Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates
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:
- The nominated article should have an article status of guide or star. This includes having at least one good picture, and listings/headers/etc. that match our manual of style.
- The nominated article must not have been featured since Wikivoyage became a WMF project in 2013.
- If the article has been nominated previously but failed, any objections should be addressed before nominating it again.
- Check the slush pile.
- If you think a once-slushed destination is now ready to go, list it as new, but with a pointer to the slush pile entry.
- The article should preferrably be nominated 3 to 12 months before the intended feature date; ready to feature as is, or with edits that can be done well before featuring.
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. Featured Travel Topic includes travel topics, phrasebooks, itineraries, and other articles not part of the geographic hierarchy, as well as airports (as they are not usually destinations in their own right). 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 (UTC)
* 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 the next few months' worth of upcoming destinations. Note that new DotMs are rotated in on the 1st of each month, OtBPs on the 11th and travel topics on the 21st.
Month | DotM | OtBP | FTT |
---|---|---|---|
April 2024 | Addis Ababa – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support | Hagi | Volcanoes - pending fixes? and stronger consensus to support |
May 2024 | Tirana – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support | Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support | E8 through Finland and Norway - pending stronger consensus to support |
June 2024 | Bonn – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support | North West River – pending stronger consensus to support | Land Art Trail on Mount Učka - pending stronger consensus to support |
July 2024 | Glacier National Park (Montana) – pending minor fixes and stronger consensus to support | Mount Buller – pending stronger consensus to support | Right to access in the Nordic countries |
August 2024 | Windsor (Ontario) – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support | Ath – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support | Voyages of James Cook – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support |
September 2024 | Košice – pending stronger consensus to support | Minot – pending fixes and stronger consensus to support | Flight baggage - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support |
Try to avoid two overlapping or back-to-back features from the same country, as well as long streaks of features from the same continent. It is customary to wait 24 months between articles from the same or nearby cities.
The schedule is not cast in stone. However, any change made to the schedule should have a compelling reason behind it, and should be effected as far in advance as possible of the article's scheduled term on the Main Page. In particular, unless absolutely necessary, we discourage nominee articles from being slushed or rescheduled after banners have been made for them, which usually happens 2–3 months before being featured.
Whenever an article becomes a current feature, it should be removed from the list, the discussion archived, and (when changing out Featured Travel Topics) a new month added to the end of the queue.
Next changes[edit]
Decisions regarding which images to use as the banners are made at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners.
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.
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. Several steps involves copy pasting of the file names of the Main Page banners - former, current, and next, so it can be useful to open those in tabs first.
- 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.
- Update the Photo credits page with the banner's original image, title and attribution.
- 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.
- Remove Template:Featurenomination from newly featured article.
- For the former featured article, add the appropriate parameter to the pagebanner template (directly after the image filename) to label the page as having been featured previously.
- For former DotMs, add: |dotm=yes
- For former OtBPs, add: |otbp=yes
- For former FTTs, add: |ftt=yes
- 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.
- 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.
- In the schedule, use <s> and </s> to strikethrough the newly featured article. Remove the row from the table if the newly featured article is the FTT.
- 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]
Tirana[edit]
Place: Tirana |
Nomination
|
- Very close. A few restaurants and listings need descriptions and coordinates, but that's about it. Most of the listings date to Oct 2021, so it should be fairly up to date. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Almost What SHB2000 said, some coordinates are missing, a couple of listings don't have a description. Some more photos would be nice. I guess the article is reasonably up to date, because I see "as of 2022" here and there. --Ypsilon (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are many undated listings, which means they were added before 2015. Ground Zero (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Addis Ababa[edit]
Place: Destination |
Nomination
|
- Comment: although the war only ended last month and was over a thousand kilometres from Addis Ababa, I think we should wait till late 2023 to feature this (but we'll probably feature this in late 2023 due to the scheduling anyway). I haven't read the article since I last nominated it, but I can remember it was looking good to go at the time. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Many of the listings are dated 2017, or are undated, so they are probably even older. I don't think that nominating articles that are out of date is a good use of time. Ground Zero (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- There has been peace for almost a year now, and it's not like we've featured African articles too often (especially not DotMs), so how about running this in April 2024? Will try to remember to check the listings some time before that. Ypsilon (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- The listings and Get in/Get around info are not yet checked and updated, it seems. –LPfi (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neither the article's lead paragraph nor the blurb explain why a reader should want to visit the city. Ground Zero (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done --Ypsilon (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Bonn[edit]
Place: Bonn |
Nomination
|
- Close per comment. Ypsilon (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Glacier National Park (Montana)[edit]
Place: Glacier National Park |
Nomination
|
- Close per comment. Ypsilon (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral – we've kind of set a precedent with Tombstone Territorial Park for trying to include not only coordinates, but also geolines, for hiking trails on park articles. I might have set my bar too high, but it feels a step backwards to feature a park article without geolines. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: To be honest, I think that may be an unrealistic standard. Geolines for hiking routes remain the exception rather than the rule on this site. I'm not sure I've seen them in any North American articles. I do think it would be good to have more of them, though – do you have recommendations for how to go about adding them? I've only managed to do that in articles like Inca Trail where the geoline comes from OpenStreetMap via Wikidata. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to get the main trail of Urho Kekkonen National Park from OSM, but there were a million variants, all of them only short fragments: useful in an orienteering map, but not in an overview map. That means they have to be drawn by hand at geojson.io. Very much doable, but you need to think about how much detail is needed, and they probably should be in the Commons' data namespace rather than in the article, and there is little guidance on that. Some guidance on whether to add information other than the route proper – such as where it follows a road, where it is a footpath, where it is just a line drawn in sand (or through the swamp) – would also be nice. Do we have a standard? –LPfi (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Mx. Granger, sorry for the late response. My main recommendation for adding them would be to use geojson.io and adding the json code into the article. I wrote a tutorial a while back on User:SHB2000/Getting a line on an itinerary, though it's a little out of date. See my last few edits on Mount Aspiring National Park for how I've done it for the Blue Pools Track. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's useful information. For hiking itinerary articles, I could possibly see making this a requirement for guide status, but for park articles, I think it seems too tedious to require for guide status or featuring. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I could also possibly see this as a requirement for star articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's useful information. For hiking itinerary articles, I could possibly see making this a requirement for guide status, but for park articles, I think it seems too tedious to require for guide status or featuring. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: To be honest, I think that may be an unrealistic standard. Geolines for hiking routes remain the exception rather than the rule on this site. I'm not sure I've seen them in any North American articles. I do think it would be good to have more of them, though – do you have recommendations for how to go about adding them? I've only managed to do that in articles like Inca Trail where the geoline comes from OpenStreetMap via Wikidata. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Windsor (Ontario)[edit]
Place: Windsor (Ontario) |
Nomination
|
- Some work needed per comment. Ypsilon (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Needs work per your comment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Košice[edit]
Place: Košice |
Nomination
|
- Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Would be great to finally have our first Slovakian feature! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Nominations for Off the Beaten Path[edit]
Bethlehem (Pennsylvania)[edit]
Place: Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) |
Nomination
|
- Very close - many listings need coordinates, and some photos in the latter half of the article would be nice. Ypsilon (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Close per your comment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I removed this off the schedule from September to prevent two back-to-back features from the same country (3 if you include Aviation history in the United States). How festive is this town during the Christmas–New Year season? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
North West River[edit]
Place: North West River |
Nomination
|
- Close per my comment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support - it would be nice to have some more photos, but the Commons category doesn't have much. Ypsilon (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Mount Buller[edit]
Place: Mount Buller |
Nomination
|
- Support per nom. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment That was faster than I expected. I've been working on this one for some time, and I plan to continue to work on it. Please ping me if you have any suggestions for the page. One thing is that the image shown is somewhat outdated: Spurs has received a renovation, and Horse Hill is now called Northside Express. Perhaps this image would be better? JML1148 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've replaced the image with c:File:Mt Buller village Stevage.jpg as suggested – it's only a placeholder image, though – we choose different images for banners closer to when an article is scheduled to be featured (roughly 2–3 months). Please keep working on it – nominations usually sit here for many months and articles don't need to be perfect at the time of nomination (also hence my speedy nomination). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support. This is head and shoulders above our other Australian ski destination articles. Jpatokal (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hagi[edit]
Place: Hagi |
Nomination
|
- Close per comment. Ypsilon (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. Mrkstvns (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support The article has recently been updated, and looks good. I spent a night at Hagi Youth Hostel in 2005 and visited the castle, but didn't fully explore the city - I now know what I missed! AlasdairW (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Alasdair. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've worked to add destinations to the city and to bulk up some of the other sections. I think the article has now doubled in size. If there is anything lacking, please let me know. I'll try to fill in the gaps. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent work, ChubbyWimbus and others. Support. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Ath[edit]
Place: Ath |
Nomination
|
- Almost - pending minor fixes, mainly those dates. Ypsilon (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Almost – per above. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Minot[edit]
Place: Minot |
Nomination
|
- Close per comment. Ypsilon (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Carrollton (Virginia)[edit]
Place: Carrollton |
Nomination
|
- Needs work – for me, this article is barely a guide (but still one nonetheless per the criteria). It is complete, but that does not necessarily equate to being featurable. For one, more should be added to the "See", "Do", "Buy" and "Sleep" sections with it clearly mentioning that they are the only place to see, do, buy or sleep. The Understand section could do with a lot more content as it is rather dull and monotonous as things stand. More could also be done to explain how to visit the town for those who don't drive and other car-free alternatives, including getting in from the airport + railway station. I might add a bit more to this list, but they are a few things to add. Don't let my comment discourage you – please keep up the good work you do – but things need to be near-perfect for it to be on the Main Page and I hope you can understand my remarks. Best, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I just did some more research, I added in the get around section the only bus route that goes through Carrollton being Hampton Roads Transit Route 964, You will still need a car but it does provide the alternative to public transit (although it only stops in Carrollton twice a day as mentioned in the article.) Someonehere12345 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- If it's a 2bpd service doesn't sound very usable to me – it should be mentioned in the article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- As there is only one stop in Carrollton, I moved the bus info to Get in. It could be used to connect with a train at Newport News. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Alasdair :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- As there is only one stop in Carrollton, I moved the bus info to Get in. It could be used to connect with a train at Newport News. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- If it's a 2bpd service doesn't sound very usable to me – it should be mentioned in the article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I just did some more research, I added in the get around section the only bus route that goes through Carrollton being Hampton Roads Transit Route 964, You will still need a car but it does provide the alternative to public transit (although it only stops in Carrollton twice a day as mentioned in the article.) Someonehere12345 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Needs some work. I think this is stretching the meaning of guide. We have a list of two supermarkets, one of which is "The only supermarket in Carrollton". None of the eat or drink listings have detailed descriptions, or give the impression that the writer has actually walked through the door. The Do listings are also lacking in detail. Is one historic building to look at from the outside all there is to see? AlasdairW (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I changed the listing for Food Lion, to say the main supermarket, which it is, since the other is really more of a meat market. I didnt give too detailed of a descritpion, because I didnt want to be touting. And the Carroll home listing is the only thing I know of, that would qualify for a "see" listing. (Carrollton is not that big.) Someonehere12345 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I later added a See listing for St Luke's Church, but I won't object if it is moved to Smithfield (Virginia) or elsewhere. So there are now two things to see. AlasdairW (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I changed the listing for Food Lion, to say the main supermarket, which it is, since the other is really more of a meat market. I didnt give too detailed of a descritpion, because I didnt want to be touting. And the Carroll home listing is the only thing I know of, that would qualify for a "see" listing. (Carrollton is not that big.) Someonehere12345 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Someonehere12345, why do you equate detailed description with touting? Information != touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- The way I look at it, Is that its better to have a very dry objective description (like italian food), then a detailed descripton which some people (not me but potentially some people) might view as touting or advertising Someonehere12345 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Because touting risks being removed. Someonehere12345 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- The way I look at it, Is that its better to have a very dry objective description (like italian food), then a detailed descripton which some people (not me but potentially some people) might view as touting or advertising Someonehere12345 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Stating that x, y and z dishes are particularly good is not touting. There are lots of Italian restaurants. Why is this one in particular listed? I suggest you look at listings in star-rated articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Someonehere12345, why do you equate detailed description with touting? Information != touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I updated all of the eat and drink listing descriptions (with the exception of the supermarkets which were moved to the buy section). Are the descriptions detailed enough now? Someonehere12345 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I also updated the do listings. Please let me know if the eat/do listings fix your objections. Someonehere12345 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. This article fills me with soulless flatulence. The place lacks notoriety or anything remarkable. Aside from being an okay place to raise 2.5 kids in a suburban cape cod near schools and shopping, I don't really get the feeling this is a place that's even worth the gas it takes to pull off the interstate for a quick rest break. We have far better articles. Besides, there's far too many featured U.S. destinations as it is. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mama Mia Pizzeria, Shang Hai restaurant and Food Lion supermarket all have the same address. Is it because they are all in the same strip mall? And why is Mama Mia Pizzeria's address being "13478 Carrollton Blvd M"? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- They are all in the same strip mall. I added M because thats where I saw the address listing, But thanks for pointing that out the mama mia address, when i was pulling addresses thats what I got. I deleted the M now for consistency sakes, since they are all the same strip mall. Someonehere12345 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not Yet In articles about places that lack attractions, it's important to give a spotlight to the things that do exist and you can give more information about each attracton without worrying about overpowering the article. As it is written, it does not make the town appealing. Ask yourself why should anyone go here? Why would anyone ever want to visit this city? What would interest or intrigue someone about this city? Add the answers to the article. In an article that is so dry, I'd suggest trying your hand at touting. The "no touting" rule is meant to prevent flowery promotional language. It is not intended to discourage telling visitors what is appealing, interesting, or special about a city or listing. It also needs more pictures. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Nominations for Featured travel topic[edit]
E8 through Finland and Norway[edit]
Place: Destination |
Nomination
|
- Comment: We hopefully have the Archipelago Trail in May–June, and if this is to be featured in (Nordic) summer, to avoid darkness and icy roads, I think it comes too close. Perhaps
20222023? If for some reason there are problems with the Archipelago Trail this could of course be a backup. –LPfi (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I introduced the guideline that a nomination should be intended to feature within the coming 12 months. This is more a requirement for quality, than for available spots. We should preferrably have a backlog of nominated high-quality articles, so we can afford to choose the most suitable article, with regard to factors such as climate, holidays, public events and safety. /Yvwv (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- May to June would be a great time to feature, for the Midnight Sun. That would make us wait until 2023, unless we run E8 instead of the Archipelago Trail. /Yvwv (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to keep this until 2023, since the Archipelago Trail is more developed than this one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but I take the opportunity to ask: what should be done to improve this article, except developing the listed articles, and perhaps doing some more research on the bus and bike options? –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, nothing major needs to be done, at least from what I've noticed (more specific to this article), but maybe an infobox or two would be nice, but we've plenty of guide and star articles without them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- For May-June 2023 we can also consider Swedish Empire, during the 500th anniversary of Sweden's independence. That article also has several destinations in Finland. /Yvwv (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. This road isn't going to disappear in the near future, it can be featured any year. If we get somebody writing about the Ostrobothnian destinations before that, it'd be a big bonus. I know them only superficially. –LPfi (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- For May-June 2023 we can also consider Swedish Empire, during the 500th anniversary of Sweden's independence. That article also has several destinations in Finland. /Yvwv (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, nothing major needs to be done, at least from what I've noticed (more specific to this article), but maybe an infobox or two would be nice, but we've plenty of guide and star articles without them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but I take the opportunity to ask: what should be done to improve this article, except developing the listed articles, and perhaps doing some more research on the bus and bike options? –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to keep this until 2023, since the Archipelago Trail is more developed than this one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- May to June would be a great time to feature, for the Midnight Sun. That would make us wait until 2023, unless we run E8 instead of the Archipelago Trail. /Yvwv (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I introduced the guideline that a nomination should be intended to feature within the coming 12 months. This is more a requirement for quality, than for available spots. We should preferrably have a backlog of nominated high-quality articles, so we can afford to choose the most suitable article, with regard to factors such as climate, holidays, public events and safety. /Yvwv (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support. The article is great overall, though it should be proofread by a native English speaker for better flow in the language. /Yvwv (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support, although I'd like more eyes on the article. I notice that the first empty slot is June 2023, which would be ideal. Of the linked places along the route and suggested sidetrips, it seems most are usable and several guides, half a dozen are redlinks and half a dozen outlines. I don't think a traveller needs to stop at destinations without usable articles. The biking option might need to be checked at some point, I just followed the cycleways and roads on the map and tried to judge their usability – but there is an Eurovelo route more or less along this itinerary. –LPfi (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- If the Swedish Empire is featured in May, this should probably be postponed. Comments on how to improve it are welcome. –LPfi (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Land Art Trail on Mount Učka[edit]
Place: Land Art Trail on Mount Učka |
Nomination
|
- Support LGTM. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Scheduled provisionally in Oct/Nov 2022. /Yvwv (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support as one of our quirkier and well-planned itinerary articles. I noticed this article some time ago and remember it being well-written and organized. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I didn't feel up to reading all the way through the article, but am I the only one who finds the "Understand" section overly preachy? I did edit it somewhat - the use of "man" and male pronouns for humanity is very old-fashioned and kind of jarring, at least for many Americans - but just how much do we need to push an idea of how to experience that trail? My feeling is that we definitely should state what the author's intention is, but we can then let people experience it however they do and go on to practical descriptions and advice on how to get from Point A to Point B, etc. I'll try posting a briefer alternative version of that section on the article's talk page later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, having just recently discussed about images in Talk:Canadian national parks, are the galleries a violation of the image policy? Per Wikivoyage:Image policy#Montages and galleries, "should only be considered for showing multiple examples of a specific topic (for example, in describing flora and fauna or cuisine – but not attractions). Image galleries should not be used solely as a way to include a large number of different pictures in a destination article". This isn't a destination article, but it is depicting attractions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say the composite image at the top definitely violates the prohibition against montages and should be removed. Some of the galleries, such as the one that shows two views of the same spiral geograph, are not needed. Most of the rest seem OK to me, since this is not a destination article, as you said, but an itinerary in which it may be necessary to recognize every artwork. The Sentinel picture is problematic per WV:Image policy#People in photos, though. I'm not sure we should do anything about that. "Land Art Trail on Mt. Učka in winter" doesn't need a gallery; one image could do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, anyway we have about 7 months left to fix this up so nothing urgent, but we can't feature an article that blatantly violates WV:IP though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I made a few edits in the last few days, but we should make decisions about whether it's appropriate for this article to violate Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images. I think that the density of images and the galleries still violate those guidelines, and while that might be OK as an exception, featuring this article carries strong risks that readers will believe this is exemplary in that respect and copy it in ordinary destination articles. Are the descriptions of the artworks clear enough that we can reduce the number of images to a more limited selection that excludes some of the works, eliminating the galleries with the possible exception of "Signposts and markings on the Land Art Trail" and creating 3 times more space on the right margin between most images, as we would be likely to do in any other article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should take extra care that featured articles as many new users look up to them to see how they're meant to be formatted and usually think that format is okay. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd assume the trail markings are enough to find the artworks, and they seem to be named on the map, so I think the images are needed more for telling the reader what to expect than for use on the trail. For that it is enough to have examples, and perhaps a few that give examples on how you can "use" the artwork. –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- It sounds like you guys are agreeable with removing the rest of the galleries and having only single thumbnails; is that correct? If so, let's make the changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I just removed the remainder of the galleries, other than the one with markings and signposts, which might be OK. The article still might violate Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images, though. What do you all think? Should we delete half the remaining images? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are still way too many images and I feel very skeptical of featuring an article that's a blatant violation of a simple Wikivoyage policy. Leaving the images may also encourage new editors to well, add a whole slew of galleries because a featured article contained them. Feel free to delete half the remaining images. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- How is it now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking much better! However, I think the signposts/markings gallery should also go too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's talk about that. From Wikivoyage:Image policy: "Image galleries are discouraged, and should only be considered for showing multiple examples of a specific topic (for example, in describing flora and fauna or cuisine – but not attractions)." How does that apply to signposts/markings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought the reason why we discouraged such galleries was because these chew up data and are slow to load, especially in places with poor reception. The reason why I'm okay with these in cuisine articles is because nobody prints these out, and many will read these articles before they're going to that destination (e.g. if I'm going to say Franconia, I would read Franconian cuisine before leaving to Franconia, but I wouldn't print it out, nor would I want to read it in Franconia)
- Also, from experience last Saturday (18 June), just the map in Telangana took at least 10 seconds to load while I was on the road with poor 4G signal. If that one image took so long to load, then how long do you think it'll take for the gallery to load? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was thinking of it as a matter of style, and I see your point. So maybe select 1 or 2 of the best images from that bunch to use as thumbnails, possibly deleting another one in the process. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's talk about that. From Wikivoyage:Image policy: "Image galleries are discouraged, and should only be considered for showing multiple examples of a specific topic (for example, in describing flora and fauna or cuisine – but not attractions)." How does that apply to signposts/markings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking much better! However, I think the signposts/markings gallery should also go too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- How is it now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are still way too many images and I feel very skeptical of featuring an article that's a blatant violation of a simple Wikivoyage policy. Leaving the images may also encourage new editors to well, add a whole slew of galleries because a featured article contained them. Feel free to delete half the remaining images. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just removed the remainder of the galleries, other than the one with markings and signposts, which might be OK. The article still might violate Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images, though. What do you all think? Should we delete half the remaining images? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- It sounds like you guys are agreeable with removing the rest of the galleries and having only single thumbnails; is that correct? If so, let's make the changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd assume the trail markings are enough to find the artworks, and they seem to be named on the map, so I think the images are needed more for telling the reader what to expect than for use on the trail. For that it is enough to have examples, and perhaps a few that give examples on how you can "use" the artwork. –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should take extra care that featured articles as many new users look up to them to see how they're meant to be formatted and usually think that format is okay. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I made a few edits in the last few days, but we should make decisions about whether it's appropriate for this article to violate Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images. I think that the density of images and the galleries still violate those guidelines, and while that might be OK as an exception, featuring this article carries strong risks that readers will believe this is exemplary in that respect and copy it in ordinary destination articles. Are the descriptions of the artworks clear enough that we can reduce the number of images to a more limited selection that excludes some of the works, eliminating the galleries with the possible exception of "Signposts and markings on the Land Art Trail" and creating 3 times more space on the right margin between most images, as we would be likely to do in any other article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, anyway we have about 7 months left to fix this up so nothing urgent, but we can't feature an article that blatantly violates WV:IP though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say the composite image at the top definitely violates the prohibition against montages and should be removed. Some of the galleries, such as the one that shows two views of the same spiral geograph, are not needed. Most of the rest seem OK to me, since this is not a destination article, as you said, but an itinerary in which it may be necessary to recognize every artwork. The Sentinel picture is problematic per WV:Image policy#People in photos, though. I'm not sure we should do anything about that. "Land Art Trail on Mt. Učka in winter" doesn't need a gallery; one image could do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, having just recently discussed about images in Talk:Canadian national parks, are the galleries a violation of the image policy? Per Wikivoyage:Image policy#Montages and galleries, "should only be considered for showing multiple examples of a specific topic (for example, in describing flora and fauna or cuisine – but not attractions). Image galleries should not be used solely as a way to include a large number of different pictures in a destination article". This isn't a destination article, but it is depicting attractions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- On hold until issues are settled. /Yvwv (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? This nomination has quietly been sitting since June. The last remaining gallery issue will likely remain unsolved as the reasons for keeping the gallery equal the reasons for removing it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like the number of images are OK now. However, I would not object to someone selecting one or two photos from that gallery and deleting the gallery, and I don't think anyone else will object. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the gallery and kept two images. With my browser window width (which seems to be the minimum for the pagebanner menu to work), there is now one to three images per screenful, likewise with Vector-2022 (the to-be (?) default skin) and maximised window. With maximised window and Monobook, there are still a bit too many images at the start of Walk, but I don't think that's a major issue. –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- I moved one image up for slightly better spacing. What are people thinking of this article now; should we run it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the gallery and kept two images. With my browser window width (which seems to be the minimum for the pagebanner menu to work), there is now one to three images per screenful, likewise with Vector-2022 (the to-be (?) default skin) and maximised window. With maximised window and Monobook, there are still a bit too many images at the start of Walk, but I don't think that's a major issue. –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like the number of images are OK now. However, I would not object to someone selecting one or two photos from that gallery and deleting the gallery, and I don't think anyone else will object. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? This nomination has quietly been sitting since June. The last remaining gallery issue will likely remain unsolved as the reasons for keeping the gallery equal the reasons for removing it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ypsilon (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Mrkstvns (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Churches in Antarctica[edit]
Place: Churches in Antarctica As to the article itself, I realise this is a bit of a niche topic and no traveller visits Antarctica for its churches (unless they're a part of a maintenance crew or something alike) and also somewhat overgeneralised, Wikivoyage attracts many armchair travellers and thanks to the excellent work of Grahamsands, this is a good armchair article, in my opinion. |
Nomination
|
- Support as nominator. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We have plenty of travel topics nominated, and the travel topics have potential for new articles, with itineraries, and thematic articles such as these. Shall we allow geographic travel topics to run as DoTM and OtBP? /Yvwv (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- If the alternative is to run a destination article that hasn't been updated since before the pandemic, I think such flexibility is preferable. Otherwise, probably not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be open to featuring this in Off the beaten path, because it doesn't get much more OtBP than this. Jpatokal (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Voyages of James Cook[edit]
Place: Voyages of James Cook |
Nomination
|
Support as nominator. As this article is about several journeys, unlike the Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation which was about just one, I don't think it's necessary to rewrite it as an itinerary, it's good as it is. Ypsilon (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: We tend to look for major anniversaries for historical articles. Cook's second voyage was made from 1772 to 1775, which is 250 years ago. Not sure whether there will be any public events to attend, however. /Yvwv (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Put on hold? - This is a clean article with guide status, entirely written by established Wikivoyagers so I went ahead and nominated it for FTT some time ago. Now I'm scanning Commons for banner material for March's and April's featured articles, and looked more closely at the article to see which exact destinations the article is about. At that, I noticed that there are no POIs from New Zealand (see also Talk:Voyages of James Cook), and that part of the world is too important not to include. There are Mt Cook and the Cook strait but there must also be quite a few monuments of him, but the question is which of them are the most notable and should be included in the article? --Ypsilon (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have added some NZ POIs and listings for the two replica Endeavour's which are afloat (UK and Australia). There are now three NZ listings - two are of the beaten track and one is a more central statue, but I am not sure if it is the most notable memorial. AlasdairW (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Slush? The article is not good to go. It has no yes votes, and has not improved nearly 5 months past nomination. We should consider slushing. /Yvwv (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Let's wait for a week or two, I just brought the issues to light and there's a good chance that we have editors familiar with Cook and NZ who can help. Ypsilon (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think it is now in reasonable shape, although more could be done. We should also check that the places listed in the article are mentioned in the city articles which are linked in the listings. AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Right to access in the Nordic countries[edit]
Place: Right to access in the Nordic countries |
Nomination
.
|
- Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Quite different from most travel topics we have. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I think the article covers most relevant issues and it may be eye-opening for people from countries where the tradition is different (such as England and the USA). However, I'd like to hear from travellers not familiar with the concept: is there something that should be clarified? –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] The time slot in July is nice, as it's in the berry and mushroom season (which will continue through September) and also a common vacation time in Europe, with good hiking weather locally. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- As an outsider, I've found this concept pretty easy to understand when I visited Norway a few years back (and should find it relatively easy when I visit Iceland and Finland next year), but that's also because it's a bit more lax here than it is in the UK or US and accidentally trespassing won't get you into much issues (unlike some places where you can legally be shot). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- (and as a side note, I so wish this concept applied everywhere instead of just the Nordics) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support. As Scotland has more recently introduced some broadly similar rights with the Outdoor Access Code about 20 years ago, I found the article easy to understand and got a good grip also on what is different. I would like to see some links to definitive advice on access - government websites or possibly walking clubs etc. It would also be good to know who is responsible for enforcing these rights - to who do I report the farmer shouting "get off my land!". AlasdairW (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is no definite advice, as these right aren't codified in law (other than as a side effect of other legislation). Government websites, walking clubs etc. do give advice, but they are not "official sites/primary sources" on the issue, so whatever they say should instead be included in our article, to the extent we see it as important.
- For the same reason nobody is enforcing those rights. If a farmer tells you to get off some specific part of their land, you should comply, as they probably have good reason. On the other hand, if you don't and they threaten you, then you can take them to court for illegal threats, or they could take you to court for causing damage to their crop.
- It seems this aspect of the rights should be explained more clearly in the article. One thing that I see difficult to convey, is how well this works in practice, through nearly everybody's respect for the rights, and most people behaving. There is little reason for a landowner to patrol their forest in hunt of hikers. This can be seen in court cases being very rare – no hikers or berry pickers try to test the limits.
- –LPfi (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Did this help? –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks that helps. The question on enforcement came because the Scottish code has been challenged by landowners, although the traditional access that it was codifying rarely was. As this is a topic touching on legal areas, I think we should either have a strong disclaimer in the lede ("consult a lawyer for advice"), or link to other sites which give similar advice. For example, these tourist office pages appear to support what we are saying: Visit Sweden, Visit Norway and Visit Finland. This helps to protect WV and editors from being sued if something is wrong. It also helps readers unfamiliar with the ideas to see them expressed in different words elsewhere. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Did this help? –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This is an excellent travel topic! Excellent to see support for this nomination from locals as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Flight baggage[edit]
Place: Flight baggage |
Nomination
|
- Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Needs work. There is redundancy, dead links and some details that should go into By air sections in country articles. Some of these latter might be left as examples, but then worded as such, with hints on generalisability. –LPfi (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Needs work per LPfi. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Volcanoes[edit]
Place: Topic |
Nomination
|
- Close - the Understand parts look good, for the individual volcanoes I think we could tell readers if it's possible/allowed/safe to get close to it (briefly - the details about individual tour companies, ticket prices and such can be left to the destination articles) or if they can only be seen from a distance. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I checked the ten first listings and I think there is adequate information. We shouldn't include info that varies from one year to the next – that info should go into the main listing – and active volcanos vary in their activity. I assume the extinct volcanos listed can be visited. –LPfi (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Close per Ypsi. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Looks highly useful, and I agree with User:LPfi that details like whether it is open or not are best left to the destination articles. The listings have a perfect level of detail as is. Mrkstvns (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Ohlone Wilderness Trail[edit]
Place: Ohlone Wilderness Trail |
Nomination
|
- Support --Ypsilon (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral lacks a mapline/geoline which has become somewhat standard for featured articles albeit unwritten. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry I didn't respond to this one earlier. I wrote this article some time ago, and before featuring it, I would like to reread it and proofread it. I would note that my knowledge of the route is limited as although I've hiked some parts of the route, I have never hiked its entirety. I will get to reviewing these things as soon as I can. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SelfieCity: By any chance, if you get the time, could you also add a geoline using geojson.io? There's a little (somewhat wordy) tutorial here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I will take a look at this, although I have to say this would be the first time I would try geojson. I don't think I have time currently, but in a couple months I should have time to create the mapline. It's definitely a helpful resource for an itinerary, so I agree it would be great to have. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Worst case scenario, you can draw the route geojson.io and paste the code on User:SHB2000/Ohlone Wilderness Trail (yes, in my userspace) and I'll handle it from there. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I will take a look at this, although I have to say this would be the first time I would try geojson. I don't think I have time currently, but in a couple months I should have time to create the mapline. It's definitely a helpful resource for an itinerary, so I agree it would be great to have. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SelfieCity: By any chance, if you get the time, could you also add a geoline using geojson.io? There's a little (somewhat wordy) tutorial here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I just discovered that the dynamic map already contains the trail, it appears on the dynamic map when you open its menu (in the upper right corner) and tick the "Hiking" box. Is there some way to have it displayed on the map by default, that'd probably be faster than drawing/coding the trail from scratch? --Ypsilon (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)