Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates

Here we determine which articles are featured on the Main Page as Destination of the month (DotM), Off the Beaten Path (OtBP) and Featured travel topics (FTT).


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
February 2020 Nha Trang Jeffreys Bay 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
June 2020 Oslo - pending fixes (?) and stronger consensus to support Karakol - pending stronger consensus to support Rail travel in the Netherlands
July 2020 Quebec City - pending stronger consensus to support Faaborg - pending stronger consensus to support Chinese cuisine

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


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)


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)
I've now fixed much of it, and actually IMO the bus services could be presented in bullet form. Support. --Ypsilon (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2020 (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)

Tel AvivEdit

Place: Tel Aviv
Blurb: Israel's pulsating and liberal Mediterranean beach metropolis is a place for partying and beachgoing, and features some notable attractions from the country's modern history. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Oct-May (summer would be too hot, I think)
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Just upgraded this one to guide. The article looks comprehensive, the districts are all usable and many listings have been updated recently by Grahamsands. The See section in the main article is a bit unusual with bulleted lists and coordinatess for the top attractions. If needed, it shouldn't take very long to turn it into normal text.

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Place: Arequipa
Blurb: Peru's second city and the world's alpaca capital is not only surrounded by volcanoes – its colonial old town is largely built of volcanic rock (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any (almost the same weather around the year), but schedule-wise optimal during Northern Hemisphere winter
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Let's feature an article from Peru on the Main Page again! I cleaned up the article and ran listings through Google Maps a while back with the intention of nominating it for DotM.

  • Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, though does need some work of course. Having only looked at the first sections, it strikes me that the 'Get in - By bus' section is beautifully detailed (though will need checking to verify prices / companies' continued existence), but the other subsections could do with filling out a bit. In 'Understand', it says "In the winter it is warmer than in the summer", which strikes me as unusual, and could do with elaboration. I have added a couple of hidden comments about ambiguous prices too: a few stray $ signs where it's not clear whether we're talking soles or U.S. dollars; the price of Excluciva buses.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Sol is one of the few currencies in the Americas not using the "dollar sign", but the rather weird "S/.". And as in developing countries in general, and the Americas in particular, I've understood USD is widely used for expensive purchases and goods and services used by tourists. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so it probably means dollars then. But I don't think mixing and matching is especially helpful. Perhaps all prices could be given in soles, with approximate dollar conversion in brackets? Or would people paying in dollars actually be paying more, either due to the exchange rate burden on locals or because foreigners are assumed to be able to afford it? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
No idea, but in developing countries it's not uncommon that tourists are expected to pay in hard currency (and often also a higher price even if in the same currency, I've run into this in many Indian articles for example) and places mostly catering to foreign tourists often have their prices listed in USD (for instance Holiday Inn in Montevideo had this policy in 2014, and if you wanted to pay in pesos, the price was calculated according to the exchange rate of the day). Uruguay is certainly not a developing country, though, but a bit poorer than Western European countries (GDP per capita on par with Hungary and Latvia), but they do seem have a high inflation so... Ypsilon (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Still, we have some ridiculously well-travelled individuals here who may shed some light on the specific situation in Peru.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Granger? --Ypsilon (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I have a vague feeling that some hotel rates might have been in dollars in Peru, but I don't think I paid for anything in dollars. I remember being warned specifically not to use dollars to pay tips on the Inca Trail. Overall I have the feeling dollars were less used in Peru than in Uruguay, but I didn't spend that much time in Peru and it was a while ago so I'm not sure. I have a friend who spent a few months in Peru (mostly Lima and the Sacred Valley) - I'll ask what he thinks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
My friend said at least in Lima and Cusco you can get dollars from ATMs (like in Uruguay). But he thinks not as many prices are listed in dollars as in Uruguay, and it's not that common to pay in dollars in Peru – touristy places in Cusco accept dollars, but at a bad exchange rate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


Place: Dunedin
Blurb: Late 19th century architecture, student life, and a scenic coastline await you in this New Zealand city with a proud Scots heritage and what used to be the world's steepest street! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: maybe Nov-Mar, according to table in w:Dunedin#Climate
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I'm starting to think about next Northern Hemisphere winter's featured articles and here's a nice one from New Zealand. The article was very comprehensive but many listings lacked coordinates, and as I added them, other voyagers (especially AlasdairW but others also) noticed work was being done on the article and helped out expanding the article making it even better.

  • Support - I'd say the article is complete and up to date. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (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)


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)
  • Support as DotM It's a good article, but I don't think regulated tourism means it must be otbp. If Pyongyang mentioned above were good enough to nominate, it would certainly be DotM. There is no indication that tourists are not interested in visiting Bhutan, and having to instate limits suggests that the interest exceeds the number allowed to enter. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    I would say Pyongyang should certainly be otbp, if it were nominated. It gets few international tourists and is an adventurous, unusual destination, not a major tourist spot. For international travelers, it is "off the beaten path" by any reasonable standard, more clearly than Thimphu I'd say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
It has more people than Madrid, Nairobi, and Buenos Aires and is well-known worldwide as a national capital (and of course makes the news fairly often for political reasons). It's also a dream destination for many people, even if they don't actually visit. I don't think travel stats alone should determine DotM/OtBP and indeed we've have some low-travel DotMs. With a few exceptions though, I think capital cities are usually deserving of DotM. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think that it could be either DOTM or OTBP - if we need to decide, it should be based on English speaking non-local visitor numbers. A measure of this is English language guide books to the city - are there many books on just Thimphu? I did not understand "Some clubs allow stag entry as well." in Drink - Alchohol - is this stag parties? AlasdairW (talk) 22:00, 22 December 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)
One cannot expect too much of a town of 1000 inhabitants, I guess, though the fort has an article in WP, perhaps there's something interesting we could bring over. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Diablo RangeEdit

Place: Destination
Blurb: California's 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-level extraregion (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)
Extraregions can be extensive—see Lake Baikal or Dead Sea (Israel and the West Bank). To me this article looks like it might be a very well developed, detailed extraregion.
Or maybe it should be a travel topic? This article doesn't cover everything about the area in question, but rather focuses on hiking and other outdoor recreation. "You can throw public transport right out" isn't true for all travellers to cities in this area, but maybe it is true for getting to the hiking trails. @SelfieCity: am I on the right track here? Or is this a park article that's very unclear about the location of the park? Or is it supposed to be some kind of superpark that includes lots of other parks and cities which have their own articles? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with any category except extraregion, as an extraregion cannot have a status. Generally, due to concerns of scope, and therefore, deletion, I'm not into travel topics, but I don't take an issue with this article being made one, and I'll continue to work on it when time allows. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there's any good argument why extraregions should not have article statuses or otherwise be treated differently from any other destination article. You can break down countries or states or cities in any number of different ways for Wikivoyage purposes - that's the whole reason why we discuss regionalization/districtification on article talk pages, rather than just doing it unilaterally - and just because a particular region doesn't fit into the hierarchy we've arbitrarily chosen doesn't mean it's not still a perfectly cohesive entity that's useful for travellers. I think what we ought to do is not force Diablo Range into a category where it doesn't belong just so we can say it's allowed to be OtBP, but rather to change our policy regarding extraregions to allow them to have article status and to be featured on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree somewhat with the idea that all extraregions should have statuses. Some extraregion articles are really just disambig pages with a bit of explanation and should never be expanded. So what status do we give those? See Persian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea for such examples, and then consider how much more the Empty Quarter article could be expanded. I think what we might want to do with extraregion articles is informally agree on a status that's noted on their talk pages. Clearly, we wouldn't want to feature Persian Gulf. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek (assuming I'm understanding you correctly). We don't need to give extraregions official statuses, but we can feature them on the main page when we have consensus that they're at an appropriate level of completeness. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That's a good idea. However, the text of the extraregion template may need to be adjusted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For now, I've made it an extraregion. We can change that, of course, in the long term, but as that's where we are the closest to consensus, I've adjusted the template at the bottom of page to the extraregion template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as otbp. Thanks for clarifying the type of article. The transportation information has been improved—still has room for improvement, but I think it's good enough for featuring. Given how car-centric most of the U.S. is, I'm not surprised that public transport isn't an option. Another photo or two towards the beginning of the article wouldn't hurt. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, and I have no issue with this being OTBP. I've been busy lately, though less so over Christmas, so I haven't been doing doing so much work on the Diablo Range article. (I've actually been spending quite a lot of time on WP.) I hope to keep developing this Diablo Range article, however. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In these edits, I've added information about the boundaries of the mountain range. Feel free to tell me if you think it should be expanded or clarified in some way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I've also moved the discussion to OTBP per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nkhata BayEdit

Place: Nkhata Bay
Blurb: Lake Malawi is what this little village is all about; laying on the beach, diving, feeding fish eagles, enjoying a fish meal and watching the sunset. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Nov
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Wow, there's soon been 5 full years since I translated and cleaned up this little article. So while it probably covers most of what the village has to offer (or did in January 2015) it's possibly to outdated and could use some updates closer to the time we run it. Also some POIs have been added afterwards that need coordinates.

  • Conditional support - needs those updates, probably best a few months or weeks before it will be featured. Ypsilon (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


Place: Alcamo
Blurb: Set among Sicilian vineyards and not far from the beaches, this town is packed with historical sights and festivals. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: The Understand section basically says "anytime". Climate-wise I think fall or spring are optimal for locations in southernmost Europe.
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This amazing work by Pugliesig should've been on the Main Page long ago.

  • Very close - some See listings have short descriptions. Also many the listings seem to have been added in 2015, so this article too could have its listings run through e.g. Google Maps a few months or weeks before we put it on the Main Page. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Brunswick (Maine)Edit

Place: Brunswick, ME
Blurb: This little New England charmer boasts a historical setting, fine dining options, and lush countryside close at hand. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Oct; but things are open year round here
Nominated by: ButteBag (talk)
Comment: I think this is pretty complete, and there was even a Commons user who had some great photographs I was able to make use of. Thanks!


  • Almost. Well-written article, and it seems to cover the destination well. A bunch of listings still need coordinates, but other than that it looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:36, 17 February 2020 (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)
  • E11 has been slushed, so where will this article stand now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Happy Birthday, nomination! It's not very often an article gets to spend two years on the nominations page and still having several months until its featured – I think this might even be a new record! Congrats!
Seriously, though, the article should be checked through a month or so before it goes on the Main Page, because there's a good chance that parts of it aren't up to date any longer. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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, how 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)

So, about a month before this is due to be featured, and the above concerns haven't really been overcome. Do we want to switch around the schedule for now, or can we solve the pseudopronunciation conundrum inside a month? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I've come around to advocating Granger's solution of "ü" for the French "u" sound as in "une". It's a foreign character, but it shows clearly that the sound is distinct from the "u" in "un" or any English sound for that letter, and there is just no remotely acceptable way to represent it in quasi-English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, under "Nasals", we have this: "in, ain: nasal è". I'm not sure I'm clear on what pseudopronunciation we're using for those. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
You know what, I think I now agree with ü too (or should that be ?) Will come back tomorrow for nasal-gazing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2020 (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: Sure, air travel is a lot cheaper than it was 30 or 40 years ago — but that doesn't mean there aren't still ways to bring your costs down even further. (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)

The Wire TourEdit

Place: The Wire Tour
Blurb: Are you a fan of the TV-series The Wire? Then this grand tour of filming locations all over Baltimore is definitely something for you. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: according to Baltimore's DotM nomination Mar-May or Sep-Nov (midsummer is very hot and muggy)
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not familiar with these tv series either, but the article is at guide status, looks pretty extensive and has many static maps. If you're familiar with the series and notice the article needs improvement, by all means go ahead and do so. It was mostly written back in the Wikitravel days ten years ago, but itineraries doesn't get old in the same way that destination articles do.

  • Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks outstanding. I'm not sure why (as it seems) no-one has nominated this for Star. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't seen the series, as it only had very limited airing in the UK, but it looks a good article. However, the itinerary is not likely to mean much to readers who haven't seen most of the series. The Wire was first on air over ten years ago. It is regularly repeated on major TV channels? Has it been shown much outside North America? Otherwise I think that we may be nearly 10 years too late in featuring this. AlasdairW (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Half a year ago we ran Seinfeld Tour, whose last episode aired in 1998, so I don't think it'd be a problem. Also, the series are very likely available online. Ypsilon (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)