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 well written and up to date article that represents the best work of Wikivoyage, plus the city is just wonderful in the summer.
| 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
April 2017 Mérida (Mexico) Nauru - pending fixes (?) and stronger consensus to support Passport - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support
May 2017 Baltimore Wernigerode - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Driving in the UK
June 2017 Riga - pending stronger consensus to support Labrador English language varieties
July 2017 Ulaanbaatar - pending stronger consensus to support Groningen King's Road (Finland) - pending stronger consensus to support
August 2017 Aarhus - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Oregon Trail - pending fixes (?) and stronger consensus to support
September 2017 Zurich - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Kurashiki - pending stronger consensus to support Fast food in the United States and Canada

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]

Mérida, Mexico

There's much to get excited about in Yucatán's capital: from colonial architecture and street food to Mayan heritage and one of the largest carnavales in Mexico.

Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Nauru

The world's least touristed nation offers a South Pacific experience that's decidedly atypical: on the coast, old artillery and pillboxes from World War II; inland, a desolate moonscape dotted with abandoned mining equipment, an urbexer's dream.

Featured Travel Topic[edit]

Passport

Going abroad? In virtually all cases, you're going to need one of these! Here's where you can learn the ins and outs of this essential identification document for travellers: how to get one, how to use it, what to do if you lose it.

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 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
  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]

Riga[edit]

Place: Riga
Blurb: Perhaps best known for its nightclubs, the metropolis on Daugava is packed with history from the Middle ages to the Cold war. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks to Prince (it’s an article of a major European city, what would you expect?) the article is in a good shape and it actually takes some effort to find something to complain about. Some POIs have short descriptions and some lack coordinates, but this can be fixed in an hour or so. Also, a month or so before it gets featured it's good to click through all links, amend or remove dead ones and remove businesses that have closed...

Nomination
Vistas desde la iglesia de San Pedro, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 12.JPG
  • As it's probably me who will do this eventually, it'd be silly for me to write "almost" before support. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative support pending the fixes Ypsi has identified and plans to do. In addition, the cities listed in "Go next" need one-liner descriptions, and the selections probably need to be pruned a bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have time to read and judge the status of this article right now, but as for pruning the "Go next" listings, why? They're very clearly organized by country, so the list is not hard to read. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I fixed the Go next section at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I can give an unknowledgeable Support vote, based on the amount of information in this article, which is also beautifully illustrated (conceivably maybe even to slight excess), but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if people who know this city better pass judgment on it. Any opinions, Alexander, PrinceGloria or anyone else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have shared my thoughts on the talk page long time ago. I don't like this article in the same way as I don't like the article about Tallinn that was featured last year. They are both very superficial and fail to describe many of the interesting points in the city, while focusing on something that you can find in every, literally every travel guide. The Understand section is... well, I don't have any civil words for it. But I surely do not object the nomination if others like it this way. --Alexander (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe wait due to the objections User:Atsirlin has raised? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I support User:Atsirlin's position; the article could really use a little overhaul. Ibaman (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, Alexander. I rescind my support vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there something else about the article, in addition to the missing POIs and incorrect lead section that is disqualifying Riga from being featured? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
ϒpsilon, you may want to read my old comments on the talk page. The issue is not about 20 or 30 additional POIs but about presenting Riga in the lede section and in individual district articles, which are certainly warranted for a city like this. Even 55 POIs is a bit too much for one article, and 80 POIs will be by all means excessive. On the other hand, it is only me who sees the problem, and I am definitely not going to work on this article in the near future. The easiest thing you can do now is removing factual mistakes from the Understand section and keeping the rest of the article as it is. Given the fact that a similarly superficial article about Tallinn has been featured, I do not see why the Riga article should not.
For me the problem with this and with many other articles is more fundamental. Popular European cities are well covered in all major travel guides. For Riga you can get InYourPocket book, which is free to download and available (also for free) in nearly every hotel in the city. This book is not very detailed, but it is still a lot better than the current version of the Riga article, because it acknowledges the diverse history of the city and gives many nice hints, also regarding pubs and restaurants. By featuring such an article, we kind of admit that Wikivoyage is not up to the level of something that everyone can get for free and very easily, so why using Wikivoyage? What's unique there? Maybe links to Wikipedia? =))
However, it seems to be my personal problem, and I don't want to impose it on others. --Alexander (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but would like to hear other people's opinions too; is it just Understand that needs to be amended (most certainly possible to do before September), or is the article a "hopeless case" in some other way that I'm not able to notice? Those POIs, I believe, aren't going to be added anytime soon.
Also, if we were to add more POIs (See in particular), as was already mentioned on the article talk page in 2014, a district division would be necessary. This would also require more of other listings in the peripheral districts, firstly because articles need at least one eat and sleep to become usable (for Riga to keep guide status) and secondly so that the articles would be more balanced instead of just one long list of things to see.
Another question is, does a guide article really have to have all that in-depth information with hidden gems that other travel guides apparently do not bother listing? At least a few years ago that was what was required of Star articles. However as the Star article nomination process has been practically dead for a few years, I've noticed people seem to think of guide as the highest possible article status and therefore demand more of those articles that would really be necessary. There have even been suggestions for tightening requirements for when an article may be listed as usable, and myself I do not agree this is the right direction to go.
That said, if people would prefer to slush Riga, Kaunas could be a good substitute from the Baltics. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Alexander's most recent remarks: if we're talking about well-known, on-the-beaten-path cities, I think it's a little much to ask of Wikivoyage to provide something that scores of other travel guides have somehow missed. If everything worthwhile has already been covered, everything worthwhile has already been covered. There's not much that can be done about that, especially if there aren't any editors living in the local area.
In the second part of this comment, I had intended to say let's just fix the Understand section, add whichever of the POIs that Alexander suggested in the talk page that haven't been added yet, and not worry too much about anything else. However, I just took a look at this article and I have to agree that Riga would benefit greatly by districtification. The See, Eat, and Sleep sections are long, unwieldy lists that are only going to get longer and more unwieldy as we add the content Alexander suggests. I wouldn't be totally against featuring an undistrictified Riga, but breaking it down would certainly be a boon.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It will definitely benefit from distrification, but nobody is going to implement districts any time soon. Therefore, I don't really urge anyone to add more POIs without becoming more familiar with the city and understanding wherein these POIs are interesting. --Alexander (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Guide vs. star quality is decided internally, but that's a different story. Featured articles appear on the main page, they become more visible, and they kind of show to the world how good regular Wikivoyage articles are. In my opinion, the Riga article will not be doing well in this case, because you can get a better thing right in your hotel room and for free. That's a very general problem that goes far beyond any individual article, and I have to mention this problem because I am more and more often using English content and comparing it with other options available on the market. The more you convince yourself that such articles are "good enough", the less competitive you actually are. --Alexander (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Alexander, if you're finding this to be a general problem on Dotm on English Wikivoyage, please comment on the other articles currently being nominated, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not familiar enough with the majority of places that are currently under discussion, but I have seen the same problem last year with Łódź. As someone who recently visited Suzhou, I can also say that this guide is barely usable from the practical perspective even if it has a lot of content. On the other hand, I don't really like to make critical remarks when I am not going to help with improving the article(s), so I do not even try to monitor the Dotm page closely. --Alexander (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I still think Alexander's remarks here serve to hold Wikivoyage to an unrealistic standard. Of course we aspire to be the best travel guide out there, to consistently provide information that the Lonely Planets of the world don't, and we're getting closer to that goal every day - but we're not there yet, and we're really not even close. At this point in our site's development, if we were to limit DotMs to articles that clear the hurdle Alexander seeks to put up, we would quickly run out of them. So, given that situation, what do we do? Do we stop running DotMs until we've generated a huge amount more and higher-quality content than we have now? Do we put the whole site in beta until it's something we feel reaches its full potential? Of course not. With DotM, let's be honest with ourselves and our readers. These articles are the best we have to offer right now, not necessarily the best that we aspire to. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Is "barely usable" a sufficient standard for a featured article? If that's what our featured articles are like, that's embarrassing and unfortunate, even though our articles sure are way better than when I started editing here about 10 years ago! Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Andre, on Russian Wikivoyage (back in WT times, actually) we stopped Dotm nominations when we realized that we can not produce a new article of reasonable quality every month. We resumed featured articles this year, because we have enough articles that deserve to be featured. I see no problem with it as long as quality is deemed more important than quantity. --Alexander (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So what is really wrong with the Riga article?[edit]

Many commenters in this thread do not single out anything that's wrong with this article yet are opposed to having it on the Main Page. Please have a closer look at the article if you haven't yet.

Alexander, however has come up with a couple of points; the lead section, districts and missing attractions. The lead section can probably be fixed in half an hour. Secondly there's the case whether Riga should be districtified or not. I have a mild preference for districtifying Riga, however I'd be fine also with running Riga as one single article. Prince, who first suggested it two years ago, is now entirely against it and asks whether Riga would ever need districts. Either way, dividing Riga into districts, if needed, is not going to take very long. Also, I entirely agree with André's points above concerning unrealistically high standards. There's no travel guide in the world that would or could completely serve each and every traveler and all his/her special interests.ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh please don't districtify. If we need a better lead please write it, but I guess we're really trying to polish one of our best guides. There are so many others really deserving our attention, such as Brussels. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The question of whether to districtify hinges on the amount of content in the article, not the relative size and importance of the city. If we went by size alone, Buffalo, with a population one-third that of Riga, should by no means be districtified; however, when amount of content is the criterion, if anything seven districts aren't enough for Buffalo. As for Riga, even if we were not to add any of the POIs Alexander cited, the fact remains that once you surpass, say, 30 listings per section, it's absolutely time to talk about subdividing. Riga#See has 57 and Riga#Sleep has 47, and again, that's without the additional ones Alexander says are necessary for the guide to be describable as complete. Riga is crying out for districtification. I doubt that doing so would be as easy as Ypsi suggests - especially given that we've got a two-month window within which to gain a consensus on the number of districts and their borders; migrate the listings; write up new "Understand", "Get in", "Get around", "Stay safe", "Go next", etc. sections for each of them - but if I'm wrong, I'd be open to featuring it in September as planned. Certainly not in its current flabby state, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
If we decide to districtify, there is a long discussion on how to do it and a lot of work for us to do, with the potential that at least one district will fail to reach the necessary status by Sep. I'd slush it and nominate next year, especially that we've just had Stockholm featured. Perhaps we could give some other destinations with single-article guides a chance instead, there are still many needing very little, if any, work. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hamburg and Milan, for instance, didn't take very long to districtrictfy. Also, districts have already been discussed in Talk:Riga#District_split so we don't need to start from zero. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, Riga is now districtified. So, the other thing that was needed was to implement Alexander's suggested changes and additions, but as some other users still disagree with them, it's impossible to continue.
While I still think there's nothing wrong with the article, still don't understand why the history of every bedroom suburb has to be covered in the article (how many previous DotMs have had this level of information? and in how many cases was it required for them to have it?) and still don't understand why it couldn't be done in two months (along with other "problems" with the article that people presumably would discover along the way), I'm not really motivated doing further work on the article.
Therefore: just slush Riga. Also, we already have a substitute (Zürich) that would otherwise need to sit around for almost a year if not longer. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Ypsi - I'm impressed with the districting, and I have to say I'm sorry I doubted your ability to pull it off in time. In fact, the edits you've made have assuaged most of my concerns about the article, and I would advise you not to be so hasty about slushing it quite yet. You said something about not "understand[ing] why the history of every bedroom suburb has to be covered in the article", which I guess is in reference to what I said about the districts needing to each have an "Understand" section. If you wanted to include an exhaustive description of each area's history, as I did with the Buffalo district articles, the "Understand" section is where you would include it, but that kind of thing is strictly optional. At its core, all you absolutely need to include in an "Understand" section is a short summary of only a paragraph or two in length that succinctly describes the district and how it fits within the larger city. For a bedroom community, it might be something as simple as:
District X is a mostly residential area on the outskirts of City Y. As a suburban bedroom community, this place is well off the beaten tourist track - but if you do find yourself here for whatever reason, you might want to check out Attractions A, B, and C.
However, now that I'm looking closer at policy, all those points are moot anyway because as it turns out, I had misremembered the requirements for a district article to attain Usable status, and an "Understand" section isn't even necessary. (Incidentally, I noticed that you categorized the new Riga district articles as having Guide status. Technically, they are Usable because none of them has a "Go next" section. However, this doesn't affect the status of the Riga article itself, as all that's required of a Guide-level Huge City's districts is that they all be at least Usable.)
As for the changes Alexander suggested, the really essential ones I had in mind were the additional listings he suggested for the "See" sections. I've never been to Riga and thus can't testify for or against the validity of his opinions on Riga#Understand, but if PrinceGloria doesn't think that kind of thing is relevant to a traveler, I think it would be fine to omit that information and still run the article anyway.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
And as for Zurich, if it has to wait until summer 2017 to be featured, it won't be the end of the world. The way it's been lately, a year actually has been pretty close to the average length of time between an article's initial nomination and its debut on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I also feel frustrated when I see that the Centrs disrict "famous for its Art Noveau architecture" just missed its most gorgeous Art Nouveau buildings along with the Art Nouveau museum (which was never mentioned, I think). I think it is a bad idea to introduce districts if you are not sure what they are about. --Alexander (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There are entries on both streets that contains the most buildings - we could go as far as having an entry on almost every Jugendstil building, but this could be a bit of an overkill, as some streets would have literally every number in them as POI. That said, I am not sure an approach that sounds like "you don't really know Riga" is very helpful - we do bow down to your knowledge of it, but I would much appreciate if you applied it in practice rather than criticize others in a condescending way, Alexander.
Since we've just had Stockholm, I am all for having another Baltic capital wait out its time for another year if this is what we need to polish the district articles (and polishing they still need). I was actually thinking of nominating one of the districts of Paris instead, and we could also use a southern European destination to maintain a healthy balance. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This building is at Elizabetes iela 10, and the main cluster of Jugendstil buildings is on Alberta iela even further to the west. None of them falls into the Centrs district as it is defined now. Conversely, I would not know any famous Jugendstil building within the current boundaries (and the next famous one is the House with Cats in the Old Town). If you don't see the problem here, then yes, you don't really know Riga.
I would be more than happy to refrain from any further participation in this discussion, but then, please, stop pinging me at every point. OK? --Alexander (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You are very right about that, I did not catch the fact that the Centrs district did not follow the administrative borders of Centrs. Your participation is very welcome and desired since you obviously know Riga better than anybody here, I am just asking for you to consider making your comments more helpful and actionable at times. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

[reset] Why hasn't this one been slushed already? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Districtification work is ongoing, and there's no reason why it can't be featured in summer 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A new start[edit]

So Riga is currently on the schedule once again, with a view to a stint as DotM in June of this year. The article has since been completely revamped and districtified. As such, I think it would be best to wipe the slate clean, invalidating all previous Support and Oppose votes that we applied to the previous undistrictified version of the article and starting over anew.

I'll go first with a solid support vote for Riga 2.0. I question the necessity of the dynamic map which I see as redundant to the districts map, and I think "See" could be fleshed out a bit with a brief mention of a few of the most important sights, but I see both of those as decidedly minor issues.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! I think the dynamic map isn't needed for this level of article, but it's not like its inclusion should exclude the article from being featured. It has my support DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I really hate to bring this up, but...[edit]

Just out of curiosity (and actually because I intended to prove how articles can improve their SEO prospects through edits) I ran a copyscape analysis on Riga. Unfortunately, the result was anything but to my liking. Now given the pretty vocal opposition to considering SEO when it comes to featuring that some here have expressed I would have stayed silent, but there are two issues that make me inclined to still raise the issue. (1)The sheer amount of content that has been left untouched. Sure, the Districtification has removed some of the content liable to become outdated (listings that get removed once they close), but there are so many things that have not been moved to the District articles and are still unchanged since the migration. Which brings me to (2) and for that, I will have to quote some of the stuff verbatim:

" Airport Express operates minibuses to the city center costing €5 per person. These run every 30 minutes but only take 20 minutes to get to the old town. This bus makes fixed stops at several hotels near the airport and in the old town so it may be more convenient than Bus 22." (not a word, not a number changed since 2013)

Another example:

"By bus[edit] There are international bus connections to anywhere in Europe, including frequent service to Tallinn and Tartu in Estonia, and Vilnius and Kaunas in Lithuania. 56.945024.11472 Riga's main bus station is located just outside the old town. (the previous highlighted section is the only new content in this entire paragraph) Ecolines - operates service between Riga and most major cities in Europe. Eurolines Simple Express - operates service between Riga and most major cities in the Baltics, as well as a few other European capitals. Buses to Tallinn cost €13 and buses to Vilnius cost €11. Eurolines Lux Express - More legroom than Simple Express service & free coffee. Buses to Tallinn or Vilnius cost €15-28. Buses to Saint Petersburg cost €35. Flybus - Service between Riga and the airports of Kaunas and Vilnius. More expensive than Simple Express so only useful if you want a direct connection to the airport. PolskiBus - Operates daily buses to/from Warsaw, Tallinn, and Vilnius."

Apart from the one paragraph I have italicized myself to make it more visible, this entire text is the same it has been in 2013. Not a line, not a name, not a number changed. Now I know some things stay the same for years, even decades. Riga will not cease being the capital of Riga in a few weeks, but bus connections? Prices? Timetables? That's precisely the kind of stuff we should be better at than a year old printed travel guide.

And lastly, another example:

"Many private companies offer organized tours of Riga. Options include bike tours, Segway tours, pub crawls, hop-on-hop-off bus tours, walking tours, and tours focused on a certain aspect of Riga - away from the touristy old town. Riga Free Tour operates a free city walking tour that departs everyday from St Peters Church at 12:00. Look for a yellow suitcase." - again; no change - not word order, not a single number, not a single name. Nothing.

Now for all intents and purposes the tour at 12:00 may still be there. It may grok with our tour policy. But frankly, the kind of "copied" content undermines my faith in the article being up to date. And being up to date should be our selling point. I am sorry, but seeing this, I had to bring it up. Am I totally wrong on that point? Or is Riga a special case because of reasons I don't see? And if the answer to this is simply that someone over there has been copying our content, this would indeed be a whole other battlefield, but I don't see that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore[edit]

Place: Baltimore
Blurb: Slices of U.S. history are around every corner in this gritty old port town centered around a redeveloped Inner Harbor: the same one where the original "Star-Spangled Banner" defiantly flew over Fort McHenry in 1814. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-May or Sep-Nov (midsummer is very hot and muggy)
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: It's hard to believe it's already time to start planning ahead to spring and summer 2017, but such is the state of affairs on this page these days. There's been much talk over the past few months about an abundance of U.S. destinations that would make good DotMs, and in my estimation we'll have room for at least two of those next year (in addition to Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side, slated for a March 2017 run at FTT). So without further ado, I've decided to take two of the most often-mentioned contenders and officially nominate them.

Nomination
Baltimore pirate ship.jpg


  • Support as nominator; nothing I can think of that needs fixing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm genuinely surprised to learn that this one hasn't been featured yet. This one seems like a no-brainer to me. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — I said it before and say it again; this is a superb article and I'm looking forward to seeing Baltimore as DotM sooner rather than later. Again, as much of the work on the article apparently was made a few years back, listings may benefit from a checkup (removing places that are closed, fixing dead links) a month or two before the article goes on the main page. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not quite yet. There's a lot to love about the article. "Buy" seems a little thin, compared to great sections like "Eat". Higher education is extremely important in Baltimore, the home of Johns Hopkins in particular, but listings for each college are an irregular thing to do. Instead, there should be a summary (and by the way, I'd also mention Peabody, a high-level music conservatory, if we want the coverage to be comprehensive, but it's not necessary for it to be). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I just checked again and would say exactly the same thing as before, so if anyone wants to work on this, please go ahead. I've been to Baltimore a grand total of one time, and it was just to spend Shabbos with my cousin, who lived in the outskirts of town, so I saw his farm, a suburban-style neighborhood and a synagogue, and otherwise, just the train station and whatever I saw out the window while being transported. So I doubt I'll be able to help much with content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I've never been to Baltimore, but this seems like all the travel guide one would need. I've expanded the Buy section a bit, to address Ikan Kekek's concerns about that section at least a bit. I have no objections to deleting the college list, but I don't think it should keep up from featuring this very informative article. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those edits. I still think that we need to substitute a summary for those "Learn" listings, as we don't want to hold up this way of dealing with education as an example. I mean, personally, I don't care and think it would be fine to change our policy on educational institutions, but as long as we have it, we should apply it to articles we feature. It's small potatoes, though, so I, too, will support, with the proviso that that section be effectively dealt with. I might try my hand at turning it into prose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition to what Ikan says, it looks like the article needs some fairly extensive copyediting. I'll get to that, and to the necessary changes for Nauru, in the next month. If someone else would like to take care of fleshing out the lede in Merida (Mexico) as Zerabat suggested, that would be a big help. (By the way, where's Ypsilon been lately? He could usually be counted on to help out with tasks like this. Ypsi, if you're reading this, you're sorely missed.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Nashville[edit]

Place: Nashville
Blurb: Tennessee's capital wears many hats (not just cowboy ones): country fans flock to "Music City, U.S.A." to visit the Grand Ole Opry and the Country Music Hall of Fame; others prefer the fantastic Neoclassical architecture and vibrant cultural institutions of the "Athens of the South". (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-Nov
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Another U.S. destination that's often been cited as a worthy DotM contender (see my remarks at Baltimore's nomination above).

Nomination
Nashville pano Opry Broadway.jpg


  • Very close. Most of the listings lack geo coordinates, but otherwise this article looks good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost — Coordinates! And removal of closed POIs and dead links a little before the article eventually goes live. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet. How many of the things I mentioned at Talk:Nashville#Prepare for Dotm have been dealt with? I think all of them should be dealt with or at least well into the process of being dealt with before we approve this for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was just looking at that talk page again. No-one replied to any of my points in Talk:Nashville#Prepare for Dotm. If anyone would like to help prepare the article for Dotm, I think that's the place to start. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Zurich[edit]

Place: Zurich
Blurb: A decidedly hipper alternative to the button-down world of Geneva, Switzerland's largest city blends the medieval with the modern in a gorgeous setting at the head of the Limmat River. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep 2016; otherwise May-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: It occurs to me that we need a replacement for Riga, which is still on the schedule to be featured as DotM in September despite a near-consensus that it should be slushed. What do you all think about this article?

Nomination
Zürich - Grossmünster - Wasserkirche IMG 1154 ShiftN.jpg


  • Very close, IMO probably the closest-to-perfect geographically and seasonally appropriate article that can be found with such a time crunch. Some of the listings need geo coordinates, and "Go next" could do with a nice pruning, but otherwise Zurich looks just about ready to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost — Coordinates. The latter half of the article is as of now entirely void of photos. There are some old-style links and as usual it'd be good to check if everything listed in the article is still in business. Probably Go next could be cut down a little bit. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Still needs work, but it's worth it, as the article improved markedly over the last two years or so. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I have just taken a closer look. A LOT needs to be done to brush up the key "See" and "Do" sections. It is no less of a challenge than Riga to me, I am obviously all for us striving to improve both, but let us bear that in mind. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Aarhus[edit]

Place: Aarhus
Blurb: The year as cultural capital with art, culinary experiences and festivals will make Jutland's youthful largest city even more exciting for visitors. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: 2017, when Aarhus is the European Capital of Culture. Jun-Sep is likely the best time weather-wise, but there are events all around the year so there's no problems having it on the Main Page earlier
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Great article; everything is there! Understand is maybe a little listy, but perhaps fun facts are best presented like that. Aarhus as a mid-sized destination could work as both DotM and OtBP, though as the article is long and an event takes place in the city, I decided to put it in the former category.

Nomination
Your rainbow panorama på taget af ARoS Aarhus Kunstmuseum.jpg
  • Strong support ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm delighted to support the tireless work of RhinoMind to make this such a comprehensive guide. Before it's run, I feel sure the article will require a thorough review for copy editing, since English is not RhinoMind's first language (I've previously noticed mostly disagreements between subjects and verbs). I'd also ask RhinoMind whether s/he plans to make further major edits before the article is run, because I've held off on doing a complete copy edit while content has been steadily added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I really like this article! I saw RhinoMind editing it several months ago and thought it was excellent. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured yet.
  • Almost. I hate to be a party pooper here, but there are a few things in this article that rub me the wrong way:
  • The bullet-point list of "interesting facts" in the Understand section should be converted to prose.
  • Listings in "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink" and "Sleep" need to be alphabetized.
  • We need to decide whether we're categorizing "Eat" listings by price point or by type of food - as it is now, the breakdown is a weird hybrid of both systems. And if it's by price point, then we need an Eatpricerange template that delineates what "Budget", "Mid-range", and "Splurge" signify exactly.
  • If we really need an exhaustive list of consulates, we should at least provide addresses and phone numbers for all of them.
  • "Go next" needs a good pruning.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixes applied:
  • I converted the bullet-point interesting facts to prose.
  • I alphabetized the See, Do, Buy, Drink and Sleep. Most of Eat was alphabetized.
  • For the Eat section, I shuffled a few things around to make them fit better into Budget/Mid/Splurge sections. Honestly, I think the hybrid system is the best for this article. My reasoning is thus: we could move listings into the default three price ranges but then we lose the "story" and you'd have three massive sections with less to differentiate why you should choose one place over the other. I feel the non-standard sections create a cohesive "narrative" and shows what makes Aarhus special and worth a visit. I don't think we should get rid of the budget/mid/splurge categories because there are travelers where price is THE determining factor for choosing a destination. If we absolutely must have one way or the other, I vote in favor of moving things to food type sections over our default three categories. I think the entire eat section could use a good pruning to make it a Star article, but for a DoTM article the way it be is sufficient.
  • I tried to find more details on the consulates and couldn't find stuff for most, so I removed those since an empty listing just saying "This (might) exist" doesn't strike me as good for a traveler.
  • Pruning Go next is problematic and I'm still mulling over how I want to fix it without undoing all of Rhino's hard work.
I think this article is on its way to becoming a real gem and I hope when it is featured we'll get some fresh editors for it. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ulaanbaatar[edit]

Place: Ulaanbaatar
Blurb: A city of contrasts surrounded by endless Mongolian landscape, Ulaanbaatar is the gateway to the historical homeland of Genghis Khan. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Aug (Jul for Nadaam festival?)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I think there's still one gap left in the schedule for a summer destination so how about this one? Someone needs to check whether listings, prices and weblinks are up to date but otherwise the article looks good to me. And yeah, there's a bulky table in Get in but it's easy to just nuke it should we want to.

Nomination
Winter Palace Bogd Khan 149185394 bfcc8db25b b.jpg
  • Conditional support per comment ϒpsilon (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is a good read. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per Ypsi's comment, and also there are some POIs without geo coordinates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, there are several instances of loosey-goosey use of Cyrillic script that violates Wikivoyage:Foreign words. I just corrected one but this needs to be attended to before featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. It's a good read, but I feel like there is a lot of copy-editing that needs done to make it more readable. In the very first section, I found a mis-word (primate instead of primary). I'm going through right now and trying to pare things down + copy-edit. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mérida (Mexico)[edit]

Place: Mérida (Mexico)
Blurb: There's much to get excited about in Yucatán's capital: from colonial architecture and street food to Mayan heritage and one of the largest carnavales in Mexico. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-May
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Outstanding article, largely written by StellarD. The article is otherwise great but the drink section is still somewhat lacking. Would love to see it on the Main Page sometime during the next "North Hemisphere cold season".

Nomination
Merida City Hall.jpg
  • Almost — If the Drink section is expanded with some listings, I won't have any problems supporting the article for DotM. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Very, very close per Ypsi's comment above. We ran Biscayne National Park as OtBP in April 2014 with a tagline that said something like "if you want to enjoy the warmth and sun of South Florida this spring but don't want to deal with hordes of obnoxious Spring Breakers, here's an alternative"; I think it would be neat to do the same thing with Mérida for Spring Break 2018 as an alternative to Cancún and Cozumel - or heck, why not 2017; one wonders whether the problems with Rome/Vatican will be sorted out by then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional support – This is one of my favorite cities in Mexico. I do agree however that the drink section needs a bit of work, and I'd overlooked that. —The preceding comment was added by StellarD (talkcontribs)
  • Support – The drink section now has a few listings. —The preceding comment was added by StellarD (talkcontribs)
  • Support, though a few more "Drink" listings still wouldn't hurt. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment — the intro section does not invite me or encourage to visit Merida. It is merely a sober and little descriptive introduction. Some of this could be obtained from #Understanding. --Zerabat (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - looks complete. For a place of this kind a few more drink listings wouldn't hurt, but it shouldn't keep us from featuring. A pointer to which streets or areas to go to when looking for bars would already be very helpful. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Zerabat, what do you think of the new intro section I wrote? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I like it. Change my vote to Support, although I would like to see some more Drink places, if exist more than the three listed. --Zerabat (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Boston[edit]

Place: Boston
Blurb: John Winthrop's "shining city on a hill" is one of the oldest and most historic in the U.S., jam-packed with sites from Colonial and Revolutionary days. But it's also a vibrant 21st-century metropolis, with a culture more in tune with modern-day college-town progressivism than the Puritan stodginess of years past. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: By now, ButteBag is probably sick of hearing me congratulate him about the fine work he's done on the Boston district articles, so I hope he'll indulge me one last time as I repeat that his work is rapidly elevating Boston to the same elite tier as Chicago, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco when it comes to superlative Wikivoyage coverage. There was recently a discussion regarding featuring Boston/Jamaica Plain-Mission Hill as DotM or OtBP wherein I suggested we "hold out and feature Boston itself rather than one of its districts", and now that all the district articles have attained at least Usable status, I've decided to go ahead and put this nomination up for consideration. I'm pretty sure ButteBag's response is going to be that he's not satisfied with the state of some of the district articles - I think I heard him mention that before - but given the fact that they all continue to develop at an admirable pace, and Boston won't be featured on the Main Page until next year at the earliest anyway, that leaves ample time for him to get them up to snuff.

Nomination
USA Old State House 1 MA.jpg


  • Support as nominator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I am also very handsome and intelligent. (And trying to keep this updated going forward, thanks AndreCarrotflower!) --ButteBag (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional support User:ButteBag has really done superb work here, but as he (assuming he, please correct if wrong) has pointed out, there are some things that could still be improved. In the main article this mostly seems to be the history and the public transit sections, which do contain some old content as per http://www.copyscape.com (though history does not become outdated all that fast). All in all, I think we'll have a fine article by the time this goes live some time from now Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Nauru[edit]

Place: Nauru
Blurb: The world's least touristed nation offers a South Pacific experience that's decidedly atypical: on the coast, old artillery and pillboxes from World War II; inland, a desolate moonscape dotted with abandoned mining equipment, an urbexer's dream. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-Oct to avoid typhoon season
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment: "An off-the-beaten-track destination if there ever was one", says the article. This would also be only our second country-level article to be featured (Singapore was DotM way back in 2006).

Nomination
Abandoned Japanese Pillbox, Nauru (1998).jpg


  • Support. Nauru is nothing if not a niche destination. Given that, it's impressive how thorough our coverage of it is. I can't think of anything in particular this article needs before it's featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Needs stylistic / wording fixes - I recently happened upon this article and would love to see it featured (Zika permitting) but apart from the question whether all listings are up to date, just a cursory glance showed what appeared to be a handful of wording and stylistic issues, including footnote style links. When those are fixed, sure Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - The article and the listings should be up to date as of last spring. I translated stuff from the Italian version and googled up a little more about this fascinating island. Everything available on the Internet of use for travelers, including that the island recently got its very first ATM, is in the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Hobbitschuster, have a look at the article now and see whether you feel it still needs style fixes. I just copy edited a few things in the article. I think it's a good article and don't clearly see what could be added to it, short of a local adding things only a local would know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC) - I'm crossing out my post completely. ChubbyWimbus' argument convinces me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not Yet Being such a small island/country, I think we can do better. For example "you may see remnants of WWII" (which should be in the "See" section not "Do"). What and where are they? This is not a destination crawling with so many things to do that things like the Japanese post can be glazed over. Reading the article suggests it essentially has nothing to see/do, so why would we NOT mention the few things that do exist? To go along with that, the "See" section could use an intro of some sort, because the listings don't draw me in. This article relies too heavily on the pictures (which are too many) to speak for it. The picture of Anibare Bay shows beautiful coral jutting out of the water, but read the description of Anibare Bay. No mention of that. Instead it reads like a copy-and-paste description of what all tropical beaches are. Why? What about those phosphate mines mentioned? Can you or can't you visit there? We should know and have information. I wonder if there are any interesting flora/fauna. As I said, right now, the writing is dull and doesn't really sell the island as worth visiting. Since this is the only article for the country, I think it deserves a bit more attention before featuring. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Slush? Given the objections and the question whether they have been fully addressed should we really consider featuring this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Patience. Sometimes when there are a large number of problems with an article but each of them individually are relatively minor in scale, one can be led to believe that an article is in worse shape than it really is. We have several months before Nauru is due to go on the Main Page, and the prescribed fixes can be undertaken in a few hours. Slushing it would be premature at this time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know we keep away from politics, but Australia is using Nauru for some very unsavoury human rights abuses by keeping genuine refugees in permanent detention under what are apparently awful conditions (which are not allowed to be freely reported). I'd be uncomfortable supporting it as a DOTM (not that I am voting for this one either way) Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
While unfortunate, for the purposes of the traveller it's a non sequitur. Just as one example, the blatantly unconstitutional undocumented interrogations committed by police at the Homan Square "black site" haven't stopped us from featuring at last count four Chicago-related articles, so I don't see why it should be any different for Nauru. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Any time we feature any destination in China or the U.S., we should be aware of how ill-treated prisoners are in those countries and how many of them were unjustly or disproportionately punished. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I do appreciate that any destination will not be perfect with regards to human rights, and we could find issues in even the most liberal of countries and cities. In this case it is probably the main thing that happens on this tiny island, and hence my disquiet. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we've discussed any liberal countries in this subthread, but I guess that could be debated. I get your point, and it's legitimate, but where would you propose to draw the line? If the North Korea article were a Guide, would you oppose featuring it on principle, despite the fact that visitors who behave as expected can travel there safely while millions of others are tyrannized and deprived? OK, and then what about less extreme situations? Turkey ranks near the bottom in press freedom, while Indonesia seems to be not quite covertly ruled just under the surface by the same gangs that murdered 1,000,000 people when Suharto took over, if we are to believe the people who made this documentary film. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
We also featured Riyadh at one point. Is there a more extreme Islamic country than Saudi Arabia? And it isn't even necessarily safe to work there, because many workers have been unable to get their employer's permission to leave. If any places shouldn't be featured out of the interests of foreigners, they should probably be Gulf Arab emirates, because of the total control of employers who can get away with beating, raping and enslaving people who are supposed to be working for them. So maybe it was wrong to feature Riyadh, and perhaps we should thrash these questions out more on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Good points. It felt to me that DOTM was an implicit recommendation to visit, and therefore treated differently to our standard articles which are more neutral. Happy for a broader discussion on the talk page. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thread started at the bottom of the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[Unindent] On a different topic, I think some of the background in this article is good but a bit thin compared to some of the richness on Wikipedia. I just started the following thread: Talk:Nauru#Updates and information at the Wikipedia article on Nauru. Nauru is quite an unusual place, and I think we could include more of the facts in w:Nauru - not, please, by simply copying and pasting them, but for example, it's very significant that phosphate mining seems no longer to be viable on the island (unless that's changed since 2011 and the Wikipedia article hasn't kept up with it, which unfortunately is quite possible). Please read through that thread or just go to the Wikipedia article and see whether you think more background and facts should be added to our article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. It seems to me that ChubbyWimbus' criticisms have been addressed. ChubbyWimbus, do you agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
ChubbyWimbus - On the topic of your suggestions, I added an intro blurb for the "See" section, as much information as I could find about the Japanese WWII relics (contained in the "See" listing for Command Ridge, where the bulk of them are located), and added more information to the Anibare Bay listing. But I'm not sure what else you feel needs to be said about the phosphate mines in the island's interior. In any event, hopefully the additional information is sufficient for you to mark yourself down as the fourth Support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Groningen[edit]

Place: Groningen
Blurb: A lively student city in the North of The Netherlands. Best known for her bicycle culture and characteristic city center. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: All year round, preference for summer months
Nominated by: Iceandsnow (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: On the article's talk page Groningen was suggested for DotM. This city is popular among the Dutch and deserves a wider public.

Nomination
Groningen - Hoge der A - vanaf de A-brug - Bert Kaufmann.jpg


  • Support. May need some minor copyedits, but otherwise good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, more or less along the lines AndreCarrotflower lays out. I copy edited through the end of "Understand". Some sections should be alphabetized. But there sure isn't a lack of information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — looks good and is beautifully illustrated. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to OtBP - if this is not off the beaten track, then what in Europe is? This may not be the smallest backwater town in NL, but going to Groningen isn't probably on anybody's bucket list. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Groningen is for Dutch standards a 'big' city, the metropolitan area counts 360,748 inhabitants. OtBP is intended for small cities, villages or unusual destinations. In the Groningen region for example Bourtange, Schiermonnikoog or Appingedam. Iceandsnow (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Where does it say that OtBP needs to be a small hamlet? It says that it's for "destinations lesser known", and for an English-speaking traveller Groningen is certainly lesser-known than many smaller, yet popular cities and towns throughout Europe. We've had Turku and Trondheim, some of the key cities in their countries, as OtBPs. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, I think you've got a point. Groningen is in my opinion suitable for DotM, but OtBP is also an option. Lets wait and see what other users think about this discussion. Iceandsnow (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Groningen, like Turku and Trondheim (and Lodz and many others) are places that IMO could work well both as DotM or OtBP. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The terms "off the beaten path" are of course abused quite often, but if we look at the grand scheme of things, I think Groningen belongs into OtBP for similar reasons that Antigua Guatemala belongs into DotM... compare Groningen to other places in its region - whether you draw the region boundary at the edge of Benelux, the Netherlands or Europe, it is quite easy to think of quite a handful of places that are much more tourist-y. For Antigua Guatemala very much the precise opposite is true. To sum my argument up in one sentence: How many of the "do Europe" crowd visits Groningen? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I was on the fence about this question, but Hobbitschuster's arguments have convinced me. Let's move it to OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, but the eat-section should be updated and expanded a bit. Closed establishments have been removed, but the best and most popular restaurants opened in more recent years have not been added. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sde Boker[edit]

Place: Sde Boker
Blurb: A winery with an experimental history and great places to hike await you in this scenic Negev desert kibbutz which was also the long-time home and final resting place of Israel's first prime minister. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: November-April (as with Ein Gedi)?
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This is a tidy article and looks complete for a destination with 426 inhabitants. With Hiking and backpacking in Israel in September, I think there's enough space between them to have this one on the main page e.g. in February? Ps. thank you to Tamuz (who else?) who's created the article and written most of the content.

Nomination
Ein Akev Tahton 02.jpg
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm satisfied with it, too. Unless someone wants to add a "Connect" section to discuss cell phone and Wi-Fi signals, it doesn't seem really likely to me that more than little copy editing tweaks are in the article's future. I haven't been there, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks good, but five months between this one and Hiking and backpacking in Israel is too close for comfort, I think, especially given how small a country Israel is and how disproportionately often we've had it on the Main Page these past few years (Ein Gedi, Golan Trail, Mitzpe Ramon as well as the aforementioned Hiking and backpacking). In an ideal scenario we'd hold Sde Boker off until after next summer, but I'd be okay with April 2017 as a compromise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Your point on not overscheduling articles about Israel is well taken. However, I'm sure you'd agree that summer wouldn't be a good time to feature an article about a Northern Hemisphere desert community! I'd much rather hold off until November 2017 than run it in the summer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Andre suggested running it in April. Is it already too hot in April in Israel? ϒpsilon (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
My point was that if we wait past April, we should wait till November. I am not expressing an opinion about whether April is too hot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
We should, just as it says in the "time to feature" parameter above. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears that "after the summer" is what's confusing. Let me rephrase. If it were left up to me, we'd feature it in November 2017 or after, because of the overscheduling of Israeli destinations. However, if there are any objections to that, I'd consider April 2017 a workable compromise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gaspé Peninsula[edit]

Place: Gaspé Peninsula
Blurb: The far eastern tip of Quebec, where the Appalachian Mountains plunge into the ocean, is a wild and wonderful place with something for everyone: breathtaking scenery, all the seafood you can eat, and some of the best skiing in Eastern Canada. (blurb needs work) (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Outline for now, but please see comments below. (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Sep
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe I'm jumping the gun in nominating this now, but hear me out.

Nomination
Route132AtGrandeVallée-070912.jpg


  • Right now I'm in the midst of what has proven to be a very, very long and protracted update of the Buffalo district articles. I should be finished with that in a week or two, at which point I plan to start again on my long-dormant Gaspé Peninsula project. Despite what it may look like, the majority of the work has already been finished - Gaspé Peninsula itself has all the content it needs; the only thing keeping it from being bumped up to Guide status right now is the state of the articles below it in the breadcrumb hierarchy. Wikivoyage:Region guide status states that for a Region article to be evaluated at Guide level, all subregions must be at Usable status or better; in turn, for each subregion to be at Usable status, the most important of their respective "Cities" and "Other destinations" must be at Usable status or better. My course of action has been to go our readers one better and ensure that all of the bottom-level articles are at least Usable, and the most important ones are at Guide.
So, by way of a breakdown of the work that remains to be done to get this article up to Guide status, there are three main components:
  1. Writing Guide articles for the most important bottom-level destinations. Thus far I've written and/or improved Percé, Chandler, and Forillon National Park to Guide standards; each of those took about two or three weeks apiece. Looking forward, I'd like to have Bonaventure, Gaspé, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Gaspésie National Park, and maybe Amqui at Guide status too.
  2. Bringing all other bottom-level destinations to Usable status. Given that Usable articles only require a "Get in" section plus one listing each in "See", "Eat", and "Sleep", a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation.
  3. Bringing subregion articles The Coast, Upper Gaspé, Land's End, Chaleur Bay, and Matapédia Valley up to Usable status. Aside from the status of the bottom-level destinations, the only thing a Region article requires to be Usable is a "Get in" section and a "See" section where the most prominent attractions are listed. Again, a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation, though I'll likely end up including a bit more content than that.
Again, maybe it would be better to have delayed this nomination until I was further along in the process, but I wanted to make sure this article got up on the page before all the summer 2017 OtBP slots were gone - Nauru and Groningen have already taken two of them. (For those who think it's audacious to have jumped the gun like this, it might be germane to note that Buffalo was technically at Outline status for most of the time it was on this page; it still had two redlinked district articles when it was nominated, the last of which didn't "go blue" until three days before it went on the Main Page.) If by some slim chance Gaspé Peninsula isn't ready for the Main Page by then, we can easily put it off till 2018. But I highly doubt that will happen.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't looked at the articles that carefully (some like Percé are in great shape, on the other hand there are others like Matapédia Valley which obviously need more content) but I trust you'll get all of them to usable or better until next summer. Concerning Nauru, I imagined that one was scheduled for March. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
While we could probably get away with featuring Nauru in March, it's less than ideal - per w:Nauru#Climate it's still a fairly rainy time of year there. Climatically speaking, the best time to run Nauru would be either between mid-spring and early summer or in the early autumn (Northern Hemisphere in both cases), but I'd caution against slotting it in May or June because it would likely be competing with nominees from temperate latitudes that can't really be featured any other time of year. I had imagined April 2017 to be a fair compromise, but there's certainly some wiggle room there if necessary (especially if the deficiencies ChubbyWimbus mentioned aren't fixed in time). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, in the summer there's a ton of brilliant articles but only so many months, in the winter it's exactly other way around :( .
As the one who translated/googled up much of the content currently in the Nauru article, I will probably help out with Nauru at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I trust your judgment in assuring everyone of what you will do, and therefore give a supporting vote based on your superb track record of producing articles of exceptional quality. That said, please inform us of when you think the articles in question are ready, so that we can judge for ourselves at that time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I of course fully understand the conditional nature of your support, Ikan. But, to be clear, I see the Gaspé Peninsula article itself as essentially complete, and don't foresee any particular changes to it between now and when it goes on the Main Page, other than the redlinks in the "Regions" section being upgraded to live articles. So you can feel free to base your judgment on the content of the article rather than just my track record. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't reread anything close to the entire article yet, but of course it looks great. I think "Get in/By car" may require an update, though: Did the extension of A-20 as far as Trois-Pistoles that was supposed to open by 2015 open yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Ikan - Latest reports are that they've extended A-20 about 14 kilometers eastward to the outskirts of Trois-Pistoles, but according to Wikipedia the interchange serving Trois-Pistoles itself isn't expected to be in service until later this year. I've updated the article to reflect that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wernigerode[edit]

Place: Wernigerode
Blurb: Fairy tales come true and history comes alive in Germany's "brightly coloured town by the Harz", with a magnificent Medieval castle and charming, timber-framed old town at its heart. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Sep
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: We still need to find an OtBP and an FTT for May 2017. Here's a good option for the former.

Nomination
Wernigerode (2013-06-03), by Klugschnacker in Wikipedia (14).JPG


  • Very close. The article lacks a dynamic map, and listings need geo coordinates. Other than that, Wernigerode is good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Close I would like to see a bit more detail in the get in (local buses are mentioned, but not even a link is provided) and get around (there is just a general remark about parking and nothing more specific) sections and I would also like to see the dead links (two or three in total) checked out and either the listings removed (if the business is not in existence any more) or the link repaired. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wasn't Groningen intended for May? I've looked at Wernigerode as one of the very few European articles suitable in the winter too, it has a beautiful Christmas market and ski resorts in the vicinity. Other than this, you already brought up the things that need to be added to the article (clarify: almost support). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Ypsi - When Groningen was nominated eight months ago, summer 2017 was a sea of blank spaces on the draft schedule I have saved on my computer desktop. I slotted it in for July, which seems to be the peak of the favorable period per its "Time to feature". We never have a problem filling in the blanks, so it seemed fine to me at the time (and I was proven right about this) to assume that the slots around it would eventually be filled. Anyway, when a nominee has to wait as long as Groningen will have by the time it goes on the Main Page (over a year), I think it's only fair to put it in the best possible slot, rather than sliding it in to a less than ideal one just for the sake of filling in a blank. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support - I agree that it needs a dynamic map and geo coordinates (I will take this task on myself) I have added the map and all the geo cords I could find, and removed locations that no longer are a thing. The Get around is woefully empty. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I must say I oppose featuring at this time. I could bring up the incredibly high amount (>80%) of "copied" content, but maybe my argument can stand on legs without that argument. The article is likely to be severely outdated in many key points. This would not be a problem if we had someone on the ground to do some research or at the very least fix the most egregious mistakes, but we don't and we can't. Thus I fear exposing us to derision and embarrassment if we feature something on the main page that is very likely visible out of date to everybody who has been there in the last couple of years. There is, however, another reason why I don't consider featuring wise. We have a number of travel topics and destination articles about Germany that are either no too far from being feature-ready or are feature ready already, so in order to keep geographic balance, we do actually have the "luxury" of choosing between them and only putting those to the front page that really highlight the very best (and not just "well it's a guide, so I guess....") of our coverage. I know I partially contradict myself here, but given the number of potential OtBP and DotM nominees "in the pipeline" (explicitly excluding our woes at FTT), I think it is fine to either have more features (which has been rejected due to very good reasons and which I don't think wise at this time) or to tighten the criteria of a feature. And I do not think the criteria of "putting the best non-featured content we possibly can for that month on the front page" is a criterion that is met here. And geographic balance is no feasible excuse here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, please don't get me wrong. I like you, you're a prolific and valuable contributor to our site, and I know in the recent past some of my remarks have been perceived by you as being aggressive in nature (and others have been perceived as attempts to silence criticism). So please understand I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.
But again we have a case where you're voting oppose but not basing your rationale in policy, as dotm#Discuss directs. Well and good if we "have a number of travel topics and destination articles about Germany that are either no too far from being feature-ready or are feature ready already", but those haven't been nominated. Wernigerode has. Nominees get voted up or down on their own merits, not on their comparative merits relative to other potential nominees. Similarly, if you feel that the qualifications for featured articles should be made stricter, that's also fine. You'd be far from the first person to make that argument (and if you click on the talk page discussion I linked to, you'll see that I myself have expressed openness to that idea). By all means take to Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates and try to get that changed, if that's what you want to do. But until then, policy is what it is.
As for the arguments you raised in your first paragraph: absent any specific examples you can give me of what you're talking about, I'm afraid this looks like a case where you already know what the answer to the Copyscape issue you hinted at is going to be, so you're trying to make an end-run around it using "outdated information" as a red herring. Hobbitschuster, you've already tried a couple of times to gather consensus for your idea about disqualifying DotM nominees for copied text. Both of those times, no consensus materialized. I know it's frustrating when things remain unclear; when people give longwinded, wishy-washy answers rather than the straight yeses or noes the question calls for. But when there's no consensus either way, policy says the status quo remains in effect. You've got to accept that, stop trying to force the issue, and just let it go.
Finally, even if outdated information does indeed exist, it's still not true that we would require "someone on the ground to do some research or at the very least fix the most egregious mistakes". This is an article for a well-trodden tourist town in a highly developed Western nation. Verifying that places are still open, updating hours of operation, URLs, telephone numbers, etc. can very easily be done on Google by anyone anywhere in the world. And you know that.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
If "verifying that places are still open, updating hours of operation, URLs, telephone numbers, etc. can very easily be done on Google" shouldn't that have been done *before* nominating the article here? We're looking to feature the best work, not material which hasn't been verified in years. K7L (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
All Guide-level articles are eligible to be nominated. If others feel further work is needed, they're more than welcome to say so in their comments, and nine times out of ten the issues will be resolved before they're featured. That's how it's worked at DotM for quite some time now. I continue to fail to understand why some would fix what isn't broken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What about replacing Wernigerode with Kassel? Kassel is officially rated as "usable" but that's mostly a formality (i.e. nobody has promoted it yet despite it being deserving), isn't it? And with Documenta coming up (a once in five years event) it's also a "timely feature" which we cannot run this year if we already have another German destination. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There's some work to be done before Kassel can be promoted: namely, there are a lot of naked listings in "Buy", "Eat", "Drink" and "Sleep", some copyedits should be done by a native English speaker, and "Get in" needs to be reformatted a bit to comport with mos (we don't generally use inline highway shields here). Still, the "timely event" argument is convincing, and I personally would be more than happy to consider switching it out on the schedule if the edits can be done in time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Brownsville (Texas)[edit]

Place: Brownsville (Texas)
Blurb: Adjoined by Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico, Brownsville is the gateway into Latin America. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-Sep
Nominated by: De88 (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Thorough article detailing a unique city in the United States. Not many can have the perks of bordering Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico and a popular resort town all within minute distances from one another. For this reason, I believe Brownsville is the prime destination for an Off the Beaten Path nomination, as it features characteristics not found elsewhere. I will say that the article's detail on restaurants, background information, tourist attractions, geo-tagging and more persuaded me to nominate it, along with an admin who suggested the same.

Nomination
Some of the buildings at Fort Brown in Brownsville, Texas LCCN2014630475.tif


  • Support as nominator. De88 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Very close — The article is informative and there are no stylistic issues. I assume it's up to date too, given De88's work on the article as of lately. There are just two small things that would be nice to have. Firstly the Connect section is empty. If Brownsville has some Internet cafees or Wi-Fi hotspots, they can be listed here, and if there are some problems travelers should know of when it comes to Internet and telephony (e.g. cell phones switching to the Mexican network during a call), this is the place to mention them. Secondly, the latter third of the article could use a couple of photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been following the progress of this article. I don't think De88 is totally done editing it (correct?), and I'm sure the article will be in even better shape whenever it's actually featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
My support is in abeyance until the galleries are deleted, as per my remarks at User talk:De88. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted the photo gallery. Still would like to post the pictures just individually. De88 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
By all means, post photos individually, space allowing, but it might be best to keep some space between them, so as not to overwhelm the reader. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
De88, you still have 3 photos of international bridges next to each other and 2 photos of shopping areas next to each other. That's not in keeping with Wikivoyage style. You might want to look at WV:Image policy#Image alignment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
My bad. I completely forgot about those pictures. Will delete them. Thanks for letting me know. De88 (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Brownsville overhang.jpg
  • Close. Some notes:
  • The gallery-style horizontal rows of images are against policy (see Wikivoyage:Image policy#Montages and galleries) and have to go, especially the one at the end of the "See" section, which overhangs the text margin on my display (see image at right).
  • Some of the listing sections, especially #Museums and the "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" subsections, are a bit on the long side and should be further subdivided.
  • "Buy" seems noticeably incomplete, especially compared to the other sections.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
First suggestion already executed. Second suggestion: By subdivided, do you mean adding more tabs on to what is already in place or compress the sections? Third suggestion: I do not know what else to write about there. Downtown, Pablo Kisel/Morrison and Boca Chica are three large places spanning a wide range of hot spots in the city. I tried picking a big area to avoid over-doing the section. De88 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The image galleries were by far the largest of those three concerns, so much so that I can probably upgrade my vote to full support.
As for the other two issues: there are a lot of museums that you've listed and they all seem valuable for the traveller, but we don't like to have lists on this site that number more than ~9 items. So what you should think about then is, what different kinds of museums are represented on the list? Historical museums? Science museums? And so forth. Then split the listings up into subcategories. For "Eat", "Drink" and "Sleep", I'd first split them up geographically (you mentioned that Downtown, Pablo Kisel/Morrison and Boca Chica are three lively areas; those three plus an "Elsewhere" category might be a good idea) and then break down each of those categories into Budget, Mid-range and Splurge. As for "Buy", are there any individual stores in Brownsville that travellers might be interested in? If so, you might want to give them their own listings.
Again, though, the major problem - the photos - has already been solved, so everything else I mentioned above you can consider opportunities to further spit-shine what is IMO already a worthy feature article.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. Will try to take your advice. De88 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
As De88 continues to work on the article, I am reinstating my support. There are no more photo galleries or pictures next to each other, and the "Buy" section is also coming along. If there are any particularly good stores for jewelry, dresses and shoes, please provide separate listings for them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Update: I just finished my semester in college and will devote more time into editing this article. What suggestions do y'all have to make this article stand out even more? Feedback is greatly appreciated. De88 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This article looks very complete and surely feature-worthy. I wouldn't mind another image in the last part of the article - but that's a detail. Good work. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to feature[edit]

It's certainly against no policy to change the months to feature, but let's discuss it. Do you really think that Texas summers are ideal for most visitors? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, South Padre Island is an extremely popular destination during Spring Break and summer months. The Island and Brownsville rely on each other economically since they are very close to each other. They are only 20 minutes away from each other. The city sees more tourists during these months, believe it or not. Winter Texans do come in the hundreds of thousands but millions come here, especially during March. *What do you think, Ikan Kekek? De88 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You're the expert, not I, and you explained your reasoning clearly, so I'm happy to defer to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk[edit]

Place: Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
Blurb: Located throughout its history on the frontiers of both the Japanese and Russian empires, both those cultures have left their mark on this oil boomtown hacked out of the primeval wilds of Sakhalin. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Please see User talk:Ypsilon#Oregon Trail for the backstory as to how this nomination came about.

Nomination
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Museum July 2012.jpg


  • Close. The article lacks a dynamic map, and most listings need geo coordinates. Looks to be in good shape otherwise, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost Listing update & coordinates — the usual drill with guide articles that haven't been updated in a while. We haven't featured an article from this corner of the world in quite a couple of years so I'm looking forward to seeing this one there. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: this article was not updated for ages, and I believe that its practical information is mostly wrong. One Russian editor visited the city this summer, and he made some updates in the Russian article, but he has not checked everything. Additionally, the city itself is quite boring and of relatively little interest to anyone. What should be featured is Sakhalin as a whole, or perhaps natural attractions on the island. Not the cities. --Alexander (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Sakhalin was already featured in May 2010. As for the city being boring, that's why it was nominated as OtBP and not DotM. Please see dotm#Discuss - "I don't like it" and the like are explicitly cited as not being valid reasons to oppose a nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think Otbp was for boring nominees, just nominees that are not heavily visited. If a place is really deadly boring, what is the point of featuring an article about it? That said, based on the contents of the article, it doesn't seem like there's actually nothing to see or do in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, and since it's a place people visiting Sakhalin are likely to fly to, recommendations of what to do while they're there and how to get to other parts of the island seem helpful, and I think we can therefore dispense with the argument that the article is per se unfeaturable because of the deficiencies of the city. However, I'm concerned about Alexander's points about the information being obsolete or otherwise wrong. Until it's corrected, I will have to oppose a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Kindly note that I added a comment and not an Oppose vote. When destinations of this type are featured, it tells people that Wikivoyage has run out of interesting destinations, which definitely hurts the reputation of the project. And I did not say "I don't like it". I said that there is nothing to see beyond one notable Japanese building. --Alexander (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment as per User:Atsirlin; while the "boringness" of a place may not be a reason to withhold featuring, an article not having been updated in "ages" is. Not only because of SEO concerns but also because information is likely to be outdated. We want to feature our best and brightest, and that includes articles being up to date. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The concerns about outdated and possibly factually inaccurate information seem insurmountable to me, given the lack of much information online or any Wikivoyagers on the ground in Sakhalin. Barring any objections, I think this should go on the Slush pile.
To address the concerns about boringness vis-à-vis categorization as OtBP: I stand corrected by Ikan's above comment, though in light of it I would posit that if an article has attained Guide status and thus is eligible to be featured, then it must ipso facto be "of interest to" at least some travellers. Wikivoyage:City guide status, Wikivoyage:Region guide status, and Wikivoyage:Park guide status all explicitly require Guide-level articles to have "information on multiple attractions and things to do" (emphasis in original).
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I have mentioned that the Russian article has quite a bit of information updated in September by a Wikivoyager who visited the city this summer. I simply can't guarantee that he has checked everything, but at least the information with the date tag should be reliable. You can also contact this editor directly if any specific questions arise.
Regarding the boringness, it makes little sense to feature destinations where nobody will ever go intentionally, even if some POIs, mostly of interest to locals, exist. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk definitely belongs to this category. On the other hand, it can be regarded as a gateway to Sakhalin, as Ikan mentioned, and I guess it looks intriguingly exotic because of its remote location --Alexander (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Bozeman[edit]

Place: Bozeman
Blurb: Could this Montana college town really be named the home of the 2026 Winter Olympics? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it's nestled in prime winter sports territory, a stone's throw away from some of the finest skiing in Big Sky Country. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: All year, winter 2017 preferred to take advantage of ski season
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Please see User talk:Ypsilon#Oregon Trail for the backstory as to how this nomination came about.

Nomination
BozemanMainStreetEast2011.jpg


  • Close. The article needs a few more photos and a map, and all but two listings need geo coordinates. That seems like a simple enough fix. Also, the Big Sky Resort and other area ski resorts should be added to the "Do" section (if not as listings, then they should be mentioned in prose), since we're promoting Bozeman as a winter sports destination. Finally, the bullet points in the "Go next" section (especially the one for Big Sky) should be fleshed out with one-liner descriptions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Close Listing update + addition of coordinates, plus the other couple of things Andre just said. As it'll be a full year before it goes on the main page it's probably better to update the listings closer to the time of feature instead of today. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Labrador[edit]

Place: Labrador
Blurb: A remote expanse of boreal forest on Canada's east coast, the aptly nicknamed "Big Land" is home of innumerable caribou and black bears, towering mountains, a long and storied colonial history — and a few thousand hardy settlers. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Aug
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: You people know me, and you know the way I work - all the positive and negative aspects of my method. The attention to detail I bring to bear in my work is second to none, but for that reason progress can be slow and deadlines are often missed. Thus it has been with bringing the Buffalo district articles up to date, the sluggish pace of which has continually pushed back my planned relaunch of work on the Gaspé Peninsula's subregion and bottom-level destination articles. Privately, I had made the decision that if I hadn't broken any new ground on those articles by the new year, I would concede the possibility that work might not be finished by the summer, and begin exploring other options for the July 2017 OtBP slot. It's not quite January 1st yet, but as you can see there's still a fair bit of work to be done on the Buffalo district articles, so prospects are quickly dimming that we'll see any progress on Gaspé during the remainder of 2016.

Don't get me wrong, I think the chances that Gaspé Peninsula will be finished on time are still better than 50%, but I'd rather not be forced into a situation where the work left to be done is rushed in order to meet a self-imposed deadline. Especially when I had a Plan B in mind all along: this article, which is essentially ready for the Main Page limelight as is. And, if it so happens that Gaspé Peninsula is ready for featuring in 2017 after all, it would be perfectly fine if Labrador were held off till 2018 in its place.

Nomination
Saddle Island.jpg


  • Support as nominator. As I said above, this article "is essentially ready for the Main Page limelight as is". However, for extra bonus points, "Go next" might be expanded a bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm fine with supporting this article, but I'll point out a few things. First, the article's treatment of regions is a bit unusual, as it divides the region into subregions that are color-coded but has no subregional articles per se. I think that serves the traveler well, but it's at least worth noting. Secondly, a lot of the city articles linked from the article lack pagebanners, so if anyone happens to have good photos of those small communities floating around, please consider uploading some to Wikimedia Commons. Third, the pagebanner on the Labrador article itself is kind of unsharp. I commented about this in Talk:Labrador in 2013 and haven't changed my mind that this is a problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Ikan - Regarding the pagebanner, I noticed in the talk page discussion there were three banner candidates submitted for your approval, all of which you preferred to the problematic one you cited, yet no one ever bothered to put one of them on the page. I went ahead and did that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, Shaundd proposed the latest set of 3 pagebanners just yesterday. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Okay, I saw that the discussion had begun in 2013, but I didn't realize it went dormant for three years and was only picked back up just now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I was letting it go for a couple of days to see if anyone else expressed an opinion. I didn't have a strong opinion on any of the images, so if you and Ikan agree on the Battle Harbour image, it sounds good to me. Thanks for plunging forward and updating the banner. -Shaundd (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks legit, the subarticles are all usable (maybe the POIs in them could benefit of coords, and as Ikan just said, adding banners would be an improvement). For the color coding of the subarticles, given that Labrador is a sparsely populated place (isn't it?) and any attractions (waterfalls etc.) outside built-up areas probably would go into the articles of the nearest city I don't think it's a problem. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - On second look, it seems like Labrador may not truly be at Guide status yet. Normally, everything listed in an "Other destinations" section should be in the form of a link to another Wikivoyage article, but in Labrador#Other destinations, Torngat Mountains National Park and Mealy Mountains National Park are rendered as bare text to avoid there being any redlinks that would disqualify the parent article from Guide status. Do you think we should hold off on running Labrador on the Main Page until those two articles are created and brought to at least Usable status, or do you think they're fine as bare text? (Per Wikivoyage:Park guide status, it likely wouldn't be a huge undertaking.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards Mealy Mountains not needing an article at this point. According to an article on the provincial tourism website, park management is still putting together a tourism plan, and I couldn't find a page dedicated to the park on the provincial tourism website. It seems there are a small number of operators in Cartwright and Rigolet who will take you to the big beach that is the most famous thing about the park, but not much else (for now). Torngat Mountains National Park, on the other hand, I think should have an article. There's a research camp [1] that offers accommodation and excursions into the park and the Parks Canada website [2] for the park has a visitor program guide and information package. It's not easy to get to but, based on the pictures I've seen and from what I've read, it seems like a quality destination that some travellers would be interested in. -Shaundd (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
If there's no real way for people to visit Mealy Mountains at this point, you're right that it doesn't deserve an article but it probably also shouldn't be listed at "Other destinations". Those sections are designed to be composed of wikilinks - if a destination doesn't have an article, it belongs in the "See" section of the correspondent bottom-level destination article, or if there isn't any such article it could be mentioned (in prose, not as a listing) in Labrador#See. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
If there's a way in but no real infrastructure? Either of these parks would be very marginal for inclusion under Wikivoyage:What is an article? as there's no pizzeria. That's a problem as a usable article is expected to have some way in, something to see or do, somewhere to eat, somewhere to sleep. By design, these destinations are wilderness and much of that infrastructure (or any infrastructure?) simply does not exist. We just end up sending the voyager back to Nain or Cartwright (respectively) for provisions. There are enough "what is an article?" misgivings around the existing Cartwright article; its hotel burned to the ground in 2013 and was never rebuilt. K7L (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
K7L - "By design, these destinations are wilderness" is true of the vast majority of national parks. Correspondingly, Wikivoyage:Park guide status has little to say about things like "Eat" or "Sleep" sections. Presumably we could set up an article for Torngat with "a couple of attractions with directions, information on fees and permits and accommodation, as well as a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there" and get it up to Usable. Of course the park article template includes "Eat" and "Sleep" sections, but there's many a Wikivoyage park article that says "there are no restaurants here, anything you eat you have to bring yourself" and "there are no campgrounds here, be prepared to pitch a tent in the backcountry" and that's fine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think it's close but I'm not sure it's ready yet. As I said above, I think Torngat should have an article, and I'm not sure I like the Regions section. I think it's good information but I wonder if the guide would flow better (since we don't have subregion articles) if it was integrated into the Towns and Villages section or Understand. If I think of something I'll post it on the Talk page. I also find the guide doesn't grab my imagination. When I get a moment, I'll take a stab at rewriting the intro to see if that helps. -Shaundd (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that begs the question... what would it take to get the Torngat Mountains National Park outline (and Mealy Mountains National Park, were some danged fool to create it) to 'usable' status? K7L (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
K7L - Wikivoyage:Park guide status says it should "ha[ve] at least a couple of attractions with directions, information on fees and permits and accommodation, as well as a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there." (emphasis in original). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I think "attractions with directions" will need to be interpreted within the context that it's a very remote wilderness area, but otherwise I believe usable status is very doable. I'm going to be quite busy for the next few days, but I'll try to add some info over the holidays. -Shaundd (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I just want to say that I have confidence in all of you and see no reason to rescind my supporting vote. This'll be in fine shape when it comes time to run the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Re: Shaundd's comment, it looks like we're already there. Thanks, K7L! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, look's good. -Shaundd (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Admittedly, I'm hesitant to advance from 'usable' to 'guide' in these sparsely-populated places with few services. I look at some individual Labrador articles and just getting them to usable is about all that can be done - as there aren't multiple choices that we can offer the voyager from the "vast smorgasbord of cordon bleu restaurants and five-star hotels" in some tiny outport like Cartwright (Labrador). There's a general store, a six-room motel that answers the telephone if they feel like it and a tour operator offering wilderness camping. There's even a gravel road. OK, usable, just barely. That's all there is in this little place? I see no way to get the individual tiny outports past 'usable' if their infrastructure is at the "Cartwright had a hotel, it burned to the ground in 2013 and hasn't reopened" level. That said, I believe we've provided reasonably complete information on what's actually available in these remote and tiny places. That's all we can do. K7L (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't mind that I moved your post to the end of the section to keep chronological order. In any case, if a place doesn't have more than a general store, a six-room hotel and a gravel road, plus, presumably, activities like hunting, cross-country skiing and so forth, why wouldn't an article that covered these things sufficiently be a Guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan completely. The crux of what it means to be a Guide article, IMO, has much more to do with "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here" (from Wikivoyage:Guide articles) than with "Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking, and information on multiple attractions and things to do" (from Wikivoyage:City guide status).
Compare Childs. By K7L's narrower definition, it doesn't qualify as a Guide (it only has one "Sleep" listing, and really pushes the envelope in "Eat" and "Drink" by listing the same gas station in each category because it has a sandwich counter and sells beer by the case), yet not only do we have it categorized as a Guide but we actually ran it as OtBP some years ago. For me, the answer is simple: our article on Childs is very easily the most detailed source available anywhere for travel information for that destination, and it does not lack anything a visitor would conceivably need to know before arriving there - phrases like "has enough information to be useful for an adventurous traveler... not really complete articles" (from Wikivoyage:Usable articles) certainly don't apply to our coverage of Childs.
I think we need to update our policy articles to reflect this.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Kurashiki[edit]

Place: Kurashiki
Blurb: A different side of old Japan than you might expect: relatively bereft of the temples, shrines, and other stuff of cliché, in the historic quarter of this smallish city in Okayama prefecture you'll instead see the preserved storehouses and mills of a 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century merchant town. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: We need an OtBP candidate for September 2017, and it strikes me that we've seen nothing from Northeast Asia in quite some time. Let's remedy that.

Nomination
Kurashiki bikatiku naka-bashi.JPG


  • Support as nominator. This article received a round of updates relatively recently courtesy of ChubbyWimbus, but all the same, we might want to give it a checkover closer to featuring time to ensure all the listed businesses still exist. As well, "Go next" looks a bit scraggly and might be fleshed out a bit. All the same, if we were to feature the article tomorrow as is, I'd have no problem with that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm skipping through the article, and happy to give it a support vote, but before it's actually run, here are some things I notice: There is as yet no description for Shimotsui Castle Ruins. Readers would want to know what state of ruination they're in and what they can actually see. Actually, I didn't notice anything else! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Filadelfia[edit]

Place: Filadelfia
Blurb: One of the little-known quirks of South America tourists rarely get to see: learn the history of the Mennonite colonies of western Paraguay in this small German-speaking commune tucked away amid the remote grasslands and sprawling cattle ranches of the Gran Chaco. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: We also need an OtBP for October 2017.

Nomination
FiladelfiaCentre.jpg


  • Support as nominator. Some of the listings in "See" could stand to have their blurbs expanded, and "Buy", "Eat", and "Drink" might also be fleshed out more, but these are all non-essential. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for Featured travel topic[edit]

Driving in the UK[edit]

Place: Driving in the UK
Blurb: Left-hand traffic, imperial units, unfamiliar street markings and congestion fees; British traffic has some surprises for everyone. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime? Or just the warmer half of the year? And yes, there should perhaps be a month or two between this one and London/Hampstead.
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I illustrated this one a while back, by then it already was a guide, I believe everything relevant about driving in the UK is in the article, and otherwise we can ask some of our UK contributors to help out. So why not have this one as FTT?

Nomination
Traffic on Romney Road in Greenwich, London.jpg
  • Support — Yup, here's Ypsi hogging yet another featured article slot [evil laughter].ϒpsilon (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but wait until 2017. Too many UK articles, and too many "Driving in..." travel topics, in too short a span of time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a very impressive article in terms of its coverage, and perhaps a good example for other "driving in" articles. It should be proofread for possible copy editing before it's run (I did some copy editing but didn't try to be thorough). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because I'm delighted that a picture I took is being used. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Let me voice some concern here; this article still contains 28% copied content compared to the "get around" section of the United Kingdom article as found on the other site, from which it was spun off post migration. Given that User:Thundering Typhoons has done a tremendous job in strengthening, shortening, beautifying and overall improving coverage in our UK article, including the Get Around section, it is to me doubtful that those 28% cannot be improved upon. I am not quite sure this is enough for an oppose vote (though I am considering it, given my reasoning below), but it sure is enough to look at the text long and hard and edit it before this goes live. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Come on, now. 28% of content carrying over from Wikitravel is no disaster. You are trying to insist on total rewriting of every article? That seems to me like a big waste of time. If Wikivoyage articles on average had 28% overlap with Wikitravel articles, wouldn't that be pretty good? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

King's Road (Finland)[edit]

Place: King's Road (Finland)
Blurb: Following the Finnish southern coast, the King's Road connects much of the cultural heritage of the country. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Aug, as FTTs go on the Main Page towards the end of the month
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: So... what do you all think of this one? The article hasn't got any feedback on the talk page, and I've written the article almost entirely myself (wherefore it's possible that something is missing that people who look at the article for the first time notice) but I think it "describes each stop and how to get there. In addition, it suggests sights or side-trips along the way. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style."

Nomination
Kuninkaantie, Sipoo.JPG
  • Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There is one thing I notice about the article that's lacking. It's mentioned in the "Understand" section that the road dates back to Medieval times and was the main route eastward from Sweden to Finland, and from the "Go" section it can be inferred that the draw for tourists today is the historic buildings and sites remaining from that era, but it seems to me that there ought to be a summary at the end of the "Understand" section to bridge those two things together - something like "Today, tourists retrace this historic route to bear witness to these relics of a bygone era" - setting the stage for the itinerary itself rather than heaving readers go into it blindly. Of course, that's far too minor an issue to preclude my support vote, and if the itinerary were to go up tomorrow without any changes that would be fine with me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks quite good. The main thing I notice is that it needs a thorough proofreading and almost definitely more copy editing to put some expressions into idiomatic English. That should be done before it's actually featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Passport[edit]

Place: Passport
Blurb: Going abroad? In virtually all cases, you're going to need one of these! Here's where you can learn the ins and outs of this essential identification document for travellers: how to get one, how to use it, what to do if you lose it. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: A while ago, Ypsi mentioned that he expected to see Driving in the UK on the Main Page in April. I think that's a bit early in the year, climate-wise, to be featuring an article with a British focus. But here's a nice FTT candidate that's a good fit for anytime in the year.

Nomination
Passport photo.jpg


  • Weak support. Could use a few more photos, the lede is a bit dry and encyclopedic, and maybe the text about the various different types of passports could be expanded a bit. But even if none of those things are addressed, this article is probably ready for the Main Page as is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost. Certainly some more photos. There's also a few small things about the headings, a few of them could be transformed to imperative form we use on Wikivoyage (I did it in Travel insurance), and some subheadings in Passport#Types of passports issued could maybe be shrunk to level 4 (as there's in many cases just a line or two of text under them). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • We don't use the imperative form for section headings, we use the infinitive. Or am I mistaken on that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Without context, they're effectively indistinguishable in English, but I believe we have traditionally considered them to be imperatives. "See this stuff! Buy things here! Eat at these restaurants!" Powers (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet. It needs some copyediting, but I am afraid there also are outdated or otherwise problematic sections. At least there is ambiguous language, such as about giving your passport to a trusted agent when registrating your presens. Some checking is needed. --LPfi (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Fully 38% of the content is copied according to Copy Scape. This indicates to me a lot of potentially outdated information. If we do deem all or most of those 38% so unsurpassably genius in its writing and tone that no edits should be made to it, we should still check whether the text is internally consistent and up to date. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, general information on a global scale concerning passports does not get remarkably outdated that quickly, I think. If the article would cover passports in just one country it might. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be right on that point, but now is a golden opportunity to get this article up to SEO snuff. Plus any information that is outdated or prose that could need a workover will be caught in that effort. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I must say, I oppose featuring the article in its current state. Since I raised the issue of copied content (which each and every one of us can check using Copyscape) the amount of copied content has gone from 38% to 35%. Given that the amount of time from my last mention of this issue to now is longer than the amount of time that would remain until this is featured, I am not confident in our ability to fix this before it goes live. Besides the obvious SEO issues at stake here (and remember, far from a side-issue, the question whether we can draw in readers and contributors via search engines is ultimately one of the long term survival of our site), there is the question of how trustworthy content is that has not been changed a bit in years. And remember, we are not talking about a few incidental things, we are talking about more than a third of the article. If those words are not important, why are they still there? If those words are outdated, we should not even think about featuring it. If those things are important, still relevant, still true, and the best goddam prose there is for the things these words talk about, I am wondering why anybody should be looking for our website over some rotting linkfarm on the internet or the 1925 Baedecker. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

English language varieties[edit]

Place: English language varieties
Blurb: As George Bernard Shaw once said, "Britain and America are two countries divided by a common language"; throw the rest of the Anglosphere into the mix and you've got a potentially confusing situation. If you're an American making your first trip to a Commonwealth country or vice versa, bone up on your lingo here. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: An FTT candidate for May 2017. I'd like to take this opportunity to sound the alarm bells once again about the chronic and worsening issue of lack of Guide-or-better FTT candidates. We're covered for June and July 2017 with Driving in the UK and King's Road respectively, and after that we still have room to run our annual phrasebook, dive article, and airport. But beyond that, we're running dangerously low on other candidates. If we want to keep running an FTT feature in 2018 and beyond, we need to do something about this problem posthaste - beginning, most likely, with identifying Usable-level travel topics, itineraries, etc. that are close to being promotable to Guide, and updating them accordingly.

Nomination
Center-Centre.jpg


  • Support. By their very nature, articles like this one can never be completely exhaustive, but I can't think of anything in particular this article omits. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. But do Driving in the UK and King's Road have to be pushed so far into the future? This one (as well as maybe Passport too) could be saved for autumn or winter. Secondly, I've thought of having Oregon Trail sometime in Aug or Sep, and if there are going to be driving related topics in the other summer months there will almost certainly going to be opposition for featuring Oregon Trail in 2017. And thirdly, having Driving in the UK earlier, makes it possible to feature Manchester Airport as 2017's airport article about 12 months after CPH (it's the only not-yet-featured guide airport article that isn't from a city that has been featured in 2016). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Manchester Airport and Driving in the UK: for climatic reasons, I wouldn't be comfortable running Driving in the UK any earlier than May, and if we're running MAN precisely a year after CPH, that would place it in July 2017. I don't think we should feature two UK articles that close together on the schedule. However, if we hold off MAN until October-ish, that might work.
As for Oregon Trail, that article has been on my own radar screen for a while now, but I'm not comfortable with it for reasons I'll get into when/if it's nominated. However, assuming my concerns are dealt with and/or overruled by consensus, I don't see any reason why it can't be featured in 2017. First off, I don't regard intercity itineraries as invariably "driving-related articles". Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side could very easily be done on a bike; a particularly avid cyclist could probably also tackle the King's Road. As for Driving in the UK, it's a travel topic, not an itinerary. Secondly, there are already two U.S. articles - Baltimore and Nashville - slated for the spring and autumn respectively, as both of those destinations are in regions that are uncomfortably hot in midsummer. However, the Oregon Trail would be fine to run in, let's say, August, because even though travellers might have to deal with brutal summer heat along its eastern reaches (through Missouri and Nebraska), the opposite is true in Wyoming and Idaho in that the cold and snow comes very early to the mountains, so we'd want to avoid anything past September.
I had envisioned running English language varieties in May and Driving in the UK in June. If we transposed those two, slotted the King's Road into July, ran one of Peter Southwood's dive articles in September and Manchester Airport in October, then the Oregon Trail could be featured in August without coming into conflict with Nashville (DotM Oct 2017?). Beyond that, we could probably get away with running another phrasebook as early as November (Igbo is on the schedule for February - not quite a year previously, but close enough), but for December and after we simply don't have a whole lot of Guide-level FTT articles remaining. Yes, we could hold Passport and English language varieties off till the fall or winter, but the sad fact is we wouldn't even have anything to replace them with in the spring and summer.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
May I propose as a stopgap measure to run one of our guide level country or region articles á la "our coverage on..." in the FTT slot? We do not have a lack of potential OtbP and DotM articles and moving this (as of yet) rather small number from one column to the other could relieve a bit of acute lack of topics and provide motivation to make our coverage on those better. For instance Germany could probably be featured as is as could USA (which may have already been featured) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster - notwithstanding what I said earlier, I don't think we need to resort to quite so drastic a solution. Please see my comment on the talk page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Support. We could debate about this article until the cows come home, and we probably will, but I submit that it is a good, interesting and relevant article to feature, and it's been made substantially prettier and less dry with the addition of several photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - is as complete as it will ever be and arguably even too complete. I expect having this on the main page will bring added discussions on wordings and what precisely to include, but those will never settle, just as debates about language in general never settle down. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oregon Trail[edit]

Place: Oregon Trail
Blurb: Follow in the footsteps of 19th-century pioneers and 20th-century gamers on this historic pioneer trail through the majestic American West. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Aug per Oregon Trail#Prepare
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Please see User talk:Ypsilon#Oregon Trail for the backstory as to how this nomination came about. Specifically: this is a unique case in that I actually have a major problem with this article (see below), but Ypsi put forth a strong counter-argument - and it bears emphasizing that we do have something of a problem on our hands when it comes to our lack of articles suitable for the FTT feature. So I decided to sound out the community's opinion here. It's a great article in a lot of ways - it's just that the topic is approached in an IMO questionable way.

Nomination
Circled wagons.jpg


"I guess I should come out and describe the problem I have with Oregon Trail a bit here, which is that it's way too heavily geared toward fans of the Oregon Trail educational computer game that was popular in the 1980s and '90s. My elementary school computer lab had that game, and I loved it, so I'm able to pick up on all the in-jokes and references to it that are sprinkled throughout the article. But I also understand that that's true only for a small fraction, mostly within a very specific age group, of the people who might be interested in the article. I can imagine vast swaths of readers who are interested in the historical aspects of recreating a voyage along the real-life Oregon Trail yet utterly confused much of the time what the author is on about."
That having been said: the article is impeccably well-written and contains a map and many really nice pictures, so other than the above, I see no problems with featuring it. And, quoting again from my comments on that talk page discussion: "I wouldn't close the door on the possibility of being talked into supporting the feature depending on what others might argue."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Almost As I said on my talk page, I don't think it's a problem with all those game references given that it's clearly stated in both the lead section and Understand that it's also a famous computer game. We've also featured Breaking Bad Tour and a lot of readers and voyagers are not familiar with the series.
I believe everything one needs to know is in the article (it's written and promoted to guide by a veteran editor who presumably has traveled the route), nevertheless a dynamic map with some POIs would be nice to have.--ϒpsilon (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Manchester Airport[edit]

Place: Manchester Airport
Blurb: With service to the most destinations of any airport in the country, MAN is a gateway to northern Britain — and, compared to Heathrow and Gatwick, a cinch to navigate! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Sep
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Another nominee Ypsi and I discussed, this time on this very page as an aside to a discussion about another nominee. This one would be good for September 2017 - I had mentioned the possibility of featuring one of Peter Southwood's dive articles that month and holding MAN off till October, but 1) that would be less than an ideal time of year to feature a UK destination and 2) the fact that the geographical purview of our FTT-worthy dive articles is entirely confined to a small area off the coast of Cape Town troubles me enough to think that maybe once a year is too often to feature those articles. Perhaps that's a discussion that should be picked up at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates.

Nomination
Manchester Airport T1.jpg


  • Weak support. Overall the article looks good, and I wouldn't object if it were to go on the Main Page tomorrow. However, there are a few areas of minor concern, namely the lack of any map (though does an airport article really need one?), as well as the "Get around", "Lounges", "Eat and drink", and "Connect" sections, the information in which, while complete, is sparse and seems like it would benefit from being fleshed out with more detail. (And does anything need to be done about the listing for Escape Lounges, which seems out of place where it currently is?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • IMO, if an airport is complex/confusing enough to need an article, it definitely needs a map. Powers (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe needs an update/checkthrough (as is usually the case with nominated articles) closer to the time when it gets featured to make sure everything is up to date. User:Nicholasjf21 might be interested in this nomination too. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Fast food in the United States and Canada[edit]

Place: Fast food in the United States and Canada
Blurb: Part of the joy of travel is expanding one's horizons with new culinary experiences. But sometimes you just want something familiar, with consistent quality, quick service, and a low price. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Dale Arnett, Hobbitschuster, PerryPlanet and I have all been steadily improving this article for the past few months, and I think it's in good enough shape now to serve as a much-needed addition to our roster of Guide travel topics and FTT candidates.

Nomination
Rally's drive-through.jpg


  • Weak support. The main problem is in the "Well-known chains" section, where the descriptive blurbs for the listed restaurants are inconsistent in length. I've been lengthening the shorter ones and will continue to do so. As well, per this talk page discussion, there are a few references to Latin America, and unqualified references to North America, that still need to be excised from the body of the text. Other than that, this article looks good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I can support the article, but it'd be good to hear some more opinions from North American contributors. Are there maybe some (locally) notable chains that are not yet listed? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
If we included locally notable chains, the article would easily be overwhelmed with hundreds of listings. (It's already pushing the envelope a bit, I'd say.) The practice that has evolved in FFITUSAC of including only chains that span multiple states is a good one, and I think most places to which that rule applies are already covered in the article. Small local chainlets should be listed in the Eat section of the relevant destination or region article, as in Buffalo#Local chains. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I can conditionally support this article, given that my expertise on the US comes from second-hand knowledge more than from actual trips to the US and it is thus easy for me to overlook glaring omissions. Other than that, the article does flow rather well and talks about all of the stuff I could think of. Furthermore the title is pretty clear what it is about as opposed to the previous title. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I would counsel visitors to avoid almost all of these chains, but that's beside the point. I think this article is a very valuable reference for visitors who might want to try a chain or might be stuck in a place where chains are their only options. It's interesting and readable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rail travel in Germany[edit]

Place: Rail travel in Germany
Blurb: Germany's railways enjoy a superb reputation abroad and trains are often the fastest, most comfortable and sometimes cheapest way around the country (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any; preferably not December (schedule change)
Nominated by: Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I think some work may need to be done still but this could go live tomorrow without causing me too much headache

Nomination
ICE Velaro D Köln Hauptbahnhof 2015-12-17-03.JPG


  • Somehow this nominee fell through the cracks. Good work, Hobbitschuster. Voting support with no reservations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. You're on the right track. K7L (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Complaining about Deutsche Bahn and comparing it (unfavorably) to railroads in France, Switzerland, Japan or Italy is a particular "hobby" of a large subset of the German population. Meanwhile next to all non-Germans (excluding the Swiss, that is) who have an opinion on DB consider it an excellent transportation choice. The article currently partially reflects the latter but makes no allusions to the former. Is this the right approach or should we give the "Bahn-Nörgler" the light of day? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think exactly the kind of statement you just made would be good to put in the article. I'm really busy with professional and personal stuff right now, but I'll have a look through the article when I have sufficient time and mental space. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)