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).


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

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

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

The basic format of a nomination is as follows:

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

Add a nomination to the end of the appropriate section.


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

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

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

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


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

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


Discussions for previously selected destinations are kept in the Archive.



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

Month DotM OtBP FTT
November 2016 Macau Lady Elliot Island - pending stronger consensus to support Cold weather
December 2016 Santiago de Chile - pending stronger consensus to support North Central New Mexico Rail travel in India - pending stronger consensus to support
January 2017 Ipoh Stanley (Falkland Islands) Next-to-impossible destinations - pending stronger consensus to support
February 2017 Hobart - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Entebbe - pending stronger consensus to support Igbo phrasebook - pending stronger consensus to support
March 2017 Da Nang - pending stronger consensus to support Kabak - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side
April 2017 Rome/Vatican - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Nauru - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Passport - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support

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

Next change[edit]

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

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

Destination of the Month[edit]


The gambling capital of the East is a fascinating blend of Chinese and Portuguese traditions and glitzy modernity.

Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Lady Elliot Island

On this island paradise, impressive marine fauna and the corals of the Great Barrier Reef are just a dive away.

Featured Travel Topic[edit]

Cold weather

When it's cold outside, there's plenty of fun to do from ice fishing to skiing. Nevertheless, a cold environment can be very dangerous if you're unprepared — so check out our guide for some useful dos and don'ts!


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]


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...

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)


Place: Macau
Blurb: The gambling capital of the East is a fascinating blend of Chinese and Portuguese traditions and glitzy modernity. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Oct-Mar
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: On the article's talk page Macau was suggested for DotM a little less than a year ago, by then the winter of 2015-16 was full. In the discussion there some issues are outlined, including how the currency should be notated. I asked if there's anything important missing from the article and as nobody has come up with anything, I guess the article is (content-wise) in order.

20090925182608 macau hong kong 20090924@macau hong kong 050.jpg
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It looks good. I have not been to Macau, only watched the ferry leaving Hong Kong. A couple of minor points: By Taxi talks about 2008 fares and no listings in the the article or any districts have lat/longs. It might be best not featured in January or February, as weather can be cool (in Hong Kong older buildings can feel cold with no heating - I assume that it is the same in Macau) - Spring or Autumn would be better. AlasdairW (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The next open DotM slot is in November 2016, which (given w:Geography of Macau#Climate) seems like a fine time to feature it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems November is optimal. And, yes I noticed that listings in the districts lack coordinates but this is the case with our current DotM, Kyoto, too. I can help out with adding the coords if needed. What do Pashley and Andrew think?ϒpsilon (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Happy to support --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm strongly inclined to support. Macau has been one of my favorite tourist destinations for a long time & both the main & district articles look good overall.
However I see this in Get in: "A larger permanent ferry terminal is being constructed ..., scheduled for completion in 2011." At a minimum, that needs updating & I worry about whether the rest of the articles are up to date. Not having been there is several years, I cannot really check but someone should before we feature it. Pashley (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I am copy editing & noticed an issue which I have raised at Talk:Macau#Star_ratings.3F. Pashley (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The main article has many links tagged as dead. I have fixed some, but do not have time to get them all & I suspect there will be some in district articles as well. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The talk page discussion on what currency symbol to use seems to be close to consensus, but it looks as though no-one has updated the article to reflect that. Pashley (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
There is still a problem with currency symbols; see Talk:Macau#Currency_symbol.3F Pashley (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Help needed. This is scheduled to go live quite soon but, except that I removed the references to star ratings, the problems mentioned above remain. I do not currently have time to fix them. Anyone? Pashley (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Me & my friend Google will probably take a look at the article tomorrow. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There was only one dead link. Taxi fares and ferry terminal information is updated as are the currency symbols. The Macau article itself should be OK now. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Santiago de Chile[edit]

Place: Santiago de Chile
Blurb: From colonial-era landmarks to the high-rises of Sanhattan, from the bohemian coffeeshop scene of Bellavista to the wineries and ski resorts of the Andes, this lush and scenic metropolis is truly the heart of Chile. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep-May
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I've now cleaned up the Santiago article as well as its districts, something I planned to do already two years ago. One motivator was that I wanted to put something on the Main Page from Latin America next winter too, but didn't feel comfortable nominating anything from where the Zika epidemic is running loose; luckily the mosquito spreading the disease doesn't exist in some parts of South America including Chile. Anyway, now I think Santiago is good enough for DotM, also, all the districts are usable.

Vista Parcial de Santiago de Chile 2013.jpg
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article looks like it will probably benefit from a normal amount of additional copy editing (I did some), but before I support it, I think it's important for the self-contradictory "Stay safe/Other" section to be dealt with. Which of these two statements is true?
In any situation, you can trust the Chilean Police (Carabineros).
Also remember that the Chilean police is a militarized police. Therefore the police special forces can be violent or unreasonable, be careful.
It looks to me like someone who had never run afoul or had friends who ran afoul of the police inserted the former claim, and then another person, perhaps someone who had been attacked at demonstrations (which are also mentioned in this section), added the latter text without editing the rest. I'd tend to suggest deleting the first sentence, but I have no personal knowledge about the behavior of the carabineros since the return of democracy in Chile. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I've notified the anonymous contributor who's been editing Santiago de Chile a few days ago, he/she maybe could help. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. In addition to what's been gone over above, the "See" and (especially) "Do" sections are a bit short - granted this is a Huge City with listings devolved to the district articles, but surely there's a bit more in the way of general information to give, and surely a few of the most important sights/activities can be briefly name-dropped. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


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.

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)


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).

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)


Place: Ipoh
Blurb: Grown up around the tin mining industry, today Ipoh is best known for culinary experiences. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jan-Mar, Jun-Aug
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Wow! One of those articles you just need to nominate for the Main Page when you see it, a massive thank you to Torty3 and Ikan for their work on this one. Ps. interestingly Ipoh was slushed almost exactly 11 years ago (bring out the birthday cake :P), but back then the article looked a bit different...

Ipoh town.jpg
  • Support as the nominator. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Torty3 deserves most of the credit. It would be great to include more specific addresses and/or coordinates for the Pasar Malam on different days of the week, but I would feel fine featuring this article as is tomorrow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support from me surely :D I'd like JuliasTravels' opinion on the article too, since she's been there within the last couple of years as well. I am aware of possible bias on my side, and need to know whether I've struck the right balance. I do think it's possibly one of the most complete guides of Ipoh currently available, after spending a good 2-3 months on it; there are obviously better food blogs around but not much about history, and it's the kind of standard I wanted George Town (Malaysia)'s Eat section to reach before featuring.
Ipoh 11 years ago was quite a different place anyway, a bit of a dead city, even as things are trending upwards now (while the country might be going down the drain on the other hand). It's still in a sweet spot, busy enough for a buzz, anymore and the food queues may become even more unbearable. -- torty3 (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - possibly the most comprehensive guide available, indeed. Excellent work and a great resource for travellers, as Ipoh is the kind of city where a good guide will make all the difference in a traveller's experience. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Pashley (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Place: Hobart
Blurb: Tasmania's capital has been a gateway to Antarctica since the golden age of polar exploration, but the story doesn't end there: this small city teems with an outsize abundance of historical attractions, Victorian architecture, and fine dining. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Dec-Mar
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Here's a Down Under destination I've had my eye on for a while now and have just promoted to Guide. Thanks to Ypsilon's recent nominees, the schedule for the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2016-17 is starting to take shape; here's another potential addition.

Hobart CBD.JPG

  • Almost. The obvious need here is for geo coordinates in the listings. Aside from that, I can't think of anything missing here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost. Hobart is actually the very article I had in mind nominating next. The article needs coordinates and an "up to date" checkup before going on the Main Page. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


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?

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)

Da Nang[edit]

Place: Da Nang
Blurb: Not far from Vietnam's cultural treasures, this relaxed backpacker haven features splendid beaches and good food. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Feb-Jul
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: We have a couple of guide articles of Vietnamese destinations and here's one of the better of them. I just added coords and looked over the article briefly. Per the talk page, the Learn section perhaps could use some pruning. Also, it's possible that there is something more to see in and around the city, even if the Understand section says "even locals frequently complain that there is nothing to do except drink".

Bai Bien Tai Quan Son Tra.jpg
  • Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. "Go next" and perhaps "Buy" could stand to be expanded a bit, but that's just icing on the cake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Some comments: I felt "Understand" needed pretty major edits: I changed the order of the paragraphs to one that seemed to me to have more narrative logic, eliminated at least one redundancy, and copy edited some awkward expressions (what did "most possibly" mean?). I'm seeing a lot I like in the article, but how up to date are the prices? I just substituted 2015 population figures for figures from 2008, so I'm unsure. Also, what does "$-$" mean in the "Buy" section? That's supposed to indicate price? In short, this article is quite content-laden and looks like a deserving one to feature, but it will need more edits before we actually run it. I'm willing to give it Provisional support, but I wouldn't be satisfied with featuring it in its current condition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


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.

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)


Place: Vatican City
Blurb: Contained entirely within the city of Rome, the world's smallest sovereign state is also the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, where over 2,000 years of history are archived in basilicas, chapels and museums - and around every corner is another masterpiece of Renaissance art. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct; midsummer somewhat less preferable due to heat and tourist crowds
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: A good DotM candidate for spring 2017.

St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpg

  • Weak support for the article as it is now, but it wouldn't take much to upgrade that to strong support:
  • There are no places to sleep in the Vatican itself, though in the "Sleep" section there are plenty of hotel listings for properties located in the adjacent Vaticano neighborhood of Rome which is also covered in this article. However, none of these properties are indicated on the article's static map (though some of them do have geo coordinates). We need to either update the static map or else replace it with a dynamic one, also finding and adding geo coordinates for all listings that don't already have them.
  • "Go next" is empty. There's plenty to do and see in Rome, so this should be an easy field to populate.
  • The "Drink" section is empty for obvious reasons. Captain Obvious though it may be, perhaps this section could do with a sentence or two explaining that there's not much of a nightlife scene in the Holy See.
  • The "Stay safe", "Connect" and "Respect" sections are all pretty short. Would it be worthwhile to elaborate a bit on the dangers of pickpocketing in St. Peter's Square and the Sistine Chapel? Is there absolutely nowhere to connect to the Internet within the walls of the Vatican? What about telephone calling codes - does the Vatican have the same country code as Italy, the same city code as Rome? Any more dos and don'ts we can think of with regard to being respectful?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Needs an hour of work per Andre's comments. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for Off the Beaten Path[edit]

Lady Elliot Island[edit]

Place: Lady Elliot Island
Blurb: At this island the impressive marine fauna and the corals of the Great Barrier Reef are just a dive away (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Per [1] Sep-Dec are best, but there are no bad months to visit
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: When nominating Hyden almost a year ago I really had to toss a coin whether to nominate that one or this one. So I have had my eyes on this one for quite a while. As the line of OtBP candidates is almost a year long I have to nominate Lady Elliott Island now to ensure it will be on the Main Page around this time next year. Most of the article content is written in early 2009 by User:Inas so probably a thing or two is not up to date. Nevertheless the article is probably better updated a month or two before the article is featured rather than now to make sure the article is up to date for the 2016-17 season.

Australia lei lighthouse.jpg
  • Support as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a small island with a single resort which seems to almost have a monopoly on eat, sleep and get in for most travellers. AlasdairW (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Is that a problem? It wouldn't be our first OtBP like that - Childs isn't a resort, but it still has only one hotel, one restaurant (describing the convenience store/gas station as such is a stretch), and (effectively) one method of ingress and egress. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
My concern is that there is a single company proving flights, accommodation and meals, and it is a remote island. Childs may have only one eat, sleep etc, but there is no sign that they are all the same business, and one could easily go (possibly walk) to a neighbouring community to get something different. To me this seems to have something in common with Disneyland. I am not saying it can't be featured, but we must consider the issue, and the potential for negative feedback. AlasdairW (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's much of a problem, and of course we cannot do much about there being just one place for eating and sleeping :) . We just tell the voyager how things are and then its up to them if they'd like to visit or not. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Very close. The article needs a proper lede, i.e. more than one sentence long. When that's fixed it will have my support. Also, this is a more minor concern, but it would be nice to see it addressed as well: perhaps this article's brevity is by necessity given that this is such an - ahem - off-the-beaten-path place, but are we sure we can't flesh out some of the descriptions on the listings? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's possible, WP and the official web site seem to have some more info about the place. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I'd be fine with featuring this island. The only thing I notice that really begs the question is this: "Private craft must pay the appropriate fees, and cannot use the resort facilities." What are the appropriate fees? I think we should find out what those fees are and input them before running this article. I also think it's somewhat important to note the duration of flights to the island and its distance in km from the mainland. Another thing that would be ideal would be to indicate how hazardous or circuitous it is to sail to the island, given its position in the Barrier Reef. And would it be highly destructive to the environment to arrive on a motorized craft, such that only sailboats should be used? The length of the lede doesn't trouble me because the "Understand" section is informative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I still think this should be addressed. Meanwhile, I edited the blurb above. It had a grammatical mistake: "At this island the impressive marine fauna and the corals of the Great Barrier Reef is just a dive away." That "is" should be "are". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The flights have been addressed, as people reading the article might notice — also with new flight starting points, and rates for the 2016-17 season.
Information about getting in by boat was sparse, but I would expect "appropriate fees" to be the marine tax fee mentioned right below. Also, per Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority motorized vessels are not prohibited.
The resort's website tells that the only way in to the island is by their plane, and the map with the moorings that I added does not mention the resort company in any way, and as the moorings are 200 m outside the island it's probably outside the resort's "jurisdiction" and they cannot charge anything for it. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I will support this article, with the expectation that all these points on boat travel to the island, which you clearly addressed here, will be equally clearly addressed in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like the lede's been expanded. Accordingly, I can now support this article. We have three Support votes now; would anyone care to add a fourth? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

North Central New Mexico[edit]

Place: North Central New Mexico
Blurb: Rich in culture and history, North Central New Mexico, with its high desert and mountain scenery made famous by Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings, offers much for the visitor. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, though Sep-Oct are preferred
Nominated by: PerryPlanet (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not entirely sure whether this should be a DotM or a OtBP; Santa Fe, which is within this region, is undeniably a "destination," although this guide deals more with the larger region beyond Santa Fe, which feels more fitting as a OtBP to me. Either way, this is a part of the world near and dear to my heart, having lived most of my adolescence there; as such, I can confidently say that our coverage of this region is very good. With the recent revision to the region article template rules, I've been putting some work expanding and updating what was already a pretty good set of guides, and I can't think of any substantial gaps in our coverage here; several of the city/destination articles are at "Guide" status (with Santa Fe at "Star") and none are below "Usable."

Santuario de Chimayo, Chimayo, NM.JPG

  • Support — the article looks good with nice photos and even a hand-drawn map. Some of the destinations like Taos have outstanding articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Well put together article, and the images are beautiful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - That's really a great article. I agree with OtBP. Danapit (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice piece of work! Ibaman (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks very good, and I'd like to praise everyone who worked on the article and made it so informative and pretty! There's one thing I'm wondering about, though: The "Scenic drives" section of "See" presents what may seem to some readers like a daunting wall of text, even though it's divided up into different bullets and indentations. What could we do to make it more easily digestible? I'm thinking that it might help a bit if each drive got its own 3rd-level subheading, rather than a bullet, with the introductory text moved just below the subheading. I'm also thinking that structuring the various legs of the drives more similarly to the way they'd look in a good itinerary article like Route 66 would be helpful - in other words, the first leg of the "High Road to Taos" itinerary would have a 4th-order subheading of "Santa Fe to Chimayó". What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I think 4th-level subheadings might be too narrow a level of specificity for such short itineraries as these. And anyway, I'm not sure what you would title some of those 4th-level subheadings; for instance, your "Santa Fe to Chimayó" suggestion wouldn't be entirely accurate, because that paragraph also explains how to start the itinerary from Española instead of Santa Fe. However, 3rd-level subheadings sound great. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redundant though it may be, here's another support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - especially as it is a well done destination article for a non-urban area (with which we often have problems.) Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

When to feature[edit]

The time is given as "Any, though Sep-Oct are preferred" in the nomination. Especially given the large number of support votes, I think we should try to run it as soon as possible, which would mean during some month next winter. The article mentions that Christmas in NM is a special experience and that you can ski there. Are there some arguments for not running it in the winter? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

None from me. Even if I don't think December is the absolutely best time of the year to visit, there's still much to enjoy. It's even kind of fitting given the theme, because winter is when this region is at its most quiet and "off the beaten path." PerryPlanet (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that "there are a lot of Support votes" is a particularly strong argument for ignoring a preferred Time to Feature. I guess this question hinges on PerryPlanet's remark above, "I don't think December is the absolutely best time of the year to visit". What exactly do you mean by that? Is it simply the cold weather that makes it that way, or are there more practical issues (i.e. visitor attractions closed for the season) to consider? If the latter, I'd prefer to leave it to 2017.
Though I should say that the schedule would also allow us to feature it in November 2016 rather than December, if that makes things better. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
To answer Andre's question, it's mainly just the cold weather. Some places do shut down for the season, but it's not so prevalent an issue that I would advise people to avoid the area that time of the year. November would be a fine time as well, given that you still have some of that warm fall weather, although by that point all the festivals will have already happened. Between those two I think I would prefer December for all the wonderful Christmas celebrations. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


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).

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)


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.

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)

Stanley (Falkland Islands)[edit]

Place: Stanley (Falkland Islands)
Blurb: Almost on the doorstep to Antarctica with rich seafaring history and penguins roaming just outside the town, Stanley is the gateway to the Falkland Islands. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Austral summer (Northern Hemisphere winter) is probably best, however the weather is pretty much the same around the year.
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Someone (won't mention any names ;)) was considering downgrading this one to usable. No way, I thought, we don't have too many Guide articles from this corner of the world. I've now checked through the POIs, removing dead places and dead links, plus added some stuff from WP and businesses marked on the dynamic map that apparently are still in business (most of them have at least a Facebook page that is active). If someone thinks this is a too short article, well, there are only about 2,000 inhabitants in the town and on Google's satellite view it looks mostly residential so I doubt there are very many sights or businesses we've forgotten to list.

Stanley, Falkland Islands (7875482264).jpg
  • Support as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Coordinates for the "Go next" destinations would be very helpful, but otherwise, with the caveat that I have never been to the Falklands and have been wrong in judging articles about islands and such before, I don't see any obvious changes that are necessary. If anyone reading has actually been to the Falklands, please speak up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I have done some work on this, including "Go next" as mentioned above. I haven't been to Stanley, but I did watch a recent TV documentary series based here (BBC Island Parish). I think that we have most (but not all) of the things to see - see this guide from a local hotel for comparison. I expect that there are a few more businesses that could be listed, but not many (the 2001 Bradt guide lists 10 places to sleep - we have 4 + 1). We maybe should avoid featuring Stanley during Q2 2017, as this will be 35 years since the 1982 conflict. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. Hotels that have been there 15 years ago may not be in business today. Much of what was in the article was written by Ryan in 2005. Like always with nominated articles where most of the content is more than 2-3 years old, I clicked through the links and googled the businesses that didn't have a working website and it turned out that many of the latter had closed permanently. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a tiny town, so the fact that recent edits have added as much as they have is impressive. It's been more than a decade since I was there so I can't comment on how up-to-date the current article is, but one of the reasons I started contributing to Wikivoyage was that it was impossible to find good information on the Falklands, so even if our guide has a few things out of date it is still worth highlighting as one of the best available guides to a destination that isn't easy to cover. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:21, 30 June 2016 (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.

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.


  • 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)


Place: Entebbe
Blurb: (In)famous for a hijacking and hostage drama in the 1970's, the air gateway to Uganda is a hub for the UN and features a botanical garden, wildlife education centre and views across the Equator on Africa's largest lake. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Feb 2017? Otherwise maybe Jan-Feb, Jul-Oct per w:Entebbe#Climate
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Next summer is already filling up, yet the last (Northern Hemisphere) winter month still needs an OtBP. In Wikivoyage_talk:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Feb_2017_OtBP voyagers preferred to see a sub-Saharan African destination on the Main Page what do you think of Entebbe? I found it as a very good usable, fixed stuff I thought needed to be fixed and, well, here it is...

Entebbe Aerial view.jpg
  • Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll give a preliminary support vote based on only a moderately careful reading (more than just skipping through but short of having read every word). However, it seems to me, there is some work still to be done: (1) Is there a good reason why the State House listing is in "Understand", rather than "See"? (2) Should the point made about marabou behavior in a thumbnail caption be added to "Stay safe", or is the risk too minor to merit that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I can guess why the State House is in Understand rather than See. On the talk page, Alice (yes!), who contributed much to the article wrote "Peering through the bars of State House is a "See" but the interesting stuff is serendipitous to come across."; maybe there's so little you get to see that it cannot be regarded as an attraction. On the other hand, this article (and town) doesn't have very many attractions, so perhaps (a glimpse of) the State House could still merit a See listing.
I don't have any strong opinion either way about the marabou caption either. What does Andre think? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


Place: Kabak
Blurb: For now, this idyllic little town is a place where you can enjoy the Turkish Mediterranean coast away from the madding crowds. New tourist resorts are encroaching quickly, though, so hurry up and get in on it while you still can. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-Nov
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: We've yet to find anything to fill the March 2017 OtBP slot, so here's my proposal.

To head off some anticipated concerns at the pass: yes, this article, despite being classified as a Guide, has no See, Do, or Buy listings. But the text of the article makes a good argument for why that is; namely, that there's not really anything to see or do here, and that's pretty much the whole point of the place. The "Understand" section paints a vivid picture of Kabak as a place that's truly "off the beaten path" and where you can truly "get away from it all", especially by contrast with the über-touristy resort areas nearby. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to someone adding listingified POI's if they can find any, but given the foregoing as well as a lack of any other appropriate candidates per "Time to feature" (March is perhaps the hardest month of the year to schedule for, especially given the weakness of our coverage in the regions of the world where the climate is ideal for visitors: the Indian Subcontinent, West Africa, and Central and South America), I'm prepared to defer to the author's expertise and argue that this article ought to be an exception to the usual requirements for Guide status.

Also, germane to a recent discussion we had on the same topic in Tunis's DotM nomination, let me note that the U.S. State Department's travel advisory for Turkey covers only the region in the far southeast bordering Iraq - clear on the other side of the country from Kabak.

Kabak beach.jpg

  • Very close. Assuming the community agrees with the argument I posited in the blurb, there remains the issue of a lack of a dynamic map, and geo coordinates to be added to the listings that are present in the article (in "Eat" and "Sleep"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Needs 15-20 minutes of work. In addition to Eat and Sleep listings, some other points of interest (a canyon and some waterfalls were mentioned etc.) could be pointed out with markers. Places that aren't in business any longer should be removed and finally, as of now there is just one photo in the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2016 (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?

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)

Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side[edit]

Place: Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side
Blurb: There's an embarrassment of architectural riches to be marvelled at in Buffalo's old German and Polish quarters: proud silent witnesses to the rise, decline and incipient rebirth of the Queen City. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Starnom (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar 2017 for Dyngus Day, otherwise Apr-Sep
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: By 2017 it will have been two years since Buffalo was featured as DotM. Ever since I wrote this article, I had envisaged it as a possible FTT, but I was going to hold off for a few months on nominating it because I assumed it would be a summer feature, and there's no need to have it clogging up this page for north of a year. Then I remembered that Dyngus Day - a Polish ethnic festival that takes place on Easter Monday, which in 2017 falls on April 17 - represents a unique opportunity to witness both the exterior and interior of many of these old churches, which (at least in the case of St. Stan's, Corpus Christi, and St. Casimir's off the top of my head; probably others too) are open to the public as festival venues. So, atypically for a Northern U.S. destination, I'm positing March 2017 as the month to feature this article - that way it will be on the Main Page until April 20, with the end of its run coinciding with Dyngus Day. The schedule grid currently extends as far as summer 2016, so maybe it's still too early to be nominating it now, but I wanted to do so before I forgot.


  • Support as nominator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely marvelous itinerary. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — the article looks great! When I saw you working on the article I sort of expected to see it on the Main Page someday. One thing, though; I think the Go section could use intermediate headings.
Another thing, is this a personal itinerary? Don't get me wrong, personally I don't agree with the ban on personal itineraries and would lift it right away, but someone might complain... ϒpsilon (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed about subheadings. Regarding the issue of whether this is a personal itinerary (which did creep up in my mind from time to time as I wrote it), it seems to be in a gray area - IMO the question of which East Side churches are most architecturally notable and most historic, therefore best suited for this itinerary, is only partially subjective. More to the point, though there haven't been any changes to the actual policy page, from subsequent conversations we've had on this site (particularly in vfd) it seems like we've gradually backed off from the hardline stance we initially took against personal itineraries. My reading of the current situation (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) is that we still discourage the creation of articles in the format "(x) days in (y) destination" or similar, while leaving alone most other itineraries that might be construed as personal, provided they're reasonably well developed. And in any case, the prescribed alternative - folding all of this information into Buffalo/East Side - would easily overwhelm what is already the longest destination article on the entire site. I'll leave it up to consensus, but I am 99.999% confident that if anyone had an issue with this article under the personal itinerary clause, it would have come up already (at Starnom if nowhere else). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be really good to have an agreement to a formal change in the "personal itineraries" policy, and I don't think it would be so easy to accomplish. As I recall, User:Texugo has been particularly skeptical about driving itineraries from one city to another, so I'd really like his input on this nomination. As for me, I think this article is a thing of awe and exemplary, so obviously, this is my vote of support for featuring it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has a specific theme, which allows it to be created collaboratively. That means it doesn't fall under the "personal itinerary" prohibition. Powers (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point, but wouldn't it very clearly apply to all the "X City to Y City" itinerary articles that some Wikivoyagers have a problem with? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It does have the element I typically oppose, which is no clear reason for a suggested order or starting/end point, meaning person 1 writes an itinerary saying "this itinerary goes from A to B to C to D to E to F to G", and then person 2 changes it (or even makes a different page) saying "this itinerary goes from A to B to E to F to C to G to D" and then person 3 says "this itinerary goes from "C to D to E to F to G to A to C to B" and so on, with several equivalently reasonable routes possible. Obviously this article is developed past the likelihood of anyone stepping in and changing it willy nilly, but the point still stands in that, for anyone not strictly following the arbitrary order frozen into the prose, it is more difficult to use than if the article were built as a travel topic. This is not actually the most egregious of examples, since the arrangement of the sites happens to be loosely circular and therefore somewhat limiting the number of equivalent alternative routes (though the start and end points are still arbitrary). That said, I'd still express a preference for not making up random routes when there is no obvious linear sense to the attractions. There is too much personal preference involved, and the article becomes less easy to use for anyone who wants to do things in a different, equally reasonable order. Texugo (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right about the loosely circular arrangement, but the start and end points were very deliberately chosen and are absolutely not arbitrary. The starting point of the itinerary is also the starting point chronologically of East Side religious history, and the endpoint is symbolic of the end of the chapter of East Side history that gave us these churches, and the beginning of the next one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
As long as that is clear from the article and unlikely to inspire or serve as precedent for other itineraries with no clear reason for the route order, I suppose don't have a huge problem with this particular case. Texugo (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It is very detailed, verging on too long (30 pages as a pdf), but good. I think that it should have a summary in the introduction - something like "This is a 20 mile half day tour by car looking at the outside of churches (built between 18xx and 19xx) in Buffalo, New York (state)." If any of the churches can be visited inside then this should also be said, and summarised at the start so that the trip can be planned to fit the opening hours. It might be good to suggest ways of cutting the route short if pressed for time. AlasdairW (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the interior of the churches, you made the same comment at Starnom, and I don't know how much there is to say about that without straying into Captain Obvious territory. The churches that remain active (either as home to their original congregation, to a successor congregation, or as an oratory) can be visited at service times which are listed in the main East Side article; those that aren't are off limits to the public. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I think that this is something that varies a bit by location. In many European cities most churches are open during the week. This may be primarily for prayer, but usually allows some sightseeing. So for the benefit of overseas readers it is worth being clear that the churches are closed. AlasdairW (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
AlasdairW makes a good point. I think that you should simply copy the sentence starting with "The churches that remain active" and add it to the article, if you haven't already done so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Cold weather[edit]

Place: Cold weather
Blurb: When it's cold outside, there's plenty of fun to do from ice fishing to skiing. Nevertheless, a cold environment can be very dangerous if you're unprepared — so check out our guide for some useful dos and don'ts! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: November, to kick off the Northern Hemisphere cold season?
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Per the article's talk page, it was considered almost a guide already in 2013. I spent a few hours on a very cold January day adding to the article anything I could think of and then promoted the article to guide, now I've also drawn a new windchill diagram (the old one was considered bad), so the article should be ready for the Main Page now.

Open Wilderness Hut in the Riisitunturi national park, Riisitunturi national park.jpg
  • Support ϒpsilon (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, as it looks good and is an important topic, but I feel sure it will need more copy editing. I've done some copy editing through the end of the "Electronic devices" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It looks good. Maybe I am alone in this, but "nightcap" suggests a glass of whisky, not a hat to wear in bed. Is there any official advice worth linking to? AlasdairW (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like I haven't yet voted on this nominee. Support, with nothing I can think of that needs to be added. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Next-to-impossible destinations[edit]

Place: Next-to-impossible destinations
Blurb: Would you like to go on a real adventure, something beyond that normal trip of a lifetime? (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: On the article's talk page I asked whether there's anything to fix, probably nobody noticed it. Nevertheless, nominating an article tends to be a sure way to get replies ;). I can't see any major problems with the article, but perhaps someone who looks at it for the first time will.

Sahara desert.jpg
  • Support as the nominator. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not Yet This reads like a start-up article. The information is very basic, seems incomplete and not so well-defined as to what we consider to be "next to impossible" to visit. What makes some of these places "nearly impossible" to visit? The article seems to blur the lines between "off the beaten path" and "next-to-impossible" which are not really the same. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Any other comments? Please note that this is probably the one article that we cannot make very expansive. If it's easy to write about a destination, it means (by definition) that the destination is not that remote/inaccessible/rarely visited. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Very close. ChubbyWimbus makes a good point about the line between "off-the-beaten-path" and "next-to-impossible" being blurred here - just looking over the first few entries, I would be hard-pressed to describe Equatorial Guinea, South Sudan, Northern Siberia, or North Korea as the latter rather than the former, and the article explicitly states regarding the North Pole that it "can actually be quite easy to visit" - but in general, and with all due respect, his comments follow his usual M.O. of overblowing nitpicks over minor imperfections to the point of needlessly obstructing worthy nominees. That's really the only thing standing in the way of my support here. Of course we should perhaps lengthen some of the blurbs as well, but that's not essential. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The northern 2/3 of Siberia is comparable to the north of Canada (and even the article's Understand section says so), but for the other countries you mentioned I would largely agree (well, entering and traveling around NK as you please behind the back of the state's tourist agency is something virtually nobody has done...). I also think the poles need to be mentioned, because it will probably come as a surprise to many that you can actually go there as a "simple tourist". ϒpsilon (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you misspell "support" above? Surely you didn't agree with my critique and then chastise me for "overblowing nitpicks over minor imperfections" and "obstructing otherwise good nominations"? Please point to all of the great nominations that I've "obstructed" per my "M.O.".
I critique nominations. That's why this page exists. Anyone may respond or disagree. I cannot and have never "obstructed an otherwise good nomination" as far as I know. Those that are not featured always have criticism from other users or in many cases, people agree with my critiques. If that bothers you, fix the articles rather than coming here and trying to devalue my opinions and my critiques in the eyes of other users with baseless accusations that my M.O. is to "obstruct worthy nominations".
I also try to make sure that our standards are the same for all articles. It often seems like people are very willing to critique Western articles but not those from other parts of the world. There is often "support" for articles with what I deem as being quite flawed. I suppose that may make me look like a wet blanket, but excitement over a nomination or desperation to feature it aren't valid support reasons. If you feel that the flaws are "overblown nitpicks over minor imperfections" then why not just resolve the issue by fixing it?
I do not ascribe to the practice of writing "support" followed by a list of things that need to be improved before featuring. That's false support. That "support" should be an "oppose" vote. It's a rather common occurrence that defeats the purpose of the vote. I assume people "feel bad" about opposing, but that's just silly. We should all trust that the nominator and those who have voted "support" should be mature enough to handle someone who doesn't see things the same, and if no one is mature enough to handle article critiques then it's their own fault if the nomination ends up slushed, not the voter. The votes and critiques are not supposed to be personal and they can actually lead to great improvements in articles which often doesn't happen when someone votes "support" and then lists a bunch of critiques that are essentially dismissable because voting "support" is supposed to be unconditional.
Again: Please point to all of the great nominations that I've "obstructed" per my "M.O." Otherwise, It'd be nice if you would refrain from making wild accusations in an attempt to discredit me or other users. I'd ask you to respect differences in opinions, but since you've made it clear that "all the respect I'm due" is none whatsoever, I won't waste my time. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I agreed with one specific part of your critique, CW ("The article seems to blur the lines between 'off the beaten path' and 'next-to-impossible' which are not really the same"), while disagreeing with the bulk of it. Secondly: an informal custom has emerged at DotM of withholding Support votes pending the fixing of truly glaring issues (maps that are absent or show very few POIs, egregious spelling/grammatical/syntactical errors, etc.), but seeing as that technically contravenes our policy - which says that any article that is Guide status or better, has not been featured previously, and is appropriate re: Time to feature, is ipso facto fit for the Main Page - in my reading we try to reserve that for extreme cases. That is why I made, and continue to stand behind, my remarks re: "overblown nitpicks", as demonstrated on this page on the nominations for Tunis, Salalah, and Nauru as well as in quite a few nomination threads in the archive. It's hard enough already to come up with three articles per month that are appropriate for the season and fit the three types of featured articles - holding nominees to an unrealistic standard (regardless of whether that standard is equally unrealistic for Western and non-Western destinations, and regardless if you're able to win the occasional other editor over to your side) does us no good. A fine-toothed comb may be appropriate for Starnom, but here it has as often as not been a tool for pointless obstruction. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "that this is probably the one article that we cannot make very expansive." I disagree. The subject matter may be difficult to write about, due to the nature of the topic and the worldwide aspect of it, but that just means it might take more time to get meaningful contributions on each front. It's like nominating Burundi and saying that since we don't expect anyone to go there, we might as well just feature it. If the article is lacking content and coverage, it's lacking content and coverage. There is no article that should be entitled to featuring if it's not ready.
On this one, though, it will be easier to add content and curate content if the topic is more clearly defined, as I stated in my "obstructionist" critique above. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Aside of #Riga above, which apparently is some special case where the normal level of coverage for a DotM city of a million inhabitants isn't sufficient and an essay needs to be written about each bedroom suburb, articles of US/Canadian/European/East Asian/Aussie destinations in my experience are rarely criticized. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I also see Baltimore, Nashville, Hobart, Rail travel in India and Buffalo's Historic Churches with critiques and suggestions for improvements from the Western world plus Asia currently and Santiago and Nauru outside that realm with critiques from users aside from myself. Of course it is not necessary for every article to have opposition. I don't mean to suggest that voting "support" means no thought was given. When you say "in [your] experience [they] are rarely criticized" because you feel that overall we are not being critical enough or offering enough suggestions for improvements on articles? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
For western destinations "criticism" tends to be something along the lines of "two listings lack POIs and one still needs a street address" or "this or that section could be expanded with a sentence or two". ϒpsilon (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's very unfortunate and counterproductive to slam ChubbyWimbus. Criticism and a critical eye and mind are very important. I greatly appreciate the contributions he's made to our discussions here.
I spend a lot of time nowadays at Commons:Featured picture candidates and Commons:Quality images candidates, and I notice that criticisms and lack of support for some pictures help people to see or pay attention to things they weren't seeing or paying attention to, help maintain a level of quality, and help individuals to improve their work, for the good of the site and photography in general. I would suggest to you that the specific criticisms ChubbyWimbus makes have a similar function and importance. And if the result is that it's hard to find enough articles to feature, so be it. The world won't end if we have only 2 featured pictures for a month or two sometimes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Criticism up to a certain extent is well and good - I certainly do plenty of it on this page - but then again we can find something wrong with any of our articles, from stub to Star, if we try hard enough. In my opinion, the fact that CW consistently spots things others miss has more to do with him getting carried away with his critical eye than with other editors supporting articles without thinking them through. And, again in my opinion, similarly to the world not ending if we only have two featured articles a month sometimes, it also won't end if every article that goes on the Main Page isn't perfect in every way. The fact that policy says that DotMs should have Guide or better status, rather than only Star articles being features, is a pretty clear indication that the standards are lower than at Starnom and that eventually enough becomes enough with the nitpicking. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I hope you would agree with the proposition that specific criticisms lead, or can lead to improvements in articles, and therefore, that we shouldn't discourage them. So I would suggest to you that if your concern is that there is a policy of never featuring any article that any single user opposes, a middle position between telling someone who gives specific criticisms to shut up and not featuring a full complement of 3 articles per month would be to consider a policy whereby an article can be featured if there are, say, five supporting votes even if one user opposes. Or other possible formulas could be floated. But discouraging someone from offering criticisms that can lead to improvements in articles is really not beneficial to this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
What bothers me isn't so much the criticism per se as the fact that there seems to be such a high bar with CW when it comes to avoiding an "Oppose" (or equivalent) vote. It's certainly not unheard of on this page to Support a nominee while still highlighting things that could use improvement. The message there is that if it were to happen that the article stays exactly the same from now until the time it's due on the Main Page, we'd be comfortable with that, but if anyone happens to have the time and inclination, here are some ways it can go from merely passing muster to standing out. That's a way to inspire improvements in articles without being obstructionist, yet CW explicitly dismisses that approach as "false support". On the other hand, a consensus has evolved on this page that a "Not yet" or "Almost" vote means there are some heavier-duty problems with the article, such that we would not be comfortable putting on the Main Page today, as is. That diverges somewhat from policy (which says that all never-before-featured Guide articles are fair game, period), but it's a good compromise, I think. Throwing out "Oppose", "Not yet", "Almost", etc. votes for reasons as picayune as CW's sometimes are, goes past bending policy to simply ignoring it. That's a bridge too far, IMO. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm simply not comfortable with making someone who participates in good faith "the problem". That's why I'm suggesting that if it's a problem to you that a single opposing vote means an article can't be featured and we have a user who has higher standards than others, a way be found to avoid discouraging his participation or making him into the enemy, while still facilitating the featuring of 3 articles per month. However, I don't think that way has to be found immediately. Have a Happy 4th, and we can come back to this a bit later, if that's what'll work best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
First of al happy Forth of July to all those who celebrate it. Second, maybe we might wish to move this discussion elsewhere as it clearly isn't about a single nominee (any more). In my opinion "guide status" in and by itself does not mean much, because it can basically be bestowed upon an article by the fiat of an individual editor. Given that DotM OtbP and to some extent FTT are nominated quite some time before they actually go live, I think we can and should polish them as much as possible before they go live. Especially when it comes to easy things like dead weblinks, prose or style. Pointing out such deficiencies where they exist is imho a worthy and helpful task. On the other hand just because policy says "Every guide article can be nominated" does not mean that the way policy is "lived" today means opposition to featuring a guide article is forbidden. I think there is - and should be - a higher threshold for featuring than merely being "guide". Otherwise we could get rid of the whole nominating process and just write an algorithm that features guide articles at random. Everything we feature is the most visible thing on our site for a month (given our google ranking many people not coming from WP will hit the main page first in their visits to our site, however briefly) and it is in my opinion absolutely essential for those high visibility pages to be of the best quality we can manage. Kind of like the stuff in the fron window of a shop. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (indent) None of the articles cited (Salalah, Tunis, or Nauru) have been blocked by me (and citing the entire archive isn't an example). They've merely received critique.
On Tunis, you oppose it. Why aren't you an "obstructionist"? Why don't you lower your bar?
On Salalah, you didn't oppose, but you state "Good information, if a bit sparse." I didn't oppose but posted offered critique and ways to improve it. The primary author was initially involved in the DotM conversation, so there was reason to believe improvements could be made. To you, that's all just "obstructionist" and "unnecessary". Okay...
On Nauru, a location with little to see/do actually needs to be closer to star status to be guide status. If it only has a few attractions, then omitting even one can potentially be an issue unlike a place like Kyoto which has a ton of missing temples/shrines/etc that are worthwhile but the article still doesn't suffer, because so much is listed. I don't think the Nauru article is that good. You do. I'm allowed to express a different view. If you feel so strongly that my concerns are all petty, you could respond. If not and it gets slushed, why would that be my fault?
On this nomination, you claim to "support one point" of mine while "disagreeing with the bulk of it", which I guess means you've arbitrarily decided that the "bulk" of my argument was the "basic and incomplete" part, which partially relates to the lack of a clear definition.
I've seen much less progress in making changes from saying "Support" and then giving criticism than from opposing or commenting, because support is support. My comment about false support was explicitly stated to be about those that pledge support and then claim it's conditional. And that's not what you're mad about anyway, because I made that comment during this discussion: after your post.
Your motivation here may be just to get a line-up, and it's good to have people who sift through pages to find possible nominations. And "guide status" is a reason to support, true. Looking at tags is certainly the lowest standard within the guidelines possible (but is also faulty). That's not what I'm looking for. I've never asked for perfection, but I do hope for quality. I do have standards beyond simply being a lengthy article with proper grammar. If that's setting the bar too high then start a discussion about lowering the standards, but I seem to remember a discussion relatively recently about suppressing nominations because there are "too many". Critiquing the content of the articles (listings meaningless fluff, writing dull, content missing, etc) has always been acceptable critique and it didn't start with me. My nomination received the "dull" critique. It stung at first, but I asked some questions, got feedback, rethought the article and rewrote the parts that weren't interesting. It was then featured. Only good came out it. I suppose I could have cried, abandoned the article and let it get slushed, but how could I blame the voters for that? I'd rather have featured articles be interesting and engaging than dull and boring but technically meeting the guidelines. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As someone who regularly fixes featurenominated articles (in other words saves them from being slushed), I must say I prefer to see "support", "almost support", "close" votes followed by improvement suggestions, if the article's problems can be fixed within a reasonable timeframe. "Oppose" or "not yet" to me means the article is such a disaster it shouldn't have been nominated in the first place and the article needs to be entirely redone (in other words, better concentrate on some other article instead). Also, I don't think it's necessary to try to find at least one error in every single nominated article; also, as Andre mentioned, there may be small things that can be improved but that aren't decisive for whether the article makes it or not. Finally, it would be wonderful if more people would come and help out with nominated articles they (or somebody else) have found errors in.
Granted, we shouldn't take just any article and put it on the Main Page, but I don't agree an article needs to be much better than "only" a guide to be eligible for feature. Rather there are perhaps some articles that are currently at guide status that should be demoted to usable. This problem is a result of the requirements for guide status not being particularly clearly defined (as compared to requirements for usable cities, for example). We should have clear guidelines for what is required of (and enough for!) an article to hold guide status. Otherwise it would be impossible (particularly if one oppose vote would be enough to throw the article overboard) to get an article featured if someone else who doesn't like that article could raise the bar high enough to make sure there's no risk that the article would ever end up being featured. If I wanted I could come up with ten problems or "problems" with every single currently nominated article that would supposedly be a hindrance for it being featured — it doesn't really take that much imagination.
Concerning "too many" articles, this is a situation that often arises, but usually it’s a result of the policies that articles have to be (1) featured during a suitable time of year, (2) that there may not be two articles from the same country featured at the same time and (3) that there may not be two featured articles from the same country in the same category in two subsequent months. Due to this we often end up with an ever-growing stash of "summer articles" with plenty of empty winter month slots where not a single one of these can be put. BTW the fact that articles are sitting around for, say, a year, also means that if you have updated the article at the time you nominated it, the same procedure has to be repeated a month or so before the article goes live to ensure it's up to date.
So here's the million dollar question to everyone: please list a couple of articles we've recently featured, that in your opinion shouldn't have been featured? Surely there has to be a few? If you come to think of such articles, why haven't you brought up the problems on the nominations page before the article went live? Or is the situation so bad that all of our articles are of such an astronomically low quality that it's not even worth giving feedback on them here (perhaps that would explain why there have been so few voyagers participating in discussions here for the last months)? And what kinds of problems are we talking about; content, formatting, grammar, so-called dull language..? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ypsi. I think the crux of the issue here is not any personal animus I may have toward any user (there is none), nor any desire on my part to silence criticism, but rather the fact that we're not all on the same page regarding where the threshold lies between Support and Oppose. Obviously there needs to be a certain amount of leeway given that a particular problem might get under one editor's skin more than another's, but if we have a user whose criteria for a Support-worthy article are profoundly more stringent than everyone else's, that poses a problem vis-à-vis the consensus-based model by which we run our site. If a nominee can be held up by a given editor based on concerns that no other users find important, that's the majority being overruled by one individual, which is the polar opposite of the definition of consensus. Ikan suggests a model whereby one Oppose vote can be negated by five Support votes (i.e. the requisite four plus one more), which makes sense logically, but look at what it's been like at DotM lately - it's like pulling teeth to get four people to vote a nominee up or down, let alone six. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Side point, but "Not yet" from me doesn't mean an article is a disaster, just that x, y and z need to be done before I would support a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for such a suggestion (4+1). If may people don't spot any problems in an article and can support it, and one person who does think there's a problem, that problem is probably of such a character that the average "consumer" will not spot it either and could not tell the difference between an edition of the article with the problem and another one where that problem is fixed.
Good news that nobody has found any major problems with any of our recently featured articles. That means we can continue using previously featured articles as examples of what candidates should look like. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (indent) I don't think it's right to have rules about negating opposition. If the opposing points include reasons and those reasons are valid then it doesn't seem right or progressive to try and overrule it. We're supposed to address concerns, not drown them out with singing. It takes more energy and time to oppose a nomination than to support one. Also, many times there are support votes at the beginning and a critique comes later. That may require all of those who previously supported to reread and rethink, but they often never return to the conversation. The other possibility is if 4 people already offered support, there would be no reason whatsoever to even bother looking at the article, because your vote would be invalidated before you even posted. If the validity of the opposition is questionable or debatable, we should be able to have that discussion. When I don't support an article, I often will include multiple issues that stand out for improvement in my critique, but some issues are bigger than others. If some issues are addressed, it would not be unreasonable to then ask if the others are big enough on their own to warrant slushing. What often happens though is that NO issues are addressed, and that is a problem.
I think it also highlights an issue specific to nominations by those who scout articles vs those who write them. The Nauru article, for example is a translated article. It's hard to address concerns beyond what's written if you're a translator. The critique I offered in regards to Salaleh didn't seem difficult to address when it looked like the primary author was active and looking to improve it. All of my questions came from what was written, so it seemed safe to assume the author probably knew the answers and could just think it over, add details and BAM: instant but significant improvement of quality, intrigue and readability. But with the author no longer involved in the discussion, addressing those questions becomes very difficult work for other users who are not likely to be familiar with the city let alone its history and culture. Even simple questions and concerns are difficult to address regarding places we don't know. My comments on the article were not stated as opposition, although with the author there, it would sadden me a bit to see it featured when I still believe the author has the knowledge improve it...
It's fair to say that I haven't offered article support like I once did. I've gotten lazy on that front. If an article looks good and it already has support, I've just left them, and that's not fair, especially if the primary author is there. Genuine critique is good for improving articles, but genuine support feels good after working hard and putting it up there for judgement. That's something I should be more active about.
On terrible features, look no further than Dar es Salaam. Go to that "See" section. That should have (and still should) make it only "usable". It's a mere bulleted list that I myself wrote. I cringe every time I see it. Even on the past DotM page, the picture isn't listed. Probably a sign we should just delete it and write "No feature" for that month. I feel bad for anyone who knows and loves that city to have it featured in such a poor and embarrassing state... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Dar es Salaam is indeed an example of an article that should have only usable status; also the eat section is a big mess, for instance. Again an example of why articles shouldn't be promoted to guide too easily (pun intended). Back in late 2012, from what I've heard, the community was busy with tons of other things as we were in the process of immigrating to WMF, and there wasn't much time to work on articles so this is likely why DeS was featured in its current state, but as of today an article looking like that could not make it to the main page. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Having come late to this discussion, I would like to mention for the record that, as the primary author of one of the articles discussed above (Salalah), I left the discussion after initial stages because I simply did not have the patience to address the tedious nitpicking cited above by others. –StellarD (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So where are we on this? Personally I do not think this should be featured as is and there haven't been many edits since discussion largely died down. Currently the article seems unsure where it is going and contains a lot of obvious stuff. There is potential, but featuring seems premature. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. For me, the previous FTT that's most closely analogous to the format this article follows is Nuclear tourism — at its heart a list of attractions or destinations that have a certain thing in common, with the prose held together by a discussion of that commonality. Of course the concept of inaccessibility is a lot less complicated than the concept of atomic energy, so the "Understand" section for NTID needn't be as long, but — as it should be — that's more than balanced by copious information in "Get in", "Prepare", "Stay safe", "Stay healthy", etc. Other than perhaps an expanded lede and a dynamic map, I don't see an obvious need for any further development of this article before it can be featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should revert all edits made after July 21 2015 to make the article great again? ϒpsilon (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
While I did promote the article to guide (and seem to have since forgotten about it), guide status is not per se an argument for featuring, otherwise we could just write some piece of code to randomly feature our guide articles on the main page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, policy currently says: "The nominated article should have an article status of guide or star.". I most certainly think that an article which "...would be helpful for the average traveler, such as offering alternatives for where to stay and eat, what to see and do, how to get in and out, etc. and provide enough information for at least a few days there. But at least a few things are missing to make this a star article. It follows the manual of style in spirit if not in detail." is good enough for the main page.
Actually, I would go so far to say that someone who wants to upgrade an article to guide status should consider if they could support the article for a main page feature in its current state. If not, then they should refrain from upgrading the article.
For the article at hand, I really can't how it could or would need to be further expanded. See and Do perhaps could be turned into running text. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I know this is not an allowed reason to oppose a feature and I am not entirely sure of that myself, but this article just seems a bit to laundry list by its very nature to me. Yes, it is not supposed to replace the years of training you'd probably need to visit most of those places, but somehow I feel even a complete article would be missing something. I don't know. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that we would feature an article without a clear goal or definition of what belongs in it. The Nuclear tourism article gives us some interesting information about the sites listed and why they may be of interest to the traveler. This list is a mixed bag. Until February 2016 all of Africa apparently qualified and now there are only 2 places continent-wide listed. Some of it is a mere geography lesson ("Rockall — an islet less than halfway from Scotland to Iceland, claimed by four countries"). Some places, like Gogland, give the impression that they are actually impossible to visit. Shouldn't this article tell you ways to access all of the sites since "difficult but doable" is the crux of the article? That bothers me, too. Some of the listing offer real information, but a lot of them don't tell you how to visit. I know my concerns have been described as "overblown" but I don't see any noticeable changes. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Rail travel in India[edit]

Place: Rail travel in India
Blurb: From world heritage-listed mountain railways to sumptuous luxury trains and regular passenger services, in colourful India, a train journey is often a travel experience in itself. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Apr to avoid monsoon season
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Yet another candidate suggestion by Ikan. As of lately I've made some edits to the article, adding pictures and cleaning up a bit. While the article seems to be in a quite good shape and everything seems to be there, I believe it could use some copyediting. Also, a month or two before it's featured (probably Dec or Jan) it'd be good to check that links are (still) working and prices are up to date.


  • Almost support per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet. I hadn't looked at the article in a while. I think that like a long scholarly article, this needs an Abstract, which we should put in an "Understand" section. That section should summarize in the briefest way or even merely mention things like the range of accommodations, the two options for ticketing, the different types of trains (such as are shown under "Fares"), the basics of food and sleep and some of the more important details in "Cope". I think this additional section is essential for making this article user-friendly, and needs to be added before this article should be approved for a feature. I'm not sure whether I feel up to starting the section now, but I'll surely help with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • How many of the issues have been addressed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, a glance at the article reveals that the Understand section Ikan wished to see is there. Not sure how much copyediting the article needs. Ticket prices, if we decide to keep them (can't find any other Rail travel article with such detailed fare information!), should be updated. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You misread my remarks above. There was already an "Understand" section in the article when I made my previous comment. I stated that the article needed an Abstract with brief specifics, which should be included in "Understand". I'm not sure the section is specific enough; at the very least, a few illustrative examples could be given. Does everyone understand what I mean by an Abstract? The point of an Abstract, such as is used for medical articles, lab reports or dissertations, is to condense into a few paragraphs (or in the case of a dissertation, perhaps up to a page and a half or so) the substance of an entire article that follows. I don't think "Understand" currently does that, but it does touch on the areas I mentioned in a general way. So then my next point would be whether we need another section of "Understand" that briefly gives background such as the very broad outlines of the history of the network (I'd also say the size of it, but that's covered in the lede). Right now, the first sentence of "Understand" feels kind of like it's already in the middle to me. I may work on this a little, but I have important things to do offline today and might not get to it for a while. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
But in May there was no Understand section in the article. I added it about a month ago, guided by your comment above. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
My false memory, then. The article is certainly closer to a feature now. I guess my feeling is that what I'd like the "Understand" section to do, other than give a little historical background, is give a summary of the bare minimum necessary for someone to purchase tickets and use the system, so we should probably include links to official purchasing and informational sites and very brief but somewhat more specific explanations. Then, anyone who wants to read about things in more detail has the rest of the article there for their reference and information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Apparently I haven't voted on this candidate yet. I support it and think it's certainly ready to be featured. I do see a lot of bullet-point lists that might be converted to prose - specifically in the "Internet booking", "Cope", and "Stay safe" sections - but that's small potatoes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There is still some need of copy editing and either updating or removing the price table (if it is removed, I think some rough indication of the relation of the prices of different service classes to one another might be in order). Also, redlinks should be looked at and either delinked, created as articles, redirected or otherwise dealt with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There's no policy against redlinks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No there isn't, but please have a look at the "luxury trains" section. Both the language and the redlinks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, okay, the article needs copyedits. That's an easy fix. As for redlinks, I saw one for Maharajas' Express, which sounds from the way the article describes it like it could be a viable itinerary in the mold of, say, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, or even Trans-Siberian Railroad. If you really think it needs to be delinked, go for it, but I don't think it's an absolute imperative or anything that would preclude my current support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It could deserve an article, but so could all the mentioned luxury trains. It's a bit hard to judge, honestly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Igbo phrasebook[edit]

Place: Igbo phrasebook
Blurb: Ị̀ nà sụ́ Ìgbò? If going to southeastern Nigeria it can be both useful and fun to know some phrases. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Time for a phrasebook again! Why not Igbo, which was good enough to be Star nominated a while back, also, as everyone knows, we haven't had very many African articles on the Main Page.

Indomie Igbo Advert, Abia.JPG
  • Support. Someone (me?) should add some more pics but otherwise I think the article is good as it is now. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to take the main author's assertion that this is complete for a phrasebook and accurate at face value. My questions would be: (a) Has the English-language portion of the text been edited sufficiently? I know I did some editing, but I'm not sure I got through the whole phrasebook. (b) Is the "Learning more" section (an "External links" section in all but name) OK or a violation of Wikivoyage guidelines (probably a violation, I think, but we could consider making an exception if the links are particularly outstanding and useful)? (c) Are we OK with the Wikipedia-style pronunciation tables? I am; I think they're clear and look great and better than any other style I can think of, but other people should express an opinion. (d) Most importantly, given that there is "high variation and low mutual intelligibility between many Igbo dialects", is there really a high likelihood that this phrasebook will enable readers to be understood, still less to understand Igbo speakers? I would particularly solicit the input of User:Ukabia, to whose formidable work we owe this phrasebook. To sum up, though, if all these questions are answered satisfactorily, I will be happy to support a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I e-mailed Ukabia last night to come and have a look at this discussion and the article itself. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The "E-mail this user function" maybe is broken, Ukabia's mail address outdated or whatever so I left a message on their talk page. Here are some replies to Ikan's questions as nobody else seems to have noticed this discussion.
I haven't edited the English-language part of the text in any way, if anyone sees any errors, feel free to copyedit...
The Learn more section is not part of the standard phrasebook template, but apparently it used to be part of it until 2007. I think it in some cases can be a good idea to point readers to resources for learning more, not just when it comes to foreign languages but also for other travel topics where it's likely that readers want to learn details about the subject beyond the scope of a travel guide, like wine tourism and practicing different sports.
The tables are certainly OK, one can find tables (though for grammar, not pronounciation) in our only Star phrasebook too.
The last question is probably best answered by Ukabia. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm astonished that we would have ever considered deleting the "Learn more" section. The current minimalist framework of simple, common, straightforwardly travel-related words and sentences is pretty much all the information Wikivoyage can be expected to provide itself, but it would certainly be worthwhile from a travellers' perspective to dig deeper into study of the local language if so inclined, and I see no point in not taking the opportunity to lead our readers to places where they can do that. Concerns about crufty external links are well-founded but easily allayed with careful curation and attention to quality control vis-à-vis the external links we choose to include. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Andre, I see your point about "Learn more", but let's please be aware that your remarks about curation of external links are exactly what we turned our backs on when we decided to ban external links sections and non-primary external links from destination articles. So allowing them in phrasebooks, while certainly potentially helpful to travelers, is indeed an exception to our external links policies. In any case, I think the most crucial question that has to be addressed is how useful this phrasebook is in helping travelers to understand and be understood by speakers of all Igbo dialects. I hope User:Ukabia pops up, or failing that, that another Igbo speaker can address this. Any further copy editing of the English text can be done in the interim between approving this article for a feature and actually featuring it, so it's not so important for that to slow down a feature, but the usefulness question is fundamental. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
If nothing else helps, there are the Wikipedia reference desk and the Igbo Wikipedia where one can try to get in touch with Igbo speakers. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (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."

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)


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.

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)