Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please suggest banners for display on the main page for upcoming features below. Please try to use banner dimensions of 1700 x 567, and keep the blurb text to a reasonable length. The images from which you create the banners should be of high quality, and ideally of equal or greater resolution than the banner (to ensure high resolution). For inspiration, take a look in the banner Hall of 'Fame'.

Please upload all banner suggestions locally—to Wikivoyage rather than Commons, and put them in Category:DotM banners. If starting a discussion on a suggested feature that has not been discussed yet below, put the discussion at the bottom of the page underneath a new first-level header, such as = New York =

When updating the Main Page banners, please update Main Page/Photo credits as well.

Once in situ, suggested banners and their accompanying discussions will be archived.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport[edit]

I'd like to get out of this bad habit of presenting banners for your approval just in the nick of time. But on the bright side: by virtue of the fact that ATL is unusually rich in visitor exhibits and other points of interest of a not strictly functional nature, at least there was enough material for a full-size roster of four banner options. Let's hear your votes! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Despite what I said in my little intro above, and despite what I was expecting to say whilst in the process of making these banners, I'm going to vote for #3 as my first choice - it may be anonymous-looking, but it does the best job of all of them in illustrating the sheer massive scale of the place, which in turn keys into the blurb in the textbox. It's a close race for second, but #2 (the forest-themed walkway between Concourses A and B; pleasantly colorful, if a bit reminiscent of the O'Hare banner from 2013) is ahead of #1 (the... actually I don't know what this is exactly, but it's neat-looking) by a hair. #4 is impressive, but it doesn't exactly scream "airport". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 3 followed by 4. When I look at 2, my eyes go to the man in the center. 1 is low quality. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 3, 4, 2, 1. Number 2 is also reminiscent of Manchester Airport, so let's not use that one. 1 looks like a building site, and is probably finished by now. As an image, I prefer 4 actually, but I literally just wrote the same thing as André before realising. 4 could only be improved with the theropod from #3 stomping across the tarmac. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 3, 4. It would be good to tweak the text box on 3, as some of the white text on white aircraft is not clear. AlasdairW (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 3, 2, 4, 1. Ypsilon (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • While I like #1, I side with the others that #3 is the best. My vote is 3, 1, 2, 4. While I've been through #2, and it's a notable, recognizable part of the airport, I don't think it's enough of one that travellers would all immediately connect it to ATL, especially if they haven't been to the airport yet. Lastly, #4 looks like an exhibit in a museum, not an airport, per Andre. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


For any given DotM/OtBP/FTT candidate, I really don't like offering fewer than four banner options to choose from. It's a bad habit that I've gotten into lately and am trying hard to get out of.

So I'm distinctly displeased to say that I only have three Adelaide banners to offer. There are a couple reasons for that. One, to the extent that I was able to get a feel for the place's identity - what makes it stand out from the pack - it's heavy on things that don't translate super well to pictorial format (fine dining, progressive political outlook, etc.) Normally, I'd compensate by leaning more on the aesthetic end of things and just seeking out interesting-looking images to use as source material, but that brings us to the second problem, which is that Adelaide (at least according to the impression I got from what was on Commons and Flickr) is oddly anonymous-looking. Even the heritage architecture, which Lonely Planet crows about (when you look up a destination on their website, each one starts out with a really nicely done two- or three-paragraph summary of what's interesting about the place for travellers, which I find is a good place to look when it's banner-making time and I need clues on what to look for), didn't seem different from any other Western city's stock of old buildings.

Notwithstanding all that, let's hear your opinions.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • For the first time that I can remember, I think all the banners are equally (and considerably) impressive in terms of how attractive the image is, so my ratings are based on how well they reflect the text blurb and/or the essence of Adelaide as described in the article. Banner #3 (Moseley Square in Glenelg as seen from the jetty) is in first place; depicting both some handsome heritage architecture (notably Glenelg Town Hall) and some of the popular beaches in Adelaide's western suburbs that aren't mentioned in the blurb but get a good bit of coverage in the article itself. #1 is in second place, the view over the River Torrens at sunset, looking toward the Festival Centre which is a venue for much of the high culture toued in the blurb. #2 (Brighton Jetty) is pleasant, and would likely be a welcome sight in December to Northern Hemisphere eyes, but in the end could be pretty much any coastal location. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with your ranking. I'd like to request that "of course" be removed from the blurb. It's unnecessary for people who do know these things about Adelaide and insulting to those (including me) who didn't know it and want to find out more about it. I know you hate "Words to avoid", but this is an expression to avoid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, 3, but they're all good! #'s 1 and 2 are especially good. I love the scene in #2, but then, #1 is so dramatic, lively, varied, and attractive, that I feel it's the best option. I know that's a slightly different viewpoint, but I really like #1. IMO, #1 looks more modern than #3, and modern is a major way that travel websites such as Lonely Planet make places look like great tourist destinations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, I agree with Ikan Kekek that "of course" doesn't fit and should be removed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hard choice but 1, 3, 2. I nominated the article and wrote the blurb, and while I don't really know much about Adelaide, it's described as a great culinary destination (the foremost in Australia?) both in the lead and the Eat sections, so I think it's worth emphasizing that in the blurb. Perhaps "of course" isn't an appropriate expression (I didn't try to offend anyone :P), but if anyone has a better suggestion, please plunge forward and improve the blurb. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the need for any expression to substitute for "of course"; it's simply two superfluous words, I would think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 1, 3, 2, though none make me want to visit. Looks like Milton Keynes with better weather (I'm blaming the city, not the banner choices). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 and 2 are the prettiest photos. Unfortunately Adelaide is not a major travel destination in Australia and there aren't any unique selling points about it. It is known as the "City of churches" (though hardly anyone outside the state would be able to name a particular church), the Australian Detroit (a city whose economy hasn't recovered after all the automotive manufacturing shut down) and a stopover for places like the Barossa Valley. To an extent its sporting venues punch above their weight but that's it. Gizza (roam) 21:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


Made the best of an extremely limited range of Copyleft-compatible source material. Let's hear your thoughts! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • The text in the blurb implying that Pakse is more of a jumping-off point than a destination in itself made me feel freer to include more "utilitarian" images as representative depictions (i.e. #s 1 and 2 here), but in the end there's really no contest here. The only thing that gives me even slight pause about #3 is that it seems like Buddha statues and other such Eastern religious imagery is a trope that we're maybe leaning a bit too heavily on when we feature Southeast Asian destinations (Kamphaeng Phet's banner being another recent example). For second place I guess I'd pick #2 over #1, but again, they're both way far behind. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer #1. As ACF says, Buddha statues representing SE Asia is becoming cliché. I don't find the main road at the forefront of #2 particularly interesting. The first image illustrates the "lively markets" mentioned in the blurb. Gizza (roam) 04:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter to me if various places in Southeast Asia have impressive Buddha statues: #3 is the clear winner to me. After that, I prefer #1, a colorful market scene that conforms to the blurb, to #2, which is interesting to me mainly for the hill in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 2, 1, 3 per AndreCarrotflower, DaGizza, and the blurb. #2 seems to fit the blurb well by saying that "this is better than the market" displayed in #1. However, all of these are good enough to use as banner images on the main page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)