Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is intended for meta-discussion about the DotM/OtBP process itself.

Discussions about candidate articles should go on Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates. Archives of older nomination discussions can be found at Wikivoyage:Destination of the Month candidates/Archive.

Archives of older discussions of this page can be found at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates/Archive

American cuisine[edit]

I identified a number of deficiencies with this article in the discussion regarding its nomination, and to cut a long story short, I think those issues, which remain unresolved, are serious enough that I am really not comfortable running it as FTT this month. I am aware that holding up this article's term on the Main Page when I myself haven't worked toward resolving its issues is rather unfair, and I want to make it clear that I do intend to do that (and to demonstrate my good faith, I've created a page in my userspace where you can track my progress in realtime). But I'm leaving this comment here just so nobody is blindsided by the fact that American cuisine has switched places with Czech phrasebook in the schedule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No FTT update?[edit]

April 21 was yesterday, but the Main Page Featured Travel Topic hasn't been updated. Andre has over the last years taken care of it but he hasn't been active since the last (OtBP) update a week and a half ago. Is there someone here who'd like to do it (one needs to be an admin to make changes to the Main Page)?

Also, is everything OK with you, Andre? From the message on your user page I see you're not in the mood of contributing here as much as before, and I understand it completely but please let us know if you're taking a break from the project. --Ypsilon (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops. In the schedule it is commented as "pending fixes and stronger consensus", and the last comments in the discussion are "Needs a considerable amount of work" and "I'm ready to support it when [...]". Is the article ready for prime time, should Czech phrasebook stay until some last minute fixes have been done or should something else be done? –LPfi (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also the above section and User:AndreCarrotflower/American cuisine, which hasn't been edited since the day it was created (when a chunk on regional cuisines was added). There has been only a few small edits to the article itself since it should have appeared at the main page. –LPfi (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, assuming neither Horse racing nor American cuisine are good to go, what about the Stockholm history tour? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last comment (and the only detailing issues) was "... weather and season (...), what you should wear (including footwear), whether you should expect to cross lots of roads, whether there are any access issues for people with mobility problems, whether there are alternatives to walking (cycling, public transport?". These issues have not really been dealt with, but I don't think they are crucial: the problems in Gamla Stan (the old town) are described and I don't think there should be any nasty surprises if you have read Stockholm#Climate and Stockholm#By foot. –LPfi (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are banners available for both Stockholm history tour and The Wire Tour and the latter has 4 support votes. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi: But equally, it wouldn't take long to add them to the article, even if in less detail than the city article.
@Ypsilon: I don't particularly care which one we choose, but I think we should do so ASAP. If The Wire has marginally more support, then my vote is for that one. And maybe also move subsequent FTTs forward by a day or two to make sure it gets the full month?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I added short notes on climate and walking, from the Stockholm article. Is that enough? I have not been biking or using buses in Stockholm, so I leave that part for somebody else ( Yvwv?). –LPfi (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we need to move things forward (after all February has 28 days for example) but we should absolutely do the change today or at the very last tomorrow. In the slush suggestion for the Horse racing nomination I mentioned we could run Stockholm now and Wire later.
But another solution would be running the Wire tour now, the Stockholm tour in June when originally intended (would give a month for Ywvw or someone to fine tune the article), and American cuisine sometime later in the fall, October maybe, which is the next month that should emerge in the schedule (that article can be featured anytime of the year). --Ypsilon (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baltimore's weather seems to be more favorable now. Detailed feedback for the Stockholm history tour would be appreciated. /Yvwv (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, we need one for May as well, so a following setup would work: Wire tour right now, Stockholm history tour in May, and American cuisine in June. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict KO) Good point about February (apparently the early Romans went "off-calendar" over the winter until the spring equinox began a new year). Looks like The Wire Tour is ready to go now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sitting up till 1AM again waiting to change the Main page, so is it fair to say that we have consensus for The Wire tour? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, let's go for the Wire, and we should preferably have someone from for example America or Australia, or some night owl, to do the updates if it's important to have them at exactly midnight GMT. A few years ago, luckily not the night before a workday, I sat up until almost 3AM over here. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stockholm had snow today. Weather in late May will probably be more favourable. Sweden has lighter pandemic restrictions than most other European countries, and most shops and restaurants are open. Some museums and other venues are closed, set to open in mid-May (unless the pandemic gets a lot worse). We still have restrictions for non-EU/EEA citizens to enter Sweden. /Yvwv (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've switched over the FTT to The Wire. We had a few centimetres of snow settle in Hampshire last week but there was no trace by midday because of a 20° increase in temperature; climate change, eh? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DotM update[edit]

It's the 1st of May and now it's the DotM that needs to be updated from Pambanan to Nicosia... --Ypsilon (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ypsilon: Thanks for being on the ball. Changed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The nomination has no comments except from the nominator, and the article has three dead links and one formerly dead link to a Facebook page needing login (I don't have an account). Ypsilon updated it last June, but it might need checking once more, promptly. –LPfi (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I could go through it later today. Ypsilon (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be a good idea to set up some template magic to change the banners automatically, like we have for "Discover". That would help ensure they're updated on time, though of course volunteer effort would still be needed to make sure the articles are polished. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone please change the OTBP to Crawford (Nebraska) at midnight UTC (i.e. in about 3½ hours)? If no-one can, I'll change it in the morning.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

doneLPfi (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi: Thank you! I wasn't expecting someone in Europe to do it. How late did you have to stay up? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just happened to be up and realised it was time for a change. We have EEST=UTC+3, so I wouldn't have planned for it. –LPfi (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The instructions are good and the change well prepared, so it was easy, but checking around took more time than I had expected. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for updating, and for the record I don't think it matters that much if the article update takes place a couple of hours earlier or later than midnight UTC. Ypsilon (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
June 1st, it's Winnipeg time... --Ypsilon (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done – let me know if I missed any steps. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I think you did most steps. It's the change to the Main Page that requires admin powers, the rest I can take care of. Ypsilon (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having not been around much lately I did not realize Andre had become inactive. My time zone (Eastern U.S. and Pacific) correlates well for making edits at midnight UTC, so I’d be happy to chip where necessary, as he did many of the administrative duties around here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Requesting OtBP update of the Main Page (Crawford -> Visp). --Ypsilon (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1st of July now. I can volunteer to do the other steps, but could someone who has rights to edit the Main Page please replace Winnipeg with Cork? --Ypsilon (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Why don't you have Main page editing rights? Ground Zero (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I think one has to be an admin to edit the Main Page, and I don't want to be an admin (or then I need an alternative account to do my normal editing here and use the admin account to update the featured articles at most thrice a month). The rollback tool which I had a for a while I had no use for except inadvertently reverting edits every now and then when scrolling up and down Recent changes. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you like a separate account for admin rights (main page updates)? We can give it to you specifically for Main Page edits. I’m sure no one would oppose. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's that template editor thing, which I think SHB had before he became administrator? Looks like this enables you to edit the Main Page.
Secondly I do not necessarily have the time to log in here every day so it would be good if someone out of the 10+ contributors who edit here every day would remember the to do the updating (I wonder what happened to Andre?), preferably around midnight UTC. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't just enable people to edit templates? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the edit to the Main Page by SHB in April that made me wonder if template editors have access to the main page too. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHB2000, before you were an admininistrator you were able to edit the Main Page (see the link above), am I correct that this was because you had template editor rights? Also, today Neuland should go on the Main Page as OtBP. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it was also why just autoconfirmed users weren't able to edit my userpage. But I've given you template editor rights now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! :) --Ypsilon (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can put a reminder on my phone. Is it correct we change banners the beginning of the 1st, 11th, and 21st? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup. Ypsilon (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New OtBP icon?[edit]

Previous Destinations of the Month and Previously Off the beaten Path articles both get a green tick mark icon in the upper right corner or the banner when their month on the Main Page is over, previous FTT articless get an orange pen icon. I wonder if it would be a good idea to have separate icons for the DotM and OtBP so the reader could identify what kind of feature the destination once was?

Spanish WV has a calendar for previous DotMs and a "right turn" roadsign for previous OtBPs. But to keep the design similar to the icons we already use I'd suggest using the icon French WV uses for disambiguation pages, a light blue question mark in a light blue circle. This would also underline the fact that OtBPs are, perhaps not unknown, but at least less known places for visitors. Thoughts? Ps. Template:Pagebanner/styles.css is, I think, the place to make the change if we agree to do this. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone else? --Ypsilon (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like the question mark, but I'd be OK with the right turn. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the right turn. A question mark suggests "help". User:AlasdairW 21:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the arrow looks cool. Support changing OtbP to that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the {{pagebanner}} have an OtBP variable? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a customisable feature (otbp=yes) which displays the template icon if that's what you mean by "variable".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC) (updated 09:17)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Thought there was only DoTM, since both are the same icon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. Whoever designed the pagebanner template obviously thought ahead to this very moment and future-proofed it! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right turn icon.svg
The only problem is that the Spanish turn looks a bit different so I just made a turquoise OtBP right turn icon in a similar style to our current DotM and FTT logos. What do you think? --Ypsilon (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find that bright a color somewhat glary and unpleasant for my eyes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Holy ...., that's bright and hurts my eyes. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bear in mind it's only going to be this big Right turn icon.svg, it looks fine to me. I don't mind if you all want to start trying out different colours, but I'd be happy with the design as is.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking whether we could have a yellow background like this one Australia road sign W9-3-R.svg. I've only seen this yellow background in the US and Australia, but to me, better than white. (I may be biased about this one, since I had one of these signs up in front of my old property in rural Australia) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're going to have a road sign-style yellow symbol, then the Spanish original's simple right-turn looks cleaner than the Aussie one, which doesn't render very well at that size.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I swear that's also found in the US as well. But I like the Spanish one better. (which is found in the US from what I know). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Weirdly, Ireland also uses that style of yellow diamond for their warning signs on roads. Spain definitely doesn't, though probably some of the Latin American countries do, hence Wikiviajes' choice.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably, considering that Spain isn't the country with the highest number of Espangol speakers. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point with the new design was to make it similar to the current DotM and FTT icons: both consist of a circle with something inside on a white background. The diamond-shaped road sign logo in its original form looks a bit out of place with the other icons having a similar design, so I modified it to look more like them. The color can easily be changed, for example to a more normal type of blue, I originally had in mind something like this but decided to make it a bit ostentatious for the fun of it :). --Ypsilon (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right turn icon blue.svg
How about a more "normal" blue version? --Ypsilon (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much more nicer. While I myself prefer a yellow background, it's too biased towards the Americas, Ireland and Australia and not on a global perspective. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it of course doesn't need to have a turn to the right in it. I first suggested the French question mark logo which was turned down, so if someone has some other suggestions for what to put in the middle of the circle, let's hear them, and it doesn't have to be blue... etc. --Ypsilon (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The blue arrow also looks good so if it doesn't hurt anyone's eyes, I say we should go for that. We don't need to overthink this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The blue color looks like a substantial improvement to me and I would support making this the OTBP icon. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If nobody opposes it , I think we could make the change. Someone good with templates could perhaps do it (SHB2000?). Ypsilon (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ypsilon: not sure how to do it myself considering the high number of variables there, but maybe @Wauteurz: could. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000: Should just be a matter of changing Template:Pagebanner/styles.css with .oo-ui-icon-otbp on a new line. It won't let me though, and I believe that's down to the template only accepting images stored on (i.e., Commons), as (where our local images are stored) prompts an error claiming there's an "invalid or unsupported value". So, @Ypsilon: since you made the icon, would you be so kind to upload the icon to Commons so I can see whether that fixes it?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wauteurz:, I've exported it to commons, but it won't let me publish the new icon for some weird overkill. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've made the change and I see no reason for why it shouldn't work. At the moment though, it isn't displaying the icon on my side yet. I suspect this might have something to do with parts of the site being loaded from cache memory, and it usually takes a little while to update if that's the case. If it doesn't end up working, there's always the weekend to check where things went wrong :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just published a change to Norfolk Island and yet it's still showing the old icon. maybe something with the {{pagebanner}} template? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the line | {{#if: {{{otbp|}}} | icon-otbp=Previously_Off_the_beaten_path }} needs to be changed? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't {{Pagebanner}}, I know that much. Using both Norfolk Island and Simpelveld, I'm trying to trace back where it gets the old icon from, and it only leads me to Pagebanner/styles.css. It calls the old line that was replaced in my edit to that file, which still inserts .oo-ui-icon-dotm and .oo-ui-icon-otbp, meaning that a cached version of the CSS page would be the most likely culprit. The best remedy I know in this situation is just to wait it out. I'll see what the Spanish Wikivoyage does different if they do anything different at all. That might unearth something I'm missing, or it will just confirm my suspicion. What @SelfieCity: suggests is merely the mouse-over text, which appears near your mouse when you hold it over the icon for a second or two.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried after 1 and a half hours later (from 21:12 AEST to 22:31), and still it still shows the old icon. I really dunno what to do with this, but I'm sure there's someone on Wikipedia that might know why. Cache isn't the culprit here, since I tried opening it on incognito mode on safari as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know from OSM that it can take days to update the cache. I think Wauteurz’ advice is good for now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's also what I'm assuming applies here. OSM and Wikidata together can easily take a week to be visible. I doubt it'll be that much in this case. If it isn't simply taking a bit of time for everything to update slowly, then I honestly haven't a clue what the root cause would be. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too still see the old icon, but thanks for proceeding with this. Ypsilon (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
been half a week. probably a similar issue to "Hjuston" on OSM. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been two days. There is no need to be impatient. Sometimes things just take longer than you'd like them to. This isn't like an OSM issue though. Things like Houston displaying as Hjouston, or the IJsselmeer (Netherlands) suddenly being a polder on dynamic maps are to do with the export of OSM that we use here. It's more or less a snapshot of a certain moment than it is the same version as what you'd see if you were to open OSM in a new tab right now. In any case, compare this to shipping something across the world. It won't be there the next day, and if you're unlucky, it might well take two months to get to you, at which point you'll have forgotten you even ordered that thing in the first place. If it makes you happy though, I'd happily mirror the pagebanner into a sandbox and see if writing the CSS-stylesheet inline A) is possible and B) fixes anything. It takes out a man in the middle, which might help speed things up. It'll be tonight or tomorrow at the soonest that I can do that though.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Still nothing. This may come off as a stupid question, but isn't there some way to do this more locally (I mean the Spanish WV do have their own icons) in which case the change would happen faster/more directly. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so, unless @Wauteurz: knows. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know of any, no. At this point, I'm starting to doubt my previous certainty about this working as well. I still don't see an alternative way in which the icon would be changed though. -- Wauteurz (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:( --Ypsilon (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
): SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Still nothing after three weeks. @Ypsilon, Wauteurz: Maybe we should ask an interface admin at Wikiviajes to see whether we've done something wrong. Anyone familiar with espangol here? (Maybe ThunderingTyphoons!?) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, I've forgotten about this icon thing. Could be a good idea to ask es, someone here who speaks more than "tourist Spanish"? --Ypsilon (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'd note that Template:Pagebanner/styles.css was created two years ago, and the template has been around longer than that, I'm sure. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm able and happy to ask when I get a moment, though note that Wikiviajes is very quiet so we may not get an immediate answer.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before you do, can someone with the right permissions (@ThunderingTyphoons!, SelfieCity:) edit lines 211 and 222 in MediaWiki:Common.css to mirror this set of edits? It's only looking at the history of Pagebanner/styles.css that I saw it was a mirror of that. I now suspect that {{Pagebanner}} just takes from Common.css rather than /styles.css. If that doesn't work, I am all out of ideas. I should note though: esVoy does have a very different implementation and possibly different version of pagebanners than us, so I am not entirely confident that they can offer a lot of help, but a shot not fired is always a missed shot.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have permission to edit it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Before you do..." - too late; I posted 90 minutes ago.
With the kind help of user:Galahad who put us in touch, user:Hasley has offered the following advice: "{{pagebanner}} is taking the CSS code from en:voy:MediaWiki:Common.css#L-211 rather than the TemplateStyles subpage. Removing the style from the site CSS or splitting .oo-ui-icon-dotm and .oo-ui-icon-otbp should fix it." Those of you who speak tech, does this help? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hasley can help. With the global sysop bit, can edit directly. If you give permission, of course. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 17:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @ThunderingTyphoons!: I think what Hasley's suggested is the same as that of Wauteurz but with different wording. We need a template editor to make the change, maybe? SHB2000, can you edit the page TT and Wauteurz have linked? I cannot. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Galahad, go ahead. Thanks for doing this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCity: I would have edited the page myself if we needed a template editor :) If you can't edit it either, it must be locked allowing only global sysops or above to edit. I don't know any from the top of my head though. It might be possible that bureaucrats have the right permissions (@Ikan Kekek, LtPowers: can you edit MediaWiki:Common.css?)-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Galahad indicated in the comment above that Hasley can and will do it, but maybe the local bureaucrats could do it as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) Yes Done, see Special:Diff/4271188; now it's working, let me know if you need anything else. —Hasley (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Hasley, this is appreciated. I see it's working as I just checked a former OTBP article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome, thanks a lot! :) --Ypsilon (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chavín de Huántar blurb[edit]

Right now, it starts with Explore the ancient Chavín culture and the Andean cuisine.

I find that phrasing problematic. Do we really explore cuisine? I feel like we taste, learn about or experience it. How about something like "See ancient Chavín ruins, savor local Andean cuisine..."? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek To me it seems weird that there's an emphasis on cuisine as they're are only three traditional restaurants listed, I feel it should be mentioned that Chavin served as a pilgrimage destination for various andean religions as this is one of the primary reasons it's a world heritage site, perhaps also mention it is a world heritage site? Tai123.123 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds appropriate. That said, 3 restaurants are enough if one or more of them is great. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally haven't visited Chavin so I can't comment on the restaurant's food but other than the unique cuisine served they don't seem that special, Here is my idea for a new blurb
"Long a pilgrimage destination for various Andean people groups, one could admire ancient temples and large ruins in this small town Tai123.123 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd rephrase that: "Admire the ancient temples and large archeological zones in this small town, a place of pilgrimage for several Andean peoples." Or something like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's probably better Tai123.123 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone else have an opinion, or should we go with the form of words a couple of posts up? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reshuffling for Jan-March?[edit]

As Recife has no support votes, we can run Orlando or Melbourne/CBD instead. We should however avoid two back-to-back DoTM from the same country. As Vietnamese New Year is on 1 February, Mui Ne would be great for January. Shall we do San Antonio in February, and Melbourne CBD in March? Climate-wise, that would be great for all destinations. /Yvwv (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. I think Orlando can wait until April, or for the fall, just not in summer please. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that sounds good, just know that Orlando is still only usable and lacks coords in eat Tai123.123 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With Sydney featured in December, and some other Oceania-related articles upcoming, we can run Addis Ababa in March, for geographic diversity. /Yvwv (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would Melbourne CBD be a good one to feature in May? It's when the nightlife of Melb comes together. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added Hollywood as an extra option also Tai123.123 (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scheduled Addis Ababa for February and San Antonio for March: better weather for both, and spring break for the latter. If the Addis Ababa article is unfinished, or the city is not safe, we could run Turin, Melbourne, Orlando or Hollywood; any of them would however repeat two DoTMs from the same country. Maybe we can get Recife done after all? /Yvwv (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do we feel about recommending travel to a country whose government is engaging in genocidal behavior in Tigray, working to deliberately and quite literally starve the Tigrayan people, even if visiting Addis is relatively safe? Seems like a substantial moral hazard. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is DOTM for promoting tourism to a country or recognizing the work of the contributers to said article. Were currently featuring articles from a dictatorship that actively commits genocide (China) and everyone seemed fine with that. I also doubt anyone would plan a trip to Ethiopia just cause Wikivoyage featured it. I feel fine featuring it but I understand why someone may not feature it and am willing to change my opinion if more convincing arguments are brought forward though. Tai123.123 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it was quite agreed upon to not use RL issues as a reason to not feature articles. In that case, would we choose not to feature Indonesian articles for the main page because they force people in Papua to leave their ways of traditional life? Okay, so sure, the situation in Papua is nowhere near bad as the situation in Tigray, but..... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still worth thinking about. I wouldn't feel comfortable traveling to China now, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. (but I would currently not be comfortable travelling anywhere outside Australia and the US at this very day) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean due to Covid? Tai123.123 (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, although you'll definitely see me say something different if this were next month. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there are at least three issues now: COVID-19, carbon footprint and moral hazards related to traveling in countries with governments that are committing acts of genocide or in some other way abhorrent to the prospective traveler. And I do think there are definitely different levels of horror. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd feel OK slushing the article for now for moral reasons, but I am a little worried that similar reasons can be cited for much of the world. China was mentioned and I agree. I don't know the situation in Indonesia, but have no reason to doubt. Russia is very problematic. Sudan joined the rank of violent military dictatorships. For Russia or Afghanistan we could say that it is good people go there and see the situation, but most of our articles just give practical information, and few of our readers would go to Addis Abeba to get information on Tigray and the Ethiopian politics. The easiest solution is to just close one's eyes to disturbing facts. I feel uneasy doing that, but I don't see how to appropriately deal with them either. –LPfi (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are abuses happening everywhere, but I think when there's an active genocidal war going on, that's a different level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At times, we had a shortage of nominees, barely being able to fill the schedule. As long as we have a surplus of nominees on hold, we can demand higher article quality, as well as seasonal relevance, geographic diversity, and other concerns about whether a destination is suitable or not. Whether a destination is momentarily unsafe or has disrupted services (due to pandemic, strikes, riots, natural disasters, etc) can be objectively evaluated; we put Portland (Oregon) on hold due to riots. Human rights arguments (China, Qatar, Ethiopia, etc) are more subjective and difficult to settle by anyone else than the individual traveller. So, the priorities could be
1. Article quality
2. Safety concerns and service disruption
3. Seasonal relevance
4. Geographic diversity
5. Human rights concerns /Yvwv (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree to using these criteria for now. In fact, I'd support continuing to have a surplus of nominations in order to maintain featured article options. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto as well. Support this new list (the current one below). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also like these criteria, perhaps a gap could be added to better illustrate the fact that Article Quality is much more important that safety Tai123.123 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some articles get nominated for an anniversary. This is really relevant only if there are organized events for the time, but it can be a reason to feature an article which meets the other criteria. Here is an updated version. /Yvwv (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Objective article quality: The article should have at least guide status, with no major errors or issues
  2. No major emergencies: No widespread public disorder, service shutdown, travel bans, etc
  3. Major unique event: Olympics, World Fair, anniversary festival, etc
  4. Subjective article quality: A well-written and engaging article
  5. Major recurring/annual event: Pop festival, Christmas market, Formula 1 race, etc
  6. Favourable season due to weather etc
  7. Geographic diversity: Priority for articles from parts of world with fewer featured articles close in time
  8. Other: Human rights concerns, minor emergencies, minor events, non-celebrated anniversaries, thematic diversity (not too many ski resorts, gambling cities or archaeological sites close in time) etc
I like these criteria Tai123.123 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we had some foresight, we could have run Beijing in February for the Olympics. Too late now. /Yvwv (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These criteria are good and I'd support placing them on the Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates page. This page has been challenging for new users and establishing a set of criteria would it make it easier for candidates to be judged. I think these criteria are fair, although I'd combine 3 and 5 into one, ranked at #3. I'd change "objective article quality" to "overall article quality" and "subjective article quality" to something like "quality of writing". --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My reasoning is this: If a destination hosts a famous January festival, but is not clearly the best pick for January, it can wait for the next year. If the city hosts the Olympics or similar, there is no second chance. /Yvwv (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list is good to have, but it hasn't been proved by time. I would be wary making it a guideline by putting it on the page. Making the schedule is challenging for new users, and knowing whether there is too long a queue, but these criteria do not help with those issues. Thus, no hurry to make any criteria "official". I also remember there were some worries about there being many articles proposed because of events, and I think we have been giving greater weight to geographic diversity, and perhaps tacitly to diversity overall. And I don't think a Formula race should trump major Human rights concerns. –LPfi (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addis Abeba is now on hold due to emergency. As we now have a surplus of good candidates, we can take many different aspects into account. As many big cities in the US, Canada and northern & western Europe have been featured, we might have a long-term problem of running out of destinations for northern summer. /Yvwv (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there are many left. 10 years à 6 cities is just 60. If there is even one FTT worthy city in each country in Europe and state and province in North America, we haven't done half of them yet, and countries like France and Italy easily have ten. Not all are up to guide status, but improving the needed articles is just work, which is easier for European and North American articles than for articles elsewhere (online information in English easily available, and mostly within driving/Interrail distance for several contributors). Important travel topics might be fewer, but I guess each of the European roads, long-distance walking routes and biking routes is worth an itinerary, as are at least a couple of national or local ones in most countries. Languages any of us knows will run out sooner, so we might have to have phrasebooks more seldom. –LPfi (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have run decently sized and important cities such as Trondheim, Turku and Eindhoven as OtBP. Cities of similar size might qualify as DoTM in the future. /Yvwv (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For how far in advance should nominations be done?[edit]

I recently added a guideline:

* The article should be good enough to feature within 12 months; as is, or with edits that can be done before the intended time slot.

The main hurdle to clear is article quality. But the intended time slot can also be a factor about when to nominate. As the most important seasonal factors are climate, holidays and annual events, all destinations have high season at least once every 12 months. Some articles are however intended to feature during an upcoming one-time event (Olympics etc) or an anniversary (Pacific War for 80 years since Pearl Harbor, Bingara for 135 years since the Myall Creek massacre, etc). For how far in the future do these nominations make sense? Shall we already line up candidates for 2023? /Yvwv (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we want to be able to shuffle around the articles of the next 12 months, and be able to nominate one that collides so that it cannot be featured the upcoming year, we need some leeway. If we don't require nominators to have internalised the logic of the process, it easily happens that more than three articles are nominated for a three-month span in northern hemisphere spring or summer, and I think it is a pity if we have to slush them just for such an oversight. We also do slush articles because of spotted problems, and we shouldn't have to introduce last-minute substitutes. I don't know how many months that makes. –LPfi (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a backlog of nominated articles, is a good thing. This allows us to feature articles which are both of high quality, and relevant for the season. /Yvwv (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some good DoTMs could be Dakar (for northern spring), Gothenburg (for northern summer), Jerusalem/Old City (for Easter), Sochi (anytime, but famous as a winter resort), Baku, and Glasgow (probably northern summer), Belfast and Dublin (northern summer), Indianapolis, Düsseldorf and Stuttgart (late summer). Will nominate these when the list shrinks. /Yvwv (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many nominees are too many? And should we slush articles which have decent quality and no case against featuring, but no available spots? We could consider lining up other Guide-level articles, such as Homer, Ingolstadt, or Swedish Empire. /Yvwv (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can consider Gaborone, Kruger National Park, Havana and National Route 40 (Argentina). /Yvwv (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feature before or during an event?[edit]

The schedule has expanded, and anniversaries and events have been increasingly used to motivate a feature. Farnborough is a case study, with the air show on 18-22 July. Shall we schedule these articles to feature during the specific event? Or a month or so before the event, so that a visitor would be able to plan a journey? One way to deal with public events is to loosen up the categories, so that Farnborough could have a spot on the front page from 21 June to 20 July. /Yvwv (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say a month before. While Farnborough won't have that sort of situation (as otbp articles only get rotated on the 11th), Bingara, which the massacre occurred on June the 10th, so whether featuring it in May (during the event but with one day to spare) or June (one day after the event, but with plenty of days to spare) seems to be in more of a which month to feature it situation. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a tentative switch scheduling Farnborough in an FTT slot, ending on 20 July. IMO, we should do this only when an article is scheduled for a major event, to line up the event at the end of a 30-day period. If you do not like the scheduling, you can roll it back. /Yvwv (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea for any destination article to be an FTT. Not too fussed about the specific scheduling, and won't insist on featuring Farnborough during the airshow.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, also someone should reschedule Melbourne as some of us wanted Turin in may due to Eurovision while Melbourne can be featured whenever Tai123.123 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have the Vatican for April, so geographic diversity become a factor; whether we should feature two nearby and similar destinations back-to-back. As we now have plenty of good candidates and a resurgence in international tourism, we should reconsider the guidelines for scheduling. But in any case, we have plenty of time. /Yvwv (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from being near each other, are the Vatican and Turin really that similar? (I haven't been to either) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Rome and Turin are big cities which have been the capital of Italy, and both (in particular when it comes to the Vatican) are famous for Renaissance architecture, churches and art. If several articles have enough quality, it is a question about seasonal relevance, geographic diversity and thematic diversity. Turin hosts the Eurovision in 2022. The Vatican hosts Easter every year. So maybe 2022 is the time for Turin. /Yvwv (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that all seems reasonable.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schedule duration[edit]

For some time, we had a schedule for 6 months ahead. On 30 October, the schedule was expanded to 10 months ahead. What should be a suitable schedule length? If the schedule comes up with an empty slot far ahead, should we schedule a mediocre article, or keep the slot empty until we have a better candidate? /Yvwv (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should have some unscheduled articles and not fill up too long in advance. Ten months is reasonable, with time for the schedule to stabilise before it is time to do the last copyedits, checks and updates. More than that, and you need to put articles in the schedule more or less right away, which I think isn't optimal. If an article is mediocre, it is better to leave the slot empty, so that it is obvious one should look for an alternative. –LPfi (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's any harm in expanding it to even 12, even if it means that some slots may be empty (and this helps better visualise). I mainly expanded it so the Farnborough airshow would be somewhat reserved (but didn't realise I accidentally added in the June section, not the July section). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, an article should need at least one support vote from someone else than the nominator, before getting scheduled. Farnborough is a great article in any case. /Yvwv (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would love to run Swedish Empire in May-June 2023, for the 500-year anniversary of Sweden's independence. Is that too far ahead? /Yvwv (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map with previous DOTM and OTBP[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Is there a place where I could find a map with all previous DOTM or OTBP like how the star articles have a map with all star articles highlighted. I'd be curious to see what regions and countries are under or overrepresented. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd actually like something like that. It's quite obvious that most of Africa (except ZA), South America and Oceania (except Australia/PNG and NZ) are the most under-represented, but there may be an area not represented well that we're probably missed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I turn all the previous destinations into Markers (with coords) and add a map frame at the top of the article to provide this (a static map may look better but I can't use inkscape). Tai123.123 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was looking through previous destinations and learned we've featured more destinations from Malawi than Austria. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000, I finished the OTBP map. I only did up to 2013 as the pre 2012 entries didn't work. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pre-2012 was in the times of Wikitravel, so probably why. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


With Israel closing borders and South Africa the first country to discover the omicron variant, should we do something about the schedule? Israel might reopen before the feature, and there might still be flights to South Africa, which needs its tourist income, in January–February. Otherwise we might treat these just as coach travel features, but are there other solutions? –LPfi (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sad to see African destination cancelled, but major emergencies trump the desire for geographic diversity. We could run Sinhala phrasebook early. European classical music would make sense; most people who visit a European city in January or February would prefer indoor events. If Planning your flight gets more votes, we can run it soon. /Yvwv (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe now other countries have started to do the same. Probably postpone? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really, all bets are off until we know more about how much immunity existing vaccines provide for this strain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could find banners for the articles mentioned above. /Yvwv (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shall we run European classical music for the Dec-Jan slot? /Yvwv (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, as it seems the only feasible option right now tbh. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DoTM versus OtBP[edit]

We have no objective boundary between DoTM and OtBP, and it can be difficult to define one. There are plenty of borderline cases: many medium-sized cities, national parks and county-level regions are not world famous, but might receive many domestic tourists and business visitors. We seem to have a strong lineup for upcoming DoTMs; finding an article which is good enough to feature, but still clearly an OtBP destination, seems more difficult. Should we broaden the scope for the OtBP category? /Yvwv (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Require that all candidates go thru a copyvio check?[edit]

As per my recent removal of Amsterdam off the schedule due to its copyright violations, I'm wondering if we should do a mandatory copyvio check for all articles that to make sure there's no copyright violations so we don't have a random sudden removal of what happened to Amsterdam again? (as for Amsterdam, it looks like someone here copied it off theirs, not the other way) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagreeable to have to do that, but it sounds like a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be happy to do a check when I'm active for those that don't know how to do a copyvio check, merely because we cannot have copyvios on this site, let alone featuring a copyvio. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000 Lisbon's understand section and lead is a copy vio per Tai123.123 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000 Checked all the Feb and March features, lisbon has some issues as pointed out in my above message. It says San ignacio is a copy Vio but I think that's becauese its viewing mirror sites, could you double check that? San ignacio can be found assessment can be found here: Tai123.123 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm getting a 0% on both those links – is it the right one? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What, I swear I was getting copy right vio before Tai123.123 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They seem fine NVM Tai123.123 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reset three times and I got a 0%, a 70% and a 3% Tai123.123 (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's strange. If the 70 pc one is from, I'd not be surprised. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I'm getting a 66.7% one for San Ignacio per [1]. However, this one looks like they copied it from us, not the other way around. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here’s what I got from ear wig
Earwig screenshot.png
Tai123.123 (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so we need to get the copyvio sorted out for Lisboa as well. I haven't fully checked, but it was likely there well before it had district articles. It appears that this copyvio was from Wikitravel, before the migration due to Wikimedia. Otherwise, it's likely they copied from us/Wikitravel. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How big can featured destinations be?[edit]

Queensland has been nominated as DOTM. As I stated on the nomination, "I'm not sure we've ever featured somewhere so vast on Wikivoyage before".

It turns out that on Wikitravel, way back in May 2009, we featured the Northern Territory as DOTM, but since then we've tended to stick to cities, parks and smaller subregions. I can spot one other previous DOTM that's a top-level 'region' like an Aussie state, and that's Wales in July 2018. But Wales is a speck on the map compared to QLD. We've historically not had many top-level regions or countries that were 'guides', so it's possible we just haven't been able to feature them much until now. However, it's also questionable whether somewhere the size of Queensland is a single 'destination' as such, any more than the UK or Japan are single destinations (QLD is seven times the size of Great Britain, and five times the size of Japan, according to the state gov).

Nowadays, we're happily seeing more and more top-level regions and even countries attain 'guide' status, so I wonder whether we should establish exactly how big a place can be and still be eligible to be featured as a destination of the month. I'm curious about what other people think. Should we open the doors to countries and country-sized regions that you'd need to spend months or years to explore fully, or should we stick to smaller areas that travellers can realistically visit in a single trip? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's fine to feature huge areas collectively as destinations. It's something like featuring a worldwide travel topic like Retiring abroad, which has been featured. We could consider whether to treat them differently, but I don't think that's essential. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, I'm not really sure. I just wanted to nominate two regions because I haven't seen any regions being featured before. NL was a good one and an alternative to Quebec, and to Queensland, I only really nominated it because it was freshly upgraded, so most things are up-to-date as a second pick.
Perhaps, maybe Ikan's suggestion is probably what I'd think of. For Queensland specifically, it takes about four days to go from top to bottom (almost a little less than 3,000 km (1,900 mi) during southern winter, but if you allow stops and exploration, it will probably take something like 15-20 days. If anything, maybe we should use Queensland as an experiment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are avoiding flights for environmental reasons, then anybody from Europe or the Americas should stay those twenty days when they do go that far. If you don't take the plane, then returning sooner makes even less sense. Here in Finland we are lucky to have summer holidays of several weeks – and while that is winter in Australia, it appears to be the recommended season. –LPfi (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's great to feature a large region, a country, or even a continent. I've always assumed the reason we rarely do that is because it's so hard to get those articles up to guide status. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Southern winter is the recommended season for Queensland because it's hardly cold but mostly in the mid-20s but this is subject to region – some parts in the north can go to the low 30s during the winter, but let's remember that almost all of Queensland is within 28 degrees from the equator.
However, northern winter/southern summer is generally not recommended as it is cyclone season and it rains pretty heavily otherwise and Queensland has an outback too. Along with that, most roads in the tropical parts are closed for four months of the year, and so those who live there are cut off from the rest of the world. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons! I stumbled across Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates/Archive/2009-2013#Optimal dotm areas waaay back on a discussion that happened on Wikitravel. I guess it ended up being featured but I guess seeing large jurisdictions being featured is quite rare. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geographic diversity and articles from the same country[edit]

As we have many fine articles from a few specific countries (such as Canada, Australia and Finland), there can be concerns about geographic diversity. At the very least, we should avoid having two articles from the same country featuring back-to-back in the same category, or simultaneously in different categories. We should also avoid lengthy periods of articles from the same continent (Europe during northern summer, etc). But the scheduling should also make sense with attractive seasons. In my opinion, featuring Newfoundland and Labrador in August, and Percé in September/October seems OK. We should also make effort to scout out great articles from less featured parts of the world, such as Africa and Latin America. /Yvwv (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a custom to avoid featuring neighboring destinations (tours and districts within the same city, etc) within 24 months of each other. If we feature state-level regions such as Queensland and Newfoundland and Labrador, we might have to soften up that rule. Also, we have a severe deficit on good African articles, but plenty of guide-level articles for Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay. /Yvwv (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DotM vs OtBT[edit]

SHB2000 wrote:

For dotm/otbp, I'd generally say dotm, but as we have a lot more otbp slots available, I wouldn't mind it being an otbp.

That seems reasonable in the short run, but aren't there many more OtBP destinations? Some time ago we were worried about running out of well-known big ones, at least in some categories. And aren't we trying to have hidden gems as OtBP? Should we search harder for those among our articles, and perhaps make an effort to bring enough of them up to guide status? –LPfi (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure to be fair since we don't have a clear cut definition of what's a dotm and what's an otbp. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This turned up again with Mecca. I think we want to present one well-known and well-visited destination (although there may be readers who don't know it), and one hidden gem (well-known to few). The latter might be rough and appeal only to some, but you shouldn't find it crowded with foreign tourists once you arrive. –LPfi (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm: An exception might be a destination small enough to get crowded by a specific crowd, typically a resort town or an "authentic" village close to a big resort. –LPfi (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have yet to settle on a definition. Most million-sized cities (except Pyongyang etc) have enough visitors for business or spectator events to be a DoTM. Many of the borderline cases are cities with 100,000 to a million inhabitants, which are not known worldwide as travel destinations, but still have many visitors from within the country or from a specific community. Among current nominees, Ingolstadt, Cooch Behar, Punta Arenas and Yangshou could be examples of those. The knowledge and popularity of a destination might vary between countries and cultural spheres. In Sweden, it is said that a travel magazine issue with a front cover from South America, sales are halved. Swedish people have little interest in South America, and I heard of Punta Arenas only when I scouted for more diverse nominees. /Yvwv (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. In Australia, many are interested in Latin America (and also the other way around), so many have heard of PA while not many are interested in many European places (the Nordic countries are an exception though) so it's why I hadn't heard of Ingolstadt before. I guess it's cultural influence. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visitor proofreading required?[edit]

Nominations such as Dakar, Pyongyang and Mecca brought up the issue that some articles have seemingly not been proofread by any residents or recent visitors. Should we have a formal requirement that a featured article at least should have been proof-read by someone with first-hand knowledge of the destination? /Yvwv (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know Nauru has been featured and I doubt anyone had visited there Tai123.123 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pitcairn Islands too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is about future requirements, not past requirements. As the DOTM process has become more competitive, it would make sense to raise the hurdle. /Yvwv (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just my 2c.
I think it really depends on which articles and where it is. For Pyongyang, all of it is just based on online speculation, and it would be absurd to feature a highly politically restricted destination. For Dakar, there is little information based online about the place, and a similar case with the slushed Grand-Bassam – if there is little information online, how can we verify it before featuring? Now to Mecca, I already mentioned it in its dotm nom. However, hypothetically, if I ever perhaps had brought Réunion National Park to guide before featuring it, I wouldn't say it's a problem (even tho I have yet to visit the island) because there's a lot of travel information online. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somebody having visited does not guarantee much. First-hand experience can give quite a biased impression: were you there on a package tour, for business with hosts taking care of you, visiting a friend that did likewise, were you trying to survive on a backpacker budget? It is essential to have some real-world experience rather than speculation, but it does not need to be first-hand. If we restrict ourselves to places on which we have extensive personal first-hand knowledge we cannot cover as much of the world as we want to. I think it is enough that somebody has enough experience from similar places to be able to judge plausibility of added information and trustworthiness of third-party accounts. –LPfi (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, verification by a resident or recent visitor would be recommended, but not a formal requirement. /Yvwv (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would be ideal. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidates from less nominated countries[edit]

Here are some guide-level articles from countries with no current nominee. No distinction is made between DoTM and OtBP, as some articles are borderline cases. No listing of already featured articles, nominees slushed for still valid reasons, or articles which are clearly undeserving of their guide rating. /Yvwv (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Africa: Mount Sinai (Egypt)
Oceania: Majuro (Marshall Islands)
Americas: San Carlos de Bariloche (Argentina), Asunción (Paraguay), Georgetown (Guyana), Kingston (Jamaica), Puerto Morelos, Tulum (Mexico), Rio Branco (Brazil), Cuzco (Peru)
Europe: Central Nordsjælland (Denmark), Oia (Greece), Liepaja (Latvia), Coimbra (Portugal), Kamnik (Slovenia), Keflavík International Airport (Iceland), Lalsk (European Russia), Land of the Red Rocks (Luxemburg), 's-Hertogenbosch, Westerkwartier, (Netherlands), Pristina (Kosovo), Madrid, Logroño (Spain), Salzburg (Austria), Érd, Hévíz, Budakeszi, Rétság, Zalaszentgrót, Zalalövő (Hungary)
Asia: Poipet (Cambodia), Jerusalem/Old City (Israel), Gulangyu (China), Hagi, Sendai, Tottori (Japan), Air Itam (Malaysia), Komsomolsk-on-Amur (Asian Russia), Ansan (South Korea), Baku (Azerbaijan), Manama (Bahrain)
Tagbilaran is the provincial capital & has the region's busiest ferry port, but is not otherwise much of a destination. If any of them can be brought to guide, the province article Bohol or the articles on Panglao Island or Alona Beach might be better DotM candidates. Alona is the area's main tourist destination, and both it & the airport are on Panglao. Pashley (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would make sense to run Tagbilaran as Off the Beaten Path. We have had few features from the Philippines lately, and we should only nominate an article already at guide level. /Yvwv (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just bumped Taal from Outline to Usable, think it is close to Guide. Might make a good feature since it gets a lot of tourists. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vigan and Puerto Galera are other Philippine places that are major tourist destinations & have articles currently rated Usable. Pashley (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A pretty good list and I'd like to see many of these on the main page. With that said, I don't think we should be featuring Komsomolsk-on-Amur anytime soon though, due to political tensions in Russia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree Tai123.123 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While human rights concerns should be left to the individual traveller's judgement, a major emergency (martial law, widespread riots, closed payment systems etc) is enough to rule out a destination. Russia and Ukraine are under-appreciated countries, but we should wait for the next feature. /Yvwv (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Malaysia, may I suggest Genting Highlands for dotm? It was only recently brought up to guide by Chongkian so it's probably much more up-to-date. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FoP issues with Loop Art Tour[edit]

If we cannot get a reasonable banner, and in the event it sadly gets slushed due to freedom of panorama issues, here is what some proposals I propose to do:

  • Proposal 1
    • Run German cuisine instead
    • Move Ingolstadt to a later date as it has some unaddressed issues, possibly replaced with either Budderoo National Park or Gävle.
  • Proposal 2
  • Proposal 3
    • Move the Public transit in Israel ahead which has been sitting for quite a long time:
    • Some other article will take that slot instead

This is just my thought as a backup plan if we cannot come with a banner in time. Other proposals appreciated. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Run Public transit in Israel, I say. /Yvwv (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yvwv I too think we should run Public transit in Israel as that has been sitting for a while. Should Rail travel in Japan take that slot if we cannot find a reasonable banner? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukrainian DotM[edit]

Swept in from the pub

As a small symbolic gesture in favor of the Ukrainian population, the Italian community of Wikivoyage has decided to collaborate to push one Ukrainian city as Destination of the Month.

The choice fell on Lviv because from a touristic point of view, among the interesting historical Ukrainian cities, Lviv is the one furthest away from the current conflict and therefore (we hope) the one that will suffer the least damage and changes.

Do you think this Wikivoyage community could also be interested in a similar initiative? --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. I know that some will object on the basis that people should not travel there, but we can put something in the blurb about how we are raising awareness about this beautiful city.... Ground Zero (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We didn't do this for Iraqi or Syrian cities when they were getting destroyed by IS, we haven't done this for Yemeni cities, etc., etc. I would be fine with doing a special 1-day feature, but as an international guide, we should be careful about showing too much bias toward Europe and away from every other conflict zone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed that we should all care more about various Arab peoples. Also agreed that we should care about all oppressed peoples. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So another alternative is, we run a month on a Ukrainian city, a month on a Yemeni city, a month on a conflict-riven city in The Congo, maybe a month on Mekele...the issue is that we aren't likely to run out of wartorn cities or zones any time soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say let's just not go there. Let's not make Wikivoyage more Western-centric than it already is. What's happening in Ukraine is terrible, but so is what's happening in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Libya, somalia, etc. So let's just stay out of controversy and not feature any destinations within active warzones. The dog2 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ideally it would be nice, but we should not be advocating travel to any warzones at this point and I agree with The dog2, Justin and Ikan that we should not be featuring warzones. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it's worth noting that Addis Ababa was slushed because of the warzone. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So DotM, OtBT, FTT, and JDGT? The city where you should have gone in time. But the pandemic was depressive enough, I don't think we need to read about the horrors Man is capable of here. They say that the "helping phones", where people can call when in need of someone to talk to, have all calls mentioning Ukraine these days. Sure, we have a 1000+ km border to Russia, but there is little military on the other side at present, and I don't think they will see a new war as a good idea anytime soon. Still, Ukraine is what people are talking and thinking – and quite a few acting – about.
I thought about putting the Ukraine flag on my user pages the day after the invasion, but generally political statements have been banned from user pages, and keeping to principles might be even more important now that some break them so blatantly that Russia has done. I'll try to join the next demonstration instead, and perhaps I can lodge a family of refugees (from Ukraine or Russia, we get hundreds of both).
LPfi (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support creating general travel topics relating to Ukrainian culture, for example Kievan Rus', Ukrainian cuisine, National parks in Ukraine, Cossacks (currently a redirect), Castles in Ukraine, etc. rather than feature a war zone on the main page. Gizza (roam) 00:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've created Ukrainian national parks. Unfortunately, we do not have many park articles of Ukraine, but I suppose we can possibly revive cotm (though I have not been here long enough to know how it works) in creating articles for Ukrainian national parks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The previous COTM phase from 2017 to 2020 was quite successful but was more effective at maintenance tasks like fixing dead links and formatting than making substantial improvements to articles. We could also create a Ukraine Expedition. Gizza (roam) 02:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, I would avoid featuring a Ukrainian destination right now. In a few months’s time, who knows what the situation will be in Ukraine. I think the situation could continue in active war for months but the situation could still change within hours, and Russian-sourced attacks are taking place across the country. Let’s stay away from featuring Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus articles throughout the conflict and sanctions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fear months is optimistic. But one comment on DaGizza's suggestion: I would not oppose the creation of a travel-related informational article about Cossacks, with proper context, but I would vehemently oppose running it on the basis of sympathy with Ukrainians. Those guys were notorious rapists and murderers of my - and President Zelensky's - people. It would be as bad as running a feature about the Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazis on a similar basis, and unfortunately, there were many of them and they were among the most murderous and fanatical Nazi collaborators. Ukraine has clearly changed drastically since those days, given the landslide election of Mr. Zelensky, and we should respect and honor that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, and there are still Neo-Nazis in their National Guard. I would support abstaining from making official Wikivoyage statements on the invasion, such as a Ukrainian DOTM. The exception is safety concerns due to the invasion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if I would go so far as to ban the featuring of Russian destination. As deplorable as this war is, the vast majority of Russian citizens have nothing to do with it, and we should be careful not to conflate Russian history and culture with the actions of the Russian government. Somebody can love the Russian people, their culture and their history while objecting to the Russian government's actions in Ukraine. And besides, there was no ban on featuring American destinations when the U.S. was bombing Syria and Libya. So let's be careful not to conflate travel and politics. The dog2 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I'll just add my very insignificant opinion to this, because I happened to click here. I think one of the core advantages of the en-wiki-websites is that they move as slow as molasses on big issues. So we tend to average out the cultural mood-of-the-day and therefore become a lot more of a reliable source for regular people (e.g. most travelers). I am a westerner, and I find the Kremlin's actions absolutely abhorrent. But that seems to me a different realm. This physically pains me to say, but are we really living up to our goals as a quality travel guide to feature cities that are likely to be decimated? Do we really feature the top restaurants in Kharkiv? Even Lviv? Is this a good time to go, innocent traveler? To me it seems crass and contrived, sadly. Also there's the whole consistency thing... Burma? Syria? Yemen? It opens a lot of advocacy rabbit holes, which we might not want to be probing, lest we lose sight of what this website is for. Brycehughes (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh god I even got indent-ignored haha. Brycehughes (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the the vast majority of Russian citizens have done nothing wrong (and this can probably be seen within Wikimedia), Russia at this point is still a highly politically restricted area and it was a similar reason why we slushed Addis Ababa. At this point, I think we should just avoid all features of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Transnistria and possibly Poland and Romania for the time being. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides, you'd have trouble flying into Russia from most places now, and their economy is a disaster area. It's very reasonable to hold off on featuring Russian destinations for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfie City, let's be fair: there are neo-Nazis in the U.S. military, too. Ukraine is clearly nothing remotely close to a fascist country today; it's clear to me which side is fascist and aligned with anti-Semites and white supremacists in this war. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that we should think carefully before featuring any Russian destinations in the foreseeable future, but I wouldn't condemn travel to Russia. I am very sad to hear fewer people here are going to study Russian; I think we need all contact that can be had with Russian people, and all understanding we can get about the regime (I was happy to hear our President had a conversation with Putin the other day) and political situation. But travel to see Russian churches and enjoy oneself in nightclubs is not what we need, we need people getting deep acquaintances. A number of very good Finnish journalists have left Russia and might not return for many years, or ever, as they feel the threat to them now is significantly worse than when reporting from Chechnya. In such circumstances, I don't know for whom I can recommend travel there. Getting in is no problem, though: fly to Finland and get on the train to Saint Petersburg. There are extra trains because of Russians fleeing the country. –LPfi (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, the trains are for nationals only, because of COVID-19 restrictions. But I suppose the marshrutkas drive as before, and you could walk across the border from Lappeenranta. –LPfi (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek:To be clear, I was referring to the units that openly embrace the Neo-Nazi label, such as the Azov Battalion, which I don’t think you would find in most countries so openly.
As for featuring articles in Russia, I would be opposed on the practical grounds. The sanctions are already making travel there difficult, and if anything, the pressure to add sanctions will only strengthen as the war goes on. I’m sure many people have ethical concerns about tourism in Russia as well, and it would seem insensitive to the current situation to feature destinations from these countries. I support our current course of (in)action regarding featuring articles or making statements during this war. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If there's practical reasons to hold off on featuring a place, then that's fine. But let's just not do that for political reasons. Featuring Russian destinations may be offensive to Ukrainian readers, but so is featuring Israeli destinations for Palestinian readers, featuring Saudi destinations for Yemeni Houthi readers and so on. It's true that the Ukraine crisis is getting more coverage from the Western media, but as we speak, there is an equally bad, if not worse, humanitarian crisis going on in Yemen because of a war the Saudis and Emiratis are waging against the Yemeni Shia Houthis with America's blessing, but gets hardly any coverage in Western media because Saudi Arabia and the UAE are U.S. allies. Two wrongs don't make a right, but for the sake of being a truly international guide and not a Western-centric one, I'd say we should just focus on the practical travel aspects and not base our decisions on the political situations. The dog2 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured articles are a marketing (ugh) aspect of this website. And, while we should strive not to be a western-centric guide, we also always will be a western-centric guide. Western readers form the vast majority of our audience. So our featured articles, as opposed to the content at large, are anchored by both practical and political considerations. Is it a good "practical" idea to feature Ukrainian articles at the moment? No. Is it a good "political" idea to feature Ukrainian articles? Probably yes, given the marketing aspect, but it's not practical. Is it a good practical idea to feature Russian articles at the moment? Perhaps not, given the difficultly of traveling there for a westerner. Is it a good political idea? No. Brycehughes (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it so obvious that "we also always will be a western-centric guide"? Aren't a majority of English-speakers in Asia and Africa? I agree with The dog2 on political considerations and sensitivities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps not so obvious, but I'd argue that it is the case, yes. Would be interesting to see traffic metrics on this. I'd expect that they conform to the typical patterns of english-language websites. Ergo if we agree that featuring articles is marketing (perhaps we don't), then we have an audience to consider. Brycehughes (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The people of Ukraine deserve all support they can get from the international community right now. That said, it is customary to rule out Dotms which have major emergencies. The featuring of Portland (Oregon) was on hold for one year due to riots, and Addis Abeba has been slushed due to an ongoing insurgency. When it comes to human rights concerns, the only reasonable choice is to leave the judgment to the individual traveller. The thing we could provide, is relevant safety warnings concerning the conflict. As the conflict is based on national identity and historical claims, we should make sure that travel topics such as Russian Empire and the Soviet Union put the conflict into context. /Yvwv (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we should feature any Ukrainian or Russian articles at the moment. Ukraine was the 3rd most read page on the site in February (and 8th yesterday).
Many Ukrainians are travelling at the moment, and editors may wish to help them by expanding our coverage of border areas, both in Ukraine and in neigbouring countries. We may want to think about relaxing some listing policies for border cities so that facilities of use to refugees can be listed. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, Wikimedia's statistics on the number of page views by country to the English Wikivoyage and English Wikipedia in the month of February 2022 show a combination of native and non-native English speakers visiting these wikis. The top ten countries visiting the English Wikivoyage are the United States, United Kingdom, India, Canada, Germany, Australia, Russian Federation, France, Netherlands and Philippines. Native English-speaking countries with smaller populations like New Zealand and Ireland seem to be dwarfed by more populous countries where it is a common second language, whether Western or non-Western. Gizza (roam) 23:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per AlasdairW's suggestion of listing facilities of use to Ukrainian refugees: I would support this if it would be useful, but do you really think this site is likely to have the most up-to-date listings of that type? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DaGizza, thanks. I thought about how to adjust the thrust my argument based on your info but I don't think I will, because my argument is for not featuring Ukraine articles and also not featuring Russian (etc.) articles. So, India is a pretty salient example here. Pretty high support for Russia among its foreign policy circles, and a suspicion of the fickleness of the West, particularly the United States, and this trickles down somewhat to the general population. From my admittedly lame perspective, by promoting Ukraine we might gain western support but might lose non-western support, which seems like a wash at best. I don't like the word "support" but I don't have anything better at the moment. On the Russia side, by featuring Russian articles we risk possibly-intense blowback from western readers. By not featuring Russian articles we mitigate this risk, and we lose nothing from more pro-Russian readers, as this is a form of inaction, not action. There is also of course a moral question here – what is right? – but I think this applies less to what we choose to feature on the front page, and that rather deliberative caution is the best route here. Brycehughes (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To expand on Gizza's comment, recently, page views came from these countries: 32% US, 7% Great Britain, 7% India, 5% Canada, 4% Germany, 3% Australia, 3% Russia, 2% France, 2% Netherlands, and 2% Philippines. All other countries were 1% or less. Those ten countries are about two-thirds of our traffic right now. Total page views were around 1.9 million per month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Point taken about India. And in fact, most of the non-Western world is more or less backing Russia on this; the only non-Western countries to sanction Russia are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. I'm fine with listing places that are of use to Ukrainian refugees, though if that is the case, we should also allow for the listing of facilities that are of use to Yemeni/Syrian/Libyan/etc. refugees. But I wouldn't feel comfortable with a travel site boycotting any country (not listing warzones does make sense though because there are practical reasons not to travel to warzones), and I certainly don't want this site to get bogged down in politics. If we boycott Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, then that begs the question of whether we should boycott Saudi Arabia and the UAE for their bombing and blockade of Yemen, or boycott Israel for their bombing of Syria (and all these bombings are still ongoing and killing civilians, except that they are being done with America's blessing, so you don't hear of them in the mainstream Western media). The dog2 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The weak coverage on e.g. Yemen over here is only partly due to the USA being involved. We just have weak domestic coverage of those areas. I have one journalist to thank for what I read about eastern and central Africa in domestic media, except what AP & co choose to report. I haven't noticed any expert on Arabia in the domestic media I follow (the main one reporting from Syria was in Afghanistan in the autumn, and I think he now is in Ukraine). Small country, small resources. A paper with a circulation of 30,000 cannot afford too many journalists abroad. –LPfi (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] More to the point: I understand that boycotting every country involved in mass murder and war crimes isn't realistic, such is the world. Still I think we can avoid the most obvious cases, such as with Addis Abbeba. There was the additional problem of the city becoming unviable as destination, but I think avoiding featuring important destinations when people are associating them with condemnable actions is a way to avoid giving signals that we do not care. As the conflict continues and media look elsewhere, the association isn't clear any more, and it is about whether to cover "bad" countries in general, and I think our mission includes that coverage, and showing that by featuring such destinations is only natural. To what degree to cover the morality of the regimes hasn't been subject to extensive discussion and I think it is to some degree random. –LPfi (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the dog2. We should just not pick a side about this, and just mention whatever benefits travelers. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not featuring Russian destinations right now is not a "boycott"; it's because their economy is in freefall, thousands of people demonstrating against the war have been arrested, foreigners may be subjected to arbitrary arrest, etc. It's an unstable, threatening situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The dog2: I'm going to ask "citation needed" on your "most of the non-Western world is more or less backing Russia on this" statement. The voting at the UN shows that most South American, Asian and all Pacific Island countries voted against the Russian invasion. I don't know where and how you get the impression that most non-Western nations back Russia on this. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OhanaUnited: Well, it's a fact that only four non-Western countries have imposed sanctions on Russia; Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Not a single African, Latin American, Caribbean or Pacific Island country has sanctioned Russia. And in Asia, it's only those four. Southeast Asia has 11 countries and Singapore is the only one to sanction Russia, which means 10 others are not. The dog2 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many countries voted against the General Assembly resolution to condemn the Russian invasion? 5 including Russia, I think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Russia, and Syria: the dream team. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not really surprising. Belarus is really just an extension of Russia (and it's literally in its name), Russia is a pretty obvious one, and so is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Syria has been a client/vassal state of the Soviet Union and Russia for decades. Eritrea just said, "Hey, all the other wildly repressive autocracies are banding together, so why not?" —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the users above that we should hold off on featuring destinations in Russia or Ukraine right now, for practical reasons. I also agree that we shouldn't exclude countries from featuring because we disapprove of their governments.
By all means let's improve articles about border towns and other places that might be relevant to refugees. People fleeing conflict are by definition travellers, so providing information to help them is within our scope in principle (though whether anything we write will be of practical use for this situation is another question). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, soliciting someone to go to Kyiv now would be just plain irresponsible, but having useful information for refugees or having topics featured here about Ukrainian culture, etc. could genuinely be helpful to someone (e.g. working on the phrasebook). Also, I don't know that anyone argued that we shouldn't feature topics because we don't like a government: actually traveling to Eritrea, North Korea, or Syria is tremendously perilous and is not in the interests of your standard traveler. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In Syria, Aleppo was a major tourist destination before the start of the Arab Spring. If the political situation stabilises once more and it becomes safe to visit again, I don't see why we should not feature it. Eritrea and Ethiopia just signed a peace treaty in 2018, and the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments are actually allied in the civil war with the TPLF within Ethiopia right now (which is interesting, considering that Eritrea and Tigray share the same language). It's probably not safe to visit now given the ongoing civil war at their border, but if the violence dies down, I don't see why we can't feature Eritrean destinations. The dog2 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For sure, there are beautiful, historic, incredible places to visit there and in North Korea too. This was exactly what I was trying to say before: as facts on the ground permit, there would definitely be reasons to visit those places and it would be great if we could provide useful information to travelers and even feature them and put our effort into making high-quality guides. In the meantime, the facts on the ground are that it is not wise to go to those places and it's not wise for us to try to feature them or prioritize our limited resources in a travel guide to North Korea or Syria, but creating a comprehensive travel guide and spotlighting these locations in the future if they are appropriate are good long-term goals. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We would want to know what survived in Aleppo before suggesting it as a tourist destination. Lots of the city was reduced to rubble. So it might be a more appropriate destination for relief workers than tourists for some time to come. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scheduling for our Nordic and Arctic destinations[edit]

Given that there are quite a number of Nordic destinations currently nominated, but few favourable time slots available, here's what I propose:

  • Swedish Empire – May/June 2023 ftt
  • Longyearbyen – June/July 2023 otbp (we do have a 10-day overlap though, but Svalbard is quite a long way from mainland Europe)
  • E8 through Finland and Norway – postpone till 2024 per our two-year policy on neighbouring destinations.
  • Gävle – December 2022 otbp as scheduled.

Does that sound good? It's not set in stone, but I figure that one of them has to be postponed to 2024, and E8 seems the most suitable choice (and required per our policy on neighbouring destinations). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good plan. Longyearbyen and the Swedish Empire are conceptually very different, and an overlap would not be too strange. Svalbard was part of the Swedish-Norwegian Union (sort of a late Swedish Empire) from 1814 to 1905, but the Swedish Empire mainly describes destinations around the Baltic Sea, with some destinations as far away as West Africa and the Caribbean. /Yvwv (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I did a quick Google Earth measurement, and the closest point of Sweden to Svalbard measures about 850 kilometres, and as Longyearbyen and the Swedish Empire cover very different parts of the world so it doesn't really seem strange to me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall features before 2013 be seen as unofficial?[edit]

English Wikivoyage was founded in January 2013, and the featured articles before, were features of Wikitravel. Back then, the quality bar was much lower, and categorization was different (with no featured travel topic, world famous destinations as OtBP, and obscure destinations as DoTM). Today, Wikitravel has been a walking corpse for almost a decade, and is less relevant for today's Wikivoyage. I suggest that articles featured before 2013 should be categorized as "unofficially featured", and be eligible for nomination again to feature from 2023, at our 10th anniversary. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I think is that they don't need to be eligible as long as there are enough other destinations to feature. Are there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looking at Previously Off the beaten path, features before 2013 to me were very obscure. There were significant destinations outside the US like Kakadu National Park, Svalbard, Tromsø, Niamey or Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park that were all featured as otbp but would definitely fit better if categorised as dotms. Similarly, Wikitravel is not Wikivoyage, and many of the articles from that time are in poor shape and I'd love to feature them again from our 10th anniversary. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. If an article is bring nominated, it had better not be the same article that was featured in 2013. It had better have been updated and rewritten thoroughly since then, or it isn't going to be selected. Ground Zero (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I would rather say that articles may be featured again 10 years or more after the last time. So articles we feature today might appear again in 2033. Any article featured should have had significant updates since it was last featured. Provided second go articles aren't dominant, I doubt that anybody will bother about having the read the same article 10 years ago. AlasdairW (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support in AlasdairW's form. –LPfi (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, we have two parallel proposals. We could impose neither, either or both. First, we would create new categories for articles which were featured on Wikitravel before Wikivoyage. Second, we would allow a destination to be featured again, following a cooldown period of 10 years. /Yvwv (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather, we have three alternatives: 1) articles cannot be featured twice, 2) we have a set line of 2013, or 3) the line is 2013 next year but moves forward. –LPfi (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would tend to favour LPfi's option 2 – having a set line of 2013. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd favour the ten-year limit. Pashley (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Applied the categorization on Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path, and Previous Featured travel topics.
Question: Shall we re-design Template:Pagebanner and use other icons for unofficial features? Or shall we just remove those flags? /Yvwv (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was applied according to the original proposal. If I interpret the above discussion correctly, the positions are: # No repeat features: (Ikan Kekek) *I didn't take a position; I asked a question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Set line of 2013: Yvwv and SHB2000
  2. Ten year line: AlasdairW, LPfi, Pashley
Ground Zero?

LPfi (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind making the change as a 10-years celebration, but in internal documents like this, we should make clear also what will happen later. –LPfi (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a bit more context, the reason why I favour the set line of 2013 is because many of the destinations featured as otbp were absurd, including a capital city of 1.3m, Norway's prime offshore island group, a world-famous Arctic city and really, this could go on. This didn't happen after 2013 though, and most dotms and otbps were featured in the appropriate category, and instead we should nominate articles that have yet to be featured. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ten-year line. The purpose of not repeating is to keep our content fresh and lively for readers. I don't think that readers will be put off by seeing a featured article a second time 10 years later. Ground Zero (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's part of the purpose. The other part though is to give editors the opportunity to have their work featured in a reasonably timely fashion if their nomination is accepted. For that, I hope we won't see much/many/any re-featured destinations if we have active approved nominations. Perhaps a re-featured article should require Star Status? This would create a new incentive for someone hoping to see a beloved destination re-featured to improve the article rather than just quickly nominating it again at the same status it's been idling at for 10 years (if it's a guide). That would also keep a significant number of nominations at bay from being put against new nominations, which I see as a good thing, especially if they're not being improved. If they are already Star Articles, it would be a good chance to clean them up, make sure they're up-to-date, find potentially new attractions, make sure the text is distinct from WT, etc. especially those that were nominated as stars. This would make re-featuring and the re-featuring process beneficial to Wikivoyage. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Petra being OTBP is the most absurd in my opinion Tai123.123 (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How on earth did someone think a world-famous destination was "off the beaten path"! Similarly, Dalian also being an otbp was also absurd IMO – or at least, based on looking at old discussions, Wikitravel was very US-centred. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Others that haven't been mentioned that I think were absurd:
I'm sure there's more absurd otbps too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not all of those look absurd to me. Yakutsk is not on the beaten path, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A city of 311,760 (per Wikipedia) with an airport connecting it to Moscow and other major Russian cities is not "off the beaten path". Featuring Zion National Park or Arches National Park, both relatively unknown outside the US as dotms and featuring Yakutsk as an otbp smells of US-ethnocentrism. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There SHOULD be a bias that favors the perspective of native English speakers on the English WV just like the Japanese version has a Japanese perspective bias, and I'm sure the Russian version has a Russian perspective bias. The "smell" is right. Concerning Yakutsk, the article itself states "Yakutsk is far off the beaten path in Russia for international tourism", but if it's actually wildly popular among Brits and Australians, it could be debated, but it's not absurd. Many are debatable. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'd have to look at comparative visitor numbers, but I don't think every city of ~300,000 is automatically on the beaten path. Have you looked at lists of Chinese cities above 100,000? You can see a probably slightly dated list at Wikivoyage:World cities. Of the U.S. cities on that list, I'll give you several, alphabetically, that I'd consider definitely or at least probably off the beaten path: Abilene, Amarillo, Arvada (suburb of Denver), Athens (Georgia), Bakersfield, Beaumont, Cape Coral, Cedar Rapids. Maybe some of these are arguable, but in the case of high-population countries like China and India, I think you'll find a lot of cities with populations above 300,000 that are off the beaten path. Aletai, AKA w:Altay City has a population of 200,000 per Wikipedia. Do you want to argue that it's on the beaten path? Anning has a population of 270,000 per Wikipedia. I don't know whether it's on the beaten path or not. It might well be, not really so much because of its population but because it has a famous hot spring and is a 1-hour bus ride away from Kunming. Anyway... Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also take ChubbyWimbus' point. A degree of bias toward destinations frequented by English-speakers is reasonable. It's quite understandable that there are a greater number of district articles for Rome and Milan in it.wikivoyage. Etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree – most language Wikivoyages lack adequate content, making it practically unusual for the most part and hence why many users resort to the English language Wikivoyage, as it's not just "the English language Wikivoyage", it's THE Wikivoyage. The closest other language Wikivoyage there is in regards to global content is de.voy. The next closest is it.voy, but that is only because there are many users who regularly translate content from other language Wikivoyages into Italian. Most other language Wikivoyages lack regular editors, and without regular editors, there is less reliable information and that is why many readers resort to the English language Wikivoyage. So ultimately, I disagree with having a bias toward English-speaking countries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And then there are also places like Malaysia, India or Nigeria where English is widely spoken as a second language (at least in urban areas). I'm sure that many people from the Anglosphere wouldn't have heard of the Genting Highlands, even though it is Malaysia's top gambling destination, and received 28.7 million visitors according to the article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than engaging in a theoretical argument, I'd simply suggest for us to continue to discuss destinations individually when nominated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it would benefit the project and make sense to require star status for repeat features. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree it might. The star articles are not very visible now. Features that since have been degraded to usable will then need much work to get to be features, but as we don't seem to run out of guide-level articles, we don't need those old features to compete with never-featured ones. –LPfi (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm now opinionless. One of my mid-term projects is eventually getting Canberra to star status, and I'd love to refeature Canberra again once I've fully completed the districts (most are at guide status), and it was featured after Jan 2013, so maybe I too will support the 10 year line. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featuring more large regions[edit]

With Queensland scheduled to come off the main page soon, it has really made me want to feature more large regions – and I'm not talking about small bottom-level regions, I'm talking about state-level regions, or really, anything over 200,000 km2 (77,000 sq mi). Looking at Category:Guide regions, here's a list of articles that fall into this criteria. Articles that have already been officially featured are not included here.

Here are also some smaller state-/provincial-level regions that are smaller than 200,000 km2 (77,000 sq mi) but still very large:

A * indicates the article was featured during Wikitravel.

The main issue with featuring all of these here is all but Colorado, Sakhalin and Svalbard are either in Australia or Canada which poses a diversity problem. But I do hope we get more guide articles from other parts of the world (that's not Australia or Canada) – it's a hard task, but IMO the results are definitely worth it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to the current difficulties of travelling to and within Russia, Sakhalin would be off limits for now. One state/province/territory from Canada and Australia each year would be enough, as there are many good city and park articles from these countries as well. Hopefully we will get more state-level regions up to shape for 2023. Colorado would be a nice feature for northern winter, with focus on ski resorts; we haven't had too many of these. /Yvwv (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that Sakhalin will be off-limits for quite a while. Svalbard and Colorado are still good candidates though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also two more to suggest, and whilst not regions, Germany and the Netherlands could also be featured someday. Other guide countries include Australia, Canada and the United States but these might be a bit too large though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any thoughts on how much work would be needed to get Florida to guide status? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I'll add that while it's not a requirement, most articles breadcrumbed under those Australian and Canadian jurisdictions are all usable or higher. Out of the 283 articles breadcrumbed under FL, 88 articles are outlines (≈31 per cent). Compare that to the larger Sunshine State and N&L where there are zilch outlines. Additionally, some second-level regions under Florida, namely Greater Miami and Florida West Coast are outline articles. Ocala National Forest (OD) is also an outline. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. I can see if I can carve out some time to improve the articles you've mentioned. The problem is that most of those outline articles aren't travel destinations and it's going to be difficult to get them to usable status because there are no tourist attractions in those places. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to see the Netherlands featured for summer 2023. We have no current Benelux nominees. Does the article need to be improved? /Yvwv (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would definitely support NL being featured – after all, we've never featured a country that's not a microstate (a la Nauru & Pitcairn Islands). Though not a requirement, it would be nice to see if the 76 outline articles are brought up to usable/ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hungarian OtBP[edit]

Hungary is culturally distinct from the rest of Europe, and is a gratifying country to visit: reasonably cheap, safe (with caveats for rampant racism), well-served by flights and rail, and rarely overcrowded. Many Hungarian towns have guide-level articles: Keszthely and Sopron were nominated and slushed. Among other candidates are Biatorbágy, Budakeszi, Encs, Érd, Hévíz, Gönc, Kazincbarcika, Martonvásár, Ózd, Pacsa, Rétság, Százhalombatta, Törökbálint, Verőce, Vonyarcvashegy, Zalaegerszeg, Zalaszentgrót, Zalalövő, Zsámbék, etc. Most of the Hungarian articles have lots of listed venues; however they tend to list individual buildings that are not always destinations in their own right; see Wikivoyage:Listings#Historic buildings, sites and monuments. Is any of these articles ready to feature? /Yvwv (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table of contents gone?[edit]

I can't seem to find the table of contents for this page. Bug or feature? /Yvwv (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange. It was working a few minutes ago on my end. Looks like a bug to me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yvwv: the TOC is now back on my end. Is it on yours? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been without the ToC on all pages with banners for some time (a week or two?). They reappear when I maximise the window. I haven't reported it as I haven't taken the time to investigate the issue. –LPfi (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cannot reproduce the error anymore. /Yvwv (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See phab:T317857, which seems resolved. –LPfi (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flight topic ready to feature?[edit]

Planning your flight was recently slushed. There are a couple of flight-related topics on guide level which are yet to be featured: Flight baggage, On the plane, Arriving by plane and Aviation history in the United States. Is any of them ready to feature? /Yvwv (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of all of them, I reckon only Aviation history in the United States is good to go, only because that one doesn't really have much to do with flying. The other three will need quite a few updates to reflect the recent airport chaos happening at airports throughout the globe. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]