Open main menu

Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates

(Redirected from Dotm)


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

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

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

The basic format of a nomination is as follows:

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

Add a nomination to the end of the appropriate section.


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

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

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

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


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

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


Discussions for previously selected destinations are kept in the Archive.



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

Month DotM OtBP FTT
December 2019 Adelaide Pakse - pending stronger consensus to support Visa - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support
January 2020 Metro Cebu Norfolk Island - pending stronger consensus to support Driving in Brazil
February 2020 Nha Trang - pending stronger consensus to support Jeffreys Bay - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Flying on a budget
March 2020 Ouro Preto - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Great Basin National Park - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support French phrasebook - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support
April 2020 Tangier - pending stronger consensus to support Thimphu - pending stronger consensus to support Along the Magnificent Mile
May 2020 Hamburg - pending stronger consensus to support Nagykanizsa - pending fixes and stronger consensus to support Tour cycling - pending stronger consensus to support

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

Next changesEdit

Decisions regarding which images to use as the banners are made at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners.

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



On the date of the scheduled change, the DotM, OtBP, or FTT should be changed as close to midnight UTC as possible. When the featured page is changed, please follow the following procedures to do so and archive content to the appropriate pages. At each stage, please double-check that you are correctly moving content.

  1. Update the featured articles on the main page by replacing the current 'banner' template section with those of the appropriate banner for the new DotM/OtBP/FTT found in the Next change section above.
  2. Update the Photo credits page with the banner's original image, title and attribution.
  3. Add the former featured article to the appropriate archive page: Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path, or Previous Featured travel topics.
  4. Remove Template:Featurenomination from newly featured article.
  5. For the former featured article, add the appropriate parameter to the pagebanner template (directly after the image filename) to label the page as having been featured previously.
    • For former DotMs, add: dotm=yes
    • For former OtBPs, add: otbp=yes
    • For former FTTs, add: ftt=yes
  6. Archive the newly featured article's nomination. Simply cut-and-paste the nomination section of the newly featured article from this page to Wikivoyage:Destination of the Month candidates/Archive.
  7. Update the Next change section above by adding the banner from the discussion page. View the table in the Schedule section above to determine what next month's change will be, then update the image and blurb in the "Next change" section with that found in the upcoming featured article's nomination.
  8. Archive the newly featured article's banner by cutting-and-pasting all banner suggestions and the associated discussion into Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners/Archive.

Nominations for Destination of the MonthEdit

Metro CebuEdit

Place: Metro Cebu
Blurb: Second largest urban area in the Philippines with the country's second busiest airport. Outlying parts have many beaches, reefs, dive sites & resorts plus the country's most important site for bird watching. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but probably best in northern hemisphere winter
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This article was Collaboration of the month for June 2018 & is therefore now rated Guide. It is the main transport hub for the southern Philippines. Many visitors choose to enter the country via Mactan-Cebu International Airport (CEB IATA) rather than via Manila, both because this airport is easier on travellers & because it is more centrally located in the country.

  • Support as nominator. Pashley (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course, this is being mentioned now the article finished its period as COTM. I think it's good to have a region article, and while this one could do with some more information still in some sections, I think it's quite a good idea. It's all up-to-date information due to the CotM and all the places underneath it are decent, as we know, so I'm supporting this nomination. Selfie City (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Unsure, looks like all the subarticles listed in the Cities section are usable and most of the article looks OK. But Eat and Drink seem a little bit short. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Most travellers will visit only Cebu City and perhaps Lapu-Lapu, so the fact that most of the other articles on towns within the area are barely usable does not bother me much. Clearly improving them would be good, but it is not essential. The exception would be Talisay (Cebu) which is fairly large & important.
On the other hand, it would be nice to get the main cities up to Guide. I think Cebu is close, but it could use copy edits & more under Eat & Drink. L-L has problems; Drink is empty and there are only two Eat listings, far from ideal when you consider it is a tourist town & population is over 400,000. Pashley (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I was a little unclear. Subarticles need only to be at usable status, and all of them are, which is good. It would certainly do no harm to have some of them at guide status, but they do not need to be. Secondly, I see no big problems with the article, though Eat and Drink looked a bit short. So there's no need to replace this one with Cebu City or Olango Island or some other article. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of making this region article DotM, there are two places within it that might be nominated instead, Cebu City (the area's main tourist destination) for DotM and Olango Island for OtBP (a strange one, about an hour's travel from an international airport but off the main tourist path). Neither is currently rated Guide, but I think both are close. Pashley (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
A possible advantage of this as DotM is that it was created here rather than on WT before the split, as were Olango Island & I think some of its other subordinate articles. This might be good for SEO. Pashley (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Another option on the cards is Alona Beach. It’s only at usable status at the moment, but with some more work it could be at guide status. The problem is coordinates there, though — the place is so crowded in that it’s hard to be sure about them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The Cebu City article has now been promoted to Guide. The article for the region's other main destination, Lapu-Lapu, still does not have good Eat or Drink sections. Pashley (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation reached the Philippines in March 1521. In April they went on to Cebu City, their most important destination in the country, and Magellan was killed in a battle in what is now the city of Lapu-Lapu, named for the opposing chief. Both those cities are now part of Metro Cebu, so the 500th anniversary in April 2021 might be a good time to feature this article. Around then might also be a good time for the Magellan article. Pashley (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The Magellan article should definitely be run next summer when they started the journey. Even if there'd be some really good excuse to postpone the Magellan article until then, if the reason to run Metro Cebu in April 2021 would be Magellan's visit there, we should not run the articles simultaneously, as we traditionally don't want to feature several articles with the same theme too close to each other.
If Metro Cebu needs to wait until 2021, it should (like London/Hampstead) be parked in the slush pile until when it's time to move it to the schedule. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It does not need to wait until then, but it could. Pashley (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Featuring articles in tandem with timely events is well and good, but I really wish that people would stop suggesting we hold nominees off for years and years for the sole purpose of making them coincide with some far-in-the-future event (see also: Birmingham, Alabama). A long period of time spent languishing on this page means that an article that was ready to go when it was nominated might well be full of outdated information by the time it actually goes on the Main Page. Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation is slotted for a summer FTT next year, but there's no reason we couldn't run a destination in the Philippines within the same general timeframe: by definition, a round-the-world voyage is not attributable to any geographical region in particular. Metro Cebu's "Time to feature" indicates a preference for the Northern Hemisphere winter, anyway, so it was a moot point from the getgo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Sorry for sounding harsh, but after my comment in January where I was concerned about how long articles nowadays sit around on the Main Page there have been quite a few nominations that will have to wait for quite some time, and there have been many suggestions that this or that article should wait until 2020 or even 2021. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Mactan-Cebu International Airport was expanded in 2018 making this destination busier & more attractive. Pashley (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure. However, we need to make sure the article includes information about the expanded airport, rather than the older one, so that all information is accurate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I have done what I can, but I have not been there since the expansion & it could probably use more work. In particular, what are the food options in Terminal 2? And what transport is available between terminals?
The info is in the Lapu-Lapu article with redirects from CEB & Mactan-Cebu International Airport. Pashley (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The article mostly looks good to me. The short "Eat" and "Drink" sections don't bother me—in articles about smaller regions, it's often hard to find much to put in those sections. But shouldn't there be a "Do" section, to talk about diving if nothing else? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I added Metro_Cebu#Do. It might need improvement. Pashley (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Now I'll support. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks like we're still shy one support vote and I haven't weighed in yet. Looks good to me! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


Place: Oslo
Blurb: Norway's capital and largest city has a heritage back to the Viking Age, and is known for winter sport venues and sustainable architecture. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Late winter for snow, May for National Day, summer for city-life
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment: The only Nordic capital yet to be featured. Lots of buildings finished during recent years. While still one of the world's most expensive cities, the krone has fallen since its record level around 2013 (from 0.18 US$ to 0.12).


  • Could do with some work, but otherwise looks like a quite a good nomination. As the previous sentence suggests, I have some fairly minor concerns with nominating this article. But before I get to them, I think we ought to go with summer if possible for this nomination. I can imagine that Oslo is too cold to be enjoyable for tourists during much of the year. Even if it isn't too cold, if we post up Oslo in February on the main page, most people will think that it's cold and they won't want to go there.
Now to the nitty-gritty. When you nominate a huge city article (that is, one with districts underneath it), you are nominating the districts as well as the city article itself. The Oslo Center District article is only at usable status, and while most of the article sections in that district article look fine, the "Do" section has only one listing — one listing. And while "see" makes up for this with a total of 17 listings, the lack of "Do" listings makes it obvious that there are things you can do in downtown Oslo not mentioned in this article. If there are any "see" listings that are actually things to do, then this is not a concern, since we can just move those "see" listings down to the correct section. I also noticed a marker for "Do" that was in the "Get around" section.
The Western Oslo district article has no "Understand" section and is rated at usable; the Inner North, North, Inner East, and South district articles are all rated at usable status. So can we consider the huge city article to be at guide status if all the district articles underneath it are rated at usable status? While I think a lot of these district articles could be promoted to guide status, not all of them could.
On the other hand, however, none of these district articles are terrible, and the huge city article has quite a lot of information. So I think some work should go into the lower-level articles, but the huge city article looks good. Next summer it would be nice to see this on the front page if we can get the above-listed work done by then. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • For cities it is not always clear how to sort items into Do, Drink and See. For instance Rockefeller (a major concert venue) I would list under Do, now it is listed as Drink. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment — Oslo is a fairly important center for winter sports (especially as a spectator sport), so we can very well run it during the winter too (and then of course the cold weather is part of the experience). I'm afraid this is going to sit around until summer 2020, though, as the summer of 2019 is fully booked; matter of fact if Kaunas is moved up to the DotM page, I think or some other DotM from Europe is likewise going to be left sitting around until 2020 :/ .
When it comes to city districts, they only need to be usable (but all of them do have to be usable) for the main city article to be guide. Think of it this way, city articles are divided into districts when/because they are so stuffed with listings that they become unwieldy. This by definition means that the city article has enough listings for guide status and the Main Page, the listings have only been distributed around several district articles for easier reading and usage.
All in all, I remember the Oslo article was in a pretty good shape when districtifying it almost exactly two years ago, though the article and the listings in the districts could benefit from an update closer to the time when we run it on the Main Page. --ϒpsilon (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ypsilon, this is very helpful. I have a couple questions, though:
  1. What about May? Is that open?
  2. Why does it have to wait 2 years? We don’t have 24 DOTM nominations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
We can only fit so many articles in the summer slots and most places in Europe, USA and Canada are best featured from May-Sep. These are the parts of the world we cover best by far (probably because most of the en-WV community comes from these parts of the world) and therefore the summer tends to be "sold out" more or less one year ahead. Right now we have quite many European DotM candidates (somewhat comparable to the situation of American OtBP candidates) and to keep the Main Page varied, we really don't want to have European DotMs for, say, four months straight in the schedule. Then comes the autumn and except for nominees from the Mediterranean (or for the US, from places like Florida, Hawaii or California) or places that are suitable for a winter visit, the next time European, US and Canadian articles can be featured weather-wise is late next spring. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Well I plan to nominate York for a November or a December slot. It's not ready yet, though.
I see no problem with a winter slot for Oslo, but haven't looked at the article yet.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Portland (Oregon)Edit

Place: Portland (Oregon)
Blurb: Oregon's largest city attracts young Americans looking for a sustainable lifestyle. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: northern summer
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Slushed in 2010, but has grown a lot since then. Has all the essentials of a city article.

  • Not yet — at a first glance it looks like a solid article, but some listings lack description (most notably in the Sleep section). The article has a huge number of Eat listings (83!). Yes, some of them are local chains with several restaurants but still... ϒpsilon (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If being complete means adding even more length and listings to an already overlong and over-listy article, as Ypsilon said (and I agree with him), then the answer is that Portland needs to be districtified first. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, districtification has already been discussed three times on Talk:Portland (Oregon). ϒpsilon (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Between this nomination and Talk:Portland (Oregon) (and just look at the article itself!), there's a strong indication that this article ought to be districtified before it's put on the Main Page. That's a formidable task that, in the nearly five months since it's been nominated, no one has bothered to get started on. Also, the nominee doesn't currently have any Support votes to go on the Main Page as is. Are we going to get moving on this or should Portland be slushed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, let's slush for now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
As discussed, Portland needs to be districtified. It shouldn't be to difficult to divide the city into a couple of districts, for example per the suggestion in Talk:Portland_(Oregon)#Districtification.
But as the schedule is full for the warm months of 2019, Portland is either going to sit around for 1+ year or something from the schedule will have to give up its place. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ypsi - Now that you mention it, I do remember the districtification of Riga ahead of its term of DotM took much less time than I'd expected. But the question is: given all the other work that needs to be done, on other DotM candidates and elsewhere on the site, is anyone actually going to take on this project? We have enough DotM candidates, and enough Guide-level articles especially among U.S. destinations, that it would be no big deal if we slushed Portland, not to mention that it was nominated too late to make the summer 2019 schedule anyway. I'd say let's revisit this issue in three months and see if any progress has been made in the interim. What do you (and others) think about that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I've never used more than a few days to districtify a city. Usually it does just take a couple of hours to move the listings, once the district division and borders have been decided. Then the main article needs some more content in sections that formerly had listings, district articles need some info in Understand and Get in (a look at the city's map and public transport network map is often enough), and then a district map needs to be created.
I could help out with districtifying Portland, but it will have to wait a while; other WV projects (yup, also DotM related :)) have priority. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Portland is now districtified. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Borderline between support and not yet. I find it hard to make up my mind here. The eat section, for example, is much to long, and therefore is like a yellow pages guide and not a travel guide. Otherwise, however, it looks like a reasonably good article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


Regarding the fact that, as Ypsilon says, it's now districtified, I have a couple thoughts:

  1. I think it would make sense for Portland to be moved to Portland and for the disambiguation page to moved to Portland (disambiguation).
  2. Good news about the districtification! The district articles look good, although perhaps they could do with some more general information. (For example, none of them have an "understand" section.)
  3. In the "districts" section of the main article, there definitely ought to be a description of each of the districts, so travelers can know a little about each district before visiting their respective pages.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Better to have that discussion in Talk:Portland_(Oregon)#Districtification_for_DotM, there indeed are still some things both the main Portland article and the district articles need. ϒψιλον (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the "See" section needs some links to the districts. The "Do" section should mention/list the major city festivals/events. The districts should only give a listing to ONE of the chain restaurants. Portland (Oregon)/Eastside's Eat section looks sloppy with half of the listings being the same restaurants. The "Connect" section in the districts should have content or be deleted. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


Place: York
Blurb: Ancient capital city where the Romans, Angles and Vikings ruled northern England, York's many attractions include its magnificent minster and the largest railway museum in the world. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but recommend back half of year: 1 Aug is Yorkshire day, Sept has the highest concentration of major events, and there are also lots of pre-Christmas festivities. The weather may be poor in Nov/Dec, but the atmosphere is magical and nobody visits northern England for the weather anyway.
Nominated by: ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: One of England's most-visited cities, so deserves a crack at the main page - this would be the first time a British city had been DOTM since Manchester in 2015. I have been working on this one pretty solidly since September, so hope you all like it. Work is 95% complete, with the only issues which still need to be resolved being: a lot more images are needed, the lede needs a rewrite, plus anything which comes up in comments here. My blurb (above) probably needs work as well.

  • Support as nominator.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. A really nice article, I looked at it until I could find something to complain about... and the airports in Get in need coordinates and the Drink section perhaps could use one more photo towards the end. ϒψιλον (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and for trying so hard to find faults ;-) I definitely haven't finished adding photos, it's just that finding good quality ones which are suitable takes time.
About the airports, generally I don't put co-ordinates for locations not in or near the place covered in the article. Plus the IATA code links to the article which covers the airport in detail. Do you still think I should put in the co-ords? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I have a habit of adding geo locations of important airports and other stations so that the traveller can visualize on the map where they will end up (relative to points of interest, hotels etc.) when they step off the vehicle. Do as you like. ϒψιλον (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nha TrangEdit

Place: Nha Trang
Blurb: Vietnam's most famous beach resort has beaches, history and culinary experiences, yet is much less westernized than other major destinations in Southeast Asia. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Per w:Nha_Trang#Climate Jan-Aug is the dry season, though Northern Hemisphere summer is pretty hot.
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: When nominating Da Nang (DotM March 2017) I noted that we have quite a few high-quality Vietnamese articles, so it's really about time to have another one on the Main Page. Just a few coordinates and pics was needed, and they're now added.

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ypsilon: Thanks for adding all these suggestions! It'll take me time to review some of them and give my opinion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Nothing jumps out at me as needing fixing. If I may, though: we have one winter 2019-20 DotM slot left, and let's avoid having to fill it with another Asian destination. We already have a lot of them on the schedule around that time for DotM and OtBP, and it's getting tough to schedule them away from each other. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
We have three Asian candidates now in the DotM section; Zhuhai (which at the moment has quite weak support), Metro Cebu and Nha Trang, and in the OtBP section there's just Pakse, so I think there's about the usual amount of Asian articles for a winter. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Presently in my draft schedule I have Zhuhai on tap for DotM in November, Adelaide in December, Metro Cebu in January, nothing for February as yet, and Nha Trang in March. Even if we shuffled those around, another Asian DotM candidate would inevitably mean running three of them in a row. In theory, we could run another Asian OtBP next winter, but we also don't have any open OtBP spots until April 2020, so doing so would require rescheduling a preexisting candidate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought about a setup like this, because TT recommended York for the Christmas season: Zhuhai in Nov, York in Dec, Metro Cebu in Jan, Adelaide in Feb (for the Mad March festival season beginning in middle of February which seems to be a huge thing down there), Nha Trang in March or April. Oslo could be run already in late winter for winter sports, but May for the Constitution Day festivities is probably best.
On the OtBP side there'd be Norfolk Island in Nov (a few months between the Aussie articles), Pakse in Dec, Jost van Dyke in Jan, Jeffreys Bay in Feb, then maybe Thimphu in March, and Great Basin National Park can apparently be featured at earliest in April.
All in all we now have (or almost have) the necessary articles for the next winter. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


Place: Tangier
Blurb: With a colorful history and everything you would expect to find in a Maghrebi city, Tangier has to many travelers been the first glimpse into Africa. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Almost anytime, but spring or fall would be optimal
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: A few years ago a visit to the city inspired me to write up the article to guide status. For some reason I didn't quite finish the See section, but that's been taken care of now. Everything necessary should be in the article, but it might need an update closer to the time it's featured.


Ouro PretoEdit

Place: Ouro Preto
Blurb: Seemingly frozen in time with its meticulously preserved colonial-era buildings, this historic old mining town is little known outside Brazil's borders, yet figures among its most popular getaway destinations. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Mar-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Here's a nice counterweight to the heavy presence of Asian destinations on the schedule for the upcoming autumn and winter.


  • Close. The article has a nice long "Understand" section and is replete with informative listings with explanatory blurbs, so the vast majority of what needs to be here is here. What's left is relatively simple: geo coordinates, some tinkering with addresses in blurbs (you see lots of ones like "Rua Brigadeiro Musqueira, no number", in which case there's no need to note the lack of a number; just giving the street name is sufficient), "Get in" and "Get around" should be padded out and/or reformatted a little bit (especially in the former section; bullet-point lists are not the way to go about it); brief section ledes should be added to tie the information together a bit.
  • Question. Given the blurb ("little known outside Brazil's borders"), why did you choose to nominate this for Dotm, rather than Otbp? This is the English Wikivoyage after all, and so Ouro Preto is outside most of of our target readership's radar.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I was just about to ask the same. Ypsilon (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Several reasons. One, I don't know that we ought to be circumscribing our "target audience" to native English speakers only. Many of the other language versions of Wikivoyage, including Portuguese, are very poorly developed, so it stands to reason that many speakers of other languages default to en: regardless because of the superiority of our coverage. The makeup of our roster of regular editors, among whom non-native English speakers are a large minority if not a majority, bears that out.
Two: even if we do assume a target audience of native English speakers, the fact remains that just because a place is off the path that's been beaten by said target audience doesn't mean it's off all beaten paths. Ouro Preto is one of the most popular domestic destinations among Brazilians themselves, and readers who are in search of the type of travel experience that would lead them to click on a feature titled "Off the Beaten Path" likely don't want to deal with the crowds and hassle of a major tourist town, regardless of whether those crowds are comprised of domestic or overseas tourists.
The third reason is a purely practical one: we're fully stocked with OtBPs through May 2020, but we still have a winter 2019-20 DotM slot open. (Before anyone says anything about York, let me say that despite ThunderingTyphoons' comments on its nomination, I'm a firm believer that November through March should be reserved fairly strictly for tropical and antipodean locales along with the odd ski resort or other winter destination. A large majority of our feature-ready articles are in the temperate latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and I think restricting those destinations to within the parameters of April through October is an important way to ensure geographic diversity among our Main Page features.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The reasons you give for Dotm are sound enough.
York can be featured any time of the year, so I'm not worried about that, but I have always been a bit puzzled by the rationale for the timing of features. Most people, upon reading about a featured destination, are not going to be immediately travelling there later the same month or a few weeks after it being featured, because most people don't have the money or time flexibility to do so. In most cases, where a featured destination causes someone to want to organise a trip to that place, there is going to be at least a three-month delay, and often that delay is going to be considerably longer: six months to a year. With that in mind, wouldn't it make more sense to feature northern destinations in northern winter in time for trips to be prepared for the following spring and summer? Equally, featuring southern/tropical destinations in northern summer would allow time for trips to be made in the southern summer.
The only rationale I can see for the current set-up is that featuring a bunch of warm-weather destinations during the northern winter makes people dream of planning their escape to somewhere sunny.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(Addendum) But since we're not in the business of selling holidays, that rationale is shaky.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

An interesting idea. Though a fashion week-like setup, where the destination would be showed, say, 6-10 months before commonly going there would actually sound more like "next summer's holidays on early bird sale now", than our current practice. Ypsilon (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Needs some work – in addition to what Andre pointed out, I'd say at least Eat and Drink could use some more listings, luckily there seem to be some places in the Portuguese article that aren't listed here. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Quebec CityEdit

Place: Quebec City
Blurb: A piece of France in North America, this fortified, scenic city is a worthwhile destination during summer and winter alike (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Sep for warm weather, though there's much going on during the winter despite the cold so Jan-Mar could also be a possibility
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Q is finally going on the Main Page!. The article was a guide already, but a little short on sights, shops and eateries so I've brought over some of those from other language versions over the last few days. It has been slushed before but that was back in the WT days so I guess this was a really different article back then.

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


Place: Hamburg
Blurb: A port city and center of trade since the Middle Ages, Hamburg is on one hand famous for its nightlife and events, and on the other hand for its brick buildings and lush parks and canals. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep probably, though Apr or Nov for the Hamburger Dom fair could also be an option
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I think we still have an open DotM slot for the five warmest months in the temperate Northern Hemisphere of 2020. Me and User:PrinceGloria districtified and worked extensively on the article four and a half years ago, though since then there has always been something from Germany already waiting on the nominations page. As of lately I've brought over and translated listings from the German version and otherwise fine-tuned the article, and I'd say it's in a pretty good shape (as are the districts).

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, it's a great year-round destination. I agree the pages are in good shape, tho quite a lot of listings are dated March 2015: these need an update, as five years is a long time in a city like this. Grahamsands (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Diablo RangeEdit

Place: Destination
Blurb: The Diablo Range, with Mount Diablo, reservoirs, and rugged terrain, but also oak trees on rolling hills, is an enjoyable destination for both serious hikers and casual tourists. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: in preparation for early summer and autumn (perhaps a month's feature in March or September would work); however, there is no need to plan ahead long-term as there are plenty of hotels available in the region
Nominated by: --Comment by Selfie City (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I understand this has to wait, but that's fine as long as the wildfires don't destroy it! This is a park article; however, it is not one particular park; I used that category because I did not want to make it an extraregion

  • I haven't looked closely enough to support or oppose yet, but it looks like it should be otbp rather than dotm. Not a famous destination, and the lead says "it rarely gets deserved attention from either tourists or locals". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The article itself looks good, maybe a photo or two could be added to some sections. As Granger just said, if the park doesn't see many visitors, we should run the article OtBP.
Another thing: in the Do section there's Henry W. Coe State Park linked, but that article is just at outline status. On the other hand, this isn't a region article and the State Park isn't categorized below this article so I'm not sure if the rule that everything below has to be at least at usable status applies here. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What about the Get in section? Is there any other way of getting into the park without a car? If no public transport, then are there no bus excursions from nearby towns? Local taxi firms that can offer trips? Cycle paths or hiking trails? If it really is impossible to get there without driving yourself, then you need to be more emphatic than just "You'll want to enter the range by car." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Really interesting article—kudos to User:SelfieCity for all the hard work putting it together. I have to say not yet because of some significant issues that need to be addressed.
I agree with User:ThunderingTyphoons! about the "Get in" section. Wikivoyage:Guide articles says "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here." But if I was considering a trip to the Diablo Range, my immediate thought on reading the "Get in" and "Get around" sections would be "Huh, I'd better do some more research."
I'm also not really clear on what kind of article this is. The markers on the map cover a huge area that includes several cities and parks that we have separate articles for. Should this really be a park, or would it be better as an extraregion? SelfieCity, you said "I did not want to make it an extraregion", but I don't really understand why. If it's a park article, then we need to clarify what area it covers and how it relates to the other cities and parks nearby, and it needs listings in the "Eat", "Sleep", and perhaps some other sections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all the thoughts! Well, I guess I have some things to explain — here we go:
@Mx. Granger: Why I didn't make it an extraregion — extraregions are extremely limiting; see Tri-Valley. As this mountain range could be treated as one destination, but can't (?) be a region of its own, it felt that the "park" rating was suitable. Quite a few of the parks in the Diablo Range (Dublin Hills, Brushy Peak, Del Valle, Ohlone, Mission Peak, Sunol, and Vargas) are all managed by the East Bay Regional Park District. There are a few important destinations in the Diablo Range that aren't within the EBRPD, including Mount Diablo and the Pinnacles. However, these ought to be mentioned as they are two of the most, if not the most, important destinations in the range. As I see it, the Diablo Range can be treated as one.
@ThunderingTyphoons!: "Get in" — no public transport as far as I know. I know that's hard to understand, especially if you're from a country or region where public transport is the way to get around. Yes, taxis would work, but isn't that WV:Obvious. I can give taxis a mention, however.
@Ypsilon: One thing I can definitely do is add more photos. Thanks for askinga bout that.
I understand the categorization is unusual, and I'm not sure how I can explain it, but I thought that by treating this whole region as one large park, it could work. I think it does — I'm sure, however, I can work on some details in the meantime! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Just re one of the points you made, the existence of taxi companies may be obvious, but echoing Granger's comments, we shouldn't be leaving it to travellers to find out for themselves the names of those companies, how to contact them, and a ballpark cost (even if just the meter rate, or however it works).
I have a personal dislike of extraregions, except when there's no other way, so I hope you can manage to define this park's boundaries a bit clearer.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
If the article is turned into an extraregion, that could mean some problems as we don't seem to have any article status policies for them and I can't remember if we've ever featured one... --Ypsilon (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, Ypsilon. That's a major reason why I chose to make it a park article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for Off the Beaten PathEdit

Great Basin National ParkEdit

Place: Great Basin National Park
Blurb: Ironically considering its name, this mountainous national park includes juniper forests, caves, a gorge, and the great Wheeler Peak, one of Nevada's highest mountains. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct; particularly Apr-Jun or September
Nominated by: Selfie City (talk)
Comment: I think it could do with a little work that I can mostly likely do in expanding some sections, but at the same time not a lot more can be said. What's existing in the article is what is there, so I think in general this article is pretty complete and would definitely be appropriate for OtBP. I was originally going to do somewhere else but I think this one will work well, actually.


  • Support as nominator. Selfie City (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Due to how many OtBP candidates are already waiting in the wings (and how many of those are U.S. destinations), there'll be no room for this one on the Main Page till 2020 at the earliest. Let's hold off on any additional OtBP nominees for awhile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Selfie City (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Very close – some listings need coordinates and some of Understand's subsections could perhaps be expanded. --ϒpsilon (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Norfolk IslandEdit

Place: Norfolk Island
Blurb: This former South Sea penal colony is a great destination for relaxation and history buffs. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Per w:Norfolk_Island#Climate, Sep-Feb has less than 15 rain days/month on average
Nominated by: ϒψιλον (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment: An OtBP for late 2019, maybe? The article has been thoroughly edited this year, so it shouldn't be too outdated. Many listings needed coordinates, but I just took care of that.



Place: Pakse
Blurb: The capital of Laos's Champasak province features lively markets and a few Buddhist sites, but is above all a starting point for visits to the amazing natural and historical sites in the region. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Apr
Nominated by: ϒψιλον (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Siem Reap is DotM as I'm writing this, and like Cambodia, we've also featured few articles from Laos (compared to Southeast Asia generally). So as of lately I've polished up this article, including adding coordinates and removing places that don't seem to be in business any longer (you all know the drill, I think...).

The article still includes many prices that apparently are fairly old, but as you can read at the talk page it's surprisingly hard to update them. Not sure if we should just delete them or leave them in. Anyways, as the article is in a better shape than a week or so ago, I thought I'd nominate it now.


Jeffreys BayEdit

Place: Jeffreys Bay
Blurb: Famous from the 1960s surfing movie Endless Summer, Jeffreys Bay is packed with white beaches and fun activities. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any per nearby w:Port_Elizabeth#Climate, but my intention was to find something to fill a Northern Hemisphere winter OtBP slot with...
Nominated by: ϒψιλον (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This guide article was a bit of a mess and much information was from years ago. A complete checkup later it looks good for the Main Page, I think. Also, while we've run many of Peter's diving articles as FTT, we haven't featured any destination articles from South Africa since 2007 (and this will be our 3rd destination feature from there).

  • Support as nominator. ϒψιλον (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as it seems fairly complete. --Joshlama1 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


Place: Thimphu
Blurb: The small capital is a good introduction and gateway to the "World's Last Shangrila". (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Thimphu#Climate says Mar-May, Sep-Oct
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Another corner of the world that isn't featured on the Main Page that often. The capital of one of Asia's more OtBP countries was promoted to guide status last year and almost all listings did get coordinates back then (I just added the missing ones) so the article should be up to date. It's a quite small city, so I think the article already covers most of what a visitor needs to know, of course at it's a guide article, it should.

  • Support Ypsilon (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as DotM. Bhutan is a small country, but IMO not small enough to justify its capital being OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I think Bhutan is one of those countries that are entirely off the beaten path. The number of visitors to the country is low, and the Bhutanese government deliberately keeps it that way (they even used to have a maximum quota for foreign visitors). Except for Indians, Bangladeshis and Maledivians, tourists can't travel to Bhutan just like that. Like (probably) only in North Korea, independent travel isn't allowed and visitors need to book a tour with a Bhutanese tour company for their whole stay in the country. The number of visitors in 2018 was 270,000 but only 70,000 were not "regional" (from nearby parts of India?) — compare that to Nepal's ~1 million visitors where almost 3 out of 4 came from further away than India and China. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good to me. I'd say go with OtBP. Bhutan is very much an off-the-beaten-path country, and the capital is not very big. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is in no way to oppose the nomination, but I did not add the coordinates based upon local knowledge, so I cannot always be 100% sure coordinates are in the right place. Just keep that in mind when you consider the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


Place: Nagykanizsa
Blurb: True to its name, this traditional crossroads once belonged to a prince and features impressive architecture, albeit from later times. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: City-busz has over the last year or so improved many articles in Hungary, and as we still haven't featured that many articles from Central Europe outside Germany and Switzerland, it really is good to have some Hungarian ones to choose from. Here's one of the articles that has not only reached guide status but also has a balanced number of listings in all sections. The only thing that has to be done before the article goes on the Main Page is some copyediting. Listings in the Drink section don't seem to have much of descriptions, though perhaps there are not much differences between individual cafés and on the other hand pubs in a small town like this?

  • Almost – as said, copyediting is needed, but otherwise this is a good article. Ypsilon (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. There is room for some small improvements and maybe some better photos. A couple of small points: what is "semimonthly" in get around by bus - 14 days or whatever would be better, connect says that the area code is 93 but many listings have other codes. AlasdairW (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Close. It's not there yet, but it's still a good article. User:City-busz is one of our best contributors and his work has been greatly helpful in western Hungary. This article, with a few fairly minor improvements and reviews by a couple other contributors, should be appropriate for a feature. It definitely shouldn't be slushed at this time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


Place: Faaborg
Blurb: Faaborg with its iconic medieval clock tower and cobblestone streets bursts into life in the summer. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Sep
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: A summer destination for the OtBP section, almost entirely written by Ydrassil whom I welcomed to Wikivoyage a little less than a year ago. So the article should be up to date and it looks like it covers this little town quite well. And there are no major formatting issues.

  • Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because the article includes plenty of options for tourists, from airports in Faaborg#Get in to restaurant listings later in the article. Many listings have quite detailed descriptions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


Place: Apia
Blurb: Samoa's sleepy capital was the last home of Robert Louis Stevenson and also features colorful markets and a deep marine reserve. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct is the drier part of the year
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Another one of the articles that have been on my nomination bucket list for a long time. It was already guide and as you can see in the article history I've updated some stuff as of lately.

  • Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't cross-examined it, but it looks okay. I give it the rating of needs work: I think it violates Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews by painting a somewhat negative picture of the city, and it could do with more detailed information about various aspects of life there. What does exist is a decent start. The quality of writing could be upgraded a bit in places, and I think general improvements would be necessary before this gets featured on the main page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If the somewhat negative picture is justified, it doesn't violate those guidelines because it's about a destination, not a hotel or restaurant we could choose to simply not list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


Place: Karakol
Blurb: A gateway to the Tian Shan mountains and famous for a noodle dish, Karakol is architecturally a piece of Tsarist Russia in Central Asia. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Aug per w:Karakol#Climate
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Here's something unusual, a fairly comprehensive Central Asian article, thanks to the work of Ceever and others. Some sections might look a bit short, but as this is a smaller city in a low-income country I would imagine most places to Eat, Drink and Buy are rather basic and similar to each other.

  • Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Actually Karakol is the most touristy destination in Kyrgyzstan after Bishkek. So, I don't know whether "off-the-beaten-track" really fits. But if you tell me, where additional work could help, I can plunge forward. Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
How much tourism is there to that region, though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Quite. The whole of Kyrgyzstan is off-the-beaten-track for most tourists.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Crawford (Nebraska)Edit

Place: Crawford (Nebraska)
Blurb: Once a wild and rowdy frontier town, the nearby Fort Robinson is today a museum and there are many natural attractions nearby. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: The place really has continental climate, per, so summer but maybe not mid-summer. I'd say May-Jun or Sep-Oct.
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Here's a nice article from a lesser-traveled corner of the U.S. for the early fall 2020. I guess there's nothing in this small town that's not already in the article (I added some coords a while ago and checked that everything was still in business).


  • Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - nothing wrong with the article, but the place seems a bit dull. Maybe this is because the article is quite short, with few details in the listings, or maybe it's because there isn't much to see or do.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for Featured travel topicEdit

Rail travel in the NetherlandsEdit

Place: Rail travel in the Netherlands
Blurb: Having said farewell to paper tickets several years ago, the efficient Dutch rail network may very well be the example for the future of rail travel. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any time but December, preferably around September 20th, 2019 (180th anniversary).
Edit: I understand that September 2019 may cause problems. Other dates of importance in the upcoming five years are:

  • December 2018; Sprinter Nieuwe Generatie put in service (same issue; too soon).
  • Early 2021; Intercity Nieuwe Generatie put in service.
  • In general, September is my preferred month for featuring since the anniversary of the Dutch railway network is in that month. March of 2022 is also fine by me (182½ year anniversary).
  • August 2021; 25 years since the first concession of the Dutch railways.

I am well aware that the feature date doesn't need to have a reason behind it, but I recon it might as well. Don't limit yourself to the dates above, but rather consider them.
Nominated by: Wauteurz (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: The article may need some touching up here and there as most information in the article has come from me, but content-wise I believe that nothing is missing and the article is therefore a good candidate for FTT.


I should say, though, this is an exceptionally good article and I support its eventually being run as a feature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem to run Rail travel in Germany perhaps already in August 2018, especially as RtiG is a topic and not a place. In that way this could be featured in September 2019 as desired, "only" 20 months from now. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support — I've noticed you working on this one over the last several months and it's looking very informative. At least at a quick glance I can't really find anything wrong with it. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Minor language and possible "nerding out" issues (for which I am the wrong person to judge them) aside, there is nothing to preclude my support for this feature and thanks to Wauteurz for some amazing work. As the user who nominated rail travel in Germany, I would have no qualms moving it around if this article could then be featured on a date that fits better. Just please don't feature either in December, as that is the European schedule change. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, some essential details need finetuning - the article is thoroughly written but some of the more practical information is not entirely spot on, i.e. information about gates is too general, there is no information present about the surcharge for tickets purchased at the counter, no correct information present about the cost if you check in and check out after a certain time at the same station, information about opening train doors and onboard announcements is very specific to some of the rolling stock but wrong for others. In general, quite a large part of the article is written towards railway enthousiasts with a lot of technical details, but less towards the average tourist who travels on the train for the first time in the Netherlands. --WallyTheWalrus (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, although there are some issues with red links. Selfie City (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on 'issues with redlinks' so that I can fix it? I am aware that I've left a few (somewhere around ten) redlinks in the article, and I would assume the issue is them being linked to in the first place?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Rail_travel_in_the_Netherlands#Expansion_and_boom is one example, but there are several parts of the article that seem to abound in red links. Also, I'm not crazy about red-colored listings. Selfie City (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Soon 1.5 years since the article was nominated and it will not appear on the Main Page before at the very earliest spring 2020. Now when there are enough nominees to take us through the next winter, I've been starting thinking about suitable spring and summer articles and one good candidate would be E11 hiking trail, of which a part goes through the Netherlands. If the rail article is going to wait until September 2020 (the nominator said September would be the "preferred month"), let alone until 2021 or 2022 (in which case we should probably store it away like London/Hampstead or Along the Magnificent Mile) I think I'll nominate E11, otherwise not. Ypsilon (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
On the draft schedule I keep on my thumb drive at home, I have this article in the August 2020 slot. I'm uncomfortable holding it off longer than that without any good reason. Ypsilon, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't nominate E11 for a 2020 feature, especially if only part of it is in the Netherlands. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Driving in BrazilEdit

Place: Driving in Brazil
Blurb: Driving is often the best way to get around Brazil, but from road signs to fuel and safety issues, there are some things you need to know before hitting the road. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any (for each month there are some parts of Brazil where it's dry season and other parts where it rains)
Nominated by: ϒψιλον (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I've been thinking about nominating this one for some time. We haven't had "Driving in..." articles on the Main Page that often, moreover it would only be the second South American FTT. Per my comment at the talk page, I think the article describes all the issues a driving guide article should, otherwise I think Ibaman is happy to help filling in missing info.


French phrasebookEdit

Place: French phrasebook
Blurb: Parlez-vous français? Nearly 300 million people do, on every inhabited continent on the globe, making it one of the most useful languages for the international traveller to know. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but no earlier than January 2020 (1 year after Indonesian phrasebook's Main Page stint)
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: It's been a while since we've featured a phrasebook article for a language with an extensive international reach. Let's remedy that.


  • Not yet but very close, and I can easily take care of the needed work myself if there are no other takers. Namely, a few pseudo-pronunciations are missing, and after looking over the ones that do exist, I don't know about their accuracy overall. A few more pictures would be nice too. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Almost, some phrases in French_phrasebook#Bars (perhaps elsewhere in the article too) still need pronunciation. And much more photos, as our featured phrasebooks usually have a photo for at least every second screen to make them look less black and white, but these should be easy to add. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with you two that not quite is the current outlook. It might help if someone who doesn't speak French would volunteer to read through and make sure that it all makes sense, particularly the early parts before the phrases.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    As someone who doesn't speak French but is familiar with the Romance languages and knows some linguistics, I went though the beginning of the article (up to the beginning of the phrase list). I made a few corrections but otherwise it looks good. However, the phrase list has no "Lodging" section. Shouldn't it have one, looking something like this? —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, although I have to wonder why we don't use 'Sleep' there, rather than 'Lodging'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • To add my vote: not yet, and maybe not at all. As I noted above, the article doesn't cover phrases for lodging, which is a major omission. Do we have anyone fluent enough in French to write a section about that? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons and myself both are, and Nicolas1981 is a native speaker, though he doesn't come by nearly as often as he used to. Between the two (three?) of us, I'm sure we can handle it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Lodging is part of the Wikivoyage:Phrasebook article template so it definitely needs to be added, otherwise the article can't even have guide status. French is understood by many here (even myself, a little bit) so it shouldn't be a problem, though. --Ypsilon (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to confirm that I'm willing to help out, and have already been improving the article since its nomination (as has Ypsilon).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have now added a Lodging section, copied from the Russian phrasebook. The pseudo-phonetic pronunciations are not my forté, but I did my best.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm satisfied. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not quite yet. I'm willing to concede that some of the pseudo-translations may have no choice but to suck (oon really != un at all, but the real sound is very difficult to transcribe), but we have to do better than "grond" for "grande" and "OM-boo-lo(n)ss" for "ambulance". But at least I just replaced like "wa" in "walk" with like "wa" in "want" to represent the sound of "oi" in French. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
These pseudo prounuciations are difficult to get right; case in point, "want" doesn't adequately represent the sound of oi to British ears at all, since "want" has an O sound (homophonous with "wont") and oi is a "wah" (with a short A) sound. I agree that walk was also wrong.
The nasals (as in "grand") are also difficult to represent, because they are peculiar to French. I don't think we do a bad job of them, though concede there may be a better way (there is a much better way of course - audio files! - but we have to work with the technology we've got).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
So to represent French "oi" adequately for both Britons and Americans, do we need to analogize it as like "wah"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully not. I was trying to think of an actual word, rather than a noise, on the train just now. "Wag" could maybe work? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
No way in American English. Wag has no "wah" sound. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
If you don't like like "wah", then what about like the "wa" in "watt"? Does that work in British English as a "wah" sound? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
"Watt" is a homophone with "what", so no. I don't dislike "wah", it's just that all the other examples use actual words. If we can't find an alternative, it will have to do.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Watt is "waht", generally, in American English, not "wut" (though some areas pronounce "what" "waht", also). We are truly divided by a common language in terms of pronunciation! But what about representing "un" as "eh(n)"? "oon" is Italian, definitely not French! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (Outdent because I can't count that many colons) Yes, and that's before Straya, Saffa, Nuzillund and the rest have their say...

Where is the E sound in un to make "eh(n)"? That just looks like the interjection "Eh?' with an N on the end. It's not just we Anglophones who are confused, however: it is worth listening to the audiofiles on the Wiktionary entry for un - five different files, five different vowels!

If "oon" is in there, it's certainly a typo, unless it's standing in for une (although elsewhere in the phrasebook we use "uun" for that, which gets the reader closer to the right U sound. "ün" was also used, which while accurate used a non-English diacritic so was suboptimal). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Try saying an "eh" vowel (of course with no "h" consonant) with a nasal n(g) at the end. It's pretty close to "un". The problem is that we can't really distinguish the sounds of "in", "un" and "hein" in pseudo-transliterations for English-speakers, but they're close to each other and much closer than any of them is to "oon". Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I just tried, and while you're not wrong, "eh(n)" seems like it would be confusing to the average English speaker. As you possibly know, I have a bachelor's degree in French, yet I was still initially confused by the relevance of "eh(n)", so I imagine the average person who doesn't speak any French would also struggle.
What is wrong with ""u(n)" as in "underground", though with a nasal N"? It wouldn't work "oop North", or in Ireland, but I think it does work for the standard English, Welsh, Scottish, American, Australian and Kiwi accents. And even if the vowel isn't absolutely spot on, it is (a) simple enough for most English speakers to reproduce, (b) similar enough that a French interlocutor will not struggle to understand.
I don't think anyone is defending "oon".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to do that, do it as "uh(n)". That makes the vowel clearer. But if you do that, have would you represent the French "-in" sound? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah "uh(n)" is fine too. Personally, I would represent -in as "ah(n)", so brin would be "brah(n)", "Cointrin" as "KWAH(N)-trah(N)", linge as "lah(n)zh", Inde as "ah(n)d". Brilliant examples, I know.
But then I worry what we do with -en and -an. Are we back to needing "oh(n)", as in "OH(M)-buu-lonss"? Or maybe "aa(n)" for -an / -en, and "ahn" for -in? This is a right ole can o' worms, without easy answers.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No "oh(n)". -en and -an are the true "ah(n)" sounds. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
And I have to say "uu" looks like just a longer "oo" sound. A better way to transcribe French "u" would be to have "ee" on top and "oo" on the bottom and bracket them together. But since we're not doing that, anything else sucks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd go with "ü". Some English speakers will correctly identify that as representing IPA [y], and I imagine most of the rest will pronounce it as IPA [u], which is the closest most native English speakers can get without practice anyway. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand your (Granger's) argument about the umlaut, but I am still doubtful about using a 'foreign' character to try to explain to native English speakers (the majority of whom are monolingual) how the French U sounds.
On the other hand, I don't really understand Ikan's point about bracketing letters together. What would that look like? Or is it impossible to show in wikicode? I hope we can find a solution that doesn't "suck", too :) In fact, I am convinced there must be a solution to explain these vowels in a simple way to people who otherwise "don't do" foreign languages. Over the weekend, I'll take a look at the phrasebook pages in some of the France travel guidebooks in my house.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really suggesting that as a solution, but the point is, French "u" is produced by shaping one's lips to say "oo" and instead say "ee". There doesn't seem to be any good way to represent that sound in English, because English doesn't have that sound. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


Place: Visa
Blurb: The more different the destination country is from your own, the longer you plan to stay, and the more you plan to do, the more likely you'll need a one of these travel documents. Check out our guide to learn more. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: One more FTT that can be featured any time of the year. With the small personal experience I have with visas, I'd say everything is in the article, and as such I promoted it to guide a while ago. If you know anything important is missing, feel free to add it.

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. An exemplary article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find many sections quite confusing. Partly it is in the nature of visas, but I think the article would benefit from a detailed check of the language and some rewriting. An example: "Some countries permit certain nationalities to enter without a visa, but other conditions may apply for entry and the stay." Should this be "different" instead of "other"? I think there are similar mistakes here and there. There is also redundant prose, where it is not clear whether the writer tries to convey some different nuance. --LPfi (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support unless someone can find a really serious problem with this article and the information it provides. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Along the Magnificent MileEdit

Place: Along the Magnificent Mile
Blurb: Let us take you on a tour through the heart of Chicago! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Star (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct (from Bronzeville's nomination)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC) and renominated by AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: In 2020 it will be time again for our biannual visit to Chicago. I figured it would be good to dust off this Star-level itinerary that ϒpsilon had nominated a couple years ago, but was slushed to avoid being featured too close to Chicago/Bronzeville, then an OtBP candidate. Since the article hasn't been substantially edited in the intervening period, I also don't see any need to disregard the votes in the earlier nomination, though if Ypsi or Ikan would like to change their minds about the worthiness of the feature, they're of course welcome to do so.


  • Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. One question: With the exception of illumination and perhaps drinks at night, couldn't the itinerary be done in reverse? Should that be noted in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, though if we're going to take a candidate that by next summer will have waited over a year to be featured and make it wait two more years in favor of a different nominee from the same city that's not of significantly higher quality, I'd prefer it to be for more compelling reasons than the above. Especially since we do still have an open OtBP slot next summer for the likes of Apia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, so then it's probably best to impound this one in the Slush pile like we did with London Hampstead once. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - a little before we run this, we should check that everything is still open. Also there are some prices in the article so they too need to be updated. Ypsilon (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because it is a star article. Will put the page on my watchlist in case star status is removed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Almost I was in Chicago 2 years ago and visited most of the sights, but I didn't follow the route turn by turn, as I had other commitments. I think that the route would work fine in reverse, with the exception of splashing in the fountains in Millennium Park, which is more something for the end of a walk. The article hasn't had any major updates for 10 years, and might be starting to show it's age - telling the reader to print out the district articles, and the sights are not markers or listings. The map is also 10 years old, and without any markers or geo there is no opportunity to see a dynamic map instead. AlasdairW (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
If this article is not good enough for FTT, its star status needs to be reconsidered. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the map is great and definitely wouldn't be improved by using a dynamic map! I also think the bolding makes it easy to read the itinerary, so that listings aren't really necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: for some reason, it wasn't on my watchlist. I've added it now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Flying on a budgetEdit

Place: Flying on a budget
Blurb: Flying is cheaper than a few decades ago; though there still are some ways to further reduce your airfare (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Probably Driving in Brazil will go in next February's FTT slot and March might still be a little too cold for the European and North American FTT candidates nominated above, so we need something else. This article has been frequently edited during the summer, and looks comprehensive, so why show it on the Main Page for a month? A few days ago I added some more photos and promoted it to guide status.

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, and I'd like to move this into the January 2020 slot. Flying on a budget is ready to go as is whereas French phrasebook needs some additional work, and also it seems somehow like cheating to run a phrasebook article exactly a year after the previous one, in its first slot of eligibility. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks complete and well-written. One thing which should maybe be changed is the use of prices in a particular currency when speaking in general terms about a service that many airlines offer. Perhaps just use adjectives ("reasonably priced", "bargain", "extortionate", "hefty surcharge") in place of figures such as $60 or €200, except where quoting real-life prices.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per TT. I'm not sure about his second sentence, however; examples can make something easier to understand. In the section "Alternatives to flying," automobiles really ought to be mentioned. Otherwise, good work! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Tour cyclingEdit

Place: Tour cycling
Blurb: Getting around by bike allows you to experience the route and nature from a completely different perspective. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but maybe best during Northern Hemisphere spring or early summer when folks (in temperate areas, where I think most readers are from) take their bikes out of winter storage
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The article looked good as a usable, others didn't find much to complain about at the article's talk page, so here's our first bicycle-themed featured article candidate!

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Scuba divingEdit

Place: Scuba diving
Blurb: Around the world there's much to see under the water too from sea life to wrecks; check out our guide for an introduction to scuba diving! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Extensive article, at least to someone not familiar with diving. Peter and Graham worked extensively on the article a few months ago, and could probably help if there's something important missing.

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not? Pretty extensive even to divers, but the non-diver's eye could spot things we would miss. I will give it another read and keep a lookout for any recommendations, queries, errors and omissions. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, largely per User:Pbsouthwood. I think his support vote largely confirms that this should be used as a featured travel topic in the future. The article's formatting style is a little overwhleming, but that should not affect an FTT choice that is good otherwise. Some country sections are a little thin, but I think there's probably not too much to say for some countries, so the article is good and appropriate for the nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but there is room for improvement. I have never dived, so I don't know how accurate the article is, but it looks good. The table of contents is non-standard - a FTT may be the first article that a reader sees on the site, so I would prefer the standard banner TOC. The article is lacking in cost information, "you can expect to pay upwards of US$100 for two dives" in Japan, but how much is it elsewhere? Somebody new to the sport should be able to get an idea of how the costs of a diving trip would compare to skiing. The country information is a little thin, and doesn't really give enough to choose a shortlist of countries to investigate, maybe the Continent introductory paragraphs could have some comparisons in terms of facilities, popularity, price and safety. AlasdairW (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The article is realistic on the actual topic, without going into a lot of detail as it is not a training manual or an encyclopedia.( I have written those too) Graham pruned a lot of the excess details and we summarised the country listings. Prices should be in the country listings, and even there are highly variable and depend to a large degree on how much gear you rent.
    • Country information is as you say a bit thin, but it is what we have. I have not dived in many countries, and much of the diving I did was not mainstream tourist stuff anyway, so I hesitate to go into much detail where I have no personal experience. It is possible to scrape the net for information and try so sift out the reality from the fluff, but almost everything written on the topic of dive tourism is promotional or written by people who have been there once and have little experience diving at other places to compare. I don't know how much of a problem this should be.
    • If you can make the standard banner TOC work for this, go ahead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I should have mentioned myself that I have never dived, either, and thank you for the information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
If there are things missing you think would be helpful to you as a non-diver, ask on the talk page, they maybe worth including. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Chinese cuisineEdit

Place: Chinese cuisine
Blurb: Sample a culinary tradition that's rich, ancient, and diverse enough to match the country where it originated. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Just promoted to Guide, and nominating as suggested on the talk page. I think this would be our first "cuisine" feature.


  • Support as nominator. On a topic like this, there's always more that could be added, but this article gives a solid introduction to the topic and a good survey of well-known dishes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree. Granger and TheDog2 in particular have done great work on this article. Various other people including me have chipped in where we could. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. On a glance it looks good, presenting different regional cuisines, notable ingredients and dishes and etiquette. Maybe one thing that could be added would be meals and meal times in China — is breakfast in general heavy or light, at what time is dinner usually eaten and such. Or are there big differences between different parts of the country also in this aspect?
I'm not too familiar with Chinese cuisine, but luckily many fellow Wikivoyagers are, and if you'd say the article covers all important parts of Chinese cuisine, then we should definitely present it on the Main Page. Ypsilon (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Ypsilon. It looks like an excellent article. Those who are writing the article could consider, however, writing a "stay healthy" section and then moving the infobox there (to me, the infobox seemed misplaced). I thought the infobox was very entertaining. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Generally a good article, but a few points could be looked at: "Dietary restrictions" has nothing about sugar in savoury dishes (common when Chinese dishes are served in the UK, but I don't know what the situation is in China) - Travelling on a low-carbohydrate diet has some advice which could maybe adapted. There is nothing about tipping. AlasdairW (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    I've added two sentences about tipping. In my experience, sweet main courses aren't as common in China as they are in American Chinese restaurants, though they do exist in Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Cantonese cuisine. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    Add Jiangsu to that too. Suzhou and Wuxi have some signature dishes that are sweet, which includes the Wuxi version of xiaolongbao. The dog2 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Wuxi spareribs also include sugar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Admittedly, a little more work could perhaps be done to expand on it, and I've tried to add a little more detail myself, but I think it's more or less ready to be featured. And this would also be a good educational article that can showcase the sheer diversity of Chinese cuisine that many Westerners are not aware of (though to be fair, we Asians also tend to make the same types of overgeneralisations about American cuisine). The dog2 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic support. A well-developed article about a cuisine that's way more artful, nuanced, etc. than it's portrayed in Western culture. Thank you to everyone who made this article what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

European classical musicEdit

Place: European classical music
Blurb: In concert halls around the world, you can hear the music of classical composers — in their home towns you can visit the places where they lived and worked. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment: A good-looking and interesting article, and the article was already at guide status when I added some pictures a while ago. And we have many Wikivoyagers who are familiar with classical music and can help improving the article if needed. One thing that does need to be updated is the Events list, though this is probably best done a month or two before the article is featured, to make sure it's up to date also when the article actually is displayed on the Main Page.

  • Support but the Events list needs to be up to date when the article is featured. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not yet. It's grossly incomplete, IMO. Here is a very non-exhaustive list of cities that deserve coverage and have as yet no listing: British Isles: Birmingham and either Glasgow, Edinburgh or both plus probably Dublin. Central Europe: Geneva, Zurich. France: Lyon and probably Strasbourg and some other places (Marseille?). Iberia: Madrid. Nordic countries: Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm. Outside Europe: Atlanta, Cleveland, Houston, Montreal, Tel Aviv and maybe Jerusalem and/or Haifa, Toronto, Washington, D.C., and strong arguments can be made for Pittsburgh, St. Louis and possibly Baltimore in spite of the really sad cut in their orchestra's season (they still have Peabody, a famous conservatory). Perhaps Seattle, too, Phoenix, and the Utah Symphony has a good tradition, having been conducted for years by Maurice Abramavel. Come to think of it, Minneapolis/St. Paul, with the Minnesota Symphony and St. Paul Chamber Orchestra should be covered, too. And in Japan, Osaka probably should be listed. Other places in Asia would probably include Seoul, Taipei and Shanghai, and possibly other Chinese cities with large conservatories (Beijing, Chengdu, nor sure which others). All of this will take a lot of work. I think we can take care of that in the time before it would be featured, but I'd like to see a good head start on it before I vote to feature. I can do some of the work, but it would be great if some other folks who personally know the classical music scenes in those cities take the lead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not yet for the same reasons of completeness. Plus, the blurbs of cities are either overlong or too short, and there are too many missing cities. A much quicker issue to fix is the use of continental regions, rather than countries, which leads to a very long 'Central Europe' on the one hand versus 'France' (or, more accurately, Paris) on the other. I would suggest splitting by country.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There are also some Latin American cities that should have listings, including Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo and Mexico City. And I'm not an expert on the classical music scene in South Africa, but I'm guessing Cape Town should be listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking of colonial opera houses, there are several ones in Asia too. There are ones built by the French in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, and one built by the British in Mumbai, and these still occasionally host classical music performances, though they are primarily used for other purposes. I'm not sure if that merits a listing for these. There is also an opera house in Haiphong built by the French, but I'm not sure if it still hosts any classical music performances. The dog2 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the article is really more about hearing the music than anything else, but at worst, if the information is added and we decide it doesn't belong, it could probably be merged to the articles about those cities (if there isn't sufficient content about the opera houses in those articles). But I should say, there are also American cities and towns with opera houses that wouldn't merit a listing because they're rarely if ever used for operas, nowadays, though I guess a few are sometimes, even in tiny towns like Cambridge, New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not yet. I don't find the city listings very travel related, and they don't connect with the city articles. For instance, I could find nothing in Aranjuez that related to the listing in the article. Composers should only be mentionned if the city article has something (museum, statue etc) related to them. There are loads of places to hear classical music - almost any mid-sized European city has a performance once a week, so maybe we should only list a few special venues. Music museums are much rarer and so are more deserving of space. I have updated the dates of some of the events, but many did not have 2020 dates on their websites. AlasdairW (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    Aranjuez is said to have been made famous by a concerto. I suppose it is interesting mainly for those who know it through the concerto, and those need not be told about it (and perhaps for other visitors in the city, so might be worth mentioning in the city's Understand). Most listings are there because they have venues worth visiting, and those worth listing in this article should be worth listing in the city articles. In rare cases, where the specifics of a city (or park or whatever) have influenced an important composer, one might want to wander down the same streets even when there is nothing devoted to them, but that may be too marginal for this article. --LPfi (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Should we slush this nomination? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should continue work on the article for more than 1 day before broaching that idea? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with that, if there is more work that people feel is possible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of discussion right here in this thread about work that's possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)