Wikivoyage:Star nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Put a star on it!

This is where we determine whether an article is ready to be classified as Star status. Even though the criteria are fairly objective, it's good to get some additional eyes to look over a page and confirm that it's ready before elevating it to Star. For reference, here's the general description, from Project:Article status:

The article is essentially complete. It meets all of the above criteria. It follows the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule. Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable. It has appropriate illustrations, such as photos and a map. Enough breadth and depth of material is presented that anyone familiar with the subject of the article would have little to point out as absent. Future changes to this kind of article would reflect changes in the subject (e.g. a museum closes, a hotel price changes, a new airport is built) more than they'd require improvements in the coverage.

Objective criteria for Star status varies depending on the kind of article it is. For more concrete guidance on this, see:

If you feel that an article currently at Star status is no longer worthy, or never was to begin with, this is also the place to nominate to de-star an article.


Star articles: Last minute checklist

  • The article must be complete — See definition above.
  • Grammar and spelling must be perfect — See definition above. Prose should be stylistically superior and effective.
  • Illustration: the article should be appropriately illustrated with pictures and a Wikivoyage-style map, with all attractions marked.
  • Listings should be in alphabetical order — geographical order is also acceptable if it is deemed better.
  • No duplications: a listing should appear under one section only — if there is ambiguity, put it under the section that it most applies to.
  • Time and date formats: Use: M,Tu,W,Th,F,Sa,Su; and check our manual of style for latest and complete policy
  • Section introductions are not mandatory but should be present when they serve to improve a section.
  • Use "—" (mdash) for breaks in thought.
  • Use abbreviations for addresses, e.g., St, Ave, Sq, Blvd

You can nominate any "guide" quality article you think is ready to be declared a "star". Please do not nominate an article if you know that it falls short of the criterion above — refer to the info box for a last minute checklist. If there are other nominations on this page, add yours to the bottom of the list. The basic format of a nomination is as follows:

===[[Article name]]===
This has everything we're looking for,
plus a swell kitchen sink. ~~~~

Having done this, please add the tag


at the beginning of the article, after the {{pagebanner}} tag.

You may also post a note at Requests for comment to publicize your nomination — remember to tell people that partial critiques and even just a few quick words of support are welcome. These steps help draw attention to the article's nomination, improving the discussion as to whether it should be awarded star status.


Please comment on whether you agree that the nominated article is ready, with a bullet point (*) and your signed opinion. If you think it's ready, a simple "Support" will do. If not, explain what you think is missing or not up to standards. You don't have to leave a detailed critique to vote on the star — partial critiques are welcome, and feel free to just voice your support for the hard work someone else has done.

===[[Article name]]===
This has everything we're looking for, plus a swell kitchen sink.  TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* The sink isn't properly formatted, and there are no "budget" places to sleep. ~~~~

After three weeks of discussion, if a consensus is reached, then that article becomes a star, and the discussion should be archived. A consensus means that all outstanding objections should have been addressed and dropped; if issues remain then the discussion should be left open for two months to allow time to fix the article and reach a consensus. If the outstanding issues cannot or will not be addressed in reasonable time, the article should be added to the slush pile. Regardless of the outcome, it is useful to copy the nomination discussion to the article's talk page.

Successful nominations[edit]

  • Remove the nomination discussion from this page to Project:Star_nominations/Archives
  • Copy the nomination discussion to the talk page of the new star article
  • Add the article to Star articles (and change the map on that page)
  • Remove starnomination template from article
  • Update the article status template on the article from guide to star
  • Add |star=yes to the Pagebanner at the top of the article (see also Template:Pagebanner if more than one icon is required)

Failed nominations[edit]

Articles should only be renominated when they address criticisms from the previous nomination.

Nominations for Star status[edit]

Number of articles currently in review: 6

For an archive of previous successful nominations please see Project:Star nominations/Archives.

Please add {{starnomination}} to the top of the article being nominated. This will add it to Category:Star article nominations.

Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side[edit]

The obvious answer to why this article isn't yet Starworthy is the lack of a Wikivoyage-style map. Aside from that relatively easy fix, I'd be interested to hear others' feedback. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm afraid I'm not going to give my judgement on this as I'm not native. However, I'll take care of Wikivoyage styled map. Will do it once this nominate garnish support votes. --Saqib (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Good work. It is a very detailed article, possibly even too detailed. It is missing a geo template to give a link to a full page map at the top of the article (and to appear on maps of articles). I think that there needs to be a paragraph near the start giving an overview of the itinerary. I had to read quite a bit to find that this was a tour by car, not on foot. I would also make it clear that this is mainly (or only) a tour of the exterior of churches - I had expected to be able to go inside all eighteen churches. A quick look at the area bus map suggests that a section of the route could be done by bus, and this maybe could be looked into. AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Bump; discussion seems to have died out several years ago. Is it now ready to go? Looks it to me. Pashley (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Since we're no longer requiring static maps for star status, should this article be reconsidered? This article now has a much better chance of reaching star status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I see no problems with this page, after two years not a single support, suggest archiving this proposal. Can create again if feel deserves reconsidering. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not archive it. The thing is, from past experience, I'm not sure my judgment should be trusted, because I'm apt to miss details, but I'd like anyone to mention any way in which this is lacking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem with it may be the opposite of what is lacking, but that there is too much content. I often think this is a problem with star nominations, and it may seem like I say it too often, but I think there is a reasonable length for star articles (around 25K-80K bytes), and articles outside of this range are generally not WV's best. I think this churches article is around 200-300K bytes, which is very long for an article just about specific kinds of sights in a specific part of a city. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Realistically, what’s the solution to that, other than cutting out valuable information? Yes, the article goes in depth and is written for travellers with specific interests, but that’s exactly why I didn’t include all this information in (the even longer) Buffalo/East Side. I’m all for trimming fat, but there’s no fat here - it’s all meat - and I hardly think we ought to be penalizing articles because the coverage is too good. Sometimes articles are long out of necessity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know Buffalo geography, but is there perhaps a way we could split the article by section of the East Side? Or even divide by church's religious group? I fear the answer is no, but just asking in case that's an option. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 06:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

South Boston[edit]

Hello! I have been chipping away at this for awhile, and it feels like I've gotten it to a much better place. I don't know if it's star stuff just yet, I doubt the writing is up to par mainly. (It's kind of why I started contributing, to work on my written communications skills. But then all the other cool things you can to play with here keep distracting me!) Also, not sure about the whole map situation. Is it cool to have only a dynamic map in a star article? Any feedback or pointers (especially on writing) would be very welcome. I'd love to incorporate the feedback as I keep chipping away at these Boston articles. It looks like most haven't been updated in 10 years!

  • Is the writing any good? (tips to improve?)
  • Are dynamic maps cool, or do we need flat ones for stars?
  • Can you star a bare-ass district, or should we wait until all Boston pages are up to snuff?

Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Answering your questions in order:
  1. Copy-editing a Star nominee is a fine-toothed comb kind of thing, so based on my admittedly less-than-thorough reading of the article just now I can't give you a definite answer of whether it will need to be edited more. I can say that there aren't any major glaring problems that jump out at me. The tone seems right: informal, informative without being too encyclopedic, no misspellings or grammatical mistakes that I could find.
  2. We currently don't have any Star articles with dynamic maps, and whether a static map is a requirement of Star status has been a matter of dispute pretty much since we first introduced dynamic maps. It's been a while since the issue has come up (as you can see, Starnom is a lonely place these days), but IIRC a slight majority of our users are in favor of allowing dynamic maps on Star articles, at least in some cases. But the anti-dynamic map minority is large and vocal enough that it really can't be called a consensus per se. I wish I had a better answer for you, but that's the scenario.
  3. Finally: yes, it absolutely is possible to Star-ify a district article for a city where not all districts are up to snuff.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the response Andre! For me personally, building static district level maps isn't an interesting problem to solve. Plus it would be odd to have a static and dynamic map of the same content, no? On the other hand, if a printable guide is the primary goal, a flat map seems necessary? Anyways, I'm sure I'm rehashing old arguments at this point, I'm fine leaving this as a guide until map-consensus is reached. I would still be interested in any feedback on how to improve the writing, still think that's the real weak point. Thank you all! --ButteBag (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
In addition to printability, static maps have a huge advantage in readability and customization. It's difficult to suggest that an article with only a dynamic map represents our best work, same as if we had an article with auto-generated text. Powers (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
While I don't want to derail a star nomination to re-litigate the dynamic vs. static map debate, it should be noted that there are a number of editors here who hold the opposite opinion regarding whether a dynamic map is "our best work" - I'm obviously one of them, and would consider removing a dynamic map and replacing it with a static map to be something that would significantly weaken an article and overall make it a far less useful tool for travelers. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha, thank you for the feedback! But "dynamic map" === "auto-generated text" is a little bit of a Straw Man for me. Is there another thread where this map discussion is taking place? Happy to post there. Anyway, I'd still love some feedback on how to improve my poor writing abilities if anyone has the time. Thank you in advance! --ButteBag (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think your writing is anywhere near as terrible as you think it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@ButteBag: The subject of dynamic vs. static maps is a hotbutton topic that hasn't been re-opened in a long time, but for some of the original (& heated) discussion you can review Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition#Missing images and missing maps, which is probably the most exhaustive debate on the subject of dynamic maps - you'll also find other threads on that talk page that are relevant. You can also review Wikivoyage:Star nominations/Slush pile, in particular Wikivoyage:Star nominations/Slush pile#El Camino Real, for discussions of whether an article with a dynamic map can be a star article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, and pointers to previous discussions. Looks like I really kicked the hornets nest on this one! --ButteBag (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I should apologize for lumping all dynamic maps together. My complaint is not with dynamic maps per se, just that the current implementation leaves a lot to be desired aesthetically. If a dynamic map can be devised that resolves issues of overlapping labels, excessive detail, crowding, and such, then I'd be happy to support a star nomination for its article. But no one has yet shown me such a map. Powers (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I put my map-thoughts here. I've also added a few missing blurbs to the South Boston article, and some other boat information I just remembered. I think it's pretty complete now, please let me know if there is anything I can improve. Thanks again, everyone! --ButteBag (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


Curious as to why this isn't a star? Seems complete, has a static map, good writing that conforms perfectly to the MoS, and a few nice and well placed images. After reading this I feel that; not only do I not need to consult another guide, I'd really have no reason to want to. Is there anything about this article that could be improved? --ButteBag (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I know it has in the past been considered doubtful whether the argument should "count" but have a look at Copyscape which tells us something like 56% of the WV article has not been touched since the migration. It may be that some prose is indeed so perfect it shouldn't be touched, but I fear some of this untouched stuff may have become outdated over the last half decade. At any rate, promoting it to "star" would likely set those wordings even more in stone than already, which might hurt our SEO attempts. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the SEO argument but honestly, the reason we migrated the way we did was so that we wouldn't have to re-write everything. I'm not going to claim my prose is perfect but it's very hard to re-write one's own text and feel the second attempt is as good as the first. Powers (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
And also, while I find the SEO issues in general very important, an individual article is not going to make the difference. Considering the fact that star nominations can be counted on one hand, I suppose SEO shouldn't be a major concern here and 56% is actually not all that bad, compared to our average articles. That said, I'm not sure how to feel about this kind of article for star. In itself, it's perfectly complete - so it's not that. Star rating suggests it's the best we have to offer. That's true, to the extent that you simply can't write much more about a place like this, but I'm not sure how it would come across on the average passer-by. Making tiny places super-complete is much simpler and less work than doing the same for a huge city, so I do think we'd have to make sure that this remains somewhat of an exception. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Look, I've been trying to avoid coming to this conclusion for a long time because Hobbitschuster is a valuable contributor in most ways. But it's no longer possible to avoid noting the similarities between the SEO agenda-pushing that he's been engaging in for the past few months and Frank's agenda-pushing vis-à-vis section headers et al. some time ago. Other editors have been trying for some time to impress upon HS the need to let it go, but apparently those entreaties have fallen on ears that are equally as deaf as Frank's were when we tried to reason with him. So let me try one more time: HS, your ideas about making Star certification, DotM readiness, etc. contingent on WT/WV Copyscape comparisons have been duly heard out by the community, but unfortunately it's become obvious that you're not going to get a consensus behind them. It's imperative that you realize it's time to stop trying to force the issue. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You do realise we forked in 2012 and it's now 2017? If the majority of text in an article has not been updated in roughly five years that is very much something we'd want to know. For an article to represent our best work, it needs to be current and up-to-date. K7L (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
That could easily be because descriptions of old buildings don't need updating beyond changes in prices. However, I have a specific substantive issue with the article, though only one that's easily resolvable. From the "Eat" listings for the Tillman Inn: The smaller main dining room is in the carriage shed that was built after the War to connect the two businesses. "The War" usually means WWII, but in this context, it would seem to indicate the Civil War. The ambiguity should be ended by simply specifying which war is being referred to.
Another thing, unless I've somehow read it without registering, is that when and how the hamlet was renamed "Childs" should be recounted in "Understand"; I can't remember seeing that information anywhere.
But once those two things are taken care of, I would support starring this article, with the caveat that it's appeared in previous star nominations that my judgment in these matters is not necessarily to be relied upon, as there are various things I might miss that others see. I'm having trouble seeing what else could be added to this article, though, other than perhaps what kind of fish are most plentiful in the creek, if it's fished in Childs, and whether that one store sells fishing equipment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The previous sentence refers to the "Civil War"; it seemed redundant to repeat the name in such quick succession. Would the antecedent be clearer if "War" was lowercased? ... I'm not sure anyone fishes in Proctor Creek; the convenience store is typical of any suburban or urban store of the type, not the rural fishing-town general store one might envision. ... I don't actually know when or why the hamlet was renamed. Powers (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a good article, but there are a few small points that might be looked at. "Get in" assumes that you are in a car; I think that it should give some indication of public transport (bus to Albion then taxi / walk?) and maybe cycling options too. There are no lat/longs on the listings (maybe not important as there is a good static map). I am not sure that the content of "Connect" is standard - should it not be about wifi, phone coverage etc? AlasdairW (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Connect" is about any form of communication, including snail mail. However, some remarks on cell phone signal strength would be relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a silly comment, but I am not really fan of small random towns being rated as star quality articles. I want to see cities, and areas of interest such as Mohenjo-daro as star article. --Saqib (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Why not? Are you perhaps mistaking the star rating as a reflection on the destination rather than on the quality of the article itself? Powers (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to say that I want to see detailed and comprehensive guide as star rated articles. Guides on small hamlets and towns which don't have any major attraction or distinction rarely become so detailed. I just feel that guides of small towns may get more easily star rated articles because they don't require much work in the sense they don't have much to offer. I hope you get my Pakistani Engish? --Saqib (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Powers, I think the clearest way to indicate which war is being referred to in that context would be to use the phrase "that war". I kind of think that we might hold off on starring the article until a bit of background on when and why the hamlet's name was changed to Childs could be included, simply because all the other information leaves that implicit question hanging. I suppose it might not be too hard to find that out, if someone wants to contact a historical society or library in the area, or perhaps the local museum or government, but it seems like a nice thing to include in the article. The stuff about fishing was just a brainstorm on my part and nothing I consider important to include, especially if it's not relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have stated before, and I continue to state, my utter opposition to the idea of any article being considered permanently ineligible for Star status, or any double standard between small and large destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Origin of name

Ikan, Powers - here's what I could come up with.

w:Childs, New York and w:Gaines, New York claim that the hamlet was named after Judge Henry Childs. The Genealogical and Family History of Western New York, Vol. 2 further confirms the existence of an Hon. Henry A. Childs, who was born in Orleans County, educated in the Gaines District Schoolhouse (one of the buildings that today make up the Cobblestone Museum complex), and ended up a State Supreme Court justice.

Additionally, the Historic Map Works website has several old Orleans County maps in its archives, and going by those it appears that the change in name of the hamlet from Fair Haven to Childs happened some time between 1890 and 1913. This would have been contemporaneous with his term on the Supreme Court bench.

Interestingly, however, the aforementioned Genealogical and Family History was published in 1912 yet makes no mention in its lengthy biographical sketch of Judge Childs that his hometown was renamed in his honor.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it! If that's all we've got, I think we should run with it. Perhaps some librarian or local or regional historical society might be able to eliminate the ambiguity, but this is alright for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
So, now that this information has been incorporated into the article, and taking advantage of the renewed interest in Starnom effected by SelfieCity: where do we stand with this nominee? Ikan? Powers? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I renewed the interest here, actually, but I'm willing to the take the credit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let's put it this way: since the last remaining problem that anyone specifically had with this article (i.e. the information regarding when the hamlet's name was changed) has now been addressed, does anyone not think we should go ahead with elevating Childs to Star status? Pinging Ikan and Powers one last time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look at the article again lately but don't see why I would have a problem with starring it, as you said. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good overall, but have a little question on the Fair Haven Inn. It says it was "The Tillman family opened it several years ago in an 1837 Greek Revival house." We usually don't use relative units of time as they become outdated, and trevellers don't know if it was written last week or in 2006. The Inn's website says it was "established 1824" without any more context, so even before we say the house was built. Anyone know more about when this inn was bilt, (re) opened, etc.? JakeOregon (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I'm going to wait a little bit before acting because I'd really like for others to chime in here, but if not, I see no reason to hold this up. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Have a look at this edit. If there is anything the slightest bit incomplete or not fully clear about these charges, that must be rectified before we can star the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that we need to improve Get in before it is a star. The article only describes getting in by car - the requirement for a guide city is "There are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in". Childs may not be on a bus route, but we should say where nearby is accessible by bus or train, and how to proceed from there. My comments a year ago suggested a bus to Albion (New York) then walking, but I don't know how practical that it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I've had a fairly good look: I read the understand section and looked through most of the rest as well. It looks good to me; I understand that we normally say there should be multiple ways to get in, but for a place as small as Childs I'm not sure if we should really expect information about getting in by bus or whatever. I've removed a few bold terms that don't really enhance the article, but otherwise I think we are ready to upgrade this one to star. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with AlasdairW that it should mention other ways to get there. To someone who lacks a drivers license the article practically lacks a "Get in" section, thus not even satisfying the criteria for usable article status. Even if there are no other ways to get there we should say so explicitly. Aside from that, I am also curious about the population size of this "tiny hamlet". I've heard Indian settlements of 50,000 being referred to as "villages", while that in Swedish terms would make a medium-sized city. Of course population numbers are very blunt, but is Childs in the general area of 50 inhabitants, 500 inhabitants or 5,000 inhabitants? MartinJacobson (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't find information on the population of Childs. Generally, any settlement in the U.S. with at least 1000 people is called a "city", at least in the Midwest and the West, but in New York State it's probably different. The static map implies that it's under 500 inhabitants, looking at the number of buildings. Maybe around 100? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Childs appear to be part of the town of w:Gaines, New York, which has a population in total of 3,378, spread over 9 communities. This supports it being less than 500. AlasdairW (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
SelfieCity - Childs is an unincorporated hamlet with no official borders. Without any universally accepted definition of who does and doesn't live "in" Childs, the question of official population figures becomes moot. Parenthetically, the difference between cities, towns and villages is definitely something that changes from state to state. In New York, without getting down too far into the weeds, "towns" are minor civil divisions basically synonymous with what other states call "townships", while the difference between incorporated "cities" and "villages" basically boils down to whether or not they're part of an underlying town (cities aren't, villages are). Population has nothing to do with it: the cities of Sherrill and Little Falls have populations of 3,071 and 4,946 respectively, while the villages of Hempstead and Freeport have 53,891 and 43,713 respectively. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay; but I'm the wrong person for this explanation, really; I think it was AlasdairW who asked about the population in the first place, I was just trying to answer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


OK, let 'er rip! I think I've basically covered everything I can think of. Got a WV styled static map in the commons as an SVG. Following the manual of style to the best of my ability. (Although I'm sure a typo or two has snuck in.) All boring lists have been prose-ified, with judicious use of bolding for the more important bits around town. I would like to add a few more pictures as the summer goes on, but I think the article is pretty pretty pretty good as it stands. What does everyone think? Anything I can improve? Thank you for your feedback! --ButteBag (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Haven't given the article a thorough read yet, but something that immediately jumps out at me is that some of the district articles are still at usable status. The requirements for a major city star article is that all districts be at least guide status, so those are going to have to be improved first. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, shoot! I knew there must be something missing. Please let me know if there are any other issues with the article itself, I can fix them while I'm improving the districts. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've got them up to guide status now. Please let me know if I've upgraded any in error, or if you notice any other issues with the Boston article. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Very solid stuff. I remember being underwhelmed by the Boston guide the last time I gave it a good look (I think this was about a couple of years ago), so it's pleasantly surprising to see it in such great shape now. I'll try to give it a very thorough read when I get the chance, but there were a couple of things I noticed off-the-bat: 1) some of the listings in Downtown and Charlestown lack coordinates, and 2) although they're not technically district articles, the adjacent cities listed in the districts section (Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline) should also be tidied up (I notice a lot of dead links in Cambridge, in particular) and upgraded to guide status, since (as the Boston page points out) casual visitors think of those places as part of Boston too, and every great Boston guide must have great coverage of those cities too. On a similar note, the Freedom Trail itinerary should also be spruced up and upgraded.
On a more general note, I would recommend digging through some of our other major city Star articles (e.g. Chicago and San Francisco) to get a sense of what we expect from a city guide of Star caliber. We hold these up to very high standards, and doubly so when it comes to a major destination like this, so don't be surprised if the feedback you get on this gets extremely particular. I'll also add that I've never been to Boston, so we should definitely get a second (and third and fourth and fifth) opinion from someone who has. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
On an extra note, did you remember to post a note in the traveler's pub to draw attention to this discussion? PerryPlanet (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, before I started, the Boston article felt so out of date as to be considered misinformation! I have been constantly referencing the ORD, SFO & DCA star articles as I went, I often find examples more enlightening than documentation. It's very tricky to balance the facts a traveller needs to know without going overboard on details, while adding the complexity of phrasing it so that someone might actually want to read it.
I don't mind getting into the weeds either, as long as we don't lose the forest for the trees. I had noticed the Chicago districts are stars themselves without having lat/long for every POI. Maybe that was then, and this is now; so if that is the only criticism of Boston, I would happily take it! (Also: to be clear none of the Boston district articles should be considered stars, they don't have hand drawn maps and are not qualified.) --ButteBag (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I only bring up the coordinates because the lack of hand-drawn maps in the district pages makes mapping them in the dynamic maps even more important. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm wondering if there are any comments on the Boston article itself? I'm in the process of updating the Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline articles now. That was the only feedback so far about next steps to take for granting star status. Does that sound right? Thanks for your input! --ButteBag (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Wondering if anyone has had time to review Boston yet? The summer is well underway, and I'm getting pulled onto other tasks, but I've been cleaning up the Cambridge / Somerville / Brookline articles so Boston can be eligible for a star. Just wondering if there were any comments or feedback on the main article?
It also looks like someone corrected some of my typos and misspellings, yay! They also removed (in my opinion) some "lively prose", boo! Not sure what the actual "prose" criteria is, or how/if to rectify the edits. Thanks for your help! --ButteBag (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to revert or revise any prose changes that you feel damage the tone. Powers (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ButteBag: I think the article looks great! A few suggestions:
    1. I find the links for the "Central" district confusing. (This might be true of other star articles too...I find Chicago's district links similarly confusing.) There are five links, with little indication of how the reader should choose which one to click on, but once you do click on them you realize that they only go to two articles. Instead of having a one-liner description for "Central", I would suggest splitting it up into a one-liner description for "Downtown" and another one for "North End"—then there could just be two links, and the reader would have a way to decide which one to click on.
    2. It might be nice to have an indication of the locations of North Station and South Station (maybe addresses or cross streets?)
    3. The article says "It takes about 15-30 stressful minutes to transfer between the two stations." Could that sentence be adjusted to say how travellers should transfer between the stations (subway? bus?)?
I've never been to Boston, but these are the thoughts that occurred to me when I looked through the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean the descriptions of each "Go next" destination should be shortened per 1-liner listings, and I would agree with that, but only slightly, as in skipping through the section, I think most of the descriptions are quite good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and also the way the sections are divided. And also the number of destinations listed. I know Boston's a big place, but perhaps it should be slimmed down to just the most popular destinations in the area. Otherwise, a pretty good article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: - you've got to keep in mind that just because most Wikivoyage articles are a certain way, that doesn't mean there's a policy that says they have to be. For instance, I don't know where this idea came from that says descriptions of cities listed in "Go next" sections can be no longer than one line. There's nothing about that in the manual of style. All the mos says is "provide a brief description", without defining what "brief" means. Similarly, the mos also does not say anything about whether "Go next" sections should be divided into subsections. In cases where the mos is silent, such as how to structure the "Go next" section, we should assume it's up to the author's discretion and judge based on what works best for the individual destination, which in Boston's case seems to point to the section being longer and more detailed than usual. And where the terms used in the mos are ambiguous, such as "brief", we should assume that a certain degree of leeway exists. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that listings should be only one line in length. Contributors should be free to add some more if they like, but I think the number of destinations listed there shouldn't be too long. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The question we're trying to answer is whether Boston#Go next runs afoul of mos, and it doesn't look to me like it does. If you personally think that "Go next" sections should be limited to a certain length, then let's first talk about gathering consensus to amend mos, rather than attempting to enforce a policy that doesn't exist yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
My criticisms of the article are not really about mos. I simply think that an article with so many destinations in that section should not become a star article until some are removed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Large cities like Boston are excellent bases for further exploration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I guess. But couldn't some things be merged into one listing, or whatever? I might give it a try. Don't worry, I wouldn't remove anything important or relevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but in the case of Boston, you might ask User:ButteBag if you're about to do anything major. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
No, nothing major. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've made the "New England" section of "Go next" more compact. It's better, but could perhaps be even better. I think, though, I'll switch to weak support because the content of the Go next section seems worth reading. All of that section seems useful to the traveler. Definitely a couple very interesting infoboxes as well — like the theft and the molasses flood. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To the degree that policy makes it possible to do so, we should avoid thinking in terms of one-size-fits-all standards that we apply to all articles across the board, and instead think in terms of what works best for each specific article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey SelfieCity, I guess I don't follow. Looks like in Go Next, the New England sub-section has 4 long bullet points with multiple "things" compressed into each. Seems harder to parse, and inconsistent with the other bulleted points. I'd rather they were all redone in the same style or were left the way they were. What do you think? --ButteBag (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmmmm, yeah I also had them organized closest -> furthest from Boston by time (not distance). So we lost that. Plus now the states are emphasized (more likely to have heard of), and not the destinations (less likely to have heard of). Yeah, I'm not wild about these edits, sorry to say... --ButteBag (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I'm still not wild about the length of the section. I think it ought to be shortened some more, if possible, not to fit a particular standard but to make the section a reasonable length. This is why I made these edits. Feel free to adjust as you see fit, but articles shouldn't be dominated by a list of other places to go, but instead they should be about the specific place (in this case, the city of Boston) with a short section at the end for other cities. I don't see why we need to have listings for places as far away as Canada, for example.
Basically, I don't see why we need a whole essay about other places to go. I understand there's a lot of possibilities, but I think it's best not to overwhelm the traveler with loads of places where you can "go next". I think 10 possible destinations should be the maximum for a city of this size. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
City its size? It's the largest city in New England. I again disagree with you. The length of the section is IMO totally fine. And to me, the whole point of a "Go next" section is to give readers choices. The more choices, within reason, IMO, the better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree a lot of choices in "Go next" is good, as long as they're divided into subsections in a sensible way, which these seem to be. I've often wished that an article had a longer "Go next" section, but rarely felt like there were too many choices.
The three suggestions I mentioned above still stand, but otherwise I think this looks like an excellent article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oh, I still think it's a good article. Just potential improvements. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course, User:ButteBag if you really want to revert the edits, go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


I'n definitely biased, but I don't know what more can be done to improve this article. What does anyone else think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks good but I see some room for improvement. The images are not great - I didn't see the point of the Sel Roti picture unless several places sell it, and I would like to see some general views of the town centre to get a "feel" for the place. The railway station listings could be expanded, with links to WP and National Rail. AlasdairW (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I have not read it through yet, but it looks pretty good. However, I agree with AlasdairW about the pictures; they don't seem to have much to do with the place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That's good feedback. Thanks! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Support This article is among the best WV has to offer, and although more/better illustrations could potentially enhance the article, I think it's ready to be a star as it is. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
Thanks for your support, IP user.
Re the other points, those are definitely things I can do, but I have a feeling I'll need to take some photos and upload them to Commons, as those that are on there of the town centre are outdated. I will be unavailable to do that in the next two weeks, however, but please be assured it hasn't been forgotten and will get done. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the IP user AC though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Not unless AC has moved from Moscow to South East London since the other day. AC identified himself in his comment above. However, I do think the IP user is someone with WV experience.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
IP addresses are fairly easy to spoof, particularly with open proxies, and the circumstantial evidence (writing style, use of support/oppose templates rather than prose, obvious previous familiarity with WV, previous instances of block evasion i.e. the above comment) is pretty overwhelming. I've blocked the IP user on that basis, not to say that will do much good. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Nice detective work. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Plus, in case you didn’t notice, in the preceding nomination he/she mentioned the Brussels districtification. How many IP addresses would know about that? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Great article! I read through it carefully, and I could only notice a few minor things which perhaps could be improved or expanded. None of them are major concerns, and I don't think it would take much time for anyone to who know Farnborough to deal with them.
  • Even though it doesn't seem too hard to get around in Farnborough I always prefer when there are a few words about orientation of a destination. Just a few words to help you get a 'feel' for the place before you actually go there. Are there any notable landmarks or natural boundaries? What parts of the city could be considered central?
  • How long does the different commuter-journeys listed in "Get in" take, and what do they cost?
  • I didn't really understand the sentence "Less useful is the 'secret' car park on the roof of Sainsbury's...". In what way is it a 'secret' car park? It rather sounds like it is not a car park at all?
  • Why are the black sheds famous?
  • I didn't really understand the St Michaels Abbey directions. What gates are they mentioning? If it is the Abbey gates, shouldn't that rather be mentioned in the opening hours field?
  • St Peters Church lack opening hours, but I couldn't find any on their website.
  • How does one get to North Camp? How far is it? And is there any good explanation why the southern suburb is called North camp?
  • A few words about where to eat as a vegetarian or a vegan?
  • Some of the eat listings lack price indicators. How expensive is a budget restaurant? Could we add Template:Eatpricerange and Template:Sleeppricerange-boxes?
  • Are there many or few chain restaurants? The lede claims that they are few, but the budget-lede lists 9, which by my counting is rather many for a small town.
  • The last three bullet-points in the "Further afield" section doesn't quiet fit in with the others as they are types of destinations, rather than destinations. I think that it looks a bit odd. Could they be rewritten in into a lede perhaps?
I also saw that User:Davisonio is a docent for Farnborough, and I would like to hear your take on the star nomination. Do you think that the article is complete, or are there any gaps in its coverage of Farnborough? Thank you for a terrific guide! MartinJacobson (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
You mentioned church hours. I think for churches the time of a service/mass is actually more helpful than open hours. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
More helpful for worshippers but not for general visitors. I would list open hours and give a link to the church's mass/service schedule. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I guess as a listing under "see" I can understand what you mean. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, it doesn't seem like anyone's really voted on this article yet (besides AC). My vote is support; while the pictures could be better, I don't think that is problematic enough that it should stop the article from becoming a star article. The possible improvements that were mentioned by MartinJacobson are valid, and I think they're good things to add, but not including these things does not bring down the quality of the article enough to prevent it from reaching star status, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article at this point already. I'll be happy to see more pictures. Hope you are able to upload them soon, TT. Ibaman (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The question now is this: is the article ready yet for star status despite the concerns, or should we wait until the concerns are addressed, e.g. the pictures? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Wait. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that my work on York is mostly complete, I've started addressing the points raised by MartinJacobson above in edits, even explaining the secret car park! Thanks for the great feedback, by the way :)

Regarding the Eat section, there are plenty of fast food chains for sure, but "proper" restaurant chains (i.e. with waiter service and actual cooking talent) are comparatively scarce, compared to plenty of great independents. Perhaps this distinction doesn't matter to a traveller, but I think there is a difference between the likes of Subway / Maccies and Pizza Express / Wagamama (sushi).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


I have not read through the article, but it's a long, detailed article with plenty of content. Seems to be a good choice for a star article. It's currently at guide status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support --Traveler100 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No doubt a great article! I haven't looked at it in detail, but there are a few general issues which I think could be improved:
    • Many lists are longer than 9 items. We should either brake these lists into sub-headings, or remove the least important venues.
    • Some of the sub-headings are non-conventional and overlapping, making them a bit confusing and difficult to use. E.g., some mid-range eateries serve international cuisine, and vice versa. Perhaps the subheadings "International", "Take-out only restaurants" and "Bed & Breakfast" could be integrated into the budget/mid-range/splurge eat and sleep subheadings?
    • The images are rather unevenly distributed with few in the first third of the article, and none in the last third. Perhaps they could also be made a bit more varied, as about half of them portray the skyline, and and the rest mostly portray the zoo or the stampede grounds.
    • Many listings lack opening hours and price information etc. Perhaps we could add Template:Eatpricerange and Template:Sleeppricerange-boxes.
    • Since most of the article is from 2014 or before, some information is probably dated. It could be a good idea to at least update the listings.
    • Is there any tourist information office we should list?
MartinJacobson (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Dividing restaurants or accommodation by type (for instance, splitting sleep into "camping", "B&B", "motels", "economy limited service hotels" and the like) is valid and may well be preferable to a split by price range. The city tourist info site is and much of what's in this article was written by User:Country Wife, who did an impressive job of polishing this article for Destination of the Month before riding off into the sunset, never to be seen again. It might be worth rechecking prices, hours and other info in individual listings as the bulk of the work was done soon after the big floods of 2013. Overall, though, this is one of our better articles and is worthy of promotion. K7L (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


A great travel guide. I also hear that its main author is very handsome. More to the point, I have edited this article extensively over the last 18 months, and feel that the result has turned out quiet nicely. I vouch that it is complete by any reasonable standard, and as far as I can tell it follows our policies meticulously. The one exception would perhaps be that when sorting listings I have left out the place name Uppsala and words like café (i.e. sorting "Uppsala Cathedral" by Cathedral, and "Café Linné" by Linné). This is because pretty much any café can be called "Café X", and almost all sights can be called "Uppsala Y". I have listed most sights by their Swedish official title, which visitors are most likely to find on signs or when searching online, but used the English names for the two largest attractions, as their English names are widely adopted. It has the perk that it gives a more prominent place to highlights, but if it is a deal breaker for someone we can easily fix it. Rather than creating separate "Orientation", "Etymology" and "Read" headings, I have integrated that information into the "Understand" lede, as I think that it reads better. Not being a native English speaker, I might also have missed one or two places in need of copy editing. Anyways, I'm eager to hear any feedback, comments or praise you may have. MartinJacobson (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • My criticism is that it is very long. I support star status, but I'd rather see some efforts made to shorten it a little first. But I really can't say how that would be done. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a worthy destination and a comprehensive article. After removing some locateds and situateds, I'm happy to support this nomination. Ibaman (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Looked at it, made some changes. Could still use another pair of eyes. Concur with User:SelfieCity that it may be too long. However, as I've just learned, Uppsala is apparently Sweden's fourth-largest city, so who are we to judge? Support. ARR8 (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you say we now have consensus to upgrade this article to star? Including the nominator, we now have 4 supports. Per current policy — which says that you can upgrade an article to star if 3 weeks have passed and there is consensus — I think we'd be within our rights. But we could wait for stronger consensus if that is preferred, since we've still got a few weeks before we reach the two-month mark and need to come to a decision. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's ready, but it's probably best to have more than four support votes before pulling the trigger. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. Because the only star nominations I know about are the ones from Travemunde onward, none of which seemed to get many support votes. Therefore, I don't know how many a nomination should get before adding star status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Given that Star is a higher honor than DotM, I think it's safe to say that if four votes constitute a "strong consensus" for DotM, more than four are required for a starnom. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I feel that we're at a difficult point here. There's no opposition to it becoming star, but not enough votes to promote it to star status. How would people feel if I mentioned the star nomination the pub? A couple more votes would be a great help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Certainly nothing wrong with that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Reads really nicely, is complete, and the right length for a large (not huge) city article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: with TT's comment we now have 5 supports, plus a likely support from the nominator. Are we now ready to pull the trigger? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


The previous nomination had been going on for some time, and fairly recently User:AndreCarrotflower and I agreed that it would be best to slush that nomination and start on a clean slate. This is a long article with a lot of information, but what do you all think? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, biased though I may be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, comprehensive city guide. The city article is in a very good state. Will however have to watch the district do not slide to usable status as although also comprehensive and full of great information there are a few dead links and a number of listings without coordinates. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I mean, duh. This is clearly one of the best articles on the site. If folks use Buffalo as a template when adding their respective hometowns, we'd be so much the better.
Here are three changes I would make, that for me would make this article even better. (To be clear, I still think Buffalo is a star without these changes.)
  • Add a few more pictures, (Get in or Get around could use 1-2 more, 1 for festivals, and 1-2 at least for food)
  • Chop local chains listings down to 9
  • A shorter history section? Lol, but maybe adding a few sub-heads or bolding a few choice passages will help break up the text.
--ButteBag (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The long "local chains" section helps shorten the district articles (which, though I've been pruning those pretty drastically, are all still much longer than the parent Buffalo article). Rather than having an identical blurb for each individual location of a particular chain, all the non-location-specific information is centralized in Buffalo#Local chains, and the district articles simply point the reader back there for in-depth descriptions. I suppose the blurbs could be shortened a bit, though, if there are concerns about length - in the district articles I'm trying for six lines maximum in the "Eat" sections, and many of these listings in Buffalo#Local chains are substantially longer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that having subheadings in the "History" section would be a good idea. What I did in Manhattan/East Village#Understand might give you some ideas. Otherwise, with the caveats that previously, I've sucked at judging the degree of perfection of articles and others have found stuff I never noticed, and also, that I didn't re-read the entire article word for word, I think it would definitely deserve a star as one of the best articles on the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Progress report: I've broken up the "History" section into subsections as suggested by ButteBag and Ikan Kekek. In a few weeks (once I'm done giving Buffalo/East Side the blurb-shortening treatment), I plan to make some fairly substantial edits to the parent article, including some pruning and blurb-shortening in the "Local chains", "Food trucks", and "Pizza" sections, which should go some way toward alleviating ButteBag's concerns. I will post a notice here when those tasks are finished and we can revisit this nomination at that time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


I believe this is the second time this has been nominated for star status. Now, though, according to ThunderingTyphoons!, the work is done and the article can be turned into a star article, and he hopes this can be done in time for the article's upcoming period on the Main page. More commentary, including the previous failed star nomination for the article, can be found at Talk:Bouzigues. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining status[edit]

Tasks and checks:

Article needing attention or maybe de-star nomination candidates.

Nominations to remove Star status[edit]

Number of articles currently in review: 5

Whenever possible, articles should be fixed rather than de-starred. Only nominate articles which cannot be easily elevated/restored to "star" quality. Add to the article {{destarnomination}}. Vote "Star" or "Not Star".

Walt Disney World[edit]

Has been some time since this was made star status; what is required of an article has changed in particular coordinates of listings. Time for review of the articles.--Traveler100 (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Following articles need coordinates for see, do and eat listings: Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom, Walt Disney World/Disney Springs, Walt Disney World/Epcot, Walt Disney World/Hollywood Studios and Walt Disney World/Magic Kingdom. —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talkcontribs)

Powers did a great deal of work on the Walt Disney World articles, so it would have been courteous to ask him whether he could help with these updates before nominating the articles for destarring. Article histories also show work by the very helpful JakeOregon, who may want to help with this, too. I don't think it makes sense to nominate articles for destarring only on the basis that they are star articles that have not yet been geocoded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I was working on the principle adding the tag to the article would bring it to the attention of the interested people but you have a point, pinging @LtPowers:. As for destaring, we have 23 star articles and 285 guide articles that need coordinates by by June 2019. As the November 2018 cotm show, even with a number of people working on the subject, it is going to be a challenge to get all these done. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Especially if the locations are clearly indicated on static maps, I think that's not a good reason to destar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a good argument, if others think the same then can remove these from destart nomination. Is the general consensus for Isle Royale National Park. However these maps are 8 or more years old, I assume some rides have changed since? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm being convinced that the number of star and guide articles without coordinates means we should de-star just because of a lack of coordinates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The maps haven't been edited to reflect changes in rides? That could be done. Just ping the usual suspects. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Some progress has been made but still a good number of listings without coordinates. The maps are from 2009, cannot believe things have changed since then. I guess this is the big question of once a star always a star or should article be reassessed after a few years. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Coordinates aren't essential. Just list whatever changed that isn't in the static map and request an edit. I can't believe the changes are so numerous that the few static map experts on the site couldn't take care of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

On de-star decision[edit]

  • Remove the nomination discussion from this page and paste it to both Project:Star nominations/Archives and to the talk page of the article;
  • Update the article status template on the article from star to guide if decision is to de-star;