This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Beginning in January 2019, Flickr will be limiting free accounts to a maximum of 1,000 photos apiece, and will be summarily deleting images from free accounts with more than that number of photos
This means the impending loss of God knows how many potential source images for banners. I say let's start making banners for as many future DotMs as possible, while we still can. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galway, Ireland and Rijeka, Croatia will be European Capitals of Culture in 2020. Both articles are currently usable, but Galway looks like it doesn't require too much work to make it a guide. I thought that it was good that we feature Valletta last year when it was a Capital of Culture, and maybe we should aim to do so again next year. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Tap to learn more" on DotM banners
At what point did we establish a consensus that DotM blurbs should now end with "Tap to learn more"? Maybe I'm in the minority, but I use Wikivoyage primarily on my laptop. If I tap on the screen, nothing happens. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ARR8, Traveler100: I just looked at the WV main page on mobile and it looks good. However, an idea: when you tap the picture (or the hand), the text shows up. I think it should be, that if you tap the hand again, the box disappears, as it does if you tap other places on the page.
...are three DotM/FTT nominees that are in danger of being slushed. Let's hear your opinions on whether doing so is the best course of action and/or see some progress on rectifying the significant issues with these articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting fact: unfeatured initial letters for DotM, OtBP and FTT
Too much time on my hands this afternoon. I just listed the letters of the alphabet thrice in a text editor, went through the lists of previous DotMs, OtBPs, and FTTs, and deleted letters that have been initial letters of destinations and topics that we've featured on the Main Page. Did you know that there's just one letter in the alphabet that none of our featured articles have begun with? Can you guess which letter? That's 'Q'.
At least Quito, Quy Nhon and Quebec City seem to be guides, so it shouldn't take too much effort to also give Q some airtime on the Main Page. :)
"Unfeatured first letters" for DotM: Q, for OtBP: Q, X and Z, for FTT (surprisingly few left as FTT has been around only since late 2012): J, Q, X, Z. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to consider the change of the current FTT due to the worldwide emergency and the translation of that article in the other languages. Any Wikivoyage homepage should highlight this topic. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to change the FTT at this time. I do understand the awkwardness of the position we're in, as a travel wiki during a period of time where travel to many areas of the world is being discouraged or banned outright, but our mission remains that of serving those who do travel. In this situation, that means acknowledging there's a pandemic afoot and providing readers with up-to-date information and an accurate assessment of the risk of travelling - which we already do with the link on the Main Page to our 2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak article which IMO is pretty first-rate - but that also means acknowledging the reality that there are still flights in the air, including budget flights, and still passengers on them. If we were talking about a FTT (or a DotM, or an OtBP) that was specific to a country or area of the world that was particularly hard-hit or where particularly stringent travel restrictions applied, that might be different. But Flying on a budget is a very broad topic, and it's perfectly possible to do so to a country that's less affected by COVID-19, or domestically within the same country, or if all else fails, later after the pandemic is over - the information remains accurate in all those cases. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThunderingTyphoons! - Yes, but a little consideration, please, for those who do the work of devising the schedule and making banners, and who would have to scramble and take time away from other tasks to reconfigure that schedule and make new banners on the spur of the moment. I'm not saying let's do what certain world leaders are doing and pretend coronavirus is a hoax or is being overblown by the media, but I am saying that there are ways to handle this more seamlessly and with less disruption. If we decide to alter DotM to acknowledge the coronavirus, I would prefer that we put the entire thing on hiatus - DotM, OtBP, and FTT alike - and remove the carousel from the Main Page until the situation is sorted (perhaps we could replace it with a single non-rotating banner pointing to the 2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak article), and I would prefer that we wait to institute those changes until March 21st or some other day when we'd be changing out one of the features anyway. Because firstly, if what epidemiologists say is true about the spread of the disease, then the only effective difference between any destinations we might feature is whether it's a place that's currently being ravaged by coronavirus or one that in the very near future will be. So it's a fool's errand in the first place to try to pick and choose which articles are okay to feature and which should be pulled, especially given that we might have to reverse those decisions on short notice given how rapidly the situation on the ground is changing. Secondly, Flying on a budget is only FTT for ten more days, and as I said, it's a broad topic that's not linked to any particular geographic location and is thus less susceptible, relatively speaking, to said rapid changes on the ground than a destination article would be. And if it can be avoided, I'd prefer not to monkey around with pulling articles off the Main Page early and then figuring out how many days are left to make a whole month. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should change it. I am not very concerned with exactly how many days the existing FTT "should" get. Obviously, if any given maintainer doesn't have time to make the change, then that editor is not expected to do any of the work. But that should not preclude others from changing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To elaborate, we would be absolutely putting the traveller first by featuring the coronavirus on the carousel, as it is the number one issue in travel right now. "Travellers" are not just people who are travelling right now, or will be doing so imminently. Everyone who travels at some point in their lives is a traveller, and anyone who uses Wikivoyage to plan a trip or just do some research is a Wikivoyager.
Cynically, this may also help our readership figures, as it prominently displays the issue that everyone's talking about. The current static display above the featured event is a bit of a visual mess for Chrome and Firefox users (though perhaps one that can be fixed), and it involves scrolling down in order to see it. People who don't know it's there won't necessarily look.
By contrast, there is nothing "now" about Flying on a budget; it is so useful it could be featured any time for as long as the oil lasts. And it's not as though not featuring now involves deleting it from our servers, so travellers planning trips can still make use of it.
On Talk:Main page, I asked whether it would be possible to add a fourth item - coronavirus - to the carousel. I'll repeat that question here, as it's relevant, and is a way to feature the virus article more prominently without compromising our existing schedule, if people feel strongly about that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WhatamIdoing - You personally may not be "concerned with exactly how many days the existing FTT 'should' get", but consensus has held that having some featured articles on the Main Page longer than others is unfair to their authors, even under extreme circumstances (the linked talk page discussion asks what we would do if, hypothetically, a terrorist attack were to occur in a current DotM). There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't accommodate that consensus into whatever we decide to do about DotM, and in a world where scientists say that up to 70% of the human population will ultimately be infected with the virus, there's also no reason why we should treat any particular article as a more sensitive subject than any other article. In fact, not only is flying on a budget "a broad topic that's not linked to any particular geographic location and is thus less susceptible, relatively speaking, to said rapid changes on the ground than a destination article would be", as I said above, but also not everyone who flies does so by choice. Many businesses are setting their employees up to work from home or telecommute, but (for the time being at least) there are also some that aren't, and business travel is still a thing that's happening. And Wikivoyage is at the service of business travellers too. We can live with the status quo for 10 more days, especially with an acknowledgement of COVID-19 already occupying a prominent place on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In it:voy we have put in homepage the coronavirus article and it will remain there for at least three months. Travel is important but travel safely and healthy is more important. Just for chatting, w:Spanish flu was "just a flu"... --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, even if it would be the 21st today. The coronavirus article definitely ought to be prominently displayed on the Main Page, and it would be hidden away in the featured articles carousel – it would only show one third of the time unless there's only one article in the carousel. A better place would be for example an additional narrow red box between the map and the carousel, or above the map. Or even a visible link (red text? a red box? a miniature warning box?) on the map itself. Also the epidemic will almost certainly be around for some time (ie. more than one month) and I don't think we should put the featured topics (or any other featured articles) on hold for an indefinite time unless those articles are about destinations heavily affected by the covid epidemic. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple edit conflicts) ThunderingTyphoons! - I'm torn between, on the one hand, wanting to do right by our authors and less disruption for the DotM maintainers on this site, and on the other hand, the feeling that it does look a bit tone-deaf for us to be promoting travel in any capacity under these circumstances. With that in mind, how about this for a compromise. We make a banner for the coronavirus article and add it to the carousel as a fourth item, as you suggested. Then, on March 21st, April 1st, and April 11th, we remove the current FTT, DotM, and OtBP (respectively) from the Main Page as we normally would but don't replace them with anything, until eventually the coronavirus article is the only one on the carousel. Depending on how long the epidemic lasts, any upcoming articles on the schedule to be featured can simply be moved a year into the future - same month - so there's no issue vis-a-vis Time to feature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People should really be limiting social contact quite a lot during this pandemic, but we have to face the possibility that it drags on for years. And while we probably should not promote leisure travel in any form right now, nor business travel as opposed to working from home, a big part of the appeal of travel sites during a time of enforced or voluntary restrictions on movement is vicarious. I will also say that I seriously doubt budget travel will be the same after the epidemic is over, as the airline industry is being ravaged by bankruptcies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points, Ikan; I'll add my voice of support to them. Bumping the DotM, OtBP, and FTT probably doesn't make sense since we don't know how long this epidemic will last, and in any case it doesn't prevent people from travelling or from thinking about travelling. I do think we should add something more visible. (Quite honestly, I didn't even realize what was below the carousel, as my browser window isn't large enough to show it and I never linger on the main page.) A fourth item in the carousel would be good, or perhaps a small extra banner between the Welcome and the carousel. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm happy with exploring Andre's suggested compromise, and am equally happy with looking at Ypsilon's idea to put in a new, static box above the carousel. The idea that such important information shouldn't be animated has merit, as does the point that maintaining the normal featured articles may be inappropriate and increasingly pointless if more countries go into lockdown. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As things currently stand, it looks like opinions are trending very slightly in favor of continuing to run DotM/OtBP/FTT as normal (albeit perhaps with a coronavirus banner as a fourth feature for the duration of the pandemic), and I'm prepared to say we have a solid consensus against the immediate removal of Flying on a budget and/or any of our other current featured articles. So for now let's refocus the discussion on how best to address the coronavirus issue on the Main Page, and let's put off the issue of pulling feature articles off the carousel until no sooner than March 21st, unless there's some truly startling development in the news between now and then. Agreed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of Ypsilon's proposal. The box between the map and the carousel would give an higher visibility to the article. PS I've noticed the current link in the homepage only after reading this discussion... --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should pull Flying on a budget, but making 2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak more prominent is good. Generally I think that readers read articles on the front page to consider something to do in a few months' time, not to leap in a taxi to the airport. If you are going to travel 500km in the next few months, you are probably at less risk of catching the virus spending 1 hour on a plane than 4 hours in a train or 8 hours in a bus. The virus is likely to be a major issue for the rest of the year. However we do need to be more ready to change featured articles in response to the news. Unfortunately DOTM work is mainly done by a very small number of editors which limits how easily we can make last minute changes. AlasdairW (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Building on the final point that AlasdairW made, maybe we ought to take this opportunity to clarify for ourselves exactly what we hope to accomplish with DotM, which IMO has never been very well delineated. Are we promoting particular places to our readers as potential travel destinations, or are we highlighting well-written articles and rewarding editors' dedication by ensuring their work reaches a wider audience? I'd always assumed it was the latter, as the former doesn't jibe very well with our fair and balanced, not-for-profit ethos as a WMF family member. But if it's the former, then it follows that we should take a closer look at the ramifications of continuing to promote travel in the midst of coronavirus epidemic (and I mean travel as a concept - as I said before, it's almost pointless to speak in terms of which definitions are safer than others; any place that isn't affected now soon will be). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would be to use the "Featured Events" space to highlight the article, with a picture of a virus or a COVID19 graphic. The FE space is intended to make the Main Page appear more timely, and to highlight events that travellers may be interested bin. COVID19 meets both of those criteria in spades. Also, events are bring cancelled or postponed, so we will have less to feature. As creator and curator of the FE space, I support putting Featured Events on hold until the pandemic is over. Ground Zero (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can the FE space be temporarily put higher on the Main page than the carousel, and can the text of the headline (presumably "2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak") be made bigger? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some major events have been canceled, and some countries (at least in Europe) have banned gatherings of more than 500 or 1000 people, so I was already going to suggest to put the Featured events section on hold. I agree the Featured events section can be a good place to put the warning, for example with a similar design like Italian WV's Main Page as Andyrom suggested. --Ypsilon (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, continuing to feature it down in the 'scroll zone' is not good enough. Above the carousel, or in the carousel, I don't care, but it has to be visible at the point people arrive on the main page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Above the carosel is the preferred choice. In alternative as the first page of the carosel (4 in total, but shifting the 3 existing ones). --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be consensus to put more focus on this, so I've changed the Featured Event space as proposed as an interim step. I don't know if there is consensus to put it above the carousel (which I support), and I haven't the foggiest how to do it. Ground Zero (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet another idea. Wikimedia sometimes puts boxes on top of each article, in all wikis calling people to vote for stewards, photograph something and what have you. Could this be implemented on WV for the coronavirus epidemic? It would be visible on the top of all pages, not just the Main Page (of course we could have additional warnings on the Main Page). --Ypsilon (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since there will shortly be an empty space where the virus is currently sitting, and events normally are, I wonder if we could temporarily fill it with a prompt for readers to explore our star articles? It may get them a bit of deserving attention from updaters, and is a nice way to show off our best works on the main page. It can be 'sold' as Wikivoyage looking back on some of the great places we've visited, and encouraging virtual visits via our travel guide in lieu of actual visits for the duration of the crisis. Just an idea I had this morning.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Site notice is apparently what it's called, we don't seem to have the template here. Central notice is metawiki's template that can be broadcasted to all wikis in all languages, though on the other hand Wikimedia informing readers on all wikis how to behave in the current situation (much of what's in our article is also useful for people just "traveling" between their home, workplace, school and local grocery store) isn't necessarily a bad idea... --Ypsilon (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As time goes by and more news continues to come out, I have found myself drifting more and more toward the opinion that maybe suspending DotM for a while would be a good idea after all (I mean, obviously, in addition to giving coronavirus coverage a more prominent place on the Main Page). I want to say that I'm very sympathetic to Ikan's comments about the vicarious pleasures of reading travel articles at a time when actual travel is increasingly impossible. That same perspective informed my opinions earlier on. But I think we need to balance that with a factor that I've not heard discussed much on this thread, which is that of optics. Regardless of what our rationale may be for continuing to have the featured-article banners on the main page, there's a distinct chance that our readers, our social media followers, or - less probably but potentially more consequentially - the press, who have recently been heaping praise on Wikipedia for their vigilance in keeping disinformation out of coronavirus-related articles, might misunderstand that rationale and assume our intent is to promote travel, and thus feel that we're acting recklessly and failing to take the coronavirus threat seriously. And I think that, especially for a smaller wiki like ours, we underestimate the importance of the goodwill of our readership or potential readership, and the damage that can be done if it's lost, at our peril.
Happily, if we pull the banners in the name of optics, there needn't be a sense of urgency to act immediately - we can still do as I suggested before, which is to wait until the 21st - and rather than waiting the many months or perhaps years that will elapse before the virus itself ceases to be a threat, the optics argument would probably enable us to quietly reinstate DotM once the news media finds a new obsession, which will almost certainly happen sooner due to issue fatigue among the public.
I would support that, but I think it really depends on how we present things. Suppose we put a notice on the page suggesting that people should follow the recommendations of health authorities to limit social contact and avoid inessential travel and then say "however, if you'd like to read about some destinations while you're staying home, here are three articles we're featuring for your reading pleasure this month"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to suspend DOTM. As AlasdairW said, most readers aren't reading articles on the front page so they can jump into a taxi and set off immediately. I think readers see featured articles as recommendations for somewhere to consider planning a trip to or some interesting armchair travel. Adding a prominent link to our coronavirus article above the carousel (or as the first page of the carousel) would convey that we are taking our readers' safety seriously.
For comparison, I looked at the front pages of Lonely Planet, Trip Advisor, and Fodor's, and all three acknowledge the pandemic prominently but also continue to feature articles advertising destinations. Fodor's published an article called "We Won’t Stop Writing About Travel (Even in a Pandemic)" explaining their decision, somewhat similar to Ikan Kekek's suggestion. —Granger (talk·contribs) 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to think about—if we can get a relevant article into featurable shape on very short notice, we could run it as the next FTT and bump the French phrasebook to another month. A topic like Stay healthy, Infectious diseases, Hygiene and body care, Travel health kit, Returning home, or Travel insurance might be timely, for instance. (If we get an article in shape in time, I'd be happy to make banner images to take some of the work off of AndreCarrotflower.) I'm imagining doing this in addition to highlighting the coronavirus article in a more prominent place on the main page. —Granger (talk·contribs) 00:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A mock-up
Here's a concrete suggestion for something we could put above the carousel. Of course the text can be modified or a different image can be substituted. What do others think?
As a general rule, textboxes should be wide enough to accommodate article titles on one single line. I tweaked it accordingly. Yes, it has my full support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing support from multiple users and no opposition, I've implemented the change. Normally I would wait longer for a major change to the main page, but given the fast-paced nature of the situation I figure it's better not to delay unnecessarily. —Granger (talk·contribs) 05:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this update of information. Having a prominent warning about a travel concern of such high importance is a sensible measure for a travel website.—The preceding comment was added by SelfieCity (talk • contribs)
Discussion from Quebec City's nomination
Agree with slushing; this page is already too long with nominations that have got the go-ahead but not the time slot (e.g. until recently Rail travel in the NL).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan. I don't think the nominations list per se is too long, 9-12 nominations in each section is optimal IMO, but I agree there are some nominations that probably will sit around until summer 2021 and we shouldn't nominate more of those. On the other hand if there's a good article for a place that's visited in the Northern Hemisphere winter (ie. in less than a year) you'd like to see to the Main Page, then by all means go ahead and add it. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, we need OtBPs that are suitable for the Northern Hemisphere winter. Nkhata Bay will be going in the October 2020 slot in a few days and Iriomote will follow in November, but after that, it's ?s all down the line until the spring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Another possible winter otbp is Quy Nhon (which could be our first feature starting with Q if Quebec City is slushed). It's at guide status but needs coordinates and maybe some updates. —Granger (talk·contribs) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ When QC is slushed, I suggest these last few comments are siphoned off, and placed in the talk page of this page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I understand the concern about having U.S. destinations and nothing else, but if that situation is OK, New Smyrna Beach is definitely an appropriate winter destination compared to much of the U.S. and Europe during winter. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. destinations are not commonly featured in winter months - Florida is one of the few parts of the country for which it's suitable to do so - so it won't be a problem to have NSB on the Main Page in, say, January or February 2021. But yes, in general, let's steer clear of the USA for the next year or so, at least when it comes to the OtBP column. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Between the two suggestions, Quy Nhon is probably the best-developed and more interestingly-written article, but New Smyrna Beach is probably more 'ready to go', in that it's up to date, has no obvious faults, has all its coordinates, proper formatting etc. Both are good articles worthy of featuring, but Quy Nhon will take more work, and judging by the 'Understand' section, that work will have to be led by someone who has visited recently.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to let me know what's wrong with the NSB article and I'll work on it. There is plenty of information that I can add to make it more detailed, I'm sure, but I haven't edited it in a while. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "wrong" per se, it's a good article. More detail would certainly be welcome, but it could be featured without that. The only thing I spotted when I looked at it yesterday was the "best beach" claim you already know about.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's common touting found in many of articles. I'll definitely add some details in the near future (starting tomorrow?), once I've voted on some more of the dotm nominations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the question of whether to feature NSB or Quy Nhon, I'm actually leaning toward the former. When it comes to featured articles, we have a tendency to lean awfully hard on Southeast Asia during the Northern Hemisphere winter (just in the past six months we've run Nha Trang, Metro Cebu, Pakse, and Kamphaeng Phet), whereas our schedule for the upcoming winter of 2020-21 features a long USA-less stretch of over six months (Buffalo-Pittsburgh Highway in September 2020 through Crawford (Nebraska) in May 2021), and Florida is a massively popular tourist destination that last saw Main Page exposure way back in April 2014 (Biscayne National Park as OtBP). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I added a lot more details yesterday, so it should interest the reader more now. Next, I need to add the climate chart (maybe even two, with an additional one for Samsula) and more detailed listings. I’ve added some pictures, too, and I may even take a couple myself. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refeaturing articles scheduled to be on the Main Page during the COVID-19 pandemic: a proposal
As most of you know, recently we as a community had a discussion of what to do about our Main Page featured articles during the COVID-19 epidemic: whether to suspend DotM, continue our Main Page programming as normal, or (the option we ultimately chose) to continue DotM but acknowledge the epidemic, and the abnormal state of affairs in the travel world in general, on the Main Page in a more visible way. As a by-product of that consensus, we as a community also answered a question about the nature of our Featured Articles that had long remained unresolved: in the words of the announcement we made on social media, that their "primary purpose... is, and always has been, to highlight the hard work of our dedicated team of travel writers by presenting our readers with the best-quality articles Wikivoyage has to offer", rather than to promote specific travel destinations per se.
I supported all of those conclusions then and continue to support them now. But I think something that's still of concern regarding our Featured Articles is the fact that, in the midst of this pandemic and the restrictions that have been placed on free movement and other elements of daily life, it's safe to say that no one's mind is on travel at the moment. Admittedly without having checked, I think it's to be assumed that traffic to our site is probably down sharply, and consequently there are likely fewer people viewing the aforementioned "hard work of our dedicated team of travel writers" than usual.
There have been some occasions in the past when we've discussed rerunning old Featured Articles. I've always come out against the idea, mainly because IIRC, in the past it's always been in response to a drought in new DotM nominees or an apparent lack of will among our editor base to iron out the kinks in promising-but-imperfect nominees, which I always thought was kind of a cop-out. But I think the COVID pandemic is a whole other animal. So I'm asking the community: what would you say to the idea that any Featured Article that's been on the Main Page during the pandemic is eligible to be re-featured at some point in the future? The exact parameters would obviously be subject to debate, but in my personal opinion, 1) I'd define "the pandemic" as beginning with Flying on a budget as February 2020's FTT, with the endpoint obviously TBD; 2) no less than two years should pass before any article featured during COVID can return to the Main Page, and 3) God forbid, if two years from now we're still in the same situation as today, no article can be featured twice during the pandemic.
I'm open to this, but I think now is a little early to make a firm decision.
The question of our traffic going up or down is an interesting one. We had much-lower-than-usual pageviews in December and January (before COVID-19 would have had much effect), but higher than usual in February. March was low again but noticeably better than December and January. I don't know how to explain this; evidently the pandemic is not the only factor at play in the data. (Note that the graph I linked to doesn't begin at zero by default, so the effects we're talking about are much smaller than they might appear.) —Granger (talk·contribs) 19:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't put a lot of stock into the accuracy of pageview stats, either Alexa's or WMF's in-house system. It would really be nice if the IT community could figure out how to identify and disregard hits from webcrawlers or other bots with a reliable degree of accuracy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. As the editor of our social media, do you notice any changes in view counts on those platforms? Surely their methods are accurate due to the importance of accurate view counts in social media. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to rerunning articles, but I don't think that after the pandemic is over, we should restrict ourselves only to rerunning articles for the following 2 years. We can keep them in the mix for possible reruns, along with possible new features that display the editing work people have done during the pandemic to clean up and copy edit articles. That work can receive acknowledgement, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that right now, people aren't free to travel like normally. On the other hand, many do have a lot more time on their hands (especially in parts of the world where leaving your home is against the law) to read about places they'd like to go to someday, which would increase the traffic.
For re-running articles later, we could do that if there are not enough other articles to run, but I don't think this is something we'd have to do. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't prioritize it, just leave it open as a possibility. I'd actually rather adopt a policy that already-featured articles could be renominated no sooner than 7 years after they have been featured, and that featuring them again should require substantial updates. In this situation, that would likely mean that no article featured during the pandemic could be re-featured before 2027, but we could discuss exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to repeat articles which are displayed during the pandemic, I think we should wait long enough to update them afterwards. How long that it is will vary by article, and will also depend on what long term changes result. In normal circumstances, I think that 7 years is a sensible time for renominating an article, but a shorter gap is fine under the current circumstances.
I would be happy to see us suspend featuring new articles for a while and re-feature a selection of articles featured earlier, possibly changing more frequently - maybe 3-6 months of having weekly changes using articles already featured (could a bot do daily changes?). It looks like we have banners of the correct dimensions to go back to 2013. It would be interesting to know whether today's readers are the same people that came to the site last year, or whether we are seeing a different crowd due to the current circumstances, but that is impossible to find out. AlasdairW (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is exactly the can of worms I'd hoped not to open. I do not support rerunning feature articles for any reason other than the COVID-19 pandemic. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that given the current situation, we should focus this discussion specifically on coronavirus-impacted featured nominations. At the current time, drastically broadening the scope of this discussion is not going to help in solving the fundamental problem that was identified as this subject of this discussion from the very beginning, which is the coronavirus and its impact on featured articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem, however, that I see with seven-year-old DOTMs is that those articles could be out-of-date." Which is why I said "and that featuring them again should require substantial updates". However, I'll drop this suggestion, at least for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on how long this lasts. If it's just until sometime in May or June for many countries, that seems reasonable, but if this drags on into the fall or beyond, I think at that point we just have to accept the "new reality" that travel, especially international travel, is just not going to be viable or appealing to people for a long time (I think that would hold somewhat true even if countries opened very soon). I think this is a topic that should be revisited after some level of normalcy is reached in the majority of countries (or English-speaking countries). It's too soon to know if things "post-COVID" will look very different from "during Covid" (both in reality as well as our site traffic) to even consider them "cheated" out of their feature. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't think we can or need to make a decision about this until we know how long this lasts and how long after that it will take for people to start traveling again. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict; I republished this without having read through whatever has come above) Hopefully without getting too deep into speculation, I think it's noteworthy that psychologically speaking, the longer human beings are subjected to high-pressure or high-stress situations (and I think open-ended stay-at-home orders combined with magnificent governmental ineptitude in the face of the crisis certainly qualifies as such), the less their behavior tends to comport with the principles of common sense or self-preservation. For that reason, I'd say the smart money is on governments abruptly ending lockdowns within a few months under threat of civil unrest, concerns about a second wave largely failing to resonate with the public, and life in the aftermath bearing more resemblance to status quo ante than many people now foresee, with the obvious exception of a spike in the death rate. Again, I take no pleasure in that prediction, but I think if we're called on to predict travel trends in the near and intermediate term future, human nature makes scenarios like the one ChubbyWimbus describes relatively more farfetched than SelfieCity's rebuttal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it isn't my opinion that people will be quarantined through the fall or that a new quarantine could start with the so-called "second wave". I just mentioned it as something experts and journalists have entertained. I agree that even if they try it, people will not likely want to comply (I'm a bit sir-crazy already myself...). The purpose in mentioning it was really my point that I don't see it worthwhile or necessary to make a decision before things return to relative normalcy. I didn't intend to fear-monger. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal in principle, but agree with others that we can revisit it at the appropriate time (i.e. when we're actually thinking of rerunning an article) to confirm we still want to do it. Nothing needs to be cast in stone right now. And probably some articles are more deserving of a rerun than others; if, for instance, the budget flight market looks very different in a year's time, it would make a lot of sense to feature an updated version again. More so than, say, the French phrasebook or some destinations.
On a more 'speculative' note, I'd be happy if, after this is all over, people weren't mad keen on constant travel (especially "short breaks" a plane journey away, business trips where the substance could be fulfilled by videoconferencing, unnecessary daily commutes) and not only to slow down the inevitable next pandemic; the air is cleaner than it's been in years, outside I can hear the wind, the birds, and neighbours' kids playing rather than jet engines and traffic roar. Plus, the effect on global carbon emissions must be enormous. Something I hope society will reflect on.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A little experiment for driving more traffic to featured articles
Just posting this in case anyone here is a follower of Wikivoyage's Facebook page and may have noticed/wondered about the following and whether it is intentional:
As you might expect, if you look at the page view statistics for current and former DotM, OtBP and FTT articles, you usually see a sizable spike in traffic right around the time its banner is introduced to the Main Page. However, rather than maintaining that higher level of traffic for the entire month, the initial bump usually begins to fade more or less immediately, sometimes to the point where traffic on the last few days of the article's Main Page stint is only slightly higher than before it debuted.
I've been wondering off and on if there's a way to keep traffic flowing to the featured articles more consistently throughout their time in the limelight, and I think I've hit on one. As administrator of Wikivoyage's Facebook presence, I routinely cross-promote new DotMs, OtBPs and FTTs on our Facebook page as soon as they go up on the Main Page of our site. But lately, rather than posting to Facebook simultaneously to the changing out of the featured article, I've been experimenting with the idea of staggering them out a week or two apart (for instance, I just got finished posting a link to Rail travel in the Netherlands on our Facebook page, which has been our FTT since the 21st of June) in hopes that there's a second peak in page traffic after the first one.
Yes posting the featured articles at a different time on social media to when they are first posted here on the Main Page is a good idea. We can also post other articles on social media. Either slightly older featured articles again (but not very old otherwise it may not be up-to-date) or other high quality content, like the snippets of trivia in the "Discover" section. I'm happy to get involved with the Facebook page. Most platforms are very active on social media these days (as in posting something daily). We don't have to go overboard but posting more than 3 times a month is a worthwhile strategy and test to see how much traffic we can drive from social media. Both readers and potentially new editors. Gizza (roam)04:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, it could perhaps also be worth trying to post the upcoming featured article a few days before it goes on the Main Page, to see how many viewers fb alone will bring to the featured article. And I definitely agree Discover factoids could be posted there every now and then. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before I nominate this for Featured travel topics, I'd like some feedback on how it should be improved in order to be a good candidate. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...is currently scheduled to be our FTT in three months. I was just about to make up a set of DotM banners for it, but then I got to thinking. Given how much has changed in the travel world since the outset of the COVID pandemic, how much of the article do you folks think is no longer useful to travellers? Skimming it just now, my impression is that some parts definitely are, albeit maybe not as much proportionally as Flying on a budget, which was FTT when the pandemic was declared and which we talked about pulling off the Main Page early. Normally outdated information wouldn't be a big deal, as Ypsilon and/or other users can usually be counted on to make any last-minute adjustments, but the difference here is that whatever is in a state of flux now will almost certainly still be in a state of flux three months from now. I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be a better idea to slush the article until the situation has settled down into whatever the long-term post-pandemic status quo will look like. We have enough FTT candidates to see us through until spring 2021, so lack of anything to replace it with isn't an issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, travel topics are a very diverse category of articles. Take Chinese cuisine, which I just placed on the Main Page - it's highly unlikely that the entire nation of China will scrap its centuries-old foodways and invent a whole new repertoire of dishes in response to the pandemic. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I quickly skimmed the Budget travel article, and it mostly still looks useful to me. A lot of the advice boils down to variations of "do what the locals do" and "avoid expensive options", which remains accurate even in places where tourist facilities and expensive services are being cut down. But if there's concern, I think it's fine to rearrange the schedule. —Granger (talk·contribs) 23:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long article, and the parts I edited (through "By bus") had a lot of unidiomatic phrasing and subject-verb disagreement, so it could use a thorough edit, but I'm not seeing what's so obviously inapplicable to the current situation. Maybe one or two linked programs are suspended, but I'd have to think that any destination article would be more inaccurate right now, so as long as we're not suspending all features, I'm not seeing why we'd postpone running this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Budget travel could sensibly be delayed for a couple of years. Covid aside I think it was in need of work, although much has been done today. Some of the advice is inappropriate in areas that are reopening - nobody is going to give a hitch-hiker a lift at the moment. Longer term the relative costs of different travel options may change - hotels which last year were full of execs on expense accounts may need to appeal to tourists. AlasdairW (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All duly noted, but what do you think about the idea that destination articles are going to be even more inaccurate right now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the location. In my check over of York, little has changed. Some attractions and restaurants are taking longer to reopen than others, events are mostly cancelled or postponed, but I've found very few serious changes to the situation on the ground compared to the article. Other places where perhaps government support of the hospitality industry has been lacking or there are more complicated economic or health challenges at play, the situation may be quite different. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most destination articles will need edits to Eat, Drink and Sleep when things recover, but much smaller changes to the rest of the article. In Edinburgh I would expect >90% of See and >75% of Do listings to recover, but in some cases there will be a delay of a year or more. I think that generally people read DOTM thinking about travel 6 months - 6 years ahead, and it is more important that See, Do and Understand are correct than Eat or Sleep. See listings are often non-commercial and are more likely to get government or donated support. So generally I am not concerned about featuring destinations, unless the situation is so bad that the destination regularly appears in the news. I am more concerned about featuring "introductory" travel topics at a point when there could be big changes, and in the case of Budget Travel may contradict current health advice. I expect that people will want to try the advice in basic travel topics more immediately than destination articles. AlasdairW (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Portland and American articles
As we won't run Portland this year, we need something else to feature as DotM either September or October. Out of the ones nominated, we could instead run 1. Nicosia in October, or 2. move Tel Aviv to October where it was until a few days ago and run either Bruges or Nicosia in September. Or 3. nominate a completely new article to run in either September or October.
Then, there's another thing. Because Portland is moved forward to 2021 or even further in the future (perhaps we should temporarily move it to the slush pile), there will be even more American articles standing in line with Crawford, Diablo Range and Brunswick (in addition to New Smyrna Beach scheduled for December) in the OtBP section and The Wire Tour and American cuisine in the FTT section.
To ease some possible scheduling problems in 2021 (who knows what the world and the U.S. will look like like next summer but still...), I would therefore suggest running one of the American OtBPs in the fall, if necessary overlapping with Buffalo-Pittsburgh Hwy and moving either Alcamo or Nkhata Bay (or slush the latter given the not yet vote) to sometime in the future. Ypsilon (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the pandemic. Crawford is probably the best choice since that region of the country has fewer coronavirus cases than either the Sun Belt region or the Northeast. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Great Plains and New England are largely rural, so there are fewer opportunities for the virus to spread widely. That's my best guess as to why the virus case totals are lower in those states. (Additionally both are by large majorities white and the virus has impacted minority communities more than others.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Portland are the clashes between unmarked mans with camouflaged thugs in them and peaceful protestors. I think this might still be the case in 2021.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the relative absence of the U.S. from the schedule between now and January 20, 2021 isn't more of a feature than a bug. Let's consider that in the U.S., two unrelated or at best tangentially related things are happening simultaneously: 1) Trump, likely as a desperation maneuver in the runup to an election in which he is the underdog, has used the BLM protests and police-defunding proposals as pretexts to send federal troops into cities he deems to not be tough enough on crime, the disastrous results of which you only have to turn on the news to see (this is already happening in Portland, but he has threatened to do the same in other cities as well), and 2) COVID is running rampant (which we've already established is not reason enough by itself to scrap a planned featured article, but which does tend to amplify concerns that spring from the former point). I don't think it's necessary to postpone Buffalo-Pittsburgh Highway or New Smyrna Beach as those articles deal, respectively, with a mostly-rural area that's off the beaten tourist track even in normal times and a small city that's probably too unimportant for Trump to send his goons to, but I do think we ought to avoid running any U.S. destinations in the next few months that aren't already scheduled, regardless if they're new nominees or existing ones that we reschedule. And if that means certain nominees will have to wait a little longer to go on the Main Page, or we have to have an unusually U.S.-heavy summer in 2021, I see that as easily the lesser of two evils.
(Preemptively: yes, I am aware this smells of Wikivoyage taking a political stance. But there are certain circumstances, and I think this is one of them, in which politics play a direct cause-and-effect role in influencing the practical considerations that govern the decisions we make on this site, and we do ourselves and our readers a disservice by pretending otherwise. I'm sure even if there were Trump supporters among us who were to weigh in on this discussion, they'd at least agree that the tension of the pre-election environment in America today can manifest itself in often unsavory ways, regardless of which side they consider to be right and which wrong.)
I’ll probably provide a more lengthy response in the near future, but addressing the federal agents I’m sure there won’t be any here because 1) it’s a small city of 30,000 and 2) there are no protests. I would not rule out federal agents with guns on every street corner in some major cities, but I think it is greatly unlikely that this would happen, and in cities where a ceremonial “protest to end all protests” took place shortly after Floyd’s death, essentially preventing any further widely organized protests, nothing else is likely to happen on either side IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest watching the COVID-19 curve in Nebraska carefully, and the idea that rural areas can't have deadly spikes of the disease is absurd and counter-factual. Right here in New York, there was a cluster that spread among workers in a greenhouse in IIRC Herkimer County, and there have been terrible rural hotspots in Georgia, among other places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this map to this one. I certainly see a correlation between high population density and cases (Florida being a partial exception, because it hasn't had a lockdown since April), but regardless of that, of course, we should monitor coronavirus cases, particularly around Crawford in case the situation changes. To clarify, rural areas are far from coronavirus-free.
We ought to avoid featuring U.S. destinations if possible until the end of the year (one or two are acceptable, I think we've agreed). Regardless of which region of the country has more cases, we're all agreed that the country as a whole has far too many cases compared to other countries, and likely will for some time, and therefore shouldn't be featured when other regions of the world with fewer cases are also possibilities. Brazil and India really aren't much better at the moment, so I think the same should apply to them.
Meanwhile, Europe seems to be improving, although a recent increase in cases in some European countries could turn into a second wave. South America isn't doing well, so that leaves us with Africa (excluding South Africa), most of Asia, and Oceania (along with travel topics) as the best choices for now. I'm not saying we have to adjust our schedule any more than what we're already considering, but going forward we could help travelers by directing them to locations with low numbers of cases. Hopefully they won't spread the virus to those places.
The current political situation here in the U.S. is another reason to encourage travelers to visit other places. (After all, the U.S. has been featured disproportionately often in recent years.) The election is not anywhere near decided yet, as Nate Silver's recent commentary has indicated, and the situation in January, February, or even summer of 2021 might prove to be little different than it is now, both in regard to coronavirus and politics. (Regardless, I'm not sure I would focus on the January 20 date — probably November will be more significant.)
But for now I agree that only the Portland article should be postponed, since the last few months have proven how hard it is to predict events across the next few months. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a couple of banners for Bruges. If noone has better suggestions, I think we could run it in September and try to keep the rest of the schedule as it is (moving Tel Aviv to October where it originally was). Indeed there has been a sharp rise in corona cases in northeastern Spain and there's a fear that there will be a second wave in Europe in a couple of months. We haven't let the coronavirus influence what articles we feature, and the disease is by now found all over the world, but it'd still be tone-deaf to feature a city which at the same time happens to become a COVID hotspot. Ypsilon (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As we discussed earlier, Covid numbers are not the reason we dropped Portland for the August feature. It is just the violent insurgency and the prominent negative press the city has gained in the media. I don't see that as taking a political stance. Removing the city as a featured article is neither supporting the violent rioters nor the federal or local police. The situation simply is what it is. I would expect us to do the same in any city in the world that suddenly got a lot of press for unrest and violence prior to a feature (particularly one that is not generally known for such things). I don't think we need to ban all American features. Most of the country is not like Portland. Covid is everywhere, but this decision was made because of the unrest. We should still be open to US features. I think the proposal to keep the list as it is and only remove Portland is right and consistent with our reasoning for dropping the city in the first place. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Protests aren't exactly happening on every corner in the US. There have been not been any protests on the street I live on, so I don't think the situation is that dire, and tourists can easily avoid the protests and go to other parts of the country where protests are not happening. That said, the neighbourhood I live in has seen a spike in armed robberies and assaults over the past few weeks (though I personally haven't been a victim of either), and these could potentially continue to rise amid the economic fallout resulting from COVID-19 as more and more people lose their jobs and get evicted from their homes (though I hope I'm wrong), so that's just another thing to consider. The dog2 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case anyone misunderstood, I'm referring to the case that there would be an explosion of new infections in one of the places we're featuring or about to feature (e.g. if we'd had scheduled for New York City for April 2020). Ypsilon (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
No FTT update?
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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
@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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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?
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]
Bear in mind it's only going to be this big , 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]
I was thinking whether we could have a yellow background like this one . 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]
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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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]
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]
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]
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]
@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 upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons (i.e., Commons), as upload.wikimedia.org/wikivoyage/en (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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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]
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-dotmand.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]
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]
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]
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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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]
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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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]
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]
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]
@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]
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]
@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]
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
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]
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]
Objective article quality: The article should have at least guide status, with no major errors or issues
No major emergencies: No widespread public disorder, service shutdown, travel bans, etc
Major unique event: Olympics, World Fair, anniversary festival, etc
Subjective article quality: A well-written and engaging article
Major recurring/annual event: Pop festival, Christmas market, Formula 1 race, etc
Favourable season due to weather etc
Geographic diversity: Priority for articles from parts of world with fewer featured articles close in time
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
For how far in advance should nominations be done?
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Require that all candidates go thru a copyvio check?
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]
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]
How big can featured destinations be?
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Geographic diversity and articles from the same country
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Visitor proofreading required?
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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).
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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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]
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]
[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]
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]
@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 page03:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]
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)❤T☮C☺M☯07:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[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]
Yes, soliciting someone to go to Kyivnow 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)❤T☮C☺M☯18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[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]
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)❤T☮C☺M☯16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[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]
Scheduling for our Nordic and Arctic destinations
Given that there are quite a number of Nordic destinations currently nominated, but few favourable time slots available, here's what I propose:
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]
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]
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]
Shall features before 2013 be seen as unofficial?
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Others that haven't been mentioned that I think were absurd:
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Featuring more large regions
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
The amount of nominees has varied through the years. When each category is around a dozen, the selection process is competitive but not overwhelming. The DoTM category seems to run short of good nominees, as no one except yours truly has nominated any DoTM for several months, and many of the candidates have been slushed. Are we running out of good articles? There are hundreds of guide-ranked articles, but few of them are good enough to be approved. Do we need to actively improve articles to get ready to feature? Or should we restructure the nomination process? /Yvwv (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could get a notification when an article is promoted to guide status, so I'd be able to keep tabs on the promotions. Given the continual promotion of articles, I'd be surprised if we're running out of articles to feature, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing here is that the benchmark for dotm has increased over time but the standards for guide have not. Having a look at Category:Guide articles, many of them seem to be centred around the same location or region (e.g. many from the US) or are city districts, which would pose a diversity problem. Just to give an example, Cologne in North Rhine-Westphalia is a good comprehensive guide article, but Cologne#Deutz is problematic for a dotm article.
Like SelfieCity, I'll see if I can try working on getting a destination from NSW dotm-worthy. Newcastle (New South Wales) is already a guide, while others like Katoomba or Wollongong are close. According to PetScan, there are 43 guide-level articles categorised under New South Wales, though many are about tiny towns in New England (New South Wales) that only appeal travellers from NSW/Qld (and would therefore be an otbp). I'd like to nominate Mount Kosciuszko summit trails for ftt – we've rarely featured hiking trails before, but this covers five different trails.
The nomination process has become more competitive in recent years, and as there are not always volunteers to improve articles up for nomination, we tend to pick articles which are good enough as they are. While Anglophone, Germanic and Nordic destinations (plus a few other places, such as Hungary, Japan and Bali) tend to be more developed, we would prefer more geographic diversity in featured articles. Provided that around half of the FTTs are geographic destinations, we feature 30 places a year, and have the opportunity to showcase all continents, and different categories of places. /Yvwv (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we re-categorize Punta Arenas as a DOTM, we would need an OTBP for January. Would you expect Florida to have recovered from the hurricane by then, or should we look elsewhere for a January OTBP? /Yvwv (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Florida will be recovered except for some possible cleanup in the Fort Myers area. But that's recovering quick as well, so yes, Florida could be doable. What's required to get Florida to guide status, though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A guide-level OTBP destination in Florida would be nice for the January/February slot. If there are any places in Florida that can be considered OTBP. /Yvwv (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to wonder if the DOTM/OTBP split is still a good idea. If Punta Arenas, the gateway to Antarctica no less, is "on the beaten path" yet the major city and accessible tourist destination Guanajuato is "off" it, I think it's clear that the difference between the two categories is so obscure as to merit a completely different system. I don't know what that would be, but it should be made clear that this is my point of view. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are established by tradition, but there is no natural divide, as medium-sized towns and domestic resorts tend to be borderline cases. We could consider other ways to categorize featured articles; maybe by continent. The OtBP however has the perk of giving small towns, villages and inaccessible destinations the attention which they would not get in traditional travel media. /Yvwv (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yvwv's second sentence is what I've always thought was the purpose of OtBP. In the link Ypsi mentioned, Punta Arenas passes all but criterion 2 and I dare say way more significant and well-known than the currently-featured Arches National Park. Likewise, the same can be said for Banff or Milford Sound. Another possible solution is to create a third category that handles borderline cases. That would mean we'd get to feature 48 articles every year as opposed to 36, but we'd have more borderline cases of whether a destination should be categorised as a DOTM/OTBP or in this borderline category. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)10:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, but maybe we could consider renaming OTBP to more clearly indicate off the beaten path in a figurative sense, rather than the more literal sense — far from roads, etc. — that it indicates at first glance. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Other Site has gone up to 6 parallel features, which seems a bit too much; but 4 could be fine. Adding an "averagely famous destination of the month" category does not seem appealing. If we go from 3 to 4 parallel features, we can consider to have categories by continents: Americas, Europe/Africa, Asia/Pacific, and travel topics (which could include the odd article about Antarctica or oceanic islands). That would warrant some geographic diversity on the front page. /Yvwv (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off the beaten path in the literal sense is true only for a very small number of articles. Even towns in Eastern Greenland have beaten paths. Thus I don't think anybody will be astonished that there are people at those features. For the line drawing issue: by introducing an intermediate category, we'd only made one line drawing problem into two, each as problematic. I rather think that the fuzzy line means that we can feature the borderline cases as either, considering what candidates are available (still trying to keep some consistency across regions). We should change the system only if we think the proposed system is better, and I think finding a system that indeed is better requires quite some thinking and discussing. –LPfi (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick with featuring 3 articles per month. We could have an intermediate section for nominating articles, with the decision defered until nearer the time that the article is featured. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Having "well-traveled", "somewhat traveled", and "off-the-beaten path" seems like it will create more debate rather than less. More features also waters down the prominence of each. I have always thought that DotM should be thought of on a smaller-scale, either regionally or even within a country, so that would mean considering a destination in Ghana against West African destinations or Ghanaian destinations. This permits a wider variety of DotMs. A lot of users seem to think in international terms, so they'd compare Ghanaian destinations to French or American destinations, which leaves basically everything out aside from the capital of a lot of countries, because Ghana can't compete with Paris. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the coronation of Charles III scheduled for 6 May 2023, we could try to get Monarchy of the United Kingdom ready to feature for April/May 2023. The article is currently rated as usable, and needs to get to guide level to be nominated. All improvements of the article are welcome. /Yvwv (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Westminister would be a better feature. It is almost at guide and I'll do whatever it takes for the article to become guide (it's been 4 years since I visited Westminister, so I may not have up-to-date on-the-ground information). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)06:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we require that featured articles be up to date?
Do we have any rule that says that listings should be updated before an article is nominated or before it is featured? Through the pandemic, a lot of hotels, restaurants and bars closed, or at least changed their operating hours. Are we concerned about featuring an article with lots of out-of-date listings, or are we okay with that? Ground Zero (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion about whether some criteria should be absolute. In the end, it comes down to the supply of nominated articles. If there are many nominated articles that meet the criteria we already have (guide level, not a war or disaster zone, etc), we can afford to be more picky. If we are short on nominated articles, we should not raise the bar for featuring an article. /Yvwv (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everything that has a section or a full paragraph should be up to date. All airports, bus/train stations, hotels, ski resorts, malls, museums, galleries (and a few other types of listings from the top of my head) would need to be up to date. IMO restaurants and bars and other more transient establishments (e.g. individual shops) would not have to be updated, but the first three included listings in any category should be up to date. Just my 2c, going by feeling alone. Twsabin (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know if there's any official rule, but I think it should be obvious that our guides should be as up to date as possible when we feature them. Because unlike for example Wikipedia's featured articles, Wikivoyage guide is something that our readers use when visiting someplace. Already several years ago I was worried about the practice of writing up articles to guide status, maybe waiting for some time before nominating them, then having the articles sit around for in the worst case 2+ years and then just featuring them. If the article has been nominated for a long time, I think at least listings and links should be checked (at most a month or two?) before the article is featured. Ypsilon (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer is yes, an article should be throughly checked before it's featured. I too have been concerned with the influx of low-quality articles that blatantly violate other policies (e.g. airports, avoid long lists, listings in region/city articles, and so on) or are just low quality (e.g. short understand, listings not listified, bland listings, etc.), but I didn't bring up that many articles weren't up to date, possibly because I don't want to be blabbering on too much.
The long answer is we need to go back to what the purpose of featuring articles (or featuring files) on any wiki is: that is, to showcase the good work of various contributors. Geographic diversity is and should not be a priority, though I have to say, I'm not too pleased with trying to prioritise featuring articles from "under-represented" (keep in mind that this is a vague term) over featuring high-quality articles we've done for who knows how long. In addition to the issues raised by Ground Zero, the reason why we're having an apparent dotm shortage is because too many low-quality articles that barely make pass the criteria for guide status, and are being prioritised over actual high-quality articles that are from regions that are well-represented (e.g. AUS, CAN, the US, and so on) – it should be no surprise that the number of articles that have been slushed has increased.
It's already the 23rd, so FTT needs to be updated to Georgian cuisine ASAP (the procedure does take about 10 minutes if I remember correctly and one needs to have at least template editor rights). I'll have time to do it tonight, if nobody else has updated it by then. Ypsilon (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not doing it earlier. I've been a bit busy this week and haven't really had much time for Wikivoyage; updating the Main Page banner was certainly not on the top of my mind. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)10:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an article was primarily written by a user before they were banned, that seems fine, but if an article was written while the user was block-evading, then it's not. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)20:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diwali and other South Asian holidays during northern winter, when India and neighboring countries have appealing climate. Many articles on India have improved lately
Are there any other holidays with international appeal, and suitable destinations? In particular we should give more attention to non-Christian holidays, or non-Christian aspects of those celebrated within Christianity. /Yvwv (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Ypsilon (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
, 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)
. 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)
.svg){kind=link}