Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Nominate[edit]

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

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

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

The basic format of a nomination is as follows:

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

Add a nomination to the end of the appropriate section.

Discuss[edit]

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

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

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

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

Select[edit]

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

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

Archive[edit]

Discussions for previously selected destinations are kept in the Archive.

Upcoming[edit]

Schedule[edit]

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

Month DotM OtBP FTT
August 2014 Tallinn Chicago/Far Northwest Side Trans-Siberian Railway
September 2014 Calgary Vava'u - pending stronger consensus to support El Camino Real
October 2014 Karachi Mitzpe Ramon Travel photography
November 2014 Muscat Taketomi Electrical systems - pending stronger consensus to support
December 2014 Georgetown (Malaysia) Fox Glacier Cruise ships - pending stronger consensus to support
January 2015 Montevideo Saba - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Winter driving - pending stronger consensus to support


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

Next change[edit]

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

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

Destination of the Month[edit]

Tallinn

Estonia's capital boasts a beautiful medieval old town, Brutalist architecture from the Soviet era, and modern high-rises—as well as great shopping, world-class dining and lively nightlife.

Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Far Northwest Side of Chicago

This residential area has none of the world-famous sights of the Loop—but if you want to travel to Poland without leaving the U.S., come here and enjoy the kielbasa!

Featured Travel Topic[edit]

Trans-Siberian Railway

Front and center on the bucket list of train travellers worldwide, this epic journey across Siberia spans two continents and is the longest in the world.

Updating[edit]

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

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

Nominations for Destination of the Month[edit]

Georgetown (Malaysia)[edit]

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

Nomination
Masjid Kapitan Keling.jpg


  • Comment I think this is a good article and a good place to feature, and if featured, it definitely should be a DotM, not OtBP. From the article: "Modern-day Georgetown is one of Malaysia's largest cities with 600,000 inhabitants." One thing the article is lacking is a "climate" subsection, but perhaps it would be best to just insert a link to Penang#Climate. Another weakness is that the article lacks a map. What do you all think? Not quite ready, perhaps? I think it's close, if not completely ready yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is well-written, rich in photographs, and with robust and lively "See", "Do", "Eat" and "Sleep" sections ("Drink" is a bit short, but perhaps that's to be expected in a majority-Muslim destination?)
Aside from the lack of a map, which Ikan mentioned, information on prices is a bit scanty. I see both of those as minor quibbles, though.
I'm not sold on Georgetown as a DotM rather than an OtBP, though. A population of 740K in the city proper and 2.5M in the metro area (per Wikipedia) is pretty impressive, but the metric I use for distinguishing OtBPs from DotMs is the question of whether the average citizen of a different country than the one where the destination is located would ever have heard of the destination. I'd never heard of Georgetown myself prior to this nomination. However, I'm somewhat less familiar with Southeast Asia than other regions of the world, so I'm willing to be convinced. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Andre, have you heard of Penang? That's what the city is usually called. And it's a well-known city, such that someone who's heard of any Malaysian city other than Kuala Lumpur has probably heard of Penang. Georgetown is the formal name of the city, so as to distinguish it from the state of Penang (Pulau Pinang in Malay, which is also the Malay name normally used for the city).
To the comment about the "Drink" section: Penang city is actually a mostly non-Muslim city, primarily Chinese. I actually haven't visited Penang since 1976 (I didn't make it there on my last trip to Malaysia in 2003, and that's already 10 years ago, anyway), so I couldn't add any bar listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Support, though I wonder if the nomination should be for Penang as a whole.
On the DotM vs. OtBP question, I come down firmly for DotM. I'm often rather conservative on such questions — for example I argued that Madison should be OtBP — but I see no doubt here. Penang is one of those places like Santa Fe in the US, not among the greatest cities of the region but still DoTM because it is a fascinating place and a substantial tourist draw. Pashley (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Pashley's points regarding Madison are convincing. Despite the fact that by my own metric Madison should have been OtBP, I pushed hard for it to be DotM for the sake of consistency (Rochester's nomination as DotM rather than OtBP was uncontroversial) and because it's a state capital and the site of a major university. Georgetown is also a state capital, with thrice the population of Madison no less. DotM it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
To reply to Pashley: The Penang state article is only Usable, so if that status is accurate, it can't yet be featured. I'm not actually sure why it isn't classed as a Guide, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
One thing I'd like to look at, and I realize this isn't the place for such a discussion, is establishing some hard-and-fast guidelines as to how to distinguish OtBPs from DotMs. I recall that this subject has been broached several times in the past, with responses ranging from indifference to outright opposition. The protracted debate on what to do with Madison is still a relatively recent memory for me, and we could easily have gone down the same road with Georgetown.
I'm given to understand that the metric I cited above for how I make this determination is maybe the most dominant one among the community at large - I've heard the same method cited by several others, or slight variations on it. One of the arguments I've heard against having guidelines in place for this purpose was that the community should have these debates, and consensus should determine the disposition of each featured article on an ad hoc basis. What I'm concerned about is that, after all, this is the English Wikivoyage, and any attempt to define "off the beaten path" in the way I've cited will inevitably be filtered through the prism of Western culture. I'm afraid that if we "wing it" completely, we'll inevitably shortchange into OtBP-hood many DotM-worthy destinations that are not located in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, or maybe South Africa or Latin America.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think your concern is well-placed, and I don't like your metric, if you hadn't heard of Penang, but the discussion might best be broached on Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
For the record, as a great fan of Asian cuisine, I had heard of Penang the island - just not its capital in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Which points out a problem with your metric, since the city is officially called Georgetown but commonly known as Penang. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Or you could say it points to a problem with the name of the article, but I think it would cause more confusion than clarity to rename the article "Penang (city)". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I really like the article and even remember some stuff! jan (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It still needs a map and I suppose I'll put in a link to the climate data for the province of Penang. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Instead, I copied the "Climate" section from Penang. If that's not OK, please let me know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It is my first time playing part in DotM nominations. I am very fond of Georgetown and Penang so I will gladly bolster this article over the coming months. It is a very diverse and interesting city that will keep me coming back many more times. One thing I would like to mention is regarding the blurb; I have never heard of Georgetown being referred to as 'Penang City'. Though I do get that people just usually refer to the whole area as Penang for the fact it is part of Penang (State) and on the island of Penang. But saying that, I assume blurbs are not final anyway. Correct? DTW (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct. I've usually heard it simply called Penang, or Pulau Pinang (referring to the city), but in a guide, some kind of differentiation has to be made between the city and the island.
Thanks for your great edits that have made the article so much better! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • (Stupid?) question - What's the current situation with Georgetown? We voted on the banner and I could swear it was in the schedule at one point. I don't see any major problems with the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Its spot in the schedule was bumped by Hue because of the much smaller number of decent months for visiting that city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. BTW as we now seems to have quite many articles standing in line to be featured I came up with an idea; adding a fourth category, however I don't know what to call that category yet. What do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Muscat[edit]

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

Nomination
Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque Muscat.jpg


  • Support, preferably not in the May 2014 slot as that's a bit too close for comfort to the Musandam Peninsula. My only complaint is the map, which is of astoundingly low quality - I'm not sure how it would be addressed, though; from the looks of it Muscat's attractions seem widely spread-out, so zooming in probably wouldn't help much. Is there any way to alter the aspect ratio of dynamic maps? Would it be feasible to break it up into two or more separate maps? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although the 'Understand' and 'Go next' sections still need work, and 'Get in' and 'Cope' need to be updated. Regarding the map, Muscat's sights are indeed very spread out. Including a map for each district could be an option (I don't believe the city is large enough to warrant subdividing into separate district pages). Seeb however (to the west of the airport) could be broken off into a new article, and perhaps the outlying areas of Al Bustan and Qantab to the east could be broken off (although in most guides they are included with Muscat).
Also, in May it's already broiling – it's best to visit from October/November to March. I'd like to add I find it a much more interesting city than Doha which is slotted for February, though as someone who's visited several times I'm admittedly biased. StellarD (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the criticisms, especially of the map, which is pretty much unusable, but nevertheless, it's a very good article and makes me want to visit the city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This was nominated to be featured between November-March then waiting for what? Let's add it to the slot (probably November '14). --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Per dotm#schedule, the schedule grid should only consist of about six months' worth of destinations. We currently have nine. If you'll notice, there's an HTML-hidden note placed above the schedule that reads "PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY NEW MONTHS TO THE SCHEDULE FOR NOW. WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY AS IT IS". We'll feature Muscat at the appropriate time, don't worry. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I had a quick look at this article and i believe that there is some work today before we should feature it. Get in is/was outdated. I see that User:StellarD & User:Pashley did good work but i think that there are better to maps. The current in Get in is to wid to be useful. Several listing e.g. rental cars & money changer have not been touched. It is in better shape than Georgetown so i will not object but think it could be better. jan (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
How about creating 3 different maps for the traditional areas of Muscat, Matrah, and Ruwi? Would that work and cover the area sufficiently? I ask because I don't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Calgary[edit]

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

Nomination
Calgary1-Szmurlo.jpg


  • Strong support as nominator. Copious listings formatted properly, a full slate of events and festivals, a street map and a map of the public transit system, as much info as you could want in "Understand", "Get in" and "Get around"... what an article!
Could use some more photos, but that's an easy fix as far as I can tell. It shouldn't be hard to find material on Commons. I'd like to see it on the Main Page in September 2014.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I've followed the progress of this article, too. It's really good, and we definitely should feature it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is an easy call. Great work. Pity that not all of the wide range of listings are on the map, but that might be changed in the future, and it's still a good guide. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Yeah, the article does look comprehensive, User:Country Wife has done and does a great job on this article. Some more pictures wouldn't hurt, though and like Julia I'd really like to have the coordinates in all the listings by the time Calgary gets featured. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
All listings now have coordinates, and I've completed my first pass on the article. I also just added another half-dozen stub listings which now need details & coords :( I've been really impressed by the great work that has been done by the WT/WV folks who came before me; it's a pleasure to work on an article that's already in such good shape. And the existing photos are awesome! I'll have to see what I can do about adding more photos, but my city isn't at its most photogenic just yet.Country Wife (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Outstanding article by User:Country_Wife. I dared to add the mapframe to make the geo data visible. Only minor quibble: Some more pictures would be nice. N.B. Is there in September already some kind of "Indian Summer" in Calgary,too? I know it is more in the New England states but i remember lots of trees. jan (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Karachi[edit]

Place: Karachi
Blurb: Previously an important British colonial city, the Pakistani port of Karachi, now a grand, cosmopolitan South Asian metropolis, has modernized while preserving the British colonial architecture of yesteryear. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Mar
Nominated by: Saqib (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Pakistan's largest and culturally diverse city. Seems like a very complete article to me or perhaps the only complete travel guide on Karachi (AFAIK).

Nomination
Tomb Jinnah.jpg


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

Please continue your work, if you want, i will try to help with the eat section but maps & pics would be very good before October. jan (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan, ultimately your comment is here. Many thanks for your suggestions and appreciations, actually I was expecting you to comment on Karachi article since a long time. I'll respond to your concerns below one by one:
  1. Pics: I thought such old photographs are useful when we talk about history of the city but if think they're not useful, I've no problem removing all of them.
  2. Maps: You know what I created a static map for Karachi last year but I removed it from the article per here. But I would like to tell you that I've plans to draw a new static map which will be more detailed then the one I created previously and I hope the map will be ready before the article goes live on the main page.
  3. Buy: Okay. I will do it.
  4. Eat: I'll start trimming down the section as early as possible.

I'll definitely need your help to further improve the article. As for photos, I would like to tell you that in mid-September this year, Wikimedia's officially recognised affiliate in Pakistan is organising a "Wikipedia Takes Your City" photo contest in Karachi and I'm part of this contest. I want to make you guys sure that we'll have plenty of photos related to Karachi in mid-September. Also, I want you to have a look at Talk:Karachi#Karachi_guide_book but unfortunately the things are getting late due to some reasons. --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Łódź[edit]

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

Nomination
Manufaktura fontanna nocą Łódź.JPG


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manchester[edit]

Place: Manchester
Blurb: Manchester is a vibrant, post-industrial city, located in the heart of North-West England. Long famed for its industry, Manchester has seen enormous redevelopment in recent years and is enjoying something of a renaissance. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Some time in 2015?
Nominated by: Nick talk 18:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Been working on this article for quite some time and whilst it's not quite polished yet, it will be by the time it would be featured. Another underrated but ascendant city; I've had several discussion with the Manchester Tourist Board about the article, so a feature would be a great opportunity to engage with them again.

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

Tallinn[edit]

Place: Tallinn
Blurb: Estonia's capital boasts a beautiful medieval old town, Brutalist architecture from the Soviet era, and modern high-rises—as well as great shopping, world-class dining and lively nightlife. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep, Dec
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Ikan suggested this for DotM several months ago and asked yesterday if it's ready for nomination. I've done some work here and there on the article and it seems OK to me now.

Nomination
Pikk Hermann and Riigikogu.JPG
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. Minor quibbles: do we really need to list hairdressers under "Cope"? And if so, we should convert the "Buy" templates to "Listing" templates, because as it is there are two each of #s 1 through 4 on the dynamic map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I took up the matter on Tallinn's talk page. I think they are not relevant for visitors from further away and could be removed altogether. (If one could get a haircut or new glasses in Niagara Falls (Ontario) for a third of a what it costs in Buffalo it would be relevant information for you but likely not for someone from Europe :)) ϒpsilon (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The question we should be asking in that case is, what proportion of the people who will read the article are Finns? My first instinct is to say "very few", because Finland is not an English-speaking country, nor does it have an especially large population. However, if the bulk of visitors to Estonia come from Finland, perhaps they might make a larger share of the article's readers than I realize.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a good compromise would be to simply mention that a lot of visitors from Finland come to Tallinn to take advantage of lower prices on various goods and services, and that Finns, or travellers who will be visiting both Finland and Estonia, might want to take the opportunity to save some money if they happen to need a haircut, optical exam, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the best solution. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. With the caveat that I've never been to Talinn, it seems like a very good article to me and ready to be featured. Thanks for nominating, ϒpsilon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article. I will use it this month and will try to add something (just in case there is something missing). jan (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Munich[edit]

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

Nomination
Oktoberfest woman.jpg
  • Support Great city and article. jan (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article and its districts look good. Yes, the best time to feature it would be September. But as of now September 2014 is already taken so it'll have to wait for 15 months if we don't feature it in the spring (or if Munich looks and feels beautiful and cozy with Christmas lights and some snow maybe already in December) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ypsilon, i'm under the impression that some editors want to get a step further and bring all districts up to guide and additionally update some pics. That might need a while, so i was rather aiming for Sep 15. At the moment we are not lacking nominations, so i don't mind if it takes 15 months. jan (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The article(s) look(s) pretty good now. And by September '15 the two remaining districts hopefully will have guide status, too. Tbp386 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm delighted to support this article, and I applaud all the work that has been done to improve this article and the district articles. I respect the opinion that September is the best month of the year to feature an article about Munich, but the city is beautiful in other seasons, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Lijiang[edit]

Place: Lijiang
Blurb: Formerly capital of a small mountain kingdom, still a center of the Naxi ethnic group, and one of China's most popular tourist draws. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any except mid-winter (Northern hemisphere) when it is quite cold or major Chinese holidays when it is overcrowded.
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: See Yunnan tourist trail for context. The place is extremely popular with Chinese tour groups and also gets a lot of Western backpackers. It is also a jumping off spot for treks; see Tiger Leaping Gorge (quite nearby) and Three Parallel Rivers National Park (more of an expedition).

Nomination
Lijiang 3.JPG


  • Almost - Firstly, Lijang looks like an exciting and pretty town. My pet complaint are of course the missing geo coordinates :). A few more pictures towards the end of the article wouldn't hurt and there are style issues here and there. There is plenty of time to improve the article, as there are no free time slots before the cold winter. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks close, but although this might not be the only problem, it's clear that at least some of the listings and transportation info needs updating. Some examples: "From Dali, minibus/bus at 55/60¥ about every 30/60min, ~4h (highway in construction, oct 2011)." "Walking is the only option in the old town, while taxis are often the easiest way around the rest of town for ¥7 (June 2008)." "Entry fee is ¥60 (Oct 2011)" "Note: Black Dragon Pool is virtually empty as of June 11, 2012." Until we can be confident that the article is reasonably up-to-date, we shouldn't feature it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Montevideo[edit]

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

Nomination
Tango dancers in Montevideo.JPG


  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The Understand section with the districts as a starter is unusal and confusing but i guess that will change until the presentation. jan (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually Wycsi#D says that districts should be in an Orientation subsection in the Understand section of the city page, so they should be somewhere in the Understand section. I put them right at the top where the districts are listed in huge city articles, but perhaps it's not a good idea. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It's been quite some time since i was in Montevideo but i remember it as rather compact city. Imho districts are need in big cities as points of orientation. They are in the correct section but i wouldn't start with it because an intro is always better to get an understanding. jan (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I moved them to the bottom of Understand. IMO the old town was compact and 18 Julio could be walked in about 45 min provided you just walk and don't stop but places like Punta Carretas and Prado seemed quite far out. The fact that there is no fast underground rail transportation makes the city feel bigger, I think. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ypsilon, good work. Unconditional support for the nomination. jan (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. That's really impressive work! It's beautifully illustrated, has an interesting, unique, and logical structure, and is a good read (I haven't read the entire article with a fine-toothed comb yet, but I've certainly read enough to approve of featuring it). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely beautiful article. I'm thinking January 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Suzhou[edit]

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

Nomination
Humble Administrator's Garden1.jpg


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

Buffalo[edit]

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

Nomination
Canalside.jpg


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

As a six-year resident of the Buffalo area, I'm going to take a look, and also pass it on to my wife and a couple of other native Buffalonians from her family. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Chicago/Far Northwest Side[edit]

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

Nomination
Sausagefest.jpg


  • Comment The article needs a pagebanner, and some of the photos may need to be enlarged, but the writing is so entertaining. I think we need to discuss whether a neighborhood in Chicago can really be off the beaten path, though. Would this be more appropriate as a DotM, even though this part of Chicago is not really a tourist destination? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments: I'm not going to officially register my support or non-support of this article until I read it (see below), but to address Ikan's question about OtBP vs. DotM, my own opinion is that similar guidelines should apply to districts as to city destinations. When we have cities as featured articles, the question we ask is whether the average resident of a country other than the one in which the city is located would have ever heard of the destination - if so, DotM; if not, OtBP. So I think it would be good in this case to ask whether those outside of Chicago's metro area have ever heard of the Far Northwest Side. Now there are some pretty famous neighborhoods in the world - New Orleans/French Quarter, London/Westminster, and Tokyo/Shinjuku come to mind - that, assuming guide or better status, would work great as DotM's. But other than the Loop (and the Magnificent Mile, which redirects to the Near North), I don't know of any Chicago neighborhoods that are famous enough outside Chicagoland to justify featuring them as anything other than OtBP.
As to when to feature it, I envision May 2014 as the ideal month: well after O'Hare's tenure as FTT, and before the worst of the blistering summer heat.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel like there's an awful lot of Chicago on this page. We already have O'Hare and the skyline guide nominations, and now a district? I grant that the Chicago guide is quite arguably our best city guide, but this is starting to feel like overkill.
I'd also want to point out that if we do feature this, we'd be setting quite the precedent. We've never featured a district article in this manner before, and I think we should be aware of the potential implications of doing so. The strength of a district article relies not only on the content of the district article itself but also the quality of content on the main city page (and to a lesser extent the strength of the other district articles), seeing as there is plenty of info there (Get in and Get around info in particular) that would also be necessary for travelers to know. That isn't a problem with the Chicago guide, but it should be something to keep in mind for other cities. I'm not necessarily opposed to featuring a district, but just want to point out that it would be setting a precedent for others. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Perry's point that Chicago is being featured so much is a very good one. Therefore, we could consider waiting until 2015 to feature this district article. I'd also like to explore further his other points about district articles. To what degree does the strength of a district article rely on the quality of the main city page and articles about neighboring districts? Perhaps this should be discussed further on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Another comment. We actually have featured a district before: New Orleans/Lower 9th Ward, after discussing and agreeing (I think) that it may sometimes make sense, particularly in the case where the huge city has already been featured a while ago, and when the district has a character sufficiently distinct from the rest of the city. See Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#Single district as destination? and the individual nomination discussion here. I think a good case could be made for this one on the basis of the notion of visiting Poland in the Midwest! Still, though, I think the really best Chicago district feature would be Chicago/Bronzeville to coincide with Black History Month in the U.S. (February), since it's one of the most historic African-American neighborhoods in the country after Harlem, but unfortunately not well known to non-Chicagoans. Anyway, if featured, this should definitely be OtBP—it's pretty rare to visit this area for any visitor to Chicago. --Peter Talk 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Reply I see that Chicago/Bronzeville is a star article, so yes, it's definitely better to feature (or at least feature first, with plenty of time between featuring that neighborhood and this one). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, this would be a star article too if nominated. I think that's true of all the Chicago districts, actually. --Peter Talk 19:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, I totally forgot about the Lower 9th Ward. Well, that basically nukes most of my argument out of the water. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support wholeheartedly. This reminds me of some of the hidden-gem neighborhoods on Buffalo's Far East Side. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article still needs a custom pagebanner. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW Support. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mitzpe Ramon[edit]

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

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


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

Vava'u[edit]

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

Nomination
Neiafu.jpg


  • Not yet. I will support this nomination after the red-linked photos are dealt with, a map is created and inserted, a pagebanner is created and inserted, and all the old-style links are changed to the current external linking practices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet. I agree with you Ikan. I just thought I'd put ahead and nominate it to invite myself and others to plunge forward, since it's otherwise really good for OTBP. The earliest it could be featured at any rate is November 2014, which is plenty of time. Rastapopulous (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet, but I will say that Rastapopulous' strategy of using a DotM nomination as a catalyst for improvements to a "close but no cigar" article is interesting. I think there's definite potential in this article, and I imagine I'll be in full support of it once the fixes Ikan cited are executed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, folks. I'd love to see this article improved as discussed above—but if we're not going to do it, this nomination needs to be slushed. We should not be in the habit of keeping nominations alive for a long time contrary to consensus solely to remind us to get to work on them (especially because that tactic doesn't seem to be terribly effective anyway). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. My feeling is that it's fine to nominate an article you're not sure is completely ready, but if you know it definitely isn't ready, it's best to improve it first, then nominate. It's worth noting that two of the problems I mentioned above have been dealt with: The red-linked photos are gone and the external links have been converted to current practices. However, it still needs a pagebanner and a map, and it could use a few more photos if possible (though it does already have 4). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A pagebanner has been added. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
And a beautiful one at that! I'm almost ready to support featuring this article. It still needs a map and something in the "Connect" section, and then I think it'll be ready to go. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I've created and added the map to the article. --Saqib (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
And now I've added some information to Connect (harvested from 3rd party sites using tweezers and microscope...). It would be nice if we could find some Voyager who's actually visited Tonga. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Ikan: when you're able (I know you're travelling at the moment), could you please weigh in on whether this article is featurable at this point? I'd like to run Vava'u in October 2014 if possible, and your support appears to be the deciding factor. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the article, guys! I'm a little concerned that we don't have on-the-ground info in "Connect," but the map is now OK (I enlarged it to 450px, so that the individual features are viewable). I'm OK with running the article, and for now, I give it my soft support, though with the hope that there will be an update between now and feature time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, I'm so shameless that I'm giving this one a supporting vote. As this is a relatively small destination I guess we're already covering a relatively large part of the island's points of interest. BTW I also weeded out all the dead links in the article earlier today - it was a bit sad to find more than ten of them in such a short article. As I said before it would really be wonderful to if someone who's actually been there to have a look at the content of this article (User:Nurg who is based "only" a couple of 1000km away?). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added everything I've been able to google about the island, and as probably nobody of us has been there and the main contributor also can't help, the article is likely going to stay in the condition it is now. It looks like it doesn't suffice to get enough support votes, so unfortunately it looks like we have to send it to the slush pile :( ϒpsilon (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
To Ypsilon: All content issues with the article have been addressed to the extent that Ikan, who had been the lone holdout, rescinded his "not yet" vote. All we're waiting on is one more "support" vote. Even if we don't get one between now and September (hard to believe), that still doesn't mean the article should be slushed. It's not unprecedented to put an article on the Main Page with less than four support votes, and it's not even written in policy anywhere - the four-vote thing is just an arbitrary rule of thumb I made up for myself to gauge the strength of a nominee's support, which no one has yet bothered to challenge. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that Rastapopulous still has an outstanding "Not yet" vote. Nonetheless, I reiterate what I said above: it's also not unprecedented to feature a destination on the Main Page with less than unanimous support. Also noteworthy is that Rastapopulous said he thought the article was almost good enough for OtBP, so he jumped the gun on the nomination in the hopes that others would be inspired to whip it into shape. That actually did happen, and he hasn't weighed in since then, so does his "Not yet" vote still count? In effect, his judgment is of a previous and substantially less developed version of the article, not the current one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice to get a comment from Rastapopulous before making any assumptions about whether he would rescind his "Not yet" vote. I'm still concerned about the lack of up-to-date info in "Connect," though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've added everything about communication I could find. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Rastapopulous' last contribution to Wikivoyage was in October 2013. I suppose it's not completely outside the realm of possibility that he'd weigh in, but it strikes me as highly unlikely. However, given that the concerns he cited as getting in the way of his full support have all been dealt with, I don't think it's unreasonable to a) assume that he would be in support of the article now, and, more to the point, b) not let an outstanding and outdated "Not yet" vote from an inactive contributor stand in the way of an article that everyone else agrees is worth featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Kirthar National Park[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taketomi[edit]

Place: Taketomi
Blurb: A tiny island with coral beaches, riotous flowers and ambling water buffaloes. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: March-May, Oct-Nov
Nominated by: Jpatokal (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: My favorite island in Japan. It's hard to capture its awesomeness in a single photo though, see Commons and my pics for additional inspiration.

Nomination
JP-47 Taketomi Water-buffalo-taxi.jpg


  • Support - Sure. The article is well written and if there are just a few points of interest on this island, the article is already as extensive as it can possibly get. One or two more eateries maybe could be added, but on the whole, I think this could make a nice OtBP for upcoming November.ϒpsilon (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. I'm happy to support it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is short and sweet, but seems essentially complete. A fill-out of the "Buy" section might be nice - any individual shops that are recommendable? - but if not, that certainly doesn't preclude my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It has enough to be featured, but concerning its overall appeal, I don't think some of the descriptions, particularly in the "See" section really do it justice. The island is most famous for its historic district (well, that and the water buffalo carts), so I think some focus should be given on that, especially since there isn't that much else to talk about. For example, it is one of the nation's designated Important Preservation Districts (重要伝統的建造物群保存地区). Perhaps this place could be referenced [1] or just more information about the buildings in general. At the moment, the appeal is all in the Understand section, while the "See" section's tone doesn't make it sound very interesting.
In addition, a little more information about the utaki would be nice. The paddle boats are giving a passing mention, but where can you do it and how much? The description of Kaiji Beach is confusing and awkward. I feel like I'm supposed to already know something about the beach that is not stated in the article. What does "you must pick the individual stars" mean? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think the article can be featured (It has enough to be featured) however, if some of the above are addressed/added, it would be a much more complete article and interesting feature. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yongding County[edit]

Place: Yongding County
Blurb: A mostly rural are of China area with Hakka tulou, earth buildings/fortresses on the UNESCO World Heritage List. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep-Feb
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A very unusual and interesting area. It does get some tourism, but mainly from nearby areas or overseas Chinese visiting the ancestral home. On a national or world scale, it is "off the beaten path".

Nomination
Zhencheng Lou.JPG


  • Not yet. Looks like an interesting enough destination, but there are many sections which very much need to be expanded - "Eat", "Sleep", also arguably "Buy" and "Get around". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I also took the liberty of amending the "Time to feature" - per w:Yongding County, spring and summer are fairly nasty times to visit due to monsoon rains. I'd say that if we run this article at the next opportunity, it should be toward the end of that range (i.e. Jan-Feb 2015) because we've had a glut of featured articles from this region over the past year (Xiamen, Kunming). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there anyone about who could improve it? Most of it was written by user User:(WT-en) Pinkfluffybrick who has not joined us here. I have done some editing but I've only lived nearby, not actually visited, so there is much I cannot do. It really needs someone on the ground to expand sections like Eat & Sleep, and it is far enough OtBP that we may not have anyone. Pashley (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fox Glacier[edit]

Place: Fox Glacier
Blurb: This tiny mountain village on the wild west coast of New Zealand's South Island is a hiker's paradise, and the gateway to the icy behemoth that shares its name. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Apr per [2]
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Perfect for the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2014-15.

Nomination
Fox glacier.jpg


  • "Buy", "Get around", and "Go next" could use expanding; entries in "Sleep" need geo coordinates, but as it stands there are no issues with this article grave enough to preclude my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What does the fox say?. Support! :) OK, seriously, it's a tidy article with information in all sections. Geo coordinates would be great to have, that's fixed in half an hour with Google. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good one from the southern hemisphere. jan (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Saba[edit]

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

Nomination
Windwardside.jpg


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

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

  • Almost. I expect to support this article very soon, but two things have to take place before it is featured: A bunch of listings need to be Wiki-listified, and the article needs to be edited for style. On style, I have a question: Does Saba use the same English-language spellings and English measures as the US? I imagine not, but right now, the article uses primarily American spellings and uses feet, rather than metres, as default measures. This needs to be resolved. Both of these fixes should be easy, but the second one requires agreement and could really use some knowledge of local practices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Almost - pictures and cleanup is needed as Ikan said. While it's a territory of the Netherlands at least the official tourist web page uses American spelling. As with other Caribbean destinations I believe most visitors come from the US, as does probably the person who wrote the text about the runway (and gave the length in feet). On Saba itself I'm quite sure they do not use the imperial units. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page I actually mentioned "Latin America" by which I meant to say everything south of the US, also the Caribbean (apparently the term doesn't officially include all of the Caribbean). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So it sounds like the article should perhaps use American spelling but metric units (so "meters," but not "metres"). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's just the United States, Burma and Liberia and to some extent countries with a British history (e.g. distances in the UK and Ireland) that haven't switched to the Système International (yet?). I imagine most countries in the Americas that haven't been part of the British Empire have gotten their English-language influences mainly from the US and therefore use the American spelling. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I made some edits. In my opinion, "Eat," "Drink" and "Sleep" need to be completely Wiki-listified, and then we can run this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for Featured travel topic[edit]

Travel photography[edit]

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

Nomination
TouristTakingPhoto.jpg


  • Strong support, as someone whose own travel-photography portfolio encompasses thousands of images. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support You've done a lot of work on this article. I like to photograph but know much more about art than about sophisticated photographic equipment, so I'll defer to the knowledge of others. As long as experts on photographic technology and techniques are satisfied, I am, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A concern is that it may focus too much on the gadgetry, not enough on how to actually use it — visual design and useful techniques, Is that something that you could improve, looking at it from the artistic side? Pashley (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me give that some thought. My artistic sensibility in regard to photography is greatly influenced by my understanding of how to read space and appraise the composition of a painting, and I think my views wouldn't necessarily be shared by everybody. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Any further comment? This is still tagged "pending stronger consensus" above. Is there a consensus? I'm willing to do some fixing if any requirement is pointed out. Pashley (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no issues with the article whatsoever, but I like for there to be more feedback than this before I'm willing to describe a consensus as "strong". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good topic, should make it. jan (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

El Camino Real[edit]

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

Nomination
Mission Santa Clara.jpg


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

Electrical systems[edit]

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

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

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

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

Some remarks This article looks very good to me, and I actually find it somewhat interesting. However, it strikes me as a rather encyclopedic topic, although obviously travel-related. I'd like for the encyclopedic nature of the topic to be discussed before a judgment is made on whether it's good to feature on the main page, but I certainly think the quality is sufficient for a feature, and that it will interest people who like technical subjects. I just question whether we really want to feature a technical subject on the main page, partly because I wonder how much of the audience for a travel guide is technical-minded, but then again, as this is Wikimedia, that might not be an issue. I've read through this thread, so I can see I'm likely to be told that the question of whether a topic is encyclopedic in character is irrelevant to judging it for a feature, but I'd like to discuss it, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To Ikan Kekek: Whether they're interested in the technical aspects of electrical systems or not, the fact is that frying one's electronic devices because of differing voltage standards is an issue for many travellers, for example North Americans who are travelling overseas for the first time. Certainly we can work to make the article less encyclopedic in tone (I'd start with a new title), but if the question is whether a topic itself can be disqualified, I maintain that no, it shouldn't be. I should say that over time, I've grown more amenable to Julia's proposal to save this article for a time when we've got nagging ?s in the FTT column and need something as filler. I believe that in my above arguments, I was concerned that we were on a slippery slope that would end with a sort of tiered system where "interesting" articles would be given preferential treatment and we'd have a less diverse range of topics covered in FTT, but in this isolated instance I think it's perfectly fine to use our judgment as to what fits best at which time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see if or how it could be made less encylopedic-sounding. I tend to think that the topic itself is pretty technical though, again, obviously travel-related. I wouldn't stand in the way of featuring this article, but I do wonder whether there are any implications of featuring something with an encyclopedic tone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
For DotM and OtBP we also try not to feature destinations from the same country simultaneously or after each other, so IMO the same should be true for FTT (we should feature both interesting and "just because it's necessary" topics). In fact I was considering nominating winter driving for December, like Electrical systems that's something you need to deal with rather than a fun activity.
Maybe one thing that makes this article sound encyclopedic is that it also deals with bringing and using equipment not designed for travel use abroad and situations where access to electricity is not guaranteed (third world countries etc.) and in these cases stuff unfortunately has to become a little bit technical with generator types and such.
Are there some specific parts that should be explained in less technical terms? I'll see what I can do about them. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I said above that I wouldn't stand in the way of featuring this. I might as well just support this, without taking back any of the comments I made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian Railway[edit]

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

Nomination
Trans-Siberian railway map.png


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

Cruise ships[edit]

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

Nomination
Cruise ship deck.jpg


  • Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with ϒpsilon that we should find more pictures, but I don't know if we should necessarily do a lot of pruning on this article: the information given is thorough but rarely excessive or redundant. I'd suggest running this article in the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2014-15 as most cruises serve tropical destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It is a good article. I have added a couple of pictures, but it needs a few more, including inside cruise ships. It might also be improved if smaller ships got more mention - river cruises etc. AlasdairW (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never taken a cruise (I don't think Hai Xing Shipping Company's 3-day ferry from Hong Kong to Shanghai in 1987 really qualifies), so I can't really pass judgment on the content and would trust the rest of you, and there certainly is a lot of information in this article. The only evident problem is that the last two sections require edits in keeping with current external links formatting standards. That's a required fix, but it's easy, and once it's done, you can put me down in support and schedule this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Winter driving[edit]

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

Nomination
Masku winter road.jpg
  • Support. After a relatively brief check I do think it's an extensive article covering all aspects of driving in winter conditions. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite. It is basically a good article on an important topic, but it needs polishing before it is ready to feature. There should be time for before the next Northern hemisphere winter. Things I noticed in a first perusal were some duplication (e.g, washer fluid is discussed in four places) and heavy use of external links, I think contrary to policy. Pashley (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll give it a full overhaul within the next couple of weeks if the main authors aren't quicker than me. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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: June, 2015; second choice: May, 2015 (Ramadan is 18 June–16 July, 2015 and Travel Topics are featured starting on the 21st of each month)
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This great article was started by User:Saqib, with some input from me, User:Pashley and others. It's an important topic for business travellers, tourists and expats (including English teachers) alike.

Nomination
Iftar in Istanbul Turkey.jpg


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