the "Summer" and "Hiking" subsections of "Do" that have no descriptive blurbs, and some of the destinations in "Go next" don't have one-liner descriptions either. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Great work so far, User:Traveler100! I agree with André that there are still a few small fixes needed, however can probably be quickly done. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangkok/Khao San Road[edit]

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

Bangkok 2008 020.JPG

  • Support - the article looks good, at least to someone who's never been to Thailand. G-t perhaps could have a look if there's anything outdated or otherwise wrong. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a no-brainer to support the nomination of a Star article, and ditto to what you said. It looks like User:Globe-trotter substantively edited this article in the last week of September, so I'm guessing it's up to date, but he, User:Seligne and anyone else who's familiar with the neighborhood can always check on details. I trust that it's still very much a Star. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A brilliant, brilliant article and deservedly a Star. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Used this and other Thailand articles extensively on my last trip there. Great work. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive guide. I found it alot better than most of other guide articles. --Saqib (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


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

Dumaguete City Rizal Boulevard.jpg

  • Support. I've been watching the progress of this article and doing some copy editing along the way. What's your feeling about this city as DotM vs. OtBP? Is it a huge draw for tourism? Also, is there a rainy season when we should avoid running the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd say DotM; it is a provincial capital and w:Dumaguete#Hotel and Tourism says it is among the top ten tourist destinations in the country. You certainly see lots of tourists, plus plenty of expats & retirees, and there are good services for them.
w:Dumaguete#Climate says the wet season is June-Nov, so I'd say run it Dec 2015 or a bit later. Pashley (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as DotM. Attracts far too many international tourists to consider it for off the beaten track, imho. Great progress has been made on the article, and I'm sure Pashley will polish it up even more. No hesitations here. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can make this DotM when Trondheim and Turku are Off the Beaten Path. Each is on its country's list of nine cities; Dumaguete is not. Powers (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
We could discuss at Talk:Philippines whether Dumaguete should be among the 9 listed cities, in place of one of the currently-listed cities, but I don't think your objection is really that obvious. For example, don't you think that the United States has more than 10 cities that would obviously be DotM, if run? Perhaps the Philippines does, too, but in any event, the remarks by Pashley and JuliasTravels satisfy me as to Dumaguete's appropriateness as a DotM. I get the feeling that you believe that every country or region should have an equal number of DotM, but I'm not sure anyone agrees with you on this, and I certainly don't. There are quite a few countries that have no DotM at all, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to explain my rationale; if I'd go to Dumaguete as suggested OtbT destination on WV, and find myself in a tourism dominated town with international visitors all around me, I'd feel mislead. I know I did not get that impression in Turku, but I haven't been to Trondheim. I have no strong feelings about this, however. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No, of course every country doesn't have the same number of DotM-worthy candidates, but I think any country (of significant size, so excluding places like Liechtenstein and East Timor) probably has at least nine. Powers (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not think LtPowers' comparison is either fair or would be particularly useful if it were. Sure, Trondheim and Turku are among the 9 for their countries (population 5.something million each) and Dumaguete does not make it to the 9 for the Philippines (100 million), but is certainly one of the two most important cities on Negros Island (4 million), and it does make the list of 9 for Visayas (17 million).
Anyway, the important question is its importance as a travel destination & I'd say on that basis it is clearly a DotM. Pashley (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — not bad. I'm not really familiar with the Philippines, so I don't have an opinion whether Dumaguete should be DotM or OtBP. Tiny nitpick: as of now there's no Eat#Splurge section. Is any of the listed restaurants perchance a bit more upscale than the rest? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I have added a section at Dumaguete#Splurge but it is not in our usual format. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It's OK with me because I believe it serves the traveler well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with no strong opinion either way on the DotM vs. OtBP question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It was high on my personal list before my current scouting trip and now tops it. Lots of older westerners including several who have moved here from other parts of the Philippines. I talked to one who moved from Manila; says D is cheaper, quieter, safer. Another came here after 15 years on Boracay; cheaper, much better medical facilities and better transport connections. Pashley (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Talked to one today who moved here from Bangkok, mostly because it is cheaper. Pashley (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Place: Fortaleza
Blurb: Sunbathing all day, partying all night — Fortaleza truly deserves its place among Brazil's beach metropolises (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jul-Jan (late 2015?)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Incredible! We've never ever featured anything from the world's 5th largest country! So here's one of our few Brazilian Guide articles, however as of now it's more of a mess than a guide (please don't demote it!). Nevertheless, there are at least a couple of months before Fortaleza even shows up in the Upcoming table and by then we'll have made the article look much better, right? :) Overall tidying, listingfying, importing and translation of stuff from other language versions, updating of information, more pictures, geo coordinates, and adding a dynamic map are among stuff that needs to be done.

Praia do Mucuripe.jpg
  • Not yet — Per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost. Ypsilon, your words above prepared me to think the article would be much messier than it really is! Actually, Fortaleza is not in terribly bad shape. The most obvious need is for geo coordinates and a map, and while the other fixes Ypsi listed are apropos, they only apply to bits and pieces of the article - there are many other sections ("Understand", "Get in", "Get around", arguably "See") that probably need no further improvement. October 2015 is the earliest month for which we have no suitable DotM candidates. The level of work this article needs is such that I'm sure we can get it to a featureable state by that time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet — Need work. I found majority of listings are one-liner. Lead section need few lines. Would appreciate if "SEE" listings could be slightly expanded. Too many sub-sections in "DO". Content could be merged all into two or three sub-sections. Since Fortaleza is one of major cities of Brazil, I'm sure there'll be plenty of basic, mid range and spluge restaurants so the section could be written accordingly which will make things more clearer. A dynamic map with all listings marked can significantly improve the article. --Saqib (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Place: Edmonton
Blurb: The sprawling capital of Alberta is the "Gateway to the North", an oil boomtown that boasts North America's largest shopping mall and a festival season jam-packed with events to suit all tastes. (needs a touch-up?) (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Here's a nice, detailed article that looks ready to go. From bits and pieces of arcana I've noticed in old talk page discussions, I've gathered that the Edmonton article's main author was a colorful character (to put it generously) who rubbed a lot of regulars the wrong way and ended up getting userbanned. This was all way before my time on Wikivoyage, so I can't comment on the user himself, but one thing that struck me about Edmonton's previous slushed nomination is that it was rejected in an incredibly nitpicky fashion based on issues that were easy fixes - which I can only conjecture was due to personality conflicts. The major issue was with one of the district articles that was at less than Usable status, a problem solved by me in literally two minutes by adding the boilerplate lede sentence and changing the name of the "Luxury" subheading of the "Eat" section to the standard "Splurge". For good measure, I also updated some external links in the parent article to conform to the current format. It was also mentioned that some copyediting needed to be done, but I didn't see any such problems.


  • Support. The only issue I foresee is timing, given that we've recently had a DotM from Alberta (Calgary, September 2014) and there's another one (Banff) on the schedule, slated for no earlier than next winter to avoid coming too close on Calgary's heels. Still, Edmonton has been waiting for a long time to be featured (having been slushed in 2009 for reasons I'd be hard-pressed to call valid, as described above), while Banff has some major deficiencies that can only really be solved by someone familiar with the area, and a principal author that hasn't touched the article since April of last year. If the community feels it's better to run Edmonton first, we could feature it as early as October 2015. Let's hear what you folks think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Nearly. Heh, I remember Edmontonenthusiast. While he was a bit of a handful, I have no trouble believing he could make a great travel guide for his hometown. Anyway, the Edmonton pages look pretty solid, although I'm bothered by the "Coffee" section on the main page being nothing more than a list of coffee shops; that should be sorted out and replaced with a more general overview of the coffee situation in Edmonton. Frankly, the same might be true of the Sleep section. The other main thing I would recommend is getting some dynamic maps into the district pages, because those old static maps of mine are really showing their age. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs work the listings in the districts need some serious checking and updating, ownership of hotels and restaurants changed since they were added. Also Edmonton Mall entry in West End deserves to be expanded considerably seeing as it is one of the main reasons people travel to the town. Also I would prefer to see the more tourist destinations of Jasper National Park or Banff as a feature article in the near future and concerned, as we have already had Calgary, that there would be objections to another Alberta article too soon. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding questionable listings and outdated static maps in the district articles, let's please keep in mind that it's the parent article that's been nominated, not the districts. If folks would like to update the district articles, that would certainly be helpful, but when featuring a Huge City the only thing that's required of the district articles is that they be Usable status or better. Also, to address Traveler100's comment: Destination of the Month is a showcase for well-written articles, not a popularity contest for the most famous tourist destinations (also, Jasper National Park is only at Usable status). As to timing, I would be firmly against featuring Calgary, Banff, and Edmonton all within a ~15 month period, but I think it would be fine to feature two of those destinations during that period if the third one is slushed or put off until later. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, the district pages are a crucial component of a good city guide, and I believe they should be taken into account in these nominations. Yes, the only thing we require of district pages for Huge City DotM features is that they be usable, but I see that as a base requirement rather than what we would ideally look for in a featured city guide. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost — The article looks OK. I'm, too, a little worried about the coffee section, and shouldn't the skyline views be in the Edmonton article if they are spread around different parts of the city. Someone checking through the listings in the districts plus adding dynamic maps with POIs would certainly not hurt. I agree we should avoid having three destinations from Alberta within a little more than a year (especially as all are nominated as DotM). Now as Calgary and Edmonton both are cities plain and simple but Banff is more of a resort (isn't it?), I would pick Banff because of its different character — this is probably what Traveler100 tried to say above. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for Off the Beaten Path[edit]


Place: Ushuaia
Blurb: The world's southernmost city is not only a gateway to Antarctica, but has its own attractions too: from skiing to hiking to boat trips through the Beagle Channel, the adventure continues all year! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar 2015 preferred, otherwise Jun-Feb
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Let's not have "?" as March's OtBP, that'd be something for April Fools day instead ;) .So, here's yet another translated Guide, this time from German where it was an OtBP in March 2009. Also been featured now and then on DotM's, OtBP's and FTT's little brother.

Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego.jpg

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

[unindent] By my count, we have 3 votes of support. Would anyone else like to pass judgment on this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole Cape Horn and Tierra del Fuego - area either from the Chilean or the Argentinian side is closer to an area of intrigue and more complex history than is alluded to here, and this is where my wikipedian hat needs to come off, and voyage hat on - as a straight voyage info article it is supported and straight forward. I think something more of the mysteries and the intrigues of the region might have given it more of a place connected or linked to stories in the area. sats (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


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

Iseo Aprile 14.JPG

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

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

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

Lkcl it just suggested Iseo and Turku should switch places (ie. Iseo in May and Turku in June). I think it's a good idea. Objections? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ypsi - that would entail a minor issue vis-à-vis what I envision featuring in the months after June. My intentions for August are Manchester as DotM, Davenport as OtBP, and Hiking in the Nordic countries as FTT. Right now Trondheim is scheduled for July, but moving it ahead to August would cause two problems: it would run at the same time as Hiking in the Nordic countries, and also Davenport would either have to be pushed back to July, in the middle of tornado season, or ahead to September, which in turn would mean that Altai Tavan Bogd National Park couldn't be featured till October at the earliest, which is later than I'm comfortable. So if Trondheim has to stay in July, switching Iseo and Turku would mean having two Scandinavian OtBPs in a row.
On the other hand, it's mentioned in Turku's nomination blurb that June and July is festival season there, and featuring Turku in June would be ideal from that standpoint. I'd say if no one has a problem with Turku and Trondheim next to each other, it could be done.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't really have any problems with the two Scandinavian T's being featured after each other. But if others don't like the idea I'm absolutely fine with keeping the schedule as it is now. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with ϒpsilon. --Lkcl it (Talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Place: Turku
Blurb: The cradle of Finnish history and culture boasts an iconic 13th-century castle, as well as a lively university and a breathtaking setting on the shore of the Archipelago Sea. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep (June and July have a lot of events)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A fine article, mainly thanks to Jontts and LPfi. Yes, it'll be a very European 2015 but hey, 7 of the world's 10 most visited countries are located here! Turku could be a DotM too, though Tampere which is slightly larger was also featured as (one of our first) OtBP's and DotM is practically fully booked for a year. Also, PrinceGloria recently noticed that European OtBP's often are small towns or villages.

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

Sierra Vista[edit]

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

Fort Huachuca -a.jpg

  • Almost - the lead section needs expansion and the article could use an additional photo or two towards the end. Eat and Sleep could use price categories. Otherwise the article (which even has a docent) looks good. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. I like the article very much, and it might be acceptable to leave the lede as short as it is, but the none of the "Eat" listings has price information. Also, minor point, but per policy, the "Learn" section should be deleted unless these colleges run some courses that last 2 weeks or so for non-matriculated students. Otherwise, if you want to mention the schools as part of the character and identity of the town, they can be mentioned with a link in the lede, or if they're interesting to visit, they could be made into "See" listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - suitable destination and an already very useful guide. I agree with Ypsilon that the place should get a proper lede, and preferably short introductions for some other sections too. For anyone finding themselves in Sierra Vista, I'm sure everything they really need is there. And that's sufficient to meet our standard guide criteria. But as someone who's never heard of this place, a quick glance through this article doesn't really tell me why I would want to go there. I have to read through the lists of sights to get an idea of the place, and I'm likely to lose interest within seconds. Therefore, I think we should strive to create good introductions for our featured articles, grasping people's attention and encouraging them to read on and just discover and consider the destination. I'm rather sure that otherwise, few people will really read them. That said, I do support the feature when the small changes mentioned are made JuliasTravels (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe. I'm quite surprised this article was nominated, as personally I would recommend nearby Bisbee for being more interesting to travelers (disclosure: I grew up not far from Sierra Vista). Unlike Bisbee, the town of Sierra Vista itself is rather charmless and is simply the largest population center of southeast Arizona; however the immediate environs are I think very interesting and quite scenic. I'd been hoping to eventually get the regional article up to guide status, but still have some way to go on that. However if there's enough interest I can continue to work on the Sierra Vista article. Regarding restaurant prices, it will likely be a few months before I will be able to confirm prices in person. –StellarD (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be fine with Bisbee too, that article is at guide status as well. Remember, a certain "WTF-factor" is never a drawback for Off the Beaten Path's :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ypsi - Though it's classified as a Guide, Bisbee is not in any way feature-worthy at this point. (See my comment on this thread timestamped 20:36, 3 June 2014; there've been no substantial edits to the article since that time.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This nomination looks headed for the slush pile. In order to avoid that, can I interest anyone in effecting the changes suggested by the commenters above (expanding the lede, adding photos, categorizing Eat and Sleep by price point, adding section intros)? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Making the required improvements for the article has been on my list of things to do, but I've not gotten to it as I've been traveling in southern Mexico for an extended period. I'll carve out some time for it in the next couple of weeks, and do plan to visit in February with more updates then. However I certainly won't object if there's another more polished nomination for that time slot. –StellarD (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the type of improvements the article needs can be done by anyone. For example, most of the restaurants listed in Eat probably have menus and prices posted on their websites; similarly, finding out rates at the hotels in Sleep can be easily managed through the hotel websites or perhaps As for the section intro blurbs and lede, a summary of what's contained in the listings will do fine. As far as I can see, the problem has more to do with getting people to take out the time and effort to follow through with these easy but somewhat tedious fixes, rather than a need for someone who is actually on the ground in Sierra Vista. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I have had it on my list too (as the nominator) but the last month and a half I've had very little time for WV. Will try to fix the issues during the next couple of days (and the same with Ad's path). ϒpsilon (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done. And Support! ϒpsilon (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
There still is no price information in the "Eat" section, other than the fact that the eateries are roughly grouped as "Budget," "Mid-range" and "Splurge," but those categories are not defined with any price range. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
So, now I've added price ranges for each restaurant. Most restaurants didn't have any web site so most of it is from Yelp or Tripadvisor (photos of actual menus whenever available) so I think the information is reliable enough. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your editing work. I'm willing to support this article on that basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think we should avoid expressions like "Not far from the Mexican border". The point is it is near the Mexican border of USA. The expression is OK in a USA context, which make the site look USA centred. Without that context the expression becomes meaningless, the town could very well be in Mexico, near any of its borders, or in Guatemala (although I think anybody here would state that explicitly). Or am I supposed to know that town already? --LPfi (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything that you think should be done to make it clearer that the town is in the United States? If you know the town is in the United States, what's wrong with mentioning that it's not far from the Mexican border? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The point is I do not know. Those who live in USA think "by the border" implies "... of USA", I had to turn on USA mode to get it. I think adding the implied "of USA" would fix it, but my English is not good enough for reliably finding elegant wordings – or evaluating them. --LPfi (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"Not far from the Mexico-U.S. border" would introduce confusion as to whether it's in the far southern U.S. or far northern Mexico. The blurb doesn't mention which country Sierra Vista is in, and I think that's the crux of the problem. Perhaps a better wording would be "Not far from the Mexican border, this charming Arizona desert town..." or somesuch. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That's an easy fix. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
LPfi, I finally realized you were referring to the OtBP blurb and not a problem with the article itself. I agree with your point. My initial attempt to address the problem isn't elegant, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Palmyra (New York)[edit]

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

Hill Cumorah Pageant heralds.jpg

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

[unindent] This is another article with 3 votes of support. Any interest from anyone else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Altai Tavan Bogd National Park[edit]

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

Tavan Bogd Mountain.jpg

  • Support. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I had forgotten this article had never been featured. The high quality of the article is mostly due to the great work of User:Altaihunters (formerly User:Eaglehunter), who also did such great work on the previously-featured Ölgii article. I'll inform him of this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Magnificent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone else want to pass judgment on this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


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


  • Support as nominator. Needs a lede, but other than that, it looks ready to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. The article is beautiful, but there is a well-justified style tag on the "Eat" section that needs to be addressed before this is run. I also had thoughts of nominating Seattle, by the way, but not a soul has responded to my questions at Talk:Seattle#DotM?. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ikan - It looks like Davenport#Eat should be an easy enough fix. The listings themselves are fine; they just need to be reorganized by price point rather than type of cuisine. Assuming there is nothing else wrong with the article, I should be able to get it whipped into shape in no time. As for Seattle, I will take a look at that as well and weigh in on the thread at the talk page, but assuming Seattle falls under DotM rather than OtBP, I doubt there would be room for it on the schedule until 2016. As far as I can tell, summer 2015 is booked solid either with destinations that have been waiting an inordinate amount of time to be featured (Buffalo, Łódź, Manchester), are timed to take advantage of a special event (Vienna), or both (Munich). October 2015 might be a possibility, but I'm not sure that would be an ideal month to feature a destination that's so far north. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Seattle would definitely be a DotM. Once the restaurant listings are fixed, I'll be delighted to support running Davenport. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Was thinking about nominating some American town or national park for OtBP for the upcoming summer but wasn't sure which one to choose. I also wanted to wait a bit to see how André's interesting Quebecois project is growing — that one plus Iseo and Altai Tavan Bogd National Park would fill up the summer months. Davenport has my support but I would love to see the listings in the Eat section arranged into Budget/Mid range/Splurge before we put the article on the Main Page.
Seattle is definitely a DotM. It's one of the largest cities in that part of North America, has a major airport and I believe welcomes quite many visitors. As of now the DotM schedule is completely full for the upcoming summer and as the weather doesn't seem to be particularly good in October, I foresee that Seattle probably will have to wait until 2016. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ypsi - regarding the Gaspé Peninsula, that's looking more like a summer 2016 feature (mostly because I'm having a hard time learning how to write Usable articles rather than Guide-level ones!) After the New Year, I envision shifting my focus away from Quebec and several offwiki projects I'm working on toward breaking ground on Buffalo/East Side, so we can consider one summer 2015 OtBP slot as yet to be filled. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Progress report: The Eat section has been reformatted in accordance with mos. It looks like there might be some minor copyediting yet to do; would anyone else (especially those who've commented previously: Ikan, Ypsi) care to opine about what else needs to be done and/or reassess their votes? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The "Eat" section was the only thing preventing me from offering my support for running this article, so thank you for taking care of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I already voted "support" and didn't have an problems with anything except the Eat section; great that you fixed it! Should leave the "local chains" as a separate section? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The article also needs a proper lede. As for the "local chains" section, I have the Buffalo district articles set up that way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


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

Trondheim view 1.JPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Place: Grand-Bassam
Blurb: The old colonial capital of Côte d'Ivoire is today a quiet beach town steeped in well-preserved turn-of-the-century charm. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Aiming for late autumn 2015, about when our current stock of OtBP candidates will be depleted. Otherwise Jul-Aug or Nov-Mar per [1]
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Something of a rare find: a feature-worthy (or nearly so; see below) African destination for the Main Page.


  • Almost. Grand-Bassam is not quite ready for prime time yet, but not much work is needed to get it there: expand the blurbs in "See" and "Do" a little bit, add another restaurant or two to "Eat" and another bar or two to "Drink", and pick a few prominent nearby cities to add to "Go next". There's already a nice static map. This article has a ton of potential and I'd really love to see it whipped into shape. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you know the town? We need people who know the town to check on the accuracy of the content. I recall when we considered featuring Dakar and finally realized that not a single person passing judgment on the article had ever been there, whereupon the article was slushed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost — This has been one of the African articles on my list of potential OtBP candidates, but I've been hesitant of nominating Grand-Bassam as the Ebola epidemic is just a few hundred kilometers away. The article itself looks OK to me, though — given the town's size, I don't think there's much in the town that isn't already in the article. It would be very good to have someone who knows Grand Bassam to check it (otherwise it would suffice to use Google to check that the businesses are still operating but I've noticed that's not as easy in Africa as elsewhere). User:JamesA has made the map and according to the article history written some of the content so he might be the person to ask. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding worries about the article's content: I think that's an unrealistically high standard to hold our feature articles to, and to be perfectly honest I wonder why we are so concerned with confirming the accuracy of African articles yet are willing to have faith that all the listed destinations in, let's say, Dumaguete or Ushuaia still exist with the same opening hours, telephone number, etc. My suggestion was that we add additional listings to "Eat" and "Drink" that we find on Google or other such sources. No, that's not foolproof, but it's no less foolproof to blindly assume that information in any given article which may have been written months or years ago remains accurate. That's a risk that's inherent in using any travel guide. If we were to limit all our features to places that one of our current regulars is able to personally visit to check on the accuracy of the content - or even to places that any of us current regulars have ever been before - we would no doubt have to slush most of our current nominees. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Ushuaia, but we currently have a regular in Dumaguete. I think part of the issue was that even in a city as big and important as Dakar, a lot of information wasn't reliably confirmable online. What's the situation with Grand Bassam? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
My point is that reliable online confirmability of an article's contents should not be a prerequisite for it to be featured on the Main Page. If it were, then we'd have to slush the vast majority of our current nominees. If we slushed Dakar on that basis, we were wrong to do so. On a regular basis, in Africa equally as the rest of the world, businesses close and the situation on the ground changes, and therefore no travel guide is in a position to guarantee the accuracy of its contents. Particularly not this one, which has probably the most ambitious goals of any travel guide yet a scant population of a few dozen regular contributors.
That being the case, the double standard we're applying now to Grand-Bassam, and that we previously applied to Dakar, is troublesome as it effectively negates our efforts for geographical diversity among Main Page featured articles. It seems like on the one hand, we want more Main Page coverage for regions like Africa, yet on the other hand we seem to be extra suspicious of nominees from those regions and subject them to scrutiny above and beyond what we would for, say, a European or North American destination. I say if there's a double standard, it should be in favor of articles from underrepresented regions.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Andre. If articles would have to be absolutely perfect we would probably not have any candidates here (hey, this isn't the starnom after all). I would like to see at least one DotM and one OtBP from each of the six inhabited continents every year.
Also, there's really nothing wrong with finding and verifying information by using Google if first hand information (which we of course prefer) is not available. When translating articles from other language versions I usually google the establishment, to find the coordinates if for no other reason. But the problem is when you for half of the places actually don't find any information at all online (or they're just mentioned in some travel forum thread from 2007). I don't know if this is the case with Grand Bassam. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, if you really think Dakar was incorrectly slushed, renominate the article for the city, but have a look at the discussion in Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile#Dakar first. I think valid questions were brought up; note my analogy with Berne, which I had previously nominated for a feature, as the article looked good to me because I didn't know enough to judge it properly, having never been there (discussion at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile#Berne). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Inasmuch as similar issues are at play in the Dakar article as with Grand-Bassam, Dakar strikes me as a much more extreme example. As near as I can figure out from reading the slushed nomination discussion, ChubbyWimbus added the vast majority of the listings in Dakar's "See" and "Do" section using information gleaned from secondary sources, without ever having set foot in the city. I would say that I might have some reservations about supporting a nominee under those circumstances (though I wouldn't rule it out, either) unless we were able to ascertain the accuracy of any information gleaned from secondary sources with a pretty sturdy degree of certainty.
On the other hand, the Grand-Bassam article already has most of the information necessary to be feature-worthy; the only thing we need to do is pad it a little. If we add one or two restaurants and bars to an "Eat" and "Drink" section that already has several entries, and if we expand the blurbs for some of the listings in "See" and "Do" (with no more than a few additional facts for each one, or maybe just the same content that's already there reworded in a more in-depth way), we're already most of the way there. And as opposed to Dakar, the majority of the content in the souped-up version of Grand-Bassam would still be the presumed-accurate preexisting material.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Good. Please note that I haven't stated any words of opposition to featuring this article; I just asked what I considered an important question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


Place: Hyden
Blurb: In the Austral spring the wild flowers make this sleepy little town with its more famous land formations more colourful. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Something for October's OtBP slot?
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: An interesting little town in the Land Down Under. Probably there isn't anything in the town that wouldn't already be in the article so...let's feature it!

Wave Rock, 2012.JPG
  • Support — not sure if POI markers/dynamic map is needed for such a small place but if needed it can be added in ten minutes. --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost. I don't know the town (I have yet to visit Australia), but it seems like a great place to visit and this seems like a beautiful article. I'll vote for it when there's a map that shows where the attractions, including those 18 km out of town, are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Thank you, Google. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking it had been awhile since we featured any Aussie destinations on the Main Page, and had actually been poking around to see if I could find any suitable candidates for October 2015's DotM (Sydney came closest; the only thing keeping it from being promoted from Usable to Guide are the district articles, but getting all of them up to Usable would be a massive undertaking). Anyhow, with the map issue that Ikan pointed out having been solved, I can't see anything that stands in the way of my support. As you said, Ypsi, the article is short, but necessarily so, and everything noteworthy seems to be included. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it would take a while to get Sydney up to DotM standard. Right now we have one other Australian article we could featured right away — Lady Elliot Island (OtBP). Alice Springs (OtBP) or Hobart (DotM/OtBP?) need some work but not as much as Sydney. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ypsi - Hobart does look like a good DotM contender. But perhaps a better way to go would be Auckland, which is already at Guide status and was a nominee some time ago. Its nomination was ultimately slushed because of lack of a dynamic map and some prominent attractions that were not included in the article, but more and more I'm thinking that after I'm done with the districtification process for Buffalo (the last district article should be finished well ahead of June 2015, when it's scheduled to begin its run on the Main Page), I should maybe start touching up Auckland with a view to renominating it for DotM in the late austral summer or the early austral autumn (February or March 2016). Even assuming we do run Hyden as OtBP in October 2015, that would still be plenty of time between feature articles in that part of the world, especially because Australia and New Zealand are separate countries. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Australia and NZ are indeed separate countries just like e.g. USA and Canada, so there's perhaps room for a New Zealandian travel topic as October's or November's FTT? (If it's a bad idea, let's not nominate it). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Some antipodean DotM contenders would be good & I agree several mentioned above are close, but meanwhile let's go ahead with this for OtBP. If we end up with too many Oz/NZ destinations & have to adjust schedule later, that is OK. Pashley (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost. It is a good article, particularly on the things to see, but it would benefit from a little more about the town to put this in context (an Understand section?). I expect that a lot of readers coming here from the main page aren't going to be familiar with the Wheatbelt. Unfortunately commons doesn't have any photos of the town, but WP does give the population, and this climate data is available. AlasdairW (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes Doneϒpsilon (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I now support it. AlasdairW (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


Place: Taxila
Blurb: A group of archaeological sites, once a great center of Greek-influenced Buddhist culture and Silk Road trade. Today is is a World Heritage Site and one of Pakistan's main tourist destinations. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Oct-Jun per [2], so Nov or Dec 2015?
Nominated by: Saqib (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Taxila is an important archaeological sites of South Asia and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

  • Support — Surprise? I'm back with Taxila again which was slushed not so long ago. I was able to work on it a bit. In my opinion, the guide is ready. YPSI and Julias raised the issues that while Taxila is major town, only few eat listings are provided and article is mostly focussing on archaeology sites. I've provided some more eateries that are worth to eat-in, and still there're many out there but they are just basic. I don't know how to describe a typical normal eating place so instead of mentioning them as listings, I've just mentioned all of them in as one liner. Other than ruins rather, there is nothing worth to see in modern Taxila. Yes, there're some Hindu temples but they are more like a religios site rather than a attraction. Please take into account, I'm not nominating it for star status and Taxila is not as big as many of you may think. 'm pretty sure the guide will serve the traveller best. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% ready to support a feature yet; I find the one line at the end of "Eat" frustrating because there's no indication of where the named hygienic eateries are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, can a suitable caption be added to the uncaptioned photo, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
IK: I mentioned the location. Taxila is not a big town with not so many good eateries. I know you' and others may still want to see more eat/drink listings but pleae be note that Taxila is a town with not more than a hundred thousands residents and given that a visitor is not going to spend more than a night in Taxila, the provided eat listings should be sufficient. Anyways, with that being said, I will continue to improve the guide as time passes. --Saqib (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Saqib, this is the part I'm talking about:
A few other establishments that serve basic but hygienic Pakistani food are Sherazi Restaurant, Dream Land, Valley Food, Krispo fast food, Hang In and Kabli Hotel. Most of them are on Khanpur Rd and near the station.
You say where most of them are, but are these restaurants in particular on Khanpur Rd and near the station? If so, maybe that's specific enough, but right now, it isn't clear where these places are. I don't insist on more listings, just a clarification of where these are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I might as well support the article. If the eat section cannot be expanded, I guess we just have to leave it as it is. I can understand that if there are just basic eateries very similar to each other, there is not much to write about each of them (this is usually the case in smaller countryside towns everywhere in the world). But maybe there could be POI markers showing where the clusters of eateries are located. After all, our guides are aimed at people who have never been to the destination and they should not need to consult other travel guides.
Which months are suitable for featuring Taxila? Climate-data would suggest October to June. This would mean November or December 2015. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Right YPSI. POI markers could be added. I will insert them in a while. As for featuring time, offcourse winter time would be recommended so that visitors can walk as well. Between October and March would be perfect. BTW it is unfortunate for Pakistan that none other than LP ever wrote a comprehensive travel guide on Pakistan. And It may sound silly to say that our Taxila guide is far better than theirs. They mention only 2 hotels but no eat/drink place so I don't think a visitor will have to or able to consult any other guide. --Saqib (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for Featured travel topic[edit]

Travelling during Ramadan[edit]

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

Iftar in Istanbul Turkey.jpg

  • Support as nominator. Kudos to User:Saqib for starting and putting so much content into this beautiful article, and thanks to User:Pashley, User:JuliasTravels and other contributors for helping to make it what it is. Any further improvements and additional relevant information (including things discussed at Talk:Travelling during Ramadan) would be wonderful, and I'm sure some will be forthcoming during the ~year before the best time to feature in 2015, but I think this article would be good to run as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support or should I say "Strong support"? I'm fine with featuring this important travel topic in June next year so it can run along the month of Ramadan. I really want to further expand this article so I'll think over what can further enhance the article. --Saqib (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, at a first glance the article looks quite good. The Ramadan is obviously the right time to feature it. Saqib is probably the one who knows most about Ramadan can come to think of different things travelers need to know and take into consideration. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. A lot of this is obvious to locals, but to an outsider travelling or working in a Muslim country it is not at all obvious, at least not the first time, and can be very useful. I think the article as it stands is Guide level, good enough to feature, but I wonder how much more it might be improved. Pashley (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting topic, good article and plenty of time still for finishing touches. Nice work! JuliasTravels (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work, Saqib (and others). This is a spectacular article packed with helpful information. I took the liberty of doing some copyediting, so it should be good to go now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As for "time to feature", I prefer May 2015 to June. If we feature it in May, the article's stint on the front page will be just wrapping up as Ramadan begins. Perfect timing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
That does make sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - if not relevant so far after the earlier votes - endorse the importance of such an article at this late stage sats (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad's Path[edit]

Place: Ad's Path
Blurb: Perfect for hikers and bikers both, this circuit through the Belgian forest south of Leuven is bedecked by works of renowned sculptor Ad Wouters. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct (weather-wise, Northern Hemisphere winter is probably not a good time to feature this one)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: An interesting itinerary through the nature of Belgium.

Woodpecker Ad Wouters.jpg
  • Almost - could maybe use some minor polishing, but we have plenty of time for that, as it won't be featured before spring 2015 at earliest. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost. It's already a good guide. Here are the things that I see need more work: (1) I think the "Prepare" section needs some rephrasing. The hike describes something? (2) We need to decide whether the start of each bulleted direction in the "Go" section should be capitalized or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Pinging User:Polyglot ϒpsilon (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I saw your nomination and thank you for the honor. I looked at the article back then with the above comments in mind, but didn't see how I had to go about improving it further. Since June I have added 30000 bus stops of the Walloon (South of Belgium) transport company to Openstreetmap. Now I'm working on adding the tram rails and routes in Brussels. And at this very moment I'm adding nodes and itineraries of a hiking network into Openstreetmap, which I surveyed this afternoon. I feel more comfortable contributing there than here. I'm glad I created the article. I learned a lot while doing it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm not a very talented writer.
The hike/cycle ride doesn't describe anything. It connects the artwork Ad Wouters was permitted to create here and there and it's a nice way to see the woods and enjoy the surroundings and good air.
For me it was also a way to see whether I could accomplish creating the map which was included in the first versions. (It's still in the Ad Wouters article on WP).
What I probably should do is reupload the pictures which were removed from Commons, because of this silly lack of Freedom of Panorama we suffer from in Belgium.
To think that I went to visit each and every one of those statues to make sure I knew the exact position for Openstreetmap and make pictures for Commons... Oh well. Another lesson learned.
It's funny how investigating linking to Wikidata from OSM, lured me into contributing a bit to WP and then WV. But now I'm back to Openstreetmap full time, I guess.--Polyglot (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In any event, it seems the fixes that Ikan and Ypsi have suggested are fairly easy. Pending those, I support this nominee and would like to see the article on the Main Page in spring 2015. Polyglot, I hope you continue to come to Wikivoyage from time to time, and know that you don't have to be a topnotch writer for your contributions here to have value. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Polyglot, I'm glad you came by to make some comments. My criticisms of this article are very high-level and based only on the difference between an article being a good guide and one that's featured on the front page, so please don't feel like I'm calling you a bad writer; far from it! I like the fact that the various Wikis and similar sites really provide people with a way of discovering the areas of work they're most interested in volunteering for, but though Wikivoyage doesn't concentrate singlemindedly on transportation, we do have articles like Urban rail that someone with expertise like yours could really add spark to. Anything you can do to further polish the articles you've contributed to or others you're covering on Openstreetmap would be welcome. We'll leave the light on for you (without wasting energy :-) any time you'd like to drop by. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Glad that the "e-mail user" function worked :). Personally I'd say the bulleted points should be turned into complete sentences, this would make the article more comfortable to read. The "Prepare" section is indeed a bit short but I think we could add a paragraph about the sculptor (from WP) and perhaps another about the physical properties of the path (e.g. Is it paved? Are there potholes that bikers have to be aware of?) — Google maps — and then Prepare would be sufficiently long. In any case this is stuff anyone can fix in an hour or so.
Polyglot, you're welcome to contribute here anytime - you don't need to write a whole Guide like this one but if you notice a nice café in your home town is missing or there's some bus ticket price you notice is outdated, don't hesitate to edit! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Ikan said we should decide if we should capitalize the letters for the bulleted directions in Ad's Path#Go or not. As of now both upper and lower case are used randomly. In my opinion they should all be written in lower case, but I'm pretty bad at exact punctuation rules in English, so I'd prefer to hear your and André's opinion. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with that. I think that the first letter of every bulleted line should be capitalized, as if it were the first letter of a sentence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That whole section reads weird, frankly. I agree with Ikan about capitalization, but far more importantly the directions need to be reworded so that each bullet point is a complete sentence or at least a stand-alone fragment, rather than the whole of it being in narrative form. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done and support. By turning the bulleted points into complete sentences, the text got shorter and most photos were far below the text of the statue they depicted. Using <br clear="right" /> would've just created huge white areas and for this article I wasn't comfortable with removing 2/3 of the photos. Therefore, as you can see, I decided to put the photos of the statues in galleries in sets of three. Ip says using galleries is OK for "showing multiple examples of a specific topic", which the statues actually are. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ypsi - it looks like you've made some solid progress. The most glaring issues have been resolved, but the article still needs some copyediting, which should be easy enough for me to do. I'll make this a priority over the next few weeks, and soon enough I'm sure I'll be able to add my unconditional support for this feature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow guys, that's incredible! The reason why the instructions were written in such an odd way, is how the translation I made was formatted like on the Dutch Wikivoyage. They have this template from public transport, indicating each turn. It's way better now! But I could honestly never have accomplished that. --Polyglot (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you underestimate yourself, my friend. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, I'll look forward to any further copy editing you'll do (I just did some), but I'm ready to support featuring this itinerary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else have any interest in this article? Polyglot, would you like to vote on whether to feature the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't forgot about this article, Ikan - I've got a good headwind behind me in my work on Buffalo/East Side, but I still fully intend to make the copyedits I promised. When that's done, I'll be happy to give the article a fourth support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I just discovered Mapillary. I'm uploading the pictures I made while surveying for Openstreetmap and this article over there at the moment. It takes a while...
Do you think it'd make sense to link to them? On the one hand it may make the experience richer, providing a peak preview. On the other hand it may distract people away from the article... Example of the bivak zone which is mentioned It's an entire sequence. At the beginning of the sequence is The Bat. Oh, and of course I support the nomination. --Polyglot (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Polyglot, I see that you've added a few links to Mapillary to the article already. I would urge you to hold off on that until we get community consensus as to whether and under what circumstances we should link to that site. Folks, Mapillary is a crowdsourced mapping application that's analogous to OpenStreetMap, yet also including street-level photos analogous to the Panoramio overlay on Google Maps. All the content is copyleft-compatible (CC-BY-SA 4.0), but it also duplicates the functionality of our dynamic maps. I don't think it does travellers any good to have some POIs on a dynamic map and others on Mapillary, and I also see it as a hindrance to our currently ongoing efforts to optimize our dynamic maps for offline readers, given that Mapillary data used on this site comes in the form of external links and are thus completely unusable for those without access to Internet. Any thoughts? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Andre, I had missed this message completely. I'll refrain from adding more links and just feel free to remove the offending ones.--Polyglot (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Polyglot, but I'm sceptical to the Mapillary links. As a rule, content itself rather than links, should be included in Wikivoyage articles — be it text or pictures or whatever. Plus, it's possible to achieve (almost) the same result using our dynamic maps; you just add an "image=" parameter to the marker and put the file name there. Now the reader can see the picture by clicking on the icon and get a larger version when clicking on the picture (example). Of course that means you need to upload your pictures to WV or WMCommons.
Ps. the pictures themselves are certainly very useful and make it easier to navigate along the path. Although I would prefer to have them here instead than on Mapillary. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been reluctant to express an opinion about this because I really value Polyglot's great contributions and don't want to turn him/her off, but yes, I do agree with you guys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm experimenting (a lot, not to say most of the time). And I was awaiting your feedback, good or bad, it doesn't matter. I tried uploading those pictures to Commons. They have all been removed because of some silly lack of Freedom of Panorama in Belgium/France/etc... I can upload them here on the English WV, without them getting removed and on the German WP, but then they are not accessible from articles on the other projects. (It's a learning experience, involving a lot of stumbling, slaps on the wrist and whatnot). For this article that would be a solution, for the translations and the WP articles about Ad Wouters himself, they aren't.
Please move them to where they might be appropriate and if they aren't appropriate, just remove them. It's not important. I thought they might improve the user experience, but if they don't that's fine too. No need to worry about my feelings. I discovered a new project and I am experimenting to see how other projects may integrate with it, or not. If there are pictures you deem useful to have here directly, just let me know and I'll upload them. Maybe I'm shortsighted for seeing this as an electronic medium primarily, where linking to other projects makes sense. If WV is meant to be printed some day, I understand it makes more sense to have all source material available inside the project. The advantage I though Mapillary has, is that it's not a link to a single picture. That picture is part of a sequence, and one can choose to look at all pictures nearby. I'll probably be going out once again this spring to map(illary) as much of possible of the region. It's the same principle as WP, WV and Openstreetmap. Users contribute and the content can be reused under a free license. Anyway, it's a solution to a problem I had: what to do with all those picture I'm taking during the mapping surveys I do for OSM? And the other problem: Google doesn't give OSM permission to use their Streetview for improving Openstreetmap, so we had to come up with our own source which enables us to go look around locally. Of course Mapillary is/will be better than Google Streetview eventually, as we can go where their cars cannot. Just like our maps are better, as we have all the small pedestrian roads as well. Anyway, time to stop my rant ;-) Feel free to remove those links once again, it was just an experiment. I might try to add them to the nl and fr versions, to find out how they feel about it, but I'm not sure yet. --Polyglot (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for your understanding, Polyglot. I want to make sure you understand you didn't do anything wrong here - you plunged forward, which we explicitly encourage people to do here at Wikivoyage!

Also, as far as I understand it, the fact that freedom of panorama restrictions prevent certain images from being hosted on Commons doesn't mean any WMF project can't use the photos you took - they simply have to be hosted locally on all the individual wikis that use them. It's an annoyance, but not a hard-and-fast barrier. I do understand your desire to use Mapillary to streamline the process, and frankly Mapillary sounds like a very worthwhile project. If the community is interested in finding a way to cooperate more closely with Mapillary, as we did with OSM for our dynamic maps, I would be enthusiastically in support of that.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear that. I think of myself as planting seeds here. They don't have to prosper and grow right away, but it's good to be aware of the growing set of possibilities the internet is providing.
I wrote an entry in my diary on OSM: [3]. One in Dutch and one in English (under it) and I (finally) updated my user page on the OSM wiki: [4]. That was long overdue, and it's what triggered me to come over here once again and see your messages.--Polyglot (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[unindent]I'm wondering how the article would look with small thumbnails of the sculptures, rather than galleries. I'd prefer for the images to be a little larger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninoy Aquino International Airport[edit]

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

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

Three votes in favor. Any other input from anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. This article is scheduled to go on the Main Page in three weeks. Can we get a fourth support vote? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Support. Support. You want more? I came across this guide last month and though I had already supported it. I found it of good article overall.BTW. I've been through this airport back in 2009. --Saqib (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Let's get it featured. Ibaman (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Spectacular! Thanks, Saqib and Ibaman. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunburn and sun protection[edit]

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

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

Hiking in the Nordic countries[edit]

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

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

Three votes of support. Anyone else? User:Erik den yngre, would you like to vote? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can vote support, although I am bit biased.... --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Very comprehensive, great job. Danapit (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A good article, which is making me think about a trip to Norway sometime in the future. A minor point is that mushrooms seem to be mentioned a lot, when I am not sure that we are able to properly cover the safety issues. AlasdairW (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    I cut down a little on the mushroom text in Do; Eat should now have the complete discussion. I think mentioning mushroom is justified, as mushroom is one of the important food items you get on the trail (beside berries and fish), and a reason for many locals to go on forest trips. With due caution, keeping to a few safe species, I think also a casual visitor can eat mushroom safely. As you say, we cannot cover the safety issues, but I think mentioning the worst culprits (the four poisonous mushrooms mentioned account for nearly all critical incidents), hinting on some relatively secure options and warning about eating mushroom at random is better than not covering the subject at all. I think the section is balanced (I did my best), but I am happy for any further comments. --LPfi (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was important to make clear that the photo of mushrooms in the article was actually of poisonous deadly webcaps, not chanterelles, and as a result, I also added a photo of chanterelles by way of contrast. I will work on a disclaimer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Altitude sickness[edit]

Place: Altitude sickness
Blurb: When your travel plans take you to destinations at high altitudes, you'll notice some changes to your body and health. Consult this guide and stay safe! (blurb needs work) (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but perhaps leave some time between this one and Sunburn and sun protection—they're both similar topics, being about medical issues
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: We're always looking for new FTT nominees, right? I've had my eye on this one for a while.

Altitude Sickness Warning.jpg

  • Support. The article could use a few more pictures, but otherwise it looks like it's good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — I agree, some more photos would be great to have. As sunburn is featured in June, I would prefer not to feature this one before maybe Oct or Nov. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have trouble judging this type of article. Could we please have some physicians or other experts weigh in on this article and the Sunburn and sun protection article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
So, now there's at least some more pictures. When nominating Sunburn I asked our Travel Doc to have a look at the article but apparently he doesn't check WV frequently any longer. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there a doctor (or biochemist, etc.) in the house? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Frequent flyer programmes[edit]

Place: Frequent flyer programmes
Blurb: To some flyers great value, to some just another expense. Before joining a frequent flyer programme, learn more about their benefits and drawbacks. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: User:PrinceGloria has made a great work on this one and I would love to see this article featured on the Main page.

Ffpcard of jpn's airlines.jpg
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words - do comment on how it can be improved further. I certainly see there is a fair amount of verbosity that could be cut down to make for better readability, so I guess anybody with a moment for some copyediting could make a very worthwhile contribution. I guess we could also use more incoming links. I would also propose to use the pic used for the banner for the main page, not the JAL one. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know very much about frequent flyer programs, never having been a member. There's also nothing wrong about the article's language or layout as far as I can see. BTW the grainy photo for the article banner is taken of a friend's membership cards and I don't believe it would make a very successful Main page banner. Luckily, André has so far created great Main page banners for both destinations and topics. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I skipped through the article. Does it mention anywhere that, at least in the US, it is solely up to the airline whether to arbitrarily change the number of miles per award or even suddenly end the program, and that members of frequent flyer programs actually have no rights whatsoever, per a US Supreme Court decision stating that this is not a contract between the cardholder and the airline, but merely a one-way promotion? I think that's actually relevant information for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but I think it's also important to include the information Ikan brought to light above. I searched the article at some length and did not see it mentioned at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a few years since I have benefited from such programmes, but it looks a good article. It may be worth mentioning that frequent flyer miles earned on business flights may be regarded as a "benefit" for tax purposes, or subject to employer's rules. AlasdairW (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Natchez Trace Parkway[edit]

Place: Natchez Trace Parkway
Blurb: In use from pre-Colonial times, this drive offers exceptional scenery, Indian burial mounds, overlooks, hiking trails, nature exhibits, and sites of historic interest. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: "Spring and fall are very pleasant.", ie. Mar-May, Sep-Nov (Sep 2015?)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Content-wise a good article. But...

  • Almost — definitely needs a dynamic map with the POIs plus some more photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost and the necessary fixes are relatively easy. The most obvious deficiency is the one ϒpsi mentioned: the article needs a dynamic map with the POIs listed, and for that matter, it strikes me that the descriptions of the POIs ought to be expanded upon as well. Also, the "Prepare" and "Sleep" sections mention that drivers can find food, fuel, lodging, etc. in the towns that lie along the route, but nowhere does it mention the names of those towns or where they are located. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    The article should be updated to make this point clearer, but since the parkway is over 400 miles long there are dozens, if not hundreds, of towns along the route, so it wouldn't be practical to name all of them. The "Go next" section names the biggest and/or more interesting for visitors. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, now I've added a map, POIs and photos. Actually, I think I can support the article for FTT now.
When activating Destinations on the dynamic map I see that out of the towns actually on or immediately next to the route, there are very few that have an article here. But should we mention them anyway? Secondly: there are some cities 20-30 miles away from the route that we have articles for; would it make sense to mention them? Thirdly: should we keep the cities that are just there for food, gas, lodging etc. in a separate section or included in the Drive section? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I might make a separate "Eat/Drink" subsection for that information, listing not individual restaurants but nearby towns where you can find places to eat and drink - especially towns close to the road itself, prioritizing further-away towns based on abundance of options with an absolute upper limit of, let's say, 30 miles away from the road itself. Also, I'd split up "Sleep" into two subsections, with one set up like the above "Eat/Drink' section with standard hotels and motels in nearby towns, and the other one including the information on campgrounds that's already in the article. As far as mentioning towns that don't yet have Wikivoyage articles: I wouldn't go crazy adding redlinks for no good reason, but I certainly wouldn't let the lack of a Wikivoyage article keep me from mentioning a town whose existence is notable and that travellers should know about. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ryan? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I probably should have made my original comment clearer - since it's a 400+ mile long route, I don't think we need to call out each and every town along the route for people to stop at. Instead, I think making it clear what the major towns along the route are (basically, those noted in the "Go next" section), and making it clear that there are frequent options along the way to exit the parkway and find food/lodging nearby, would be sufficient. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A look at the article history will show that I'm biased in this case, but I think it's a nice article that would be very helpful to someone driving the route. Many thanks to ϒpsilon for improving the article with the map & POIs. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wales Coast Path[edit]

Place: Wales Coast Path
Blurb: 1400 km walk around the whole coastline of Wales (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Summer
Nominated by: --Traveler100 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Reasonable introduction and understand text, comprehensive list of attractions.


  • Comment — The descriptions of each section in Walk could perhaps be longer and more descriptive instead of just "Around the Isle of Anglesey." Overall, expanding the descriptions of each of the destinations on the path wouldn't hurt. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet by a long shot. The article needs a lot of work before I'd even be prepared to say that it's truly at Guide status. Pretty much every section needs to be expanded, especially the bullet points of the main itinerary section, and the entries in "Go next", many of which lack the standard one-liner descriptions. As well, there are several subsections of "Understand" that are empty or contain only a sentence or two. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet - The walk section is somewhat lacking in detail. If this is really to be a good guide it needs to be a "huge itinerary", broken down into maybe a dozen pages, as I think that about 100km of walk is probably enough for one page. The walk section is not much more than a list of places, with nothing about the track etc. The track is also broken on the dynamic map, as open street map doesn't appear to show the whole route. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Driving in New Zealand[edit]

Place: Driving in New Zealand
Blurb: Learn some of the peculiarities of driving in New Zealand and head off wherever you want on these two scenic islands! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: around Oct, Nov 2015 maybe? Otherwise, I think Oct-Mar
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: As discussed in Hyden's nomination above, we might see Auckland as DotM about this time of the year 2016. So why not throw in another New Zealandian article as FTT in the austral spring?

  • Support – The article looks informative to someone who doesn't know anything about driving in New Zealand and it's at Guide status. Though I would appreciate if our Kiwi contributors would have time to take a look at the article to make sure there isn't anything important missing. Also, some more photos would be nice. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think three AU/NZ features within six months of each other is a bit too many. On the other hand, 1) Auckland hasn't even been officially nominated yet, 2) it's far more difficult to find qualified FTT candidates than DotMs or OtBPs, and 3) the quality of this article's content (aside from the minor issues you've already pointed out Ypsi) is beyond reproach. So I suppose I have to support it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk)
  • Almost I wonder if we should first merge in Buying or renting a vehicle in New Zealand. A few points are missing from the article (some are covered by the other article or New Zealand):
    • That insurance is not compulsory (due to the Accident Compensation Corporation see New Zealand#Stay healthy)
    • Road user charges for diesel cars
    • Parking
    • Ferries between north and South Islands - rental cars are often swapped when taking the ferry
AlasdairW (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)