Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile

The following pages were proposed on Project:Destination of the Month candidates, but the consensus was generally against them. Beneath each proposed article are the objections that need to be addressed. Once this has been done, feel free to nominate them again.

2021Edit

MamallapuramEdit

Place: Mamallapuram
Blurb: This world heritage town is all about stone carvings - and it's a place to learn the craft if you're interested. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Weatherwise Jan-Apr, driest time of the year and warm but not too hot
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Every now and then we've featured Indian articles, but for a OtBP feature we have to look back as far as early 2013. Unfortunately many articles from there tend to be made up of long lists of stuff, but this one seemed to have more descriptions. A year ago I went through the article adding coordinates and deleting places that were out of business, could perhaps use a new checkthrough closer to when it's featured, likely early 2022.[]

Nomination
  • Support as nominator, though a couple of listings could use a longer description (possibly it could be a good time to do that if the article per above is updated closer to when it's featured). Ypsilon (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support but it could use a bit of polishing. Pashley (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Almost per Pashley. The fact there are no "Do" listings doesn't seem good enough, in my opinion, for a featured article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I've done a copy-editing pass, got rid of many oddities probably introduced by Indian editors with good but not perfect English. It needs to have someone else take a look, find what I missed.
I'd have this as DotM, not OtBP. It is one of the region's main tourist draws & a World Heritage site. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet Descriptions needed for some of the see, and the do bit needs a lot of work for it to be featured on the main page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ypsilon, Pashley, SelfieCity: since quite a lot of work is needed to be on the main page, slushing? I personally think this needs a lot of work to be featured on the main page SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Shall we run San Ignacio in January instead? That is the only unscheduled OTBP candidate with at least one support vote and favorable season. /Yvwv (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm all for it, especially when it's got two support votes now. Much better candidate to go on the main page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Banteay ChhmarEdit

Place: Banteay Chhmar
Blurb: Explore the remains of the Khmer Empire in a more low-key setting than at Angkor Wat, while experiencing traditional culture. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Apr
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps the sites and BC's history need to be expanded on a bit. Other than that this is seemingly a quiet little village with one village organization taking care of everything from guided tours to hotels and meals, so probably not much to add when it comes to services.[]

Nomination
With zero support votes and very little work done, should we run Gävle in November instead? /Yvwv (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, not everything need to have coordinates. I planned to make some edits to the article later on, but I guess I shouldn't be deciding each and every article on the Main Page and if you'd really like to see Gävle up in November then feel free to slush this one. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Tourist Drive 33Edit

Place: Tourist Drive 33
Blurb: Tourist Drive 33 is one of Australia's oldest roads, still used today built by convicts. It's either the views, access, wineries, the length and variety of environments or their historical significance pale in comparison that makes it unique. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: All year around but preferably Autumn or Spring (in Australian seasons)
Nominated by: SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 23:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe showcase it in Autumn or Spring since that's when people camp a lot more often.[]

Nomination
  • I moved the nomination back here, because DotM and OtBP features are for destinations whereas FTT are for all other kinds of articles. Overall this seems like an informative article, but there are some things that make me say just almost support now. Some points need a description, a few also need a marker/coordinates (eg the galleries next to the fire trucks). Left-alignment of photos and maps are, per Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Image_alignment, a thing we try to avoid unlike at Wikipedia, and it would be nice to have some photos in the last third of the article. As we try to keep some distance between articles from the same part of the world, and Sydney goes on the Main Page in December 2021 (Melbourne/City Centre probably in March 2022), a slot during Sep-Nov 2022 could probably be the time showcase this article. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Um, is that how it works? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Dunno, because we can't have Sydney, then Melbourne and then another Australian one within 12 months. There's also the fact that some areas are still recovering from the 2019-20 bushfires and one of the side trips mentioned was claimed as closed, with no sign of reopening. So not until 2023. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I vote to slush per SHB, if that helps. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, now there's actually an explanation, slushing is fine with me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, worse-quality articles have been nominated, improved and featured. Per se, I don't think it's impossible having three Australian articles within a year, though this one and Sydney are from the same state... But if the nominator feels the nomination should be slushed and the article is better featured sometime later in the future, then I think we should respect him and slush it. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Agree with Ypsilon. I think at this point, we do have consensus to slush this article, so if SHB you'd like to go ahead and do that, I think the individuals involved appear to be in agreement. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Presidents of the United StatesEdit

Place: Presidents of the United States
Blurb: The Presidents of the United States have shaped their country and the world, and left behind a legacy of museums, monuments and other destinations. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Usable (deserves a higher grade) (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any. Can be considered for Jan-Feb, with Biden's first State of the Union Address expected in late January, and Washington's birthday on 21 Feb.
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: An expansive article. There seems to be consensus on controversial pieces, such as the description of each President.[]

Nomination
  • We should be aware that this article was started by a user who is now banned; however, users in good standing have done lots of work on it. I'll look it over later and see whether I think it should be featured, but based on my feelings about it the last time I read it, I would think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet - the article should have guide status and if there are still any controversies related to the article's content they need to be resolved first. Ps. When I first saw the article I was thinking that this could be suitable to feature during the United States Semiquincentennial in 2026 or otherwise around the 4th of July (ie. in June's FTT slot). --Ypsilon (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[]
One month later, there's a debate on the talk page about the rules concerning how to edit the article... Let's throw the nomination on the slush pile and perhaps reconsider nominating it after a year or two at earliest. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No - it needs to be nuked, per Ikan. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment — I don't work on this article as much as most do, but I'm a little confused as to why it's not ready for guide status. Three years of focused collaboration have taken place, and there's already a talk page archive and likely one or two more in order. As for the article itself, a few listings don't have descriptions, but most do. Is it ready for guide status? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment — This seems to be a mess of properties which are only listed because Donald Trump's "Trump Organization" has its branding on them. That's hardly fair, unless there's some historical reason (other than "Trump owns them") for them to be on this list. We don't tout one innkeeper over another, unless it serves the traveler.
If we go for three months with zero support votes, we could slush. /Yvwv (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

GroningenEdit

Place: Groningen
Blurb: Groningen is a lively student city with a pleasant vibe with historic heritage. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: March-June
Nominated by: SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Great article and why not?[]

Nomination
  • Oppose articles can't be featured twice (OtBP July 2017). --Ypsilon (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Oops. Didn't check that. Can I instant slush this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, please do. Plus, we do already have a nominated article from the Netherlands for next summer right above this one. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Clausthal-ZellerfeldEdit

Place: Clausthal-Zellerfeld
Blurb: Like many other towns in the Harz mountain range, mining heritage is prominent here. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May-Sep
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Another article for next summer. I just added geocoordinates and some more see listings from German WV. Some of the content seems to have been machine translated from German so the language could benefit from a cursory review by a native speaker but otherwise the article should be good to go.[]

Nomination
  • Very close - per my comment. --Ypsilon (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. Some listings have short descriptions or no description at all. For example under "Learn" no explanation is provided regarding the placement of the university as part of the travel guide. However there is certainly potential to make it a featured destination, so if someone would like to continue translating and improving it, it could be a good choice for next year. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  •   It has now had "a cursory review by a native speaker". I saw no major language problems. There were some minor ones which I did not take time to fix. Pashley (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet Per The edit history this article is largely in a state of pre-Covid and there is danger of a lot of stuff being outdated. As we do not have someone "on the ground" we would have to rely on internet research a lot... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[]
Ahem, I actually went through the article top to bottom the day I nominated it. Yes, that was six months ago but we haven't beforehand had any problems with the article having been checked up a few months before - unlike articles that have been checked up several years ago. As this isn't a resort or other destination for which tourism is a "matter of life and death" but a normal town, I do believe most businesses are still there but it can of course be checked up closer to the time when the article is featured. Ypsilon (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet - the language may be mostly free of mistakes, but it's not very good quality (in that it's obviously translated) and the intended meaning isn't always clear. For example, the stuff about the cycle routes (which I removed) was almost incomprehensible and could do with rewriting by someone who knows about cycling and can translate whatever information is available from the official site. The mint now turned glass-blowing centre is mentioned in Understand, but doesn't have a listing. There's no detail on how to get to the town from the airports. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I actually don't have much motivation to work on this article further (as the edits in October apparently went unnoticed). But last weekend I went through Bergen (Germany) which was also at guide status (& looked better), and deleted places that have closed down and I've just added some places to drink that are still open. Therefore I will slush this nomination within an hour or so and nominate Bergen as August's OtBP instead. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Heathrow AirportEdit

Place: Heathrow Airport
Blurb: As one of the world's most important flight transit hubs, LHR is big and busy. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment: It's been a little while since we featured an airport. Here's one of our first airport articles, created back in Wikitravel times. There's a lot of content that nevertheless needs to be checked for up-to-datedness.[]

Nomination
  • Needs some work - updating and general pruning and probably some more photos. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support More pictures would be nice, but this is a good article and has been a Guide for a long time. I have full confidence that whatever work is needed will be well in hand by the time the article is run. Good nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Almost. I'd like to see more coordinates, so that people can find amenities on the dynamic map. At the very least, we should indicate the terminals and concourses. (I know they're on the Mapnik layer, but the casual user might not know how to switch to it, and I understand there may be privacy/cookie concerns.) --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not at the moment - postpone to 2023 People read airport articles for up-to-date practical advice, rather than to dream about where they might go next year or the year after. This article bears little resemblance to what you would find today. For example, since 1 June flights from "red list" countries arrive at terminal 3 - and contractors will take passengers to a quarantine hotels. The article has only one mention of Covid. We should only feature this article if there is the interest available to make the regular updates which are required at the moment. (Dublin Airport might be an alternative as it has had a lot of updates this year and is probably close to being a guide article.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]
In that case, I would suggest to try to update the LHR article first. If that's not possible, we shouldn't replace it with an airport article because it would require those same updates. Plus, given that Cork is DotM in July, another Irish article in August would be a bit too close. There's been a year since we last featured a railway article, so Rail travel in Great Britain could maybe be an alternative (it does have an updated warning box)? --Ypsilon (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No - as AlasdairW mentioned above, this should only be added once the pandemic is over. Only include Airports like Auckland, which still are well running. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[]
If airport articles should be valid for the travels right now, I think there wouldn't be much point in running AKL as entry to New Zealand at the moment, due to COVID, seems to be more restricted than most other countries (well, apart from Australia where the borders are entirely closed). So if LHR can't be updated we shouldn't replace it with another airport article but with some other kind of article. For instance Rail travel in Great Britain that I mentioned above, or Archipelago Trail, or something else. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Rail travel in GB has the same issues as Heathrow; the practical information is very different now than it will be in two or three years' time: the timetables are still reduced due to Covid, but more importantly the entire system is getting renationalised to a greater (Scotland and Wales) or lesser degree (England and cross-border services). Details of these, particularly of the changes in England, are still rather sketchy, so it's better to wait until more information is known and we have a clearer timescale.
While I'm here: not yet for LHR or other airport articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  • So consensus seems to be to slush the nomination as of now, and I will do so shortly. Luckily it won't be hard to find a replacement for August's FTT. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Horse racingEdit

Place: Horse racing
Blurb: Watching, cheering for and betting on racing horses has been a popular pastime for centuries. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment: This one was already a guide, I added a couple of listings and photos from Commons. Should be good to go, I guess?[]

Nomination
  • Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support. The list of destinations, however, should be in bullets, I believe. We ought to get a support vote from someone who is very familiar with this topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I would like to see what @Ikan Kekek, The dog2, ShakespeareFan00, Dale Arnett: thinks. Personally, as so long as we can address any concerns other wikivoyagers might have, than I would give my support of the nomination. It's nice to get the mind off of COVID for a while, and see how far this article has came. :) Zanygenius2 (WV-en) (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - There's the small matter of addresses for listings being in the wrong format, with city, state abbreviation and zip code. I think that such specific addresses are an error in a worldwide topic, anyway, and that each listing should include only the name of the venue, the description and a Wikivoyage link to the article for the city it's in. Otherwise, the article looks quite extensive, and I'd be happy to support a feature after the listing format is cleaned up, if others who know more about horseracing approve. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. The listings need a bit of work. There is a lack of consistency in the formatting details. In some of the "Destinations", there is a link to the city in the title, in others it is in the text. Almost none of the museums link to a city. It may not be policy, but I think that Travel Topics should only list places which are listed in a city article, and should link to the city article for opening times etc. If it is not worth seeing when a general visitor is walking past, then it is not worth a specialist visitor flying around the world to see. There also appear to be errors in the museum listings, I have fixed a couple, but ideally all listings should be checked. AlasdairW (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet per AlasdairW, and on a similar note, most of those external links should be internal links instead, with the websites only listed from the city page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Response @Ypsilon, Ikan Kekek, AlasdairW, ThunderingTyphoons!: The gist of what I'm reading so far is (1) Use inline links on listings, and make them bulleted, and (2) Adjust the listing criteria for each track. Is that correct? By the way, although I'm not on WV often anymore, I am willing to adjust this as needed. Thanks, Zanygenius2 (WV-en) (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
As Thundering says above, inline links to the "Do" section for each relevant city (or, when relevant, district) article, not a link to the racetrack's website, which should be in the full listing in the linked Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
There will probably be as much or more work to do to the city articles to provide the details of the stadiums, museums etc. For example I failed to find the "People's Stadium" in Belize in the article for San Ignacio (Belize) which is where it is shown on the map, although I wonder if it should be in Orange Walk Town based on w:Orange Walk People's Stadium, but there is little information online. AlasdairW (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
We can probably delete it if we can't find enough information. In any case, there are probably other better known horse racing venues in the region (eg. in Jamaica) that we can list. The dog2 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: Sorry, I just now noticed the article was nominated for FTT.
    I think the lead and Understand need to be rewritten. Not knowing these sports I have a feeling it is biased towards USA and the former British Empire, and perhaps towards some kinds of races. What about cross country equestrian jumping or whatever it is called (part of "eventing", according to en-wp), isn't that a race? And what about the trot monté?
    I would also like the article to explain some basics. The lead tells horse racing is an equine sport with an international following. But it does not say what kind of equine sport it is. It goes on telling about thoroughbred racing, referring to the thoroughbred breed, but again not telling what the difference is between this and other races – the used breed? And when introducing harness races the article hasn't said that jockeys ride on the horse, and doesn't say they don't in harness racing.
    LPfi (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Suggestion to slushEdit

From all of the above comments the article is similar to European classical music – extensive but incomplete despite being rated guide (and should probably be demoted to usable status). There has been some improvments to the article since its nomination, but two of its major contributors (Zanygenius2 (WV-en) and Dale_Arnett) haven't been active as of lately. SC asked for someone familiar with the topic to support the nomination but I can't see any such support. So I suggest we should slush it. As replacement we could run the Stockholm itinerary already in May and the current oldest FTT nomination Wire tour in June (the weather in Baltimore can't be that unbearable in the summer) to avoid overlap with Crawford. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Any comments? --Ypsilon (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, there's been so much going on in Recent changes, I overlooked this. I agree with the plan to slush, as there doesn't appear to be anyone who will fix it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[]
Anybody else? The Featured Travel Topic will change in a few hours. I'm going to upload banners for Stockholm history tour and The Wire Tour soon, so it will be possible to go forward with the plan. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[]
This one is going on the slush pile; I think the banner can be moved to the article's talk page so as not to clog up the featured banner nomination because the article is not going on the Main Page anytime soon. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[]

2020Edit

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.[]

Nomination
  • 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)[]
  • Comment - if, as many have said, the article doesn't by far cover all the listings it should cover, then there's no point in having the article collecting dust here on the nominations page. But in that case the article shouldn't for sure be at guide status either. Plus, the article does now have 70 listings, and if it will be expanded by many more I think it eventually needs to be split up in a couple of regions. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Question What do you mean by "split up in a couple of regions"? The listings are already split by continent and country. What else do you have in mind?
Subarticles for different parts of the world, maybe "Classical music in Central Europe", "Classical music in Southern Europe", "Classical music in the rest of Europe" (???), "European Classical music outside Europe" (???). --Ypsilon (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
If you think that kind of split is necessary, we should discuss it on the article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Maybe it's not necessary yet, but if there will be many more listings (more than 100?), at some point the article would be more reader-friendly if the listings would be distributed on a few subarticles. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
99 of a single type of listing is the maximum before the markers stop working, so either subarticles or becoming more picky over listings would at that point be a necessity.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
It's technically possible to add as many listings as we like. In Roman Empire an additional "counter" parameter was added to the listings (e.g. counter=f for France), and for each counter name 99 listings can be added. But that would make the article longer and longer, just like the Roman Empire one. I mean, we districtify big city articles too, to make them easier to grasp. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
There's another major issue, which is that none of us has any idea what the classical music scene will look like after this pandemic is over. I think that while there will be a strong pent-up desire to go to concerts, many people may be slow in coming out of lingering fear of infection, and many arts organizations may cease to exist, especially in countries with weak governmental support for the arts like the U.S. (I'd expect much less of this in countries with very robust arts support like Germany and The Netherlands.) Thinking about this clearly, I believe we should continue working on this article but probably shouldn't feature it until the pandemic is over and the dust has settled. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm going to slush the nomination shortly, no point in keeping it here. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Hopefully it will eventually be good enough to be a featured travel topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:37, 29 April 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.[]

Nomination
  • 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)[]
  • Support. #By boat needs more information, like where the cruise begins, or at least a website about it. Otherwise, this is a good article to feature. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: I've travelled extensively in Quebec City, and I have to admit I was ruing the day when this article was nominated. I can't in good conscience vote "Support", just because of how incredibly much the article is missing. It's not just a matter of an attraction here or an activity there. It's a matter of, if a friend were to ask me for advice about travelling to Quebec City, the one item of overarching importance that I would say right at the start before getting into anything else is something that this article barely mentions. Which is that Old Quebec is a conundrum. On the one hand, its historical importance is genuine and immense; pound for pound it's almost inarguably the densest cluster of historic sites and buildings in Canada. But on the other hand, it's touristed to the hilt; those old cobblestone streets are always clogged with tour buses herding selfie-snapping day-trippers around like human cattle, the buildings are full of overpriced restaurants and knickknack shops, and generally it's a place that locals avoid like the plague and does not in any way depict the true face of the city. The fact that the Quebec City article focuses on Old Quebec to an almost exclusive degree, I look at the same way as if our New York City article focused almost exclusively on Times Square. You have to get outside the walls of the old city, to places like Saint-Roch and Saint-Sauveur and Limoilou, to experience the real Quebec City, yet these places barely rate a passing mention in our article. To do the place justice it would almost have to be districtified, yet the reason I also can't in good conscience vote "Oppose" is that I know I won't be getting around to that before summer 2020. I wish I had a better answer for you guys, but that's where I stand on this nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I am withdrawing my support in light of Andre's knowledge of the city and the shortcomings of this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[]
By that, I don't mean to say that Old Quebec is unworthy of being discussed in the article, just the same as I wouldn't advise a visitor to New York City to never set foot in Times Square. What's important is placing them in their proper context. New Yorkers themselves may not spend much time at Times Square, but it's a place with a lot to offer visitors of a certain bent, and our job is to make sure our readers are not under the mistaken impression that Times Square is what all of New York is like. Similarly, our job is also to make sure our readers know Quebec City residents don't live in a 17th-century time warp; they live in a modern-day city like anywhere else in North America, except they have a Disneyland castle full of tourists in their backyard that just so happens to also be an actual, bona fide 17th-century castle. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[]
I see. So one solution would be to replace Quebec City in July 2020's DotM slot with another Canadian article, for example Hamilton (Ontario) is at guide status and just needs some photos and a Google checkup of listings. Then you (or someone else familiar with Quebec City?) could add attractions from outside the old city when you have time, because everything useful from other language versions is already translated. In the case we will have many more listings, especially in See, I think the article needs to be districtified. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Ypsilon - Hamilton is a good choice for replacement DotM. Also, it's only an hour's drive from Buffalo, so assuming the U.S./Canada border has reopened by July, I can help out with adding photos and verifying whatever listings aren't verifiable through Google. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]
In that case, we probably should slush this nomination? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Agree with slushing; this page is already too long with nominations that have got the go-ahead but not the time slot (e.g. until recently Rail travel in the NL).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Sounds like a good plan. I don't think the nominations list per se is too long, 9-12 nominations in each section is optimal IMO, but I agree there are some nominations that probably will sit around until summer 2021 and we shouldn't nominate more of those. On the other hand if there's a good article for a place that's visited in the Northern Hemisphere winter (ie. in less than a year) you'd like to see to the Main Page, then by all means go ahead and add it. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]
In particular, we need OtBPs that are suitable for the Northern Hemisphere winter. Nkhata Bay will be going in the October 2020 slot in a few days and Iriomote will follow in November, but after that, it's ?s all down the line until the spring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]
There's a town in Florida that I know called New Smyrna Beach. The article is already good, but I could definitely work on that article and perhaps make it an OtBP candidate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Good idea. Another possible winter otbp is Quy Nhon (which could be our first feature starting with Q if Quebec City is slushed). It's at guide status but needs coordinates and maybe some updates. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When QC is slushed, I suggest these last few comments are siphoned off, and placed in the talk page of this page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[]

2019Edit

TaipeiEdit

Place: Taipei
Blurb: Sitting in the northern part of the island in a basin between the Yangming Mountains and the Central Mountains, Taipei serves as the island's financial, cultural, and governmental center. The city is a tantalizing mix of Chinese, Japanese and Western influences, vibrant in its own right yet unhurried by global standards. Besides the architectural and cultural landmarks like Taipei 101 and Longshan Temple, the xiaochi (small snacks) in bustling night markets are an experience not to be forgotten by your stomach. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: usable (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any
Nominated by: Heeheemalu (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Great article about getting around the city (transport) and guides about delicious food.[]

Nomination
  • Oppose - not eligible, because only usable. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[]
  • ...and because it already was DotM (back in 2007). Ypsilon (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[]

SoestEdit

Place: Soest
Blurb: Soest in the Middle Ages one of the most important cities in Germany - today a city of 50.000 inhabitants and off the Beaten Path, but still splendid (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: all year
Nominated by: wms-soest
Comment: beatiful pictures of a wonderful city. We thank Gero Sliwa, the fotografer

Nomination
  • Not yet - User:Wms-soest, I thank you sincerely for your interest in Wikivoyage, and for your good work thus far on this article. If you continue expanding it as you have done, Soest is going to be a wonderful article in no time at all. But it's not there yet. All nominations to this page must at least have guide status; Soest currently is officially an outline (though I suspect a closer look would reveal it should be usable). There are many things which need to be done before the article is suitable for featuring; I haven't got time to go into detail right now, but possibly someone else will have the time, and even so when I have more time I'll check back and go through some things. Let me emphasise that I think this article has great potential, and that if your hard work today translates into a more long-term commitment, and some of our team gets involved in helping you understand our manual of style and other policies, you'll be a fantastic Wikivoyage contributor. Best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. How to put this in a nice way... as TT said the article isn't an outline any longer but at usable status. But the article will need some more content for guide status, and the biggest problem is its current formatting starting from the banner which has wrong proportions, continuing with the wrong formatting of the listings and ending huge number of photos per lines of text. I would suggest to take a look at some other articles, or better still, articles that have already been featured on the Main Page to see how our best articles should look like. Nevertheless, as you've showed enthusiasm and interest in Wikivoyage adding a load of content to the article so it shouldn't be a problem I guess. Plus, the article could also use some copyediting. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet per ThunderingTyphoons. The issues seem to largely be formatting, at least at the obvious level. I think this article could be featured in not too long. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Please look at Talk:Soest. Putting an unbroken stream of images along the right side of an article - and one that went well beyond the end of the article on my browser until I removed several thumbnails - is not Wikivoyage style. Maybe there should be 7 or so photos in the article. Having a great gallery of photos that overwhelms the viewer is for Wikimedia Commons. Just as Wikivoyage doesn't duplicate the function of Wikipedia, we also don't duplicate the function of Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[]
I have notified Wms-soest. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet for the reasons above, but it has a lot of potential. I have formatted the first couple of see listings as examples. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[]

E11 hiking trailEdit

Place: E11 hiking trail
Blurb: One of the shorter European long distance trails takes you from the shores of the North Sea to the Harz mountains and Polish forests. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Time to visit: warmer half of the year in the Northern Hemisphere. Time to feature: probably some spring month to give readers time to prepare and do the trip; even if few do the whole route at once, long distance routes are to my understanding still geared towards people who spend substantial time on the trail.
Nominated by: Ypsilon (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Apparently the article was largely written by User:DrMennoWolters and brought over from Wikipedia. As you can see in Talk:E11 hiking trail#Guide, the lack of a detailled map was something holding this back from the Main Page. I fixed that a while ago, and as the article claims "With the exception of the article you are now reading, the precise routing of E11 is not at all documented in the English language.", that alone would be a reason to give it some air time on the Main Page.[]

Nomination
  • Support as the nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. The number of redlinks is rather off-putting. Is it better to delink them, at least during the featuring? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. Another problem is that quite a lot of the destinations get no coverage, just: Place X - Place Y - Place X - etc. That doesn't seem like featured quality to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[]
I have worries about that too. They may just be points on the map with a name, but if that is the case, then the article should make it clear they're just there for navigation purposes. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[]
Especially for the Poland part, the article is written in the form of a paragraph or two of text describing the route from larger place A to larger town Z, and then another paragraph with a list of minor places B, C, D etc. between (where I put the coordinates). So many of the places that don't seem to be described in the article actually are.
Nevertheless, according to the map, the route passes through many tiny towns made up of a dozen homes and perhaps a convenience store, that is, places that couldn't get articles here on Wikivoyage. Many of these indeed aren't described in the article, and it's of course possible that there is something worth seeing in these places, but I'm not holding my breath. We must remember that article has been brought over from Wikipedia, and a town, village or hamlet probably does only need to exist in order to merit an article there.
So I would say the best solution would be just to delink the redlinks. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[]
I agree with delinking them, but if research finds that there's something to write about them, that could be added to the article as well. They don't necessarily need to qualify for WIAA in order to merit a line or two. If there's a campsite, a decent inn, or a single sight worth seeing, including that would improve the article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[]
  • I think the lack of information is an important issue, so my vote is not yet. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[]
I do understand that it's necessary to have some information about places along the route. The problem is the huge amount of work that would be needed, even for one or two listings for each of the almost 400 points on the map, or some letters or symbols added after the marker (e.g. C for campsite, H for hotel, S for See, E for place to eat). Also, the article would then need to be divided into 5-10 subarticles to be graspable.
Maybe it'd be best to slush the article, and demote it to usable or even outline. The effort needed to add all that information would be better spent on other articles. Ypsilon (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]
If it's not good enough to be featured, and nobody is able to devote the time it needs for the foreseeable, then I agree with slushing.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Let's say there was someone who could pick out the villages and remove the ones of no importance from the list and add information for the more important ones. I would be in support of that — we can't expect information about every tiny little place along the way; but on the other hand, this article still isn't good enough and should be demoted to usable or outline, as Ypsilon says, if this necessary work is not going to be done. I would say it should be slushed for the moment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]
I'm giving this article another look and I fear that the whole structure of it is wrong and that it needs to be completely redesigned to reach guide status and a DOTM feature. I will go ahead and slush this nomination shortly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]
The points really need to be listed, though, even if many of them aren't worth writing about. 2560 km/379 points=approximately 6.75 km (4.19 mi) between them, which means 1.5-2 hours of walking in terrain. Ypsilon (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]

JazzEdit

Place: Jazz
Blurb: Even though this music is associated with the blues, its mixture of cultural backgrounds makes it one of the liveliest and happiest music genres in the world. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Usable (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, although I think summer is best
Nominated by: Selfie City (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I know this will have to wait a while, but I've been developing the article and I think it's now ready to be FTT at some point in the future. However, I do have two concerns that I can think of at the moment with this article: first, it needs a banner different from Jazz Track; second, it needs at least one more recording to demonstrate what jazz sounds like; and third, it could do with more in the venues section, which was only recently brought to a size beyond one sentence.[]

Nomination
  • Support as nominator, especially if these changes are made. Selfie City (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Almost what SC just said. There must for sure be other famous jazz venues in the US than just the four that are mentioned? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[]
  • As an avid fan of bossa nova and Brazilian jazz, I'm flabbergasted that the only mention of those genres in the whole article is a brief aside about Stan Getz and "The Girl from Ipanema". No Antônio Carlos Jobim, no João Gilberto, no Herb Alpert, no Sérgio Mendes, no Nara Leão, no Walter Wanderley, etc. etc. ad nauseam? In the '60s, this was one of, if not the most popular and commercially impactful styles of jazz, and I think there definitely must be some more information and/or listings that can be added. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[]
Sure, I'll add some more about bossa nova. Sorry that I overlooked this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[]

Slush? (or push back)Edit

As of right now, this article consists of 1) a lengthy discussion of jazz history that borders on the encyclopedic, 2) lists of cities and countries significant to jazz, individual jazz clubs, and jazz festivals that seem almost chosen at random, and 3) a "Learn" section that, despite that fact that it's the "most well-developed without being overdeveloped" section of the article, is only of secondary importance to travellers. It lacks 1) any discussion of POIs that aren't live music venues - museums, historic sites, etc.; 2) many relevant entries in the "Destinations", "Venues" and "Events" section, 3) quite a few other sections that a good travel topic article should have, and 4) any unqualified Support votes save for SelfieCity's. We've now got two months before the article is currently scheduled to be featured, which is quite a short time to address these numerous issues that heretofore no one has seemed terribly interested in correcting, and we've also got a decent selection of FTT candidates that could fill the April 2019 slot on the schedule if need be. I think we need to have a frank discussion about the possibility of slushing this article or at least moving its timeslot further into the future to allow more time for these issues to be addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[]

Let's set it to a later date, like winter, perhaps, or autumn? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[]
Andre has some good points, though I don't see the long history section as that much of a problem (though it probably doesn't need to be expanded...). In particular, I think there could be some more venues (also from outside the U.S.), and the article could use some more photos. I also wouldn't slush the article quite yet, it's better to move it forward in the schedule. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[]
I've actually cut down a little on the history section, but there's still plenty there. I'm doing some work on the idea of places to visit, like the Coltrane church, etc., which hopefully can be expanded. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I would indeed suggest slushing, and I also don't think this is properly a Guide, so by rights, I should oppose a feature, for now. There are way too few listings in at least several sections - too few clubs and none outside the U.S., too few festivals, way too few "See" listings, listing only Berklee among universities/conservatories is a joke for an article that's supposed to be reasonably close to complete, "Buy" is not travel-related (I don't see the point in spending much space mentioning CDs, fakebooks and Play-a-long CDs that can be bought online, though listing actual record stores that can be visited is relevant). Japan is particularly under-covered. I don't mean to get anyone down; a lot of good work has been done on this article, and I've participated in some of it, but this is all preliminary work, with the probable exception of the history section, which could be copy-edited but otherwise is OK to leave about as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Plus, over the 10 months this nomination has been active, we've seen a repeated pattern of promises that substantial additions to this article are imminent, followed by radio silence. Given the fact that the editor who's done the most to spearhead this article has announced his retirement from mainspace contributions, I don't see any reason to believe such improvements will ever be realized. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I've downgraded the article to Usable per my comments above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I guess we should slush now, then? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Definitely, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[]

IglsEdit

Place: Igls
Blurb: Archaeology, Alpine flowers and hiking in summer and winter sports in winter — this is what awaits you in the town at the foot of Patscherkofel! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: perhaps May-Sep for summer activities, Dec-Mar for winter activities
Nominated by: ϒψιλον (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Looking at the nominations, I'm not sure if we've got something for August 2019's OtBP slot which will show up in the table in about three weeks (Gaspé Peninsula was mentioned above but it's not nominated yet). So here's Igls, a fresh article largely written by an anonymous Austrian user. And if we have something for August, no problems, because Igls is also a place for winter sports so in other words it can be featured almost any time of the year. One more thing, a big thank you to 178.255.156.181 for your contributions to this and other Austrian articles![]

Nomination
Yeah, noticed the discussion at ARR8's talk page a few days ago.
Regardless, there's nothing controversial or vandalistic in the Igls article (and I think neither in the other Austrian articles) and as such one couldn't tell it was written by AC if it wasn't pointed out, so I'm not going to oppose the article. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with SelfieCity here. TT made some very good points about how feasible it really is to continue our policy of reverting all edits made by block evaders, and I'm still formulating my response to those points, but spoiler alert: I mostly agree with him. But I see all of that as a separate issue from honoring that illicit work with Main Page recognition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[]
I understand your point. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[]
Yes, I feel that way. By featuring the work of a banned user, it's almost as if we're rewarding the user for the problems s/he caused. It's unfortunate that we must choose here to not feature a work because a problem user posted some of the content, but unfortunately, problem users, like problematic people in the world in general, not only wreck their own lives, but also damage that of others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[]
In this case, according to the article history, the article is almost entirely written by AC not just some of it. I don't know if AC (and similar long term abusers who also occasionally make edits that are useful) genuinely cares about the articles they contribute to and feel they are rewarded by their articles getting featured, or if keeping contributing is to them a means to an end e.g. it enables them to at some point put in pieces of unwished content, like they did with the Brussels articles.
That said, if you are uncomfortable running this article, I accept that, we do have dozens of good articles suitable for summer slots to replace this one. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[]
Since, yes, I looked and wrote nearly the whole article, I think it would be best not to feature it. In this past, we've all been very suspicious of any contributions AC has made and that stopped even a star article (Kraainem) from being nominated. If this issue is going to stop us from nominating a star article, it seems rather unusual then to post such an article on the main page. I'd say, since we have plenty of options, let's slush this one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[]
New nomination for August's slot, see below! -- ϒψιλον (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[]
Looks like Igls is going to get slushed, will do that later tonight. ϒψιλον (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[]
Thanks for doing that! Sorry for this happening to your nomination like this, since of course it's not your fault. I, too, assumed the recent edits to articles in Austria were in good faith. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[]

LGBT travelEdit

Place: LGBT travel
Blurb: Globally, LGBT rights have increased exponentially in the past 50 years, but there are still many places where travellers should exercise caution. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (officially, but maybe not actually) (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any of the first seven months of 2019, with a preference for June, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, which will be widely marked across the world. There's no point featuring after July, because most pride events will have been and gone by that point.
Nominated by: ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Looking at the talk page, this was raised as a potential FTT back in 2016. While there have been significant improvements and updates made since then, many of the concerns raised there (namely that the format is too listy, that there isn't enough information in each section, and that text may be outdated) remain an issue. However, none of these are fatal flaws which can't be fixed with a bit of elbow grease, and I think if we resolve now to make the improvements, and have a deadline to work to, that will be a sufficient shot in the arm for things to happen. Plus, if we are ever going to feature this, there couldn't be a better time than next summer.[]

Nomination
  • Needs work, as stated above. My blurb and choice of image are just placeholders which I'd be happy to see changed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[]
  • I think there's more work needed here than you think. In my estimation, there are some really fundamental problems with the structure of the article as it currently is. I'm talking specifically about the "Queer-friendly destinations" section, which sticks us between a rock and a hard place: it's a series of lists that are already way too long, yet still far from complete. If we were to add every LGBT-friendly destination of the level of prominence of the ones already listed, with blurbs scrupulously added next to each entry, we'd run the risk of overwhelming the reader with too much information. However, if we go the opposite route and restrict the section to only the most prominent destinations, we cheat the reader out of comprehensive coverage of the topic. I think that to really do justice to this topic, we have to either break it up by region (LGBT travel in Europe, etc.) or else come up with some other way to talk about good destinations for LGBT folks to visit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[]
  • If you think an article is quite simply not ready, it may be best to plunge forward and try to fix it before nominating it for FTT. The topic is valid and I'd like to see it featured in 2019 – which may be well within the realm of possibility – but what's your path to get there? K7L (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[]
K7L: You're not wrong (and it's what I'm doing with York because I am comfortable handling that article by myself if necessary, but not so for this which has such a broad subject matter and covers so many different people under one umbrella term it needs as many perspectives as possible). But the idea in nominating now is to draw eyes on the article and, as stated above, spur people on - including myself - to write to a deadline. That it's not ready now doesn't mean it can't be ready in 6 months' time.
Andre: Another alternative to splitting by region is to do so by topic. One article could focus on dangers and concerns for LGBT travellers, while another could group the places people can travel to in order to experience the local LGBT culture. The latter needn't be split geographically, but can be as and when the volume of information on specific regions grows. But I agree with both of you that the article's scope is a little ill-defined, and this is something we need to work out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet — The 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots can be a good time to feature this article, but there's definitely work to do. Good to hear that the article has been updated, but LGBT_travel#Europe_2 in particular still needs to be expanded. Understand and See (maybe the "LGBT laws" should be moved up to Understand) are also very short.
I'm also not sure if we need to have a list of each and every individual "queer-friendly destination" in the world, right now we list 122 of them if I counted correctly. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet and maybe not at all - There is a lot of work to do. The article has to cover topics from "how to have fun when you are gay" through to "how to stay alive when you are gay". I don't think the topic is covered in the right order, as staying alive is far more important than having fun and so needs to come first. I think that we should also consider whether featuring this article is likely to make WV unattractive to readers in the less liberal half of the world. AlasdairW (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[]
    • I must say catering to homophobes is not and should never be what we are about. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I think it's not right to get accuse User:AlasdairW of "homophobia" simply for not supporting a nomination for DOTM. We have before decided against a pagebanner because it was too political and I think that was done for good reason. Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not RealClearPolitics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I had just looked at the map in the article File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg, and seen that there are a lot of countries where being gay is illegal, and others with "Laws restricting freedom of expression and association". Maybe I am making a false assumption that the populations of these countries are in agreement with these laws. AlasdairW (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I personally am not making any political statements, and not intending to, I just think it's best to stay off politics when we can. Really, there's enough in the outside world. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I can't think of any other example of a decision on DotM being made based on whether someone might be upset with the selection, though. I would oppose making decisions on that basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I didn't accuse anybody of homophobia. But withholding featuring for the sole reason that it might "upset" people is catering to homophobia. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[]

Slush?Edit

Nearly six months after this article's nomination, there's been little effort to address the fundamental structural problems with this article that have been enumerated by commenters above, nor has this nominee earned a single Support vote based on its current merits. Barring someone stepping up to the plate to address this formidable task, I think it would be prudent to slush this nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[]

With regret, I agree. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[]
To reply to comments further up, I don't see a problem with the article being both about "how to have fun when you are gay" and "how to stay alive when you are gay". The one big problem with the article is the long list of gay-friendly destinations, some of which are just listed without any description, just as I said around when it was nominated. Maybe it's best to create separate articles for LGBT travel on different continents or then we could cut down the list to e.g. the world's 30 most notable destinations for gay travelers to make the article easier to read. Other than vandalism around new year, there hasn't been any substantial edits to the article during the last 5 months. We can nominate the article anytime later when it's in a better shape, so let's slush it for now. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[]

JudaismEdit

Place: Judaism
Blurb: Over its long and often fraught existence, the world's oldest monotheistic religion has left its mark on history and culture all over the world — from the Holy Land to Europe to East Asia to the Americas. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment: As a discussion on this article's talk page indicates, many of us have had their eye on this article as a possible FTT for some time now. Though it's recently been elevated to Guide status and is thus eligible to be nominated (preferably for the March 2018 FTT slot which is currently vacant), Ikan Kekek earlier had expressed some doubts as to whether the article was yet complete enough to be featured. I'd love to hear whether, four months after having originally made that comment, his opinion has changed.[]

Nomination
  • Despite being the nominator, I can't in good conscience vote "support" for the article as is. However, we have a goodly amount of time to attend to its needs, which as I see them comprise adding geo coordinates for all the listings in "Cities" and "See" that don't yet have them, as well as lengthening descriptive blurbs in most cases, and perhaps expanding the "Eat", "Drink", and "Buy" sections (in descending order of how much additional detail IMO should be added). This may not be an exhaustive list of the article's issues (again, I hereby solicit Ikan's opinion on the matter) but again, the March '18 slot is vacant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[]
  • The article is in much better shape than before, due to a lot of hard, smart work. I think there are still some more cities that should be added, and we also may want to think about what should be in "Cities" and what should be in "See". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[]
  • Conditional support As I said on the talk page some coords are still missing, but on the other hand I don't know much about Judaism so I can't myself tell if everything important is in the article. But I'm ready to support the article when Ikan and other central contributors think it looks good for the main page. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[]
So... is this still "work in progress"? There are two months before it's scheduled to be featured and it doesn't have even one full support vote. Sure, like with most travel topics, we can feature them anytime of the year but still... ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[]
  • I would solicit the opinion and comments of Ar2332, whose great work is most responsible for the great improvements in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[]
    • There is still work to be done. The "See" section is generally missing sites in Israel. The "Cities" section still needs work, in terms of content and focus. The relationship between the "Cities" and "See" sections needs to be clarified. Ar2332 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[]
  • I agree with Ar2332. The "city" and "See" sections seem like they should be merged. The distinction is really unclear. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[]
  • March/April would be suitable, as it coincides with Passover/Easter. /Yvwv (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[]
Again, the March 2018 FTT slot is vacant, and I intended to fill it with this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[]
  • This is indeed still a work in progress, as the relationship between "Cities" and "See" still needs to be clarified. I think this is a "Not yet" for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[]
I'd suggest places with several Jewish sites should go in Cities, and these sites would be described in the listing of the city. "Standalone" attractions, ie. those that are in cities that aren't otherwise notable for their Jewish heritage can be listed in See. I can help with adding coordinates for sites and cities but not really much more.
Andre, looks like we need a plan B for March's FTT. Should we move Ottoman Empire, Advice for nervous flyers or something else to March (making room for Vikings and the Old Norse in the summer) or run Hostels? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[]
Vikings and the Old Norse still needs quite a bit of work before it goes on the Main Page, IMO, and with Ottoman Empire the question would be what to replace it with in the May 2018 slot. I'd say the least disruptive course of action would be to run Hostels in March. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[]
  Done. As for this article, it's come a long way and will make a fine feature when the "Cities"/"See" issue is sorted out, so I'm going to refrain from slushing it and instead say that it would make a good feature for next year's Passover. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[]
  • A little less than three months before this one goes on the Main Page, and I just added some coordinates for cities. As I said before, the article does look good, but I'd prefer to hear voyagers who know more about Judaism to say the article is sufficiently complete. It could also use a few additional photos here and there. ϒψιλον (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[]
Less than two months until Judaism is scheduled for the Main Page — any comments or support votes? ϒψιλον (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[]
Let's slush. I think it's unrealistic to expect the major issues in the structure of this article, which have not been meaningfully addressed in the entire year and a half this nominee has been up for consideration, to be solved in two months. We also have Seinfeld Tour, which I plan on completing to Guide status in the coming weeks and would be a fine replacement in the FTT column. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[]

2018Edit

Guadalupe IslandEdit

Place: Guadalupe Island
Blurb: Guadalupe Island is truly off the beaten path, being over 100 miles from the Mexican mainland and nearly impossible to reach - but one of the most dramatic spots on Earth. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any time of year, according to Wikipedia climate data, not large temperature variations in summer/winter
Nominated by: Selfie City (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Article I developed with User:Ground Zero a little while ago; it's now at guide status. It's an opportunity to get really off the beaten path![]

Nomination
  • Support as nominator. Selfie City (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - Classic off-the-beaten-path destination! How confident are you that all the facts are correct? I just corrected one:
Guadalupe has been the last refuge for the northern elephant seal and the Guadalupe fur seal in the 1890s -> Guadalupe has been the last refuge for the northern elephant seal and the Guadalupe fur seal since the 1890s. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Well, a lot of the article (particularly the "Understand" section) is based on the Wikipedia Guadalupe Island article. We have to hope that all the information on here is right, because it's hard to find much else about the island, or not nominate it, of course. Selfie City (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Support Looks good. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. It'll be really hard to find a good banner for this one - just a warning. Selfie City (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[]
  • I think it's important to mention that, since none of us have been to this Island, a lot of the writing is either Wikipedia or speculation-based (of course, it came before the speculation debate). I really don't want this issue to get in the way of its potential upcoming feature, since I wrote the article with attention to minor details and possibilities, and I wrote it so it aligned with the island's satellite coverage. I just think this is another thing that should be considered. Selfie City (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[]
Using Wikipedia as a source is no problem so long as it's cited as a source in edit summaries or on the talk page. Content based on speculation might be a different story. Can you identify which content that applies to? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[]
I would say, things start to get more speculatory from "Fees and permits" through "Sleep". These parts are not straightforward speculation, but at the same time there's not based on someone's reports of visiting the place. The way the article handles this is actually better than I remember it being, but for example I can see a couple "probablies" where when I was writing it I lacked a little confidence. Selfie City (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[]
You know how I feel about speculation, but for the others' benefit, I think it's really unnecessary and potentially worse than having no information. It's not always easy to find out stuff just from internet searches, but remember it's not your personal responsibility to fill all sections at any cost. Wikivoyage being what it is, either someone who knows the location will eventually come along, or new online information will become available. And if that takes years to happen, well just remember W:There's no deadline. There are vast parts of the world about which you can find everything you need to know just by googling, so if that's what you like doing you can, just not for somewhere like Guadalupe.
It's a good article, there's no doubt about that, and partly well-researched (the use of satellite pics to establish the presence of a fresh water source is genius!), but I vote not yet until the unfounded speculation is taken out. This means basically anything you have no evidence for, "It's unlikely that..." "Probably", "make preparations in case this assumption turns out incorrect." etc, etc. These front page articles are supposed to be among the best WV has to offer, and non-factual, unverified content is not up to that standard, IMHO. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[]
I just did some quick speculation-removing — what do you think of this? Selfie City (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[]
It's a good start, and I thank you for the prompt action.
However, removing speculation isn't just about taking out the parts where you let people know you're not sure, it's about removing content that may not be true. For instance, with "Hiking is probably the main activity" --> "Hiking is the main thing to do", what new information has come to light to assure you that is the case? Are there even any hiking trails, or do walkers have to go through the wilderness and navigate using a compass? Are there maps available? Do hikers need to bring machetes to cut through vegetation like Indiana Jones? (No, not just because it's in Mexico. I've been to parts of Derbyshire where this would be advisable!) Do members of the public even have a right to walk wherever they want, or are there landowners they need to get permission from? What about dangerous animals or sensitive environments? These are all vital questions I have, as an active hiker with no knowledge of the island, but there is nothing in the article to help me out, and probably no way of finding out the answer without paying a visit or speaking to someone who has.
But before we go further, it might be better to know what others think of this issue. Am I being overly strict or demanding here? Should we be relaxed about including information that isn't necessarily true or even verifiable? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[]
ThunderingTyphoons!, while it's not easy to say hiking is the main thing to do, there is also no evidence that it isn't. This is a next-to-impossible destination; there aren't many things you can do on the island, the two being hiking and fishing, which I mentioned. Selfie City (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[]
  • I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!. SelfieCity says "while it's not easy to say hiking is the main thing to do, there is also no evidence that it isn't." I gather that this is the justification for including the first part of the sentence "Hiking is the main thing to do on the island, along with fishing." If that kind of guesswork was used to build this article, I oppose featuring.
In particular, I strongly agree with ThunderingTyphoons! that "removing speculation isn't just about taking out the parts where you let people know you're not sure, it's about removing content that may not be true". If the information about hiking is just speculation, then saying "Hiking is the main thing to do" is much worse than saying "Hiking is probably the main activity". At least in the second sentence you're sort of signaling to the reader that you're not sure, whereas in the first sentence the reader is likely to assume that you actually know. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet I don't think that there should be speculation about major activities, if we don't have enough solid information then wait until we do. Saying "Hiking is probably the main activity" suggests that we know that hiking is popular and definitely is regularly done, but we are not sure whether it is the most popular activity or the third most popular activity. Get in has no car ferries, but Get around has a large By car section with no mention of car rental. Fees and Permits must have definite information - if necessary ask a Mexican embassy. AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[]
Having looked a little more into this, I am now going to Oppose. The WP article has "Because Guadalupe Island is located within a biosphere reserve, anyone visiting the island must obtain a permit from the Mexican government; this means the communities on the island are closed towns." The only reports of visits I could find online were of scientists, publishing reports on he natural history. I don't think that we should feature somewhere that no contributor has visited unless there are reliable published sources of visitor information. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[]
Thanks for doing the research, AlasdairW, since your research clarifies that this article is too off the beaten path to go on the front page. Probably should go to the slush pile. Selfie City (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[]
There's no such thing as "too off the beaten path to go on the front page". Wake Island, open only to the U.S. military and civilian contractors, was OtBP in February 2009. Of course it's more difficult for an article for place like that to achieve Guide status, but there appears to be enough in this article (even if we subtract out speculative information) to justify putting it on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[]
My main reason for opposing is that I don't think the article is reliable. I would reconsider if some published guide was identified, or the article was reviewed by somebody that had been there. The information about permits in the WP article is somewhat different to "Considering how hard it is to get to the island, it is unlikely that the Mexican government will worry about restricting anyone from getting there" which we have. A lesser point: we are a site for real travellers, not armchair explorers, and I think that we should only feature places that almost nobody is permitted to visit on 1 April - but this may be resolved if full details of getting a permit are added to the article. AlasdairW (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[]
Yes, unfortunately it's really difficult to know how much of the article is true without having much online info or people with experience on the island,to turn to. There really is no reason to run this article when there are so many others without such doubts hanging over them. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry, I probably never should have nominated this article in the first place. I'm really beginning to think that this nomination belongs in the slush pile. There is simply not enough information about the place (from other sources, that is) for it to be on the front page of this website. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[]

If you want to slush this article, that's fine, but let the record show that the slushing did not happen on the basis of Guadalupe Island being "too OtBP for the Main Page". Every article, no matter for which destination, has an equal shot at the Main Page provided it's at Guide level or better. Suggestions otherwise fly in the face of longstanding precedent (Childs is another example). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[]
Yes, what I meant by saying "too OTBP" is that it is such an obscure place that creating a main-page quality article about it has proved impossible. Sorry if I was misunderstood. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[]
I agree with AndreCarrotflower that there's nothing wrong with featuring places very far off the beaten path. I also agree with slushing this article, as too unreliable and difficult to fix. (As a side note, though, I'm not sure I agree that every guide-status article has an equal shot at the main page. I don't think I'd support featuring ultra-dangerous places like Mogadishu, even if guide status.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Comment — so how should we proceed? I was looking forward to see an article of a really offbeat destination on the Main Page and therefore I'd hate see this article go on the slush pile, but people opposing it on the basis that it's too speculative do have a point. The January OtBP slot could maybe house one of our many US OtBP candidates. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[]
    I don't think this article is realistically fixable in time for featuring. I think the way to proceed is to slush it and look for a replacement. A US destination would be good by me, assuming the schedule isn't too crowded with US destinations already. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[]
Andre? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[]
Oops, sorry, I thought this had already been taken care of. I personally still think it's salvageable, but most others don't, and it shouldn't be too difficult to find another candidate for January. Go ahead and slush, I'd say. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[]

Shanghai/PudongEdit

Place: Pudong
Blurb: Shanghai's financial and business center, packed with skyscrapers all built since 1990. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Usable (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Spring or fall
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This area has seen perhaps the world's fastest development in the last few years & has many upmarket hotels and a variety of tourist attractions including some of the world's tallest buildings. There are some broken link problems but other than that the article looks ready to me.[]

Nomination
  • Support as nominator, though Downtown Shanghai (nominated above) is more important for most travellers and should be featured first if possible. Pashley (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Downtown is featured in May, and we usually want to have two years between places in or involving the same city, which means it will take at least until 2020 before this could hit the Main Page. Perchance we could aim for Shanghai itself on the Main Page for then. --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[]
Shanghai as a whole would have a really hard time reaching Guide status; see Talk:Shanghai#Getting_to_guide?. It might be easier to get Downtown to Star. Pashley (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. I notice this article is only at usable status; guide status is required for featuring. From a quick glance, there are also some listings that need coordinates and some dead links that need to be addressed, and the "Eat" and "Drink" sections strike me as skimpy for a bustling district in a major city. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[]
I agree but thought it worth listing as a future possibility. It seems to me it is quite close to Guide & it would not be featured for at least a year, likely more, so there is time to fix it. Pashley (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[]
I don't think we can even consider a nominee until it's a Guide. And I would certainly oppose featuring an article that's not a Guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[]
Agreed with Ikan; this nomination was very premature, especially since it couldn't be featured till 2020 anyway. Barring any last-minute objections (which would have to be extremely convincing indeed), I'm going to throw this on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[]

MadridEdit

Place: Madrid
Blurb: Spain's capital has some of Europe's finest art collections at Del Prado, Reina Sofía and Thyssen-Bornemisza, historical artifacts from the once enormous Spanish Empire, and bustling nightlife. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Spring or autumn. Madrid is good for a casual visit, without too much preparation.
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment: The article itself is well-updated. District articles were created in 2017.[]

Nomination

Oppose; not at Guide status. Two of the district articles are redlinks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[]

More specifically, those articles must not only exist but also be at Usable status. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Well that is one way to "fix" it, the other is to get rid of the districts on the map, merge them, the likes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Weak oppose. Despite this article being divided into districts, it has a lot of eat listings, but then lacks sleep listings. Selfie City (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[]

VeniceEdit

Place: Venice
Blurb: Venice was once an independent merchant republic and the cradle of the Italian Renaissance. Still today, canal boats are the main means of transportation. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Spring or autumn
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Surprised to see that this classical destination has yet to be featured or nominated. The article has improved a lot during last weeks.[]

Nomination
  • Not yet. There are the bones of a good article here, but there are also a lot of issues that need to be addressed before Venice is ready for prime time:
  • The "By boat" and "Porters" subsections of "Get in", and the "By water taxi" subsection of "Get around", need to be at least converted into bullet-point lists, if not listingified. All those price quotes (how old are those, by the way?) and phone numbers are ugly when presented as a big block of prose.
  • There are quite a few listings that lack geo coordinates and/or need descriptions.
  • The list of churches in "See" is too long, as are most of the "Sleep" subsections. Pick the best and ditch the rest.
  • Some of the material in "Do" is questionable, for instance there are a few apparently non-value-added tours (Il Burchiello, Secret Itineraries in Doge's Palace).
  • In the "Buy" section, for such a major tourist city as Venice, I totally understand the urge to avoid listing every shop that might be of interest to our readers, but in that case the article should present generalized information of where you can find shopping areas, any types of specialty items that are unique to the area or for which you can find unusually good bargains, etc. without any listings at all. But having five listings of apparently randomly-selected shops looks too much like unreverted touting for my tastes. (Also, why is one of them an "Eat" listing?)
  • "Eat", "Sleep", and "Drink" need to be alphabetized.
  • The whole article needs to be copyedited by someone who speaks English natively.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet — this article does need quite a bit of streamlining and pruning, and listings need coords and expansion and perhaps a couple more photos, though the article is much less of a mess than I remembered. --ϒpsilon (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]
  • The article is quickly developing thanks to User:Xsobev et al. I guess it can make autumn 2018. /Yvwv (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]
  • Almost. I almost would support this; however, it could probably do with some more coordinates for reference and definitely needs an expansion of the buy section. The general article looks good, though. Selfie City (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[]
  • This article yet to receive a single support vote. I would suggest running Sarajevo in September instead. Not only was Sarajevo added to the nominations before Venice but it also has more than enough support votes and the article is otherwise in mint condition compared to Venice. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Anyone? I mean the article is still fairly messy and we as I said have a candidate freshly written up to guide status that shouldn't have to wait almost another year. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Question/Comment. There's a style tag in Sleep, saying "too many hotels"; only a few of them are georeferenced. Shouldn't this be worked out? Should this be a reson for demoting the article from Guide? Ibaman (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[]
  • I advocate slushing - among other things the maps (yes, plural, and yes, more than two) are confusing and there seems to be a half-measure districtification thing going on... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I was hoping that pointing out some of the article's issues above would serve as an inspiration to get cracking on it. But no one has risen to the occasion, and my plate is full as usual. We have enough DotM nominees that this one can go on the slush pile, though I'd say hold off for another couple of days to give folks a last chance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[]

2017Edit

Gaspé PeninsulaEdit

Place: Gaspé Peninsula
Blurb: The far eastern tip of Quebec, where the Appalachian Mountains plunge into the ocean, is a wild and wonderful place with something for everyone: breathtaking scenery, all the seafood you can eat, and some of the best skiing in Eastern Canada. (blurb needs work) (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Outline for now, but please see comments below. (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Sep
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe I'm jumping the gun in nominating this now, but hear me out.[]

Nomination
  • Right now I'm in the midst of what has proven to be a very, very long and protracted update of the Buffalo district articles. I should be finished with that in a week or two, at which point I plan to start again on my long-dormant Gaspé Peninsula project. Despite what it may look like, the majority of the work has already been finished - Gaspé Peninsula itself has all the content it needs; the only thing keeping it from being bumped up to Guide status right now is the state of the articles below it in the breadcrumb hierarchy. Wikivoyage:Region guide status states that for a Region article to be evaluated at Guide level, all subregions must be at Usable status or better; in turn, for each subregion to be at Usable status, the most important of their respective "Cities" and "Other destinations" must be at Usable status or better. My course of action has been to go our readers one better and ensure that all of the bottom-level articles are at least Usable, and the most important ones are at Guide.
So, by way of a breakdown of the work that remains to be done to get this article up to Guide status, there are three main components:
  1. Writing Guide articles for the most important bottom-level destinations. Thus far I've written and/or improved Percé, Chandler, and Forillon National Park to Guide standards; each of those took about two or three weeks apiece. Looking forward, I'd like to have Bonaventure, Gaspé, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Gaspésie National Park, and maybe Amqui at Guide status too.
  2. Bringing all other bottom-level destinations to Usable status. Given that Usable articles only require a "Get in" section plus one listing each in "See", "Eat", and "Sleep", a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation.
  3. Bringing subregion articles Gaspesian Coast, Upper Gaspé, Land's End, Chaleur Bay, and Matapédia Valley up to Usable status. Aside from the status of the bottom-level destinations, the only thing a Region article requires to be Usable is a "Get in" section and a "See" section where the most prominent attractions are listed. Again, a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation, though I'll likely end up including a bit more content than that.
Again, maybe it would be better to have delayed this nomination until I was further along in the process, but I wanted to make sure this article got up on the page before all the summer 2017 OtBP slots were gone - Nauru and Groningen have already taken two of them. (For those who think it's audacious to have jumped the gun like this, it might be germane to note that Buffalo was technically at Outline status for most of the time it was on this page; it still had two redlinked district articles when it was nominated, the last of which didn't "go blue" until three days before it went on the Main Page.) If by some slim chance Gaspé Peninsula isn't ready for the Main Page by then, we can easily put it off till 2018. But I highly doubt that will happen.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I haven't looked at the articles that carefully (some like Percé are in great shape, on the other hand there are others like Matapédia Valley which obviously need more content) but I trust you'll get all of them to usable or better until next summer. Concerning Nauru, I imagined that one was scheduled for March. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[]
While we could probably get away with featuring Nauru in March, it's less than ideal - per w:Nauru#Climate it's still a fairly rainy time of year there. Climatically speaking, the best time to run Nauru would be either between mid-spring and early summer or in the early autumn (Northern Hemisphere in both cases), but I'd caution against slotting it in May or June because it would likely be competing with nominees from temperate latitudes that can't really be featured any other time of year. I had imagined April 2017 to be a fair compromise, but there's certainly some wiggle room there if necessary (especially if the deficiencies ChubbyWimbus mentioned aren't fixed in time). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Yeah, in the summer there's a ton of brilliant articles but only so many months, in the winter it's exactly other way around :( .
As the one who translated/googled up much of the content currently in the Nauru article, I will probably help out with Nauru at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Andre, a little friendly reminder in the case you've forgotten about this nomination... ϒpsilon (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[]
Ypsilon - I had thought that my work on Buffalo was essentially done once I finished the district articles. But sadly, keeping them all up to date has proven to be way more of a time suck than I realized, slowing progress on other Wikivoyage work including the Gaspé project. I do intend to get around to this at some point, but I can no longer guarantee they'll be ready by summer 2018. Let's wait until the end of the year and see how things progress, and then we can either commit to featuring it next summer or else throw it on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[]
  • Conditional support. I trust your judgment in assuring everyone of what you will do, and therefore give a supporting vote based on your superb track record of producing articles of exceptional quality. That said, please inform us of when you think the articles in question are ready, so that we can judge for ourselves at that time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[]
I of course fully understand the conditional nature of your support, Ikan. But, to be clear, I see the Gaspé Peninsula article itself as essentially complete, and don't foresee any particular changes to it between now and when it goes on the Main Page, other than the redlinks in the "Regions" section being upgraded to live articles. So you can feel free to base your judgment on the content of the article rather than just my track record. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[]
I haven't reread anything close to the entire article yet, but of course it looks great. I think "Get in/By car" may require an update, though: Did the extension of A-20 as far as Trois-Pistoles that was supposed to open by 2015 open yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Ikan - Latest reports are that they've extended A-20 about 14 kilometers eastward to the outskirts of Trois-Pistoles, but according to Wikipedia the interchange serving Trois-Pistoles itself isn't expected to be in service until later this year. I've updated the article to reflect that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Is Gaspe actually off the beaten path, or should it be DotM? I'd say the latter because the one time I visited, mid-summer in the 1970s, it was absolutely flooded with tourists. Pashley (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[]
When I was there in 2012, it was indeed crowded with tourists, but they were mostly other Québécois. Gaspé seems relatively less well-known among English-Canadians and almost completely unknown among non-Canadians. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[]

Along the Magnificent MileEdit

Place: Along the Magnificient 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 above)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: This one and Loop Art Tour are Star itineraries in Chicago. Yes, I know Bronzeville was nominated for next summer, and I wouldn't go Batman on drugs if the community would decide to run that one next summer and this one sometime later (or decide that this one and/or Loop art tour are too personal to be featured). But consider that 1. it's usually a bit harder finding good FTT candidates than other types of featured articles, 2. while the last Star articles we've featured have been topics, in the past they've virtually all been destination articles, 3. it was mentioned in Downtown Shanghai's nomination above that next summer is quite heavy on European and North American destinations (as usual, and everyone knows the reason), so this would free up one OtBP slot for e.g. Apia while we would still give Chicago a month on the Main Page. For the article itself, there are probably just a couple of prices that need to be updated (to 2018 prices, just before the article goes live).[]

Nomination
  • 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)[]

Rome/VaticanEdit

Place: Vatican City
Blurb: Contained entirely within the city of Rome, the world's smallest sovereign state is also the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, where over 2,000 years of history are archived in basilicas, chapels and museums - and around every corner is another masterpiece of Renaissance art. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct; midsummer somewhat less preferable due to heat and tourist crowds
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: A good DotM candidate for spring 2017.[]

Nomination
  • Weak support for the article as it is now, but it wouldn't take much to upgrade that to strong support:
  • There are no places to sleep in the Vatican itself, though in the "Sleep" section there are plenty of hotel listings for properties located in the adjacent Vaticano neighborhood of Rome which is also covered in this article. However, none of these properties are indicated on the article's static map (though some of them do have geo coordinates). We need to either update the static map or else replace it with a dynamic one, also finding and adding geo coordinates for all listings that don't already have them.
  • "Go next" is empty. There's plenty to do and see in Rome, so this should be an easy field to populate.
  • The "Drink" section is empty for obvious reasons. Captain Obvious though it may be, perhaps this section could do with a sentence or two explaining that there's not much of a nightlife scene in the Holy See.
  • The "Stay safe", "Connect" and "Respect" sections are all pretty short. Would it be worthwhile to elaborate a bit on the dangers of pickpocketing in St. Peter's Square and the Sistine Chapel? Is there absolutely nowhere to connect to the Internet within the walls of the Vatican? What about telephone calling codes - does the Vatican have the same country code as Italy, the same city code as Rome? Any more dos and don'ts we can think of with regard to being respectful?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Needs an hour of work per Andre's comments. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Some remarks:
  • "Understand" should mention some things about Borgo and Prati, since they're also covered by this article.
  • "Get around" also completely ignores these neighborhoods.
  • Under "Do", I think we might mention something about taking confession, as one thing that really struck me (and I'm not a Catholic) is that there were numerous confession booths in St. Peter's, with signs stating the languages the priest taking confession in each booth spoke. I believe there are certain hours each day when priests are available for confession.
  • Under "Buy", what about Catholic figurines and so on?
  • "Eat" is pretty skimpy and, as Andre says, "Drink" is empty. I definitely don't think it should be, because this article is not just about the Holy See. There are undoubtedly bars in Borgo and Prati.
I think AndreCarrotflower covered the rest. This article is not ready for a feature at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: Actually, the more I mull this over, the less comfortable I feel about this article in an overall sense. I realize that the purview of Wikivoyage articles doesn't always correspond with arbitrary political boundaries, and I know that Vatican City is a "country" only in the very most technical of senses, but all the same, I am not at all comfortable with the setup of Vatican City being lumped together in this article with various adjacent neighborhoods of Rome proper. I think the Vatican is a distinct enough entity in itself that it deserves its own article. Obviously the place to bring up these concerns is at Talk:Rome, but when you add this to the preexisting concerns about the article which are pretty wide in scope (Ikan's comment above was an eye-opener for me, and I also foresee trouble ahead with addressing the map issue given that there have been objections raised in the past when static maps, however outdated, have been replaced with dynamic ones), as well as my comments below about Mérida (which would fit very comfortably into the April 2017 slot), I've concluded that we ought to slush this candidate. If anyone has any objections, let's hear them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[]
  • I fully agree that the Vatican merits an article by itself. The Vatican Museums alone could easily take a week or two of a determined traveler's time, and rewardingly so. And to give an analogy: If we can have a good article that focuses only on the Forbidden City, surely, there's enough in the Vatican for a good free-standing guide to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Vikings and the Old NorseEdit

Place: Vikings and the Old Norse
Blurb: Thousand years ago, the Nordic people travelled far east and west, taking part in the foundation of countries such as England, France and Russia. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Labelled as Outline (not reviewed in long time) (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Northern summer. Preferrably June, as many festivities are held
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: While very few Norse people went on Viking expeditions, and few physical artifacts remain, the Vikings had great impact on European history, and remain important to the Nordic self-image.[]

Nomination
  • Oppose. You simply can't nominate an article with Outline status for a feature. Please turn it into a Guide before you nominate again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[]
    • How is article status reviewed? /Yvwv (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[]
      • Wikivoyage:Travel topic status, and often also a discussion on the article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[]
        • Since I wrote most of the article, it would seem unfair of me to grade the article higher. /Yvwv (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[]
          • I'd call it usable (but I dislike the topic status criteria: remove empty sections and you get from outline to usable). It looks quite complete, but there could be sections on Vikings in the British isles, on the Russian rivers, etc., on normal life at home, on Norse shipbuilding etc. --LPfi (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[]
  • This article is clearly better than Outline, but there's enough missing info that it's also clearly not yet ready for the Main Page. LPfi's assessment of Usable sounds about right. However, given that we never have seem to have enough FTT candidates, by all means I would encourage Yvwv (and others) to further develop the article and re-nominate it: it would certainly make for an interesting travel topic. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[]

ZurichEdit

Place: Zurich
Blurb: A decidedly hipper alternative to the button-down world of Geneva, Switzerland's largest city blends the medieval with the modern in a gorgeous setting at the head of the Limmat River. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep 2016; otherwise May-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: It occurs to me that we need a replacement for Riga, which is still on the schedule to be featured as DotM in September despite a near-consensus that it should be slushed. What do you all think about this article?[]

Nomination
  • Very close, IMO probably the closest-to-perfect geographically and seasonally appropriate article that can be found with such a time crunch. Some of the listings need geo coordinates, and "Go next" could do with a nice pruning, but otherwise Zurich looks just about ready to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Almost — Coordinates. The latter half of the article is as of now entirely void of photos. There are some old-style links and as usual it'd be good to check if everything listed in the article is still in business. Probably Go next could be cut down a little bit. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Still needs work, but it's worth it, as the article improved markedly over the last two years or so. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I have just taken a closer look. A LOT needs to be done to brush up the key "See" and "Do" sections. It is no less of a challenge than Riga to me, I am obviously all for us striving to improve both, but let us bear that in mind. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet there is still a lot of "copied" content and we arguably have "too many" German language features as is. Also, the "understand" section needs serious beefing up. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[]
As per my comments at Talk:Zurich#Reorganise the see section, I would not be opposed to slushing this nominee. Last year, when we were sniping back and forth about whether Riga should be districtified before being put on the Main Page I hastily nominated Zurich as a possible replacement candidate that IMO needed less work than Riga did to bring it up to snuff. However, the summer 2016 slot at issue ended up being filled by Paris/1st arrondissement instead, while Riga was improved and featured in 2017, and meanwhile Zurich seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle as none of the necessary fixes have yet been executed. If someone wants to give this article a relatively major overhaul over the next six weeks, have at it, but if not, the Northern Hemisphere summer is not a difficult time for which to find suitable DotM candidates, and there are plenty of worthier ones out there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[]
I must say I am not entirely opposed to slushing, given that the current "understand" section is what I came up with in a few minutes and there are issues with the see section as well. We might get it up to snuff in time for featuring, but surely there are other places in the northern hemisphere summer harking for their spot that would be less work? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[]
We've got to make a decision one way or the other soon, because we need banners by the end of the month for whatever our September DotM ends up being. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[]
Should we raise the issue in the pub, then? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[]
I agree. I have been trying to update this article, but there is indeed a lot wrong with it. I think it would make more sense to slush it, as this has been sitting here for a while without much improvement and it would be very ambitious to bring it up to standard in the time remaining. Drat70 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[]
Just slush Zurich, it's in a worse condition than Riga was. May I suggest Milan for September instead? Me and Prince districtified the city and beautified and updated the article pretty far in 2015 planning to make it a DotM, but it wasn't nominated as Iseo next door was featured as OtBP the same year. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[]
Ypsi, that's precisely the candidate I had my eye on as well. I'll officially nominate Milan some time in the next day or two if you don't get to it before I do, and we can throw Zurich on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[]
Well this morning my laptop didn't wake up any longer after a system update, and editing with this @$&#& clumsy tablet takes ages, so I won't likely be doing much here for the next few days. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[]

2016Edit

American Industry TourEdit

Place: American Industry Tour
Blurb: The American Industry Tour is a showcase of industrial heritage, from the colonial workshops of Boston, through New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, to Chicago. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Outline (not reviewed) Usable (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Summer, preferably
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Since I wrote most of the article, other users' opinions are needed.[]

Nomination
  • This article is very well-written - it's definitely Usable (and I've upgraded it as such), with the only barriers to Guide status being the lack of one-liner descriptions on the entries in the "See also" section, and a few bare listings in the itinerary itself. However, I cannot support this article until the problem with the article name (described on the talk page) is resolved.
The problem as I see it is twofold:
  • First of all, "Manufacturing Belt" is not a recognized term in the United States. That is to say, if a tourist with no knowledge of the U.S. were to arrive and ask the natives about the "Manufacturing Belt", they would probably be able to suss out what the tourist was referring to, but no one in the U.S. uses that term themselves. The region at issue is understood to be called the Rust Belt.
  • Secondly, the article's title should reflect the fact that it's an itinerary. Even if we were to rename the article to "Rust Belt", the title would still sound more like an extrahierarchical region. In fact, at Wikivoyage:Requested articles I myself proposed the creation of such an extraregion article (Rust Belt currently exists as a redirect to Manufacturing Belt). It's arguable that the term "Rust Belt" may have a slightly negative connotation in the U.S., so on the talk page earlier I suggested the title Industrial American Tour (currently another redirect to Manufacturing Belt).
I will be happy to support this article when it's renamed with a title that reflects common usage and clarifies the article's status as an itinerary rather than a destination. Additionally, down the line, what I'd ideally like to see happen is the creation of a Rust Belt extraregion article, with Manufacturing Belt redirected there.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Articles need to have Guide status to be featured on the Main Page. Nevertheless it looks like the article is in a good shape and it could probably be promoted to Guide with comparatively little work :). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Name changed. /Yvwv (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[]
But that only solves one half of the problem. When I click on an article called Rust Belt, I expect it to be a destination article - just the same as I'd be surprised if I clicked on Wales or Sumatra or Upper Peninsula only to discover that they were itineraries. There's got to be something in the title to reflect what kind of article it is. Rust Belt Tour or Industrial America Tour, or something like that, is a much more acceptable title. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Rust Belt Tour it is, then. /Yvwv (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Thank you. Since that was the only issue standing in the way of my support, I suppose I'll cast my vote then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. I like the idea of this guide, but I think it has a ways to go before it can properly be considered at "Guide" status. A lot of the listings have no descriptions, and even many that do give you no real sense of why you should visit this place. I see the framework for a good itinerary here, but I think it needs to be fleshed out much more. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I'm afraid I'm having trouble with the inclusion of areas such as Boston, NYC, and Jersey in the "Rust Belt". While they did have strong manufacturing bases that are now weakened or gone, the term "Rust Belt" further implies the lack of replacement of those industries with new ones -- that is, all the old buildings are rusting and disused. From that perspective, it seems bizarre to include healthy post-industrial cities while excluding Erie, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Binghamton. Powers (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • The two comments above this one are convincing. I'm quite sure that we have plenty of hands on deck (self included) who can help bring the article up to speed by next summer, though, and I'd love to see this article featured, so I will be monitoring the progress on this nominee with interest. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Yet another name change; the article is now named American Industry Tour. Concerning industrial towns in western New York State, they get mentioned in the Erie Canal articles. We could however consider an alternative route westward from Albany, through Ontario, connecting to Detroit. /Yvwv (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[]
I see where you're coming from with your concerns about Erie Canal, Yvwv, especially since the canal was what spurred the first phase of industrialization in Upstate New York. But if you look at that article, Powers only occasionally hits on the topic of industrial history (mainly in the "Understand" section) while focusing mostly on the canal's present-day role as an amenity for pleasure boaters - the itinerary itself is given over mostly to general tourist information for the towns the canal passes through, as well as practical information for boaters (lift bridges, locks, public docks, etc). While there are undoubtedly many ways the two articles could interface with each other, I don't think it would be in any way redundant for them to coexist in the same geographical space, with different focuses and therefore different information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Also: IMO it would be a bad idea to route the itinerary between Buffalo and Detroit via Ontario. With the exception of a few outliers such as Windsor and maybe the Welland Canal corridor, the economy of that part of Canada historically had much more to do with agriculture than heavy industry. I'm actually in favor of retaining the portion of the itinerary in Western Massachusetts - while not part of the Rust Belt proper, manufacturing did play an important role in that region's economy, with the same pattern of decline post-WWII - and from there I'd have the route cross Upstate New York via I-90 (i.e. the Erie Canal corridor), bypassing New Jersey and the New York City vicinity entirely, and continuing through Ohio and Michigan as it does currently. Pennsylvania obviously needs to be worked in somewhere too, but how to do so in a practical way is a tougher question than I can answer by cell phone on my break at work.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I am struggling to understand that this is a one week trip - three weeks sounds more likely. Day 5 has 13 stopping points listed! There is no text linking the places, to give an idea of times between places ("15 minutes west on I123 you will come to..."). It is also missing any suggestions of places to sleep (not hotel listings, but suggest which cities - last one of current day, first of one of next day etc) - or is it good to do the trip in a camper van. AlasdairW (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • AlasdairW has a good point. This reads like a travel topic. Even though it says "Day 1, 2, 3, etc", looking at it, each "day" is actually just a different state. I also agree that it's fine to have the same sites listed in multiple itineraries/travel topics, as long as the topics themselves are different. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[]
Agreed with ChubbyWimbus that this would work better as a travel topic, especially since there's no obvious route to follow (see my comments above timestamped 19:42, 22 December). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[]
  • So, what to do with this one? I was almost ready to support it, but voyagers more knowledgable about the northeastern US have pointed out that the article still has a lot of issues. Plus, it's likely it won't get on the Main Page before the summer of 2017 anyway. Finally, it's still at Usable status which in itself means that the article is not eligible for nomination in the first place. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[]
    Slush it. It's not a Guide and we aren't desperate for features yet. Powers (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[]
    I say leave it up for now, with the understanding that the changes that need to be made before a consensus in its favor is likely are major: adding the Erie Canal corridor to its purview and removing non-Rust Belt Eastern Seaboard areas such as Boston, NYC, and New Jersey; expanding the descriptions in the listings and linking them to each other thematically; perhaps converting the whole shebang from an itinerary to a travel topic. It's a tall order, but we have north of a year in which to accomplish it all (and I don't see it as a problem in and of itself to have it waiting on this page for that long). We can revisit the question of whether to slush this feature if no significant progress has been made in, let's say, three months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[]
    Hmm... on the other hand, there have been a lot of U.S. cities that are ripe for being featured but we've put off nominating because of how long they'd have to wait: in the past year there has been talk about Baltimore, Albany, Seattle, Nashville, and perhaps more that I'm not recalling, and of course Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side has already been nominated. Slushing American Industry Tour would make room on the summer 2017 schedule for another U.S. destination. I still say let's hold off on slushing it, but let's keep that in mind when it comes time to make a decision on it in a few months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[]
    As it's not a Guide article, it shouldn't even be here in the first place. If it was close to being a Guide, just needing a few tweaks, that'd be one thing, but it was Usable when it was nominated, it's still Usable now, and there's no quick fix to get it to Guide. What outcome is better served by leaving it here than by putting it on the slush pile? Powers (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[]
    Powers - I don't think all the issues outlined in this discussion necessarily have to be fixed before it's at Guide status. To be honest, I don't hold out much more hope than you do for this nominee, but I think the collegial thing to do would be to at least give Yvwv the chance to prove us wrong. If you're correct about the amount that can be realistically accomplished within the three-month window that I suggested, then the result will be precisely the same as what you're arguing for: the nominee will be slushed. On the other hand, is Yvwv is inspired to make the required fixes, then it will be a boon not only to DotM but to the site as a whole. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[]
  • I admit that the article itself was experimental, and the nomination was a long shot. Appreciate the comments, though. /Yvwv (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Hong Kong/KowloonEdit

Place: Hong Kong/Kowloon
Blurb: One of the most densely populated cities on Earth, Hong Kong's mainland portion offers a culture less influenced by the British than the neighboring Island, plus accommodation, dining, and nightlife at a comparative bargain. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Oct-Mar
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Believe it or not, it's time to start thinking of destinations for the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2016-17. Here's one that's almost ready for prime time - see my comments below.[]

Nomination
  • Almost. Most but not all of the listings have coordinates; the remainder need to be filled in. Also, "Connect" and "Go next" need to be expanded. Beyond those easy fixes, though, there's quite a weath of information here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Hmm I (and some others) actually had my eyes on next-door Macau for some month next winter... For this article, I agree with you — it's a quite good article but many listings, especially in Sleep, lack coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]
ϒpsilon - after briefly looking over Macau, I will happily slush this article if you'd like to nominate that one. It looks like less work needs to be done with Macau, and obviously, from a geographic diversity perspective, we can't feature both of these destinations in the same year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]
I'll nominate it. Actually it was Pashley's idea first. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]

IndianapolisEdit

Place: Indianapolis
Blurb: At the "Crossroads of America", the sturdy, corn-fed capital of the U.S. state of Indiana is a destination for motorsports fanatics every May when it plays host to the "Indy 500". (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: May 2016 for Indianapolis 500, otherwise Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Justin has done some pretty solid work on this article. There are a few minor issues, but nothing that couldn't be fixed before the end of next May, when the Indianapolis 500 descends on the Motor Speedway once again.[]

Nomination
  • Weak support as nominator. Here's what needs to be done for my unqualified support:
  • There's a dynamic map, but no listings outside the "See" section have coordinates.
  • Some listings in "Do" need to be moved or reformatted: for example, "Get creeped out at the Indiana Medical History Museum" should be simply "Indiana Medical History Museum", and belongs in "See". (In other words, there's a time and a place to use lively tone.)
  • "Go next" should list cities or other destinations, not individual attractions.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support and comment I would be happy to do any tiding up that anyone thinks is necessary and an eight-month time frame is definitely doable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Almost support — mostly due to the lack of coordinates. Also, I'm a little curious about the plan to divide the Indianapolis article into districts. I don't think it has to be done but I don't oppose the idea either (the article is long but not unwieldy). Nevertheless if Justin or others would like to do this, the distrification should also be completed by the time the article goes live. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Almost — I like the article, but there is some scope for improvement, as featured articles are more likely to be read by people who haven't been to the US.
The term "Indy" is widely used but not explained - does everybody in the US understand Indy to mean Indianapolis, not Indiana? A couple more photos of See listings would be good. There are some Do listings (Other fun) that should be in Eat. "Wander the galleries on First Fridays" - it is not clear whether these galleries are open on any other day of the month.
Get in could be improved: 3 of the airports have broken links, and we should probably be clearer which have regular commercial flights; Indianapolis International Airport should be expanded to list the main cities served and also to give ground transport details - 8 bus, price of a taxi to town etc. By bus could be expanded e.g. Greyhound have 7 buses per day from Chicago taking around 4 hours.
All the listings need to be checked as I have found a few broken links: Fountain Diner, MCL Cafeteria, The Bosphorus Istanbul Cafe, Red Eye Cafe, Serendipity Haus. AlasdairW (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Almost, mainly for the ongoing lack of coordinates in most listings, as mentioned above. Also, there are many external links that are still in the old number format (e.g., [26]) that need to get re-formatted. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[]
Other than See, the article's listings completely lack coordinates and the article is scheduled to be up on the Main Page in two months. Justin? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]
This article currently has only 2 support votes, so our other alternative would be to postpone featuring it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]
The fixes that Indianapolis needs - coordinates, several listings migrated from "Do" to "See", "Go next" reformatted, etc. - consist of work that is somewhat tedious, but ultimately simple and doable by anyone with access to Google. Two months should be more than enough time to take care of them. I'm in the middle of the first major round of updates to the Buffalo district articles since its DotM feature, but I'll see if I can find time to pitch in. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]
I notified Justin as he in a comment above said he is happy to help out (and he's also a local and to my understanding a major contributor to the article). However I can help out if no one else has time. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]
  • I took a closer look at this article, and I have to admit I was wrong about the amount of work that needs to be done. The main problem with this article as I see it is there's just too many listings and too much information to sift through. What Indianapolis really needs is to be districtified, which of course is a task that would take far more than two months. Given the fact that there are plenty of other U.S. destinations ready and waiting to be featured, I'd be fine with throwing this nominee on the slush pile for now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Nobody? Okay, I'm going to give this another day or two, then slush the article and replace it with another nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[]
If we decide to swap Indianapolis for some other US city, then Baltimore with many guide and even one Star district are or Seattle which Othello95 has worked extensively on are good alternatives. If the problem would only be the missing coordinates I and my friend Google maps could possibly fix it even if noone else would have time. Districtifying the city, including map drawing and whatnot would however be a much more challenging (and time consuming) project even if there'd be many voyagers working on it. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[]
I agree with slushing this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Ypsilon: I'd be hesitant to feature Baltimore given that we'll be running Washington, D.C./Anacostia as OtBP just a few months later. From what I remember of Seattle, it needs some pretty extensive copyedits for grammar but is otherwise fine. I'll look it over again; worst-case scenario, we have a plethora of other potential U.S. DotMs to choose from (Nashville is another one). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Montreal/DowntownEdit

Place: Montreal/Downtown
Blurb: The heart of the second largest french speaking city in the world, Downtown Montreal has a mix of historic buildings and skyscrapers, with Mount Royal Park for some fresh air. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Usable, but is close to guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: August 2017 (Wikimania 2017 is here 11-13 August)
Nominated by: AlasdairW (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Wikimania 2017 is being held in Le Centre Sheraton Hotel which is listed in sleep.[]

Nomination
  • I realise that the article should first be brought up to guide standard before nominating, but in this case I would like to get some initial feedback first. We had a late request to feature Esino Lario during Wikimania 2016 (see Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Esino_Lario_on_home_page.3F), and it would be good to feature somewhere relevant to next years event. An alternative suggestion would be the neighbouring district of Old Montreal which has guide status. AlasdairW (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[]
We've been featuring an awful lot of Huge City districts lately (Paris/1st arrondissement, Washington, D.C./Anacostia, Edinburgh/New Town, London/Hampstead). If we have a whole year of hangtime before Wikimania 2017, why not try to get Montreal itself up to Guide status? If you look at Wikivoyage:City guide status, it's not exactly a huge undertaking to create a Usable district article — and also, if you'll pardon the opportunism, a Montreal DotM push would also entail some attention to the issue of the districts breakdown, for which I proposed a solution that garnered little meaningful feedback. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[]
Agree with a lot of huge city districts having been featured recently, with regard to this it would be preferable to feature the whole of Montreal if we decide to do so in August 2017. Moreover, given that Gaspé is in Quebec too, it would be good if there'd be at least a month or two between these article's stints on the Main Page.
As of now there are some very good district articles and many outlines only lack a hotel to be eligible for usable status. Also, per André's proposed district scheme (which I supported on Montreal's talk page a few months back, though it would be great to hear comments from people who've actually been to the city) many shorter outlines will be fusioned into bigger usable entities so I guess the districts aren't that much of a problem. The main Montreal article does still need some work, though, there are listings that need to be moved to the (new) districts, also, there are a lot of bulleted points in the article that could perhaps be reformatted into prose. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[]
Yikes. I completely forgot about Gaspé Peninsula. I hate to say it, but I think we're going to have to pick one or the other. The "Time to feature" for any Québécois destination would be very short - Jun-Sep, probably, and even the first and last months of that range are fairly iffy. I personally would have a hard time justifying two destinations from the same country, never mind the same province, within that short space of time. Of the two: maybe I'm biased, but I prefer the Gaspé to be the one that's featured next year, and Montreal to wait till 2018. First of all, the Gaspé was nominated first; second of all, we featured City of London for Wikimania 2014 and, frankly, Wikimania isn't an important enough event for people outside the wiki community to run a "timely feature" DotM for it so frequently. Remember the intended audience of our site is the general travelling public, not just WMF insiders. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[]
While you are right about the comment concerning our target audience, there is a good reason to feature Wikimania sites. First of all the thing that happened last time with Esino Lario and second we need more editors. Wikimania participants are more likely to become (frequent) editors than any random member of our audience who reads our featured article. And once we attract a critical number of editors and raise our search engine ranking enough, we can feature pretty much anything. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[]
I would be happy if Montreal was featured instead, but I do think that the August 2017 date is important. Our target audience will not be aware that Wikimania is happening (it needn't be mentioned in the blurb or in the article), but it may help to raise awareness of Wikivoyage amongst those attending (who are potential editors from around the world). My experience at Wikimedia Meetups is that many WP and Commons contributors are unaware of our site. We did receive a request to feature Esino Lario, but this was made only a few days before Wikimania 2016 started, and so was far too late. AlasdairW (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[]
Noble though the goal of expanding our editing community or raising search engine visibility may be, I think we do the site a disservice when we prioritize anything higher than benefit to the traveller in our decision-making process - but, even if hypothetically we were to factor that consideration in, I think you're wildly overestimating the degree to which a Montreal DotM feature that coincides with Wikimania would benefit us. First of all, think about the kind of people who attend Wikimania. They are the most avid wiki aficionados on the planet, up to date with almost everything that's going on in the world of the WMF, way more so than a rank-and-file attendee at your average meetup. I find it extremely hard to believe that such people would be unaware of Wikivoyage. If they had any interest in becoming regular editors of our site, they would already be here (and a lot of them are; ever since we were accepted into the WMF fold we've had a slow but steady influx of editors from other projects). As a case in point, let's look at Wikimania 2014, which coincided with City of London as July's DotM. Was there a noticeable increase in new editors in the aftermath of that? No, not at all - and 2014 had the highest attendance in the history of Wikimania, to boot.
And what, by the way, was that lofty attendance figure? A little bit more than 1,700 people. Chump change in the grand scheme of things. Even if we're to accept the shaky premise that these people are balls-to-the-wall wiki fanatics yet have somehow never heard of Wikivoyage, the sheer extent to which Wikimania's attendance figures are dwarfed by those of other "timely events" we've coincided DotMs with - Munich Oktoberfest; Eurovision 2015 in Vienna - more than eliminates any advantage in catering to a niche audience that may (or, again, may not) be more interested than average folks in getting involved in our site.
Another thing I remember about City of London is that in order to have it on the Main Page simultaneously to Wikimania, we had to strongarm London/Hampstead off the schedule, a perfectly worthy OtBP candidate just like Gaspé Peninsula is, that had already been waiting almost a year at that point to be featured. We ended up having to throw Hampstead on the Slush Pile, and it was only featured this year, two full years after we'd originally intended to feature it and almost three years after it had first been nominated. This leads into my next point: I'd like to take up the issue of policy as it relates to how, in the present day, we decide which articles to run as DotMs and when. Our policy as it is today, which emphasizes that the schedule is "not cast in stone... and... can be changed if, for example, an excellent guide for a timely event is found", was designed to handle a dearth, not an abundance, of DotM candidates. When I first started contributing to Wikivoyage, the schedule grid was never planned out more than three months in advance - four at most, but that was the exception rather than the rule - and a majority of the slots at any given time were filled with ?s. In fact, I remember more than one instance when a DotM or an OtBP was almost due to expire from the Main Page and we still had no idea what we were going to replace it with. We had to find a candidate and solicit votes all in the space of a day or two, and God help us if anyone voted Oppose. Nowadays it’s a whole different world. I can't remember the last time there was a ? on the schedule grid. The schedule is planned out six months in advance per policy, but we always have enough nominees at any given time that there are two or three more months' worth of candidates just waiting in the wings. In fact, I have articles in mind up through 2019 that I haven't yet nominated on this page because it would be patently ridiculous to do so that far in advance. A situation like we have today at DotM calls for us to be a lot less willy-nilly when it comes to rearranging the schedule, lest we run up against the problem of articles languishing on the nominations page for too long. I realize this isn't the place to propose it, but all the same I would like to see our policy changed to reflect what we have been doing informally all along to manage the backload of candidates: we should (as much as Time to Feature allows) prioritize those candidates that have been waiting the longest, and when "timely event" features are nominated with little advance notice in ways that force preexisting nominees to be delayed, we should take a very long and critical look at whether the scale and importance of the event justifies the disruption. And I apologize for my bluntness, but on that scale Wikimania doesn't even rate. I admit that in the discussion over whether to feature Hampstead or City of London in 2014, I came down on the side of the latter, but that's only because we had never featured a Wikimania host city as DotM before. I think that to suggest we feature the Wikimania host city literally every subsequent year - first with Esino Lario and now with Montreal - is excessive to the point of absurdity. There is simply too much competition between too many candidates for too few slots on the schedule - especially ones in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the most competitive time of year - for us to repeatedly bend over backwards to accommodate an event that is so minor in scale and of such paltry significance to the average reader.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[]
First of all, I oppose featuring an article that's not at least a Guide, per policy, so I think this nomination is premature. Second, Gaspe is a very interesting destination and probably a much more important one than Hampstead, which is a single neighborhood in London, so I'm very sympathetic to the argument that it shouldn't be bumped after Andrew has worked on it and articles linked from it for years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[]
One way to "solve" the abundance of feature candidates is to feature more articles. Either by reducing the amount of time between features (e.g. on DotM every two weeks) or by introducing a new category, whatever that category may be. On the other hand as Wikimania seems to be a single weekend, maybe we can "feature" something for that weekend alone? Either as part of the normal rotation or in an optional "fourth spot" for "topical" destinations that are only relevant for a rather short window of time? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[]
  • As there is objection to the idea of scheduling this during Wikimania, I will withdraw the nomination. I am glad that we had this discussion before wasting time bringing the article up to guide. AlasdairW (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[]
In what way is improving an article to Guide status ever a waste of time? You think that only a feature in a month of your choosing makes such work worth a damn? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[]
Since Downtown Montreal isn't at Guide status yet and won't be featured on the Main Page until 2018 at the earliest, I agree that the slush pile is the way to go with this nomination. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[]

SighișoaraEdit

Place: Sighișoara
Blurb: A very beautiful medieval city which is listed UNESCO as a World Heritage Site (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide Usable (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: March-Oct
Nominated by: Romanichthys Valsanicola (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Great article and it's just luvvly-jubbly in the springtime.[]

Nomination
  • Oppose. Romanichthys, please take another look at the procedure for nominating DotMs. For one thing, this article is only at Usable level and thus does not qualify for DotM; for another, you need to come up with something original for the "comment" argument rather than copying the example one about luvvy-jubbly speingtimes we have at the top of this page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Speedy slush. As Andre says, we never feature Usable articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[]

2015Edit

PercéEdit

Place: Percé
Blurb: This touristy town at the tip of the Gaspé Peninsula features a truly awesome arch-shaped offshore rock formation, among other attractions. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: June-September
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Yet another great job by User:AndreCarrotflower![]

Nomination
  • Support by nominator. I'd be happy with a few more photos, if possible, but otherwise, with the caveat that I don't know the town myself, I think all of you will agree that this is a beautiful article that's well worth our featuring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
It's of course a fantastic article and as such I've no problems supporting it. But... I thought Andre planned to make the whole of Gaspé Peninsula OtBP at some point (summer 2016?). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
ϒpsilon is correct - and as all our OtBP slots for summer 2015 are filled, my Plan A was to ramp up work on Gaspé Peninsula's linked cities and subregions in order to get it to Guide status, and thus featureable for summer 2016. However, there are of course no guarantees about that (when I began districtfying Buffalo in November 2012 I never imagined I would still be working on it in 2015!), so I will give this nominee my tentative support in case things don't pan out with Gaspé Peninsula. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Grand-BassamEdit

Place: Grand-Bassam
Blurb: The old colonial capital of Côte d'Ivoire is today a quiet beach town steeped in well-preserved turn-of-the-century charm. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Aiming for late autumn 2015, about when our current stock of OtBP candidates will be depleted. Otherwise Jul-Aug or Nov-Mar per [1]
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Something of a rare find: a feature-worthy (or nearly so; see below) African destination for the Main Page.[]

Nomination
  • Almost. Grand-Bassam is not quite ready for prime time yet, but not much work is needed to get it there: expand the blurbs in "See" and "Do" a little bit, add another restaurant or two to "Eat" and another bar or two to "Drink", and pick a few prominent nearby cities to add to "Go next". There's already a nice static map. This article has a ton of potential and I'd really love to see it whipped into shape. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Do you know the town? We need people who know the town to check on the accuracy of the content. I recall when we considered featuring Dakar and finally realized that not a single person passing judgment on the article had ever been there, whereupon the article was slushed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Almost — This has been one of the African articles on my list of potential OtBP candidates, but I've been hesitant of nominating Grand-Bassam as the Ebola epidemic is just a few hundred kilometers away. The article itself looks OK to me, though — given the town's size, I don't think there's much in the town that isn't already in the article. It would be very good to have someone who knows Grand Bassam to check it (otherwise it would suffice to use Google to check that the businesses are still operating but I've noticed that's not as easy in Africa as elsewhere). User:JamesA has made the map and according to the article history written some of the content so he might be the person to ask. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Regarding worries about the article's content: I think that's an unrealistically high standard to hold our feature articles to, and to be perfectly honest I wonder why we are so concerned with confirming the accuracy of African articles yet are willing to have faith that all the listed destinations in, let's say, Dumaguete or Ushuaia still exist with the same opening hours, telephone number, etc. My suggestion was that we add additional listings to "Eat" and "Drink" that we find on Google or other such sources. No, that's not foolproof, but it's no less foolproof to blindly assume that information in any given article which may have been written months or years ago remains accurate. That's a risk that's inherent in using any travel guide. If we were to limit all our features to places that one of our current regulars is able to personally visit to check on the accuracy of the content - or even to places that any of us current regulars have ever been before - we would no doubt have to slush most of our current nominees. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure about Ushuaia, but we currently have a regular in Dumaguete. I think part of the issue was that even in a city as big and important as Dakar, a lot of information wasn't reliably confirmable online. What's the situation with Grand Bassam? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
My point is that reliable online confirmability of an article's contents should not be a prerequisite for it to be featured on the Main Page. If it were, then we'd have to slush the vast majority of our current nominees. If we slushed Dakar on that basis, we were wrong to do so. On a regular basis, in Africa equally as the rest of the world, businesses close and the situation on the ground changes, and therefore no travel guide is in a position to guarantee the accuracy of its contents. Particularly not this one, which has probably the most ambitious goals of any travel guide yet a scant population of a few dozen regular contributors.
That being the case, the double standard we're applying now to Grand-Bassam, and that we previously applied to Dakar, is troublesome as it effectively negates our efforts for geographical diversity among Main Page featured articles. It seems like on the one hand, we want more Main Page coverage for regions like Africa, yet on the other hand we seem to be extra suspicious of nominees from those regions and subject them to scrutiny above and beyond what we would for, say, a European or North American destination. I say if there's a double standard, it should be in favor of articles from underrepresented regions.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
I mostly agree with Andre. If articles would have to be absolutely perfect we would probably not have any candidates here (hey, this isn't the starnom after all). I would like to see at least one DotM and one OtBP from each of the six inhabited continents every year.
Also, there's really nothing wrong with finding and verifying information by using Google if first hand information (which we of course prefer) is not available. When translating articles from other language versions I usually google the establishment, to find the coordinates if for no other reason. But the problem is when you for half of the places actually don't find any information at all online (or they're just mentioned in some travel forum thread from 2007). I don't know if this is the case with Grand Bassam. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
AndreCarrotflower, if you really think Dakar was incorrectly slushed, renominate the article for the city, but have a look at the discussion in Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile#Dakar first. I think valid questions were brought up; note my analogy with Berne, which I had previously nominated for a feature, as the article looked good to me because I didn't know enough to judge it properly, having never been there (discussion at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile#Berne). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Inasmuch as similar issues are at play in the Dakar article as with Grand-Bassam, Dakar strikes me as a much more extreme example. As near as I can figure out from reading the slushed nomination discussion, ChubbyWimbus added the vast majority of the listings in Dakar's "See" and "Do" section using information gleaned from secondary sources, without ever having set foot in the city. I would say that I might have some reservations about supporting a nominee under those circumstances (though I wouldn't rule it out, either) unless we were able to ascertain the accuracy of any information gleaned from secondary sources with a pretty sturdy degree of certainty.
On the other hand, the Grand-Bassam article already has most of the information necessary to be feature-worthy; the only thing we need to do is pad it a little. If we add one or two restaurants and bars to an "Eat" and "Drink" section that already has several entries, and if we expand the blurbs for some of the listings in "See" and "Do" (with no more than a few additional facts for each one, or maybe just the same content that's already there reworded in a more in-depth way), we're already most of the way there. And as opposed to Dakar, the majority of the content in the souped-up version of Grand-Bassam would still be the presumed-accurate preexisting material.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Good. Please note that I haven't stated any words of opposition to featuring this article; I just asked what I considered an important question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[]

(indent reset) Support, because the article ain't going to get better than this. I've added some listings and info about the sights but it really isn't easy finding information about the town online as home pages are as common among businesses as it was in western countries 20 years ago. That additional nightclub in drink, for example, is one of three drinking establishments I found using the Mapnik layer of our dynamic map and tried to see if they still existed using Google. The others weren't really mentioned anywhere (only on sites with no indication of which year they were added!). Épilogue was mentioned in a travel blog post from April 2014... --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[]

  • I'll support this, too, though I do have one question: There is a photo of Maison des Artistes, but there is no listing for it. Should there be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[]
Now there is! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - I did draw up the map and write up a lot of the content. Although I must admit, I've never visited the place and am no expert. I just saw what was a very bare article and wanted to improve it to something respectable. All the content I added was based off available mapping data and info online. James Atalk 10:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - Thank you Ypsilon, once again, for helping out. Before I'm ready to say I'm satisfied with the article as a potential feature, I'm going to see if I can't find more information about the listings in the "See" section. It seems like the blurbs should be longer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not Yet I think AndreCarrotflower has a point. The listings are lacking meaty content. Most of them don't have any information beyond a description and many of the descriptions do not actually say anything which I'm sure is the result of it coming from secondary sources rather than from a traveler.
On the above discussion that we are holding Africa to a higher standard, I don't think that's true at all. We have lots of users with personal experiences in Europe, North America, and East Asia who have or can access multiple resources about locations to verify information about them, but with most African destinations, we don't. We take that verification for granted so when the question comes up about African destinations, get no answer, and feel hesitant about featuring (or oppose featuring), it may seem like we are being too strict, but I actually think it is being fair to the destination and preventing what would otherwise be a LOWER standard for African destinations. Take a look at our embarrassing former feature Dar es Salaam; an African capital that was featured with a contentless bulleted list as its "See" section and I believe most of those were added by myself to boot. But we've featured it and our rule is to not feature anything again, so if someone comes along with real experience and knowledge and makes it a proper article, we cannot showcase it. It was held to a super LOW standard as it probably shouldn't even be considered a Guide article. I haven't seen evidence of a higher standard being used to prevent African destinations from feature, but this is clear evidence that lower standards have been used. Had Dar been a European or American city, there's no way it would have been featured looking like that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[]
I added pretty much everything I could find online about the POIs to the article, so as I said half a year ago, it's not going to get any better than it is now unless someone actually visits Grand Bassam. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Andre, before you start making Main Page banners for Grand Bassam, be aware that a user is unhappy about featuring this article. What should we do? ϒpsilon (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Good work, Ypsilon. I agree that the article has probably been fleshed out to its full extent based on the info available. When I expanded the article originally, I did use an old Africa Lonely Planet book from the library for guidance, in addition to online resources. If I recall the amount of content in the book, I'd say our article is even more comprehensive than LP's now, despite the author of that guide having visited Bassam themselves! James Atalk 10:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
ϒpsilon - I've been pulling 50-hour weeks at work and swamped with stuff to deal with in my offwiki life, so I've not been able to devote the same level of attention to Wikivoyage as usual. I took a quick look at Grand-Bassam just now, and frankly I've changed my mind - regardless of the contention that our coverage is better than Lonely Planet's and is unlikely to get better, I just can't agree that this article is good enough for the Main Page. I wouldn't be offended if it were slushed - in Swakopmund we have a worthy African OtBP candidate suitable for featuring in November, and in any event it's going to be at least a few days before I have time to make banners again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
I understand, that happens to everyone every now and then :). Just wanted to warn you not to spend time looking for photos and making some fine banners that possibly would be thrown in the shredder together with the article.
As for November's OtBP, if Grand Bassam is slushed we could feature Swakopmund then, I guess. But we could also have two African articles this winter as originally planned. I'd like to seize the opportunity to advertise some other African articles I've translated from other language versions: Nkhata Bay, Praia, Mount Sinai. If people like either one of these, I can nominate it. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
(Side point: Mount Sinai is in Asia, not Africa.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Oops, that's actually true. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]

(unindent) Without having had a chance to look over any of the articles, my early vote goes with Praia given its location in West Africa, like Grand-Bassam. If we do nominate it, though, the $64,000 question will be DotM or OtBP - it's a national capital, but of an exceedingly small country. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]

It also has a population of only 130,000. I'd say OtBP, but we should consider tourism and overall travel figures before deciding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]

Diving in South Africa/HMS Birkenhead wreckEdit

Place: Diving in South Africa/HMS Birkenhead wreck
Blurb: Explore one of the earliest iron steamships which now rests at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime? After all the sea doesn't ever freeze over at those latitudes...
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Another one of our many fine diving guides by Peter to a site in the waters outside the Cape. It's rated Guide, so all you need to know should be in the article.[]

Nomination
  • Not sure yet, but I expect to support. I'm not really sure how to evaluate this type of article, but I have a few remarks, nevertheless: (1) On my laptop and browser, there's one too many photographs, with the last one, which is uncaptioned, anyway, going past the status template. (2) Under "Understand/Conditions", I actually don't understand this sentence: "More information is needed on what weather conditions are best for diving this site." The rest of the subsection seems to assume that readers understand what "good" and "bad" conditions are, so should this sentence be deleted?
Otherwise, if everyone is happy with the article's format, I have no objection whatsoever to featuring it. Do most comparable dive guides use the same format, as used, for example, in "Understand/Name/Specifications"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[]
  • The article looks good at first blush, but the more closely you examine it the more problems crop up. The main problem as I see it dovetails with what Ikan mentioned above in his second item of concern: I noticed that there was excess white space between some of the subsections, so I went in to edit mode to investigate and I saw lots and lots of "notes to self" that Southwood wrote as hidden text, e.g. at the end of "Get in":
 <!--Parking area description if applicable: Position of parking, name of road. Description of route from parking to entry point/s)-->

 <!--general comments on access-->
I suppose there's already plenty of information included in the article, but then again I don't know from diving, and these hidden notes make me second-guess whether the article is truly complete. So I guess my vote is that I'm not sure either.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[]
It seems easy enough to have Peter comment on that. I have every confidence however that, while he may still have plenty of ideas to improve this article, he made it a "guide" because the information present is plenty to go there with this article as an only guide. If he's happy to feature it (with perhaps some small tweaks where needed), I'm happy to support. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[]
Otherwise we'd have to pick one of the other ~70 South African diving guide or star articles which may be in better shape. I picked this one because it stood out as the only featurable one not being part of the Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay area (with the hidden agenda of being able to nominating one of the fine diving articles from there just a year after this one ;)). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
Hi all, I haven't worked on this site for a while, as it is currently only accessible with a special permit as it is in a reserve. I will take a look to see if I can clean it up a bit, but I don't think its is a particularly useful travel topic at this point due to the access difficulty. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[]
Let's slush this nominee then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[]
Looks like we have to. And then pick a new dive guide candidate. Peter, do you have any favorite that you would like to see on the main page? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[]


Olango IslandEdit

Place: Olango Island, Philippines
Blurb: Beaches, diving and a large waterfowl sanctuary, under a hour's travel from a major airport. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: any except N hemisphere summer; spring & fall have bird migrations and winter is a good time for a tropical vacation
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Not heavily developed for tourism, though there are a few resorts.[]

Nomination

I am almost the only contributor so far. Both the promotion to Guide & this nomination need other opinions. Also, the article could use contributions. Pashley (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]

  • I realize this is a small place, but I think it's extremely premature to slap the Guidecity template on any article with no listings at all in "Buy", "Eat", or "Drink". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
I would too prefer that the article would be a bit longer. Though it may be difficult if there isn't very much on the island. Also, Olango is apparently geographically quite close to Dumaguete so maybe we'd like to wait until sometime later in 2016 with this one. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
I like featuring small places, but as they're typically short in nature, but I do feel they should at least be rather complete. I appreciate the amount of work that has already gone into this article, and I figure this might be one of those place where our coverage is better than in any of the commercial guides. That said, it still reads as an incomplete article to me. I'll add my content suggestions to Talk:Olango Island to not clutter this page. In short, I think this is a perfectly usable article, but it doesn't seem like a great feature just yet. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[]

BayreuthEdit

Place: Bayreuth
Blurb: While Bayreuth is a beautiful town year round and has a UNESCO world heritage opera house, it is only now during the Wagner Festspiele that it truly becomes a destination for international visitors (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: during the Wagner Festspiele (year does not matter)
Nominated by: Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: While this place is pretty much OTBP year round, it becomes "world city for a while " (Weltstadt auf Zeit) during the Wagner festival. While I don't like Wagner one bit, Bayreuth is a nice town and the Wagner festival draws the who's who of Germany as well as well to do Wagner enthusiasts from around the world[]

Nomination
  • Oppose. Bayreuth was already DotM in July 2009 and thus cannot be featured again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
Right. Thats why this is not valid candidate anymore. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
Hs likely didn't know this rule (ps. the green tick in the upper right corner of the article's banner means that the article has been featured; for travel topics this is marked by an orange pen). As a side note, we have featured some articles twice but this has been in times of acute lack of candidates, I believe. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
I don't think we've ever had so few DotM candidates that we've been forced to rerun articles. The only time we've ever featured articles a second time was just after our relaunch as a WMF project, in January and February 2013. If I remember correctly, it was not due to a lack of candidates but to a desire on our part to take advantage of the burst of attention we'd be receiving from other WMF users by featuring the absolute best-of-the-best of our material. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
Either way, at least Niamey, Bali and San Francisco have each been featured on the Main Page twice. I wasn't active on featured articles back then. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
This nomination should be slushed, don't you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
It should. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]
Ikan, Ypsi: I chose not to immediately slush the nomination after I made my original comment in the hopes that Hobbitschuster would see the message and not have to wonder why his nomination suddenly disappeared. But I suppose it's just as well to Wikilink his name in this comment so it triggers the red Notification box at the top of his screen. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[]

On the trail of Marco PoloEdit

Place: On the trail of Marco Polo
Blurb: A historically important journey and a route some modern travellers approximately follow. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but much of the journey would be rough in N. Hemisphere winter
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: One of several possible nominees suggested at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#Running out of potential FTTs?. The only problem I see is that the map has (what I think are) German rather than English spellings for some city names.[]

Nomination
  • Support. That article is really fun and well-researched, with great quotes! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not sure — The article itself is interesting reading. While the winter might not be the best time to travel along this route, I guess one would need a couple of months of preparation for such a journey. So it could well be featured in the winter months. That brings me to the main problem: there's really no practical information on how to travel along this route in the present day. I'm not sure how much we would have to add to this article — the Silk Road article does give some ideas about what trips along this route would be like. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet — Agreed with Ypsi: this article works well as a recounting of Marco Polo's voyage, not so much for modern-day travellers who want to retrace his steps. An itinerary as formidable as this requires careful planning and preparation, and the article provides no information on the practical aspects of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • OK, now it's one month since the nomination... how shall we proceed? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[]
I'd hesitate to take such measures after only a month, but if there's no progress by, say, the first of June then I'd say slush it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[]
Agree with YPSI. Guide lack practical information. And with due respect to Pashley who put great amount of time and efforts to write On the trail of Marco Polo and On the trail of Kipling's Kim but I can agree featuring guide in current state is not suitable due to reason stated above. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[]

YangshuoEdit

Place: Yangshuo
Blurb: A small town in an extremely scenic area, major backpacker destination since the 80s, now much more developed and with many tour groups. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep-Dec & Mar
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I am not certain how up-to-date the article is; it looks good to me but I have not been there in about five years. Yangshuo is one of my favorite places in China and a major tourist draw. An alternative would be to nominate Guilin, a larger city nearby that is also a major tourist draw and has train station & airport (Y has neither). That article is tagged Usable, but it looks close to Guide.[]

Nomination
  • Not yet. Most of the content appears to date back to 2011 and 2012. I don't think I'd be comfortable supporting this article until it's updated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
I also edited the Time to Feature. Per chinahighlights.com, Yangshuo has a rainy season from Apr-Aug, and Jan-Feb is out due to the Spring Festival (besides, it's too cold). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet — Yangshou needs POI coordinates, maybe more pics, descriptions of some of the listings and Eat should probably be arranged into price categories. Plus, someone should check if content is still up to date. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: I nominated this because it is rated Guide, the scenery is sensational, the town has lots of tourist facilities, and it is one of my favorite destinations. However, the criticisms above are valid. Checking the history I see I've been nearly the only editor in the last six months and I cannot bring it up to date because I have not been there in several years. While copy-editing, I also found other problems; see the talk page. Unless other contributors want to jump in, I think we'll have to slush it. Pashley (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[]
One can usually use the Internet to see whether the places are still in business — for instance I've patched and cleaned up many articles where I've never been. This of course requires that the places have home page or are listed somewhere else (and preferably in English). The other problem is with determining the addresses and locations; there doesn't seem to be any map service with street names in Latin script so it'd be good to have someone who can read Chinese to help with that... ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[]
Anyone want to take care of this, or should it be slushed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[]

AmritsarEdit

Place: Amritsar
Blurb: With its huge, magnificent Golden Temple, Punjab's second city is the spiritual and cultural center of the Sikh religion. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Anytime except monsoon season (Jul-Sep)
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Let's stock up on warm-weather DotMs for (northern) winter 2015-16.[]

Nomination
  • Close. There's only a few minor and easily fixable issues that preclude my support: the article needs a dynamic map and about half of the (numerous) listings lack coordinates; also, the article needs a customized lede, a better-developed "Understand" section, and a few minor copyedits. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet, but this is one of our better Indian Guide articles. In addition to what you just said, Buy and Drink would benefit of expansion. And Eat is not pricified here either. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. Lead one-liner. Understand section needs to be expaded because history of the city matters, especially Operation Blue Star. Get around seems incomplete for such a city with soo many "see" listings. While so many hotels, but only few "Eat" and "Drink" listings are provided. --Saqib (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
To be perfectly honest, it's frustrating that we've been searching for an October 2015 DotM candidate for many months, and not a single one that's been put forth (Edmonton, Fortaleza, Yangshuo, Cartagena and this one) has earned any Support votes. Either we need to lower our standards a little bit or we need to get off our duffs and actually make the edits these articles require - it's not enough to just vote "not yet" and then forget all about it. Let's get to it because October is going to be here sooner than you think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Andrew: Sure, we need many more guide articles that we can use as featured guides, but I'm astonished to read your comment that you want us to compromise on the quality which is such a bad idea. Instead of lowering our standards, why not we put some efforts and look for ways so we can bring more people to edit Wikivoyage. But thats an another debate. And while certainly I agree with you that we shouldn't merely make complains and reject things and instead engage in improving the thigs, but I guess we are doing it already. Now as I said I'm not satisfied with EAT section so I think that section can only be fixed who have local knowledge. How I can I expect you to add EAT listings to Karachi when you never been to Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
That's not what I'm saying at all, Saqib. What I'm saying is two things. One, if you read the beginning of this page you will see that the only requirement for an article to be featured is that it be at Guide status and that it have at least one picture. Anything else – such as a well-developed History section, a balance between the number of "Eat", "Sleep", and "Drink" listings, etc. – are not requirements. They're merely add-on bonuses that make an article even better than it has to be. That brings me to my second point, which is that if somebody would like an article to go above and beyond what's required for it to be featured, that's fine. That's better than fine, in fact. But the onus is on those users to add that content themselves and to not stand in the way of us finding something to fill those empty slots with. In fact, technically speaking, none of the oppose votes ("not yet" votes, etc.) for this article or for any of the other articles that have been rejected lately are valid because the reasons for those votes are not based in policy. Remember these are DotM nominees, not starnoms. They don't have to be perfect. They just have to be Guide or better.
Now you're asking me how I am supposed to add Eat listings for a city I've never been to. It's very simple, in fact. All I would have to do is go to Google, search for "restaurants in (insert city here)", and I would pull in all the information I needed for any number of different places: address, phone number, website address, menu, price range, what type of food is served, even reviews from other people who've been there. There's no policy against that, and if there were I bet we'd have a lot less content in all our articles, including previous DotMs.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Applogies for any misunderstanding. You know well my English is superb. Anyways. Frankly speaking, the line "The nominated article should have an article status of guide or star. This includes having at least one good picture" is funny. I don't think we ever featured a guide with just one photo so that line is definately need to change. Because on contrary, the guide template says "The article has a variety of good, quality information including hotels, restaurants, attractions and travel details." So yes, they're talking about good and quality information which means understand section should be adequate at at the least if not perfect. Amritsar missing that good quality information, in my opinion. I don't mind people who simply put "Guide" templates into articles but here, we have to evaluate them and pass them if they really are guide or not yet. They are going to feature on our main page for entire one month. Why feature something that missing adequate information. Why anyone would go to Amritsar? Because Amritsar is important center for the Sikh religion and anyone planning to go there will surely need to read about that. As for EAT listings, you're right. We can get information online about anything but if a city have hundreds of best restaurants, I think its become bit tough to get idea of which restaurants we suggest in our guides. With that being said, my vote is not "Oppose" vote, so it will not matter much if this entry manage to get some support votes. --Saqib (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Well, the amount of work needed to get Amritsar into a "nice" shape is not gargantuan and it could likely be done even by one person over a weekend. See what Mombasa looked like less than a year ago ;). IMO it's enough for a featured article to be at (1)guide status, (2) clean and ordered and (3) have a decent selection of points of interest. In short: something I would like to take with me if I'd be visiting the place. Fixing the issues I and Andre mentioned above would make it such an article.
I too, think Google is a good tool for adding content to articles; though "original research" or content from other language versions of WV is always preferable! Actually Google has helped me save several articles from being slushed during the year I've been active on featured articles.ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]
This may be a Guide, but it needs a lot of work before it could be reasonably nominated for DotM, as it should be when ready. First, it needs a thorough copy edit, especially in hotel listings, Many Of Which Are Full Of Gratuitous Initial Caps and other signs of touting. The "Sleep" section is arguably too long to be user-friendly, too, so perhaps hotels with touty descriptions or none should be unceremoniously deleted. "Buy" could use a little work, too, again for readability. (Should each type of item to buy be bolded, for example? And where should the shopping centre listing be put? Its current placement is without explanation.) Under "Do," what is "Amritsar Heritage Walk"? There is no explanation. If this is an itinerary, its route should be explained. If it's a paid tour, it should be deleted. "Old City Shopping" seems like a "Buy," not a "Do." What activities do people do in Amritsar, other than walking, studying (covered under "Learn") and praying?
I'll add kudos to User:Saqib for adding some needed content to the article, but though rated a Guide, it is a problematic Guide and currently unsuitable for a front-page feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
To User:AndreCarrotflower's comments above, I believe that my objections are entirely reasonable, inasmuch as we want to feature quality Guides, not weak Guides, as User:Saqib mentioned. I've gotten off my duff big-time to almost single-handedly create the Wikivoyage:India Expedition article and the sub-articles for almost every state and one Union Territory, which focus on remarks about guides for the cities featured in the "Cities" section of each of those states (and Union Territory). In the meantime, I've done quite a lot of copy editing. But my work here is recreational, and frankly, it might be in my self-interest to do less and not more of it and focus more on things that might enable me to earn a bit of money. In any case, if anyone wants to do more work to improve the articles for India, regions of India, states and territories of India, regions of those states, or cities linked from the city and territorial guides, I've given plenty of guidance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Ikan - I'm sorry if my comments cut a little too deep, but I stand by them. I put in a lot of work on this site too. As everyone knows, I've been working on Buffalo for >3 years now. I just finished what basically amounts to a complete rewrite of Ad's Path so that it's in a featureable state, and recently made similar improvements to Davenport when called on to do so. My revamp of the Gaspé Peninsula is dormant for the time being but still in progress. I sweep the pub every single day without fail. And, most germane to this conversation, I handle DotM pretty much singlehandedly - not because I feel like I have some sort of ownership over it or because I want all for myself the power to determine what gets featured, but because no one else ever does. Because, before I got into the habit of updating the Main Page three times a month, oftentimes no one bothered to switch out the banners until a day, or even several days, after it was supposed to be done.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about it. Like Ikan and everyone else here, I could use the time I spend on Wikivoyage for something more lucrative, but instead I choose to stay here and continue my work because I enjoy it. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. All I'm asking is, please, if I'm trying like hell to find an article to fill the October 2015 slot with and folks don't like what I'm coming up with, then instead of being an obstructionist let's find a way forward together. Help out in sprucing up the article, come up with a different nominee, make some other suggestions, whatever - but it's not in any way constructive to just shoot all the nominees down and walk away.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
I applaud your hard work (though in your case, fortunately, it did help you get a good job), and I understand your frustration, but I certainly stand by my remarks on Amritsar. I'll try to find another good candidate for DotM, though I probably can't actually post the nomination at least until I have my own functional computer (I'm typing on my girlfriend's notebook computer at the moment). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
But if a nomination is not viewed as being up to standard, it is actually still quite constructive to "shoot it down" if the user is taking fair shots. I understand your frustrations and I have certainly not been as involved in things recently, but most nominations will be given comment with no attempt to improve the article. An article can be reviewed to a fair extent without knowing the location, but trying to make an article featurable when you don't know the city/country well is very difficult and not even necessarily a good idea. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

[unindent] A Northern Indian destination that seems to me to be closer to being ready for a feature is Jaipur. Have a look at Talk:Jaipur#What should be done before this article is featured on the front page for some discussion of what to do now. Mainly, it needs a more alluring lede, some listings need to have location info added and/or be templated, and everything should be checked as usual for possible updating. I will state as a caveat that I've been to Amritsar once and have yet to visit Jaipur, but my brief visit to Amritsar was in 1977 and concentrated on the Golden Temple, so it only barely counts, anyway. I'm not ready to nominate Jaipur yet, but I think the work it needs seems less drastic, and I'd love to see a Rajasthani city featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Would anyone like to come out of the woodwork and argue against slushing this nominee? If not, that's probably what I'll do in the next few days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[]
If Jaipur is in a better shape, let's nominate and feature it instead!
If most of the information is already in the article (or a WV article in another languge) but it's perhaps just presented in a clumsy way, I wouldn't agree that you'd have to had visited the destination in order to make it featurable. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[]
Jaipur is close but still needs a bit more work. All the listings need to be checked for accuracy, with prices updated as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[]

EdmontonEdit

Place: Edmonton
Blurb: The sprawling capital of Alberta is the "Gateway to the North", an oil boomtown that boasts North America's largest shopping mall and a festival season jam-packed with events to suit all tastes. (needs a touch-up?) (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Here's a nice, detailed article that looks ready to go. From bits and pieces of arcana I've noticed in old talk page discussions, I've gathered that the Edmonton article's main author was a colorful character (to put it generously) who rubbed a lot of regulars the wrong way and ended up getting userbanned. This was all way before my time on Wikivoyage, so I can't comment on the user himself, but one thing that struck me about Edmonton's previous slushed nomination is that it was rejected in an incredibly nitpicky fashion based on issues that were easy fixes - which I can only conjecture was due to personality conflicts. The major issue was with one of the district articles that was at less than Usable status, a problem solved by me in literally two minutes by adding the boilerplate lede sentence and changing the name of the "Luxury" subheading of the "Eat" section to the standard "Splurge". For good measure, I also updated some external links in the parent article to conform to the current format. It was also mentioned that some copyediting needed to be done, but I didn't see any such problems.[]

Nomination
  • Support. The only issue I foresee is timing, given that we've recently had a DotM from Alberta (Calgary, September 2014) and there's another one (Banff) on the schedule, slated for no earlier than next winter to avoid coming too close on Calgary's heels. Still, Edmonton has been waiting for a long time to be featured (having been slushed in 2009 for reasons I'd be hard-pressed to call valid, as described above), while Banff has some major deficiencies that can only really be solved by someone familiar with the area, and a principal author that hasn't touched the article since April of last year. If the community feels it's better to run Edmonton first, we could feature it as early as October 2015. Let's hear what you folks think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Nearly. Heh, I remember Edmontonenthusiast. While he was a bit of a handful, I have no trouble believing he could make a great travel guide for his hometown. Anyway, the Edmonton pages look pretty solid, although I'm bothered by the "Coffee" section on the main page being nothing more than a list of coffee shops; that should be sorted out and replaced with a more general overview of the coffee situation in Edmonton. Frankly, the same might be true of the Sleep section. The other main thing I would recommend is getting some dynamic maps into the district pages, because those old static maps of mine are really showing their age. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Needs work the listings in the districts need some serious checking and updating, ownership of hotels and restaurants changed since they were added. Also Edmonton Mall entry in West End deserves to be expanded considerably seeing as it is one of the main reasons people travel to the town. Also I would prefer to see the more tourist destinations of Jasper National Park or Banff as a feature article in the near future and concerned, as we have already had Calgary, that there would be objections to another Alberta article too soon. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Regarding questionable listings and outdated static maps in the district articles, let's please keep in mind that it's the parent article that's been nominated, not the districts. If folks would like to update the district articles, that would certainly be helpful, but when featuring a Huge City the only thing that's required of the district articles is that they be Usable status or better. Also, to address Traveler100's comment: Destination of the Month is a showcase for well-written articles, not a popularity contest for the most famous tourist destinations (also, Jasper National Park is only at Usable status). As to timing, I would be firmly against featuring Calgary, Banff, and Edmonton all within a ~15 month period, but I think it would be fine to feature two of those destinations during that period if the third one is slushed or put off until later. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[]
Regardless, the district pages are a crucial component of a good city guide, and I believe they should be taken into account in these nominations. Yes, the only thing we require of district pages for Huge City DotM features is that they be usable, but I see that as a base requirement rather than what we would ideally look for in a featured city guide. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Almost — The article looks OK. I'm, too, a little worried about the coffee section, and shouldn't the skyline views be in the Edmonton article if they are spread around different parts of the city. Someone checking through the listings in the districts plus adding dynamic maps with POIs would certainly not hurt. I agree we should avoid having three destinations from Alberta within a little more than a year (especially as all are nominated as DotM). Now as Calgary and Edmonton both are cities plain and simple but Banff is more of a resort (isn't it?), I would pick Banff because of its different character — this is probably what Traveler100 tried to say above. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[]
I agree with ϒpsilon on the "Coffee" section. I also feel like too many bars are named in the "Alcohol" section, too many restaurants are named in the "Eat" section and too many hotels are named in the "Sleep" section. How many featured districted cities had so many hotels named in their "Sleep" sections? Any? Other than that, though, I don't notice any obvious problems with what's otherwise seemingly (as I've never been to Edmnonton) a very good article, so if someone wrote a good overview with fewer individual establishments mentioned in all of those sections, I think I would support running the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[]
I still do not understand how a page can be nominated just because it has a lot of old content that has not been check if still valid. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[]
If there is a lot of information that hasn't been checked since 2009, that's bad and does have to be remedied before the article should be run. 6-year-old restaurant and bar information is unlikely to still be valid, and for that matter, lots of admission fees are likely to have increased. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  • It looks like the opposition to this article being featured is pretty formidable. Would anyone like to belatedly come to its defense, or should it be slushed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Let's slush it. It can always be nominated again when someone actually has updated the article and solved those other issues — and at least I have enough work with both other articles and off wiki. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Wales Coast PathEdit

Place: Wales Coast Path
Blurb: 1400 km walk around the whole coastline of Wales (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Summer
Nominated by: --Traveler100 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Reasonable introduction and understand text, comprehensive list of attractions.[]

Nomination
  • Comment — The descriptions of each section in Walk could perhaps be longer and more descriptive instead of just "Around the Isle of Anglesey." Overall, expanding the descriptions of each of the destinations on the path wouldn't hurt. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet by a long shot. The article needs a lot of work before I'd even be prepared to say that it's truly at Guide status. Pretty much every section needs to be expanded, especially the bullet points of the main itinerary section, and the entries in "Go next", many of which lack the standard one-liner descriptions. As well, there are several subsections of "Understand" that are empty or contain only a sentence or two. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet - The walk section is somewhat lacking in detail. If this is really to be a good guide it needs to be a "huge itinerary", broken down into maybe a dozen pages, as I think that about 100km of walk is probably enough for one page. The walk section is not much more than a list of places, with nothing about the track etc. The track is also broken on the dynamic map, as open street map doesn't appear to show the whole route. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Two months on, it looks as if very little progress has been made in addressing the concerns expressed above by Ypsi, AlasdairW and myself. Is it time to slush? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm afraid it is. An article walk of 1400km needs more information about the environment and the destinations you pass through. Something like this (though that one article suffers from a lack of coordinates and a good map!) ϒpsilon (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[]

2014Edit

TaxilaEdit

Place: Taxila
Blurb: A group of archaeological sites, once a great center of Greek-influenced Buddhist culture and Silk Road trade. Today is is a World Heritage Site and one of Pakistan's main tourist destinations. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: February 2015
Nominated by: Saqib (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Let's feature it instead of Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates#Kirthar National Park. Repeating what I said above: When it comes to Pakistan, I'm only in favour of featuring well known, popular and most visited sites. Kirthar National Park is not popular and only few visit it whereas Taxila is an important archaeological sites of South Asia and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, not to mention, is counted amongst the top visited tourist sites of Pakistan. The article is guide but I'll work on its expansion and will make it more polished, detailed and informative. I'm pretty sure this article will generate a good number of visitors to WV and will be helpful to those visiting Taxila.[]

Nomination
  • Almost - I would like some more places to eat and drink, coordinates for everything, a few more photos further down plus an embedded dynamic (or a static map). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Close - One of the main sights in the country and one of the best of its kind in Asia, so the topic sure has my support, although not as a replacement for Kirthar but as a next Pakistani destination on feature. Here are my thoughts on what should be expanded. It needs more listings to really be a good guide, and the listings are still incomplete (contact details, prices). The thing is that Taxila is in fact also a modern day town, with the ruins as a main draw - but that is hardly clear from the article. It's not remote, like Mohenjodaro, with hardly any places to eat. I imagine many might visit as a day-trip from nearby Islamabad, but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore our normal standards for Taxila as a destination, I guess? "There are plenty of places to eat" is okay for a usable article, but a featured guide should ideally have a better selection of places (now there are only two, with one being a double listing for a hotel-restaurant) or at least better pointers as to in which streets to search and descriptions of available foods and prices. If it's indeed common to visit as a day trip from Islamabad, some more detailed information on transport there and back seems useful. Getting around is not fully helpful yet: the article suggests trying to find a bike but is vague about if they can reasonably be found. Same with the scooters: are you saying most visitors are just locals from Islamabad and other nearby towns? Is it possible then to rent a bike or scooter there? Get out can easily be expanded. It's great that we have our own (not copied) version of a description of the heritage site, but it's actually the practicalities that can set our Taxila guide apart from other sources about the ruins, as several have detailed information about the historic sites. Some work to do, but this could become a really great article :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Very promising, but needs more work So far, I agree with the others. There's a large amount of information in this guide, but it looks like it will all need copy editing. I've worked through the sections preceding "See" and the text box in "See," but it will take me a while to work through the rest of the article. I also agree that while the archeological sites are covered admirably, the sections below "See" seem very sparse in comparison. I think this will be a great article, but right now, it's a diamond in the rough. There's now enough support to run Kirthar National Park as is, but this article will take more work, so that may influence the order in which these articles are featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Ypsi, Julias and Ikan: in your opinion, what's the state of this article now? It looks like there have been some substantial changes made since nomination, but it also appears that Saqib is inactive for the time being, so the prospects for any further edits that may be needed (beyond copyediting and other tweaks that can be done by anyone regardless of local knowledge) are uncertain. Would any of you like to amend your votes, or should Taxila be slushed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[]
For the record: Yes, I haven't touched the article since it was discussed it cannot be replace by Kirthar but if it can be, I can resume working on it. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Sorry, Saqib but if "eateries are plentiful and basic Pakistani food can be found anywhere in town." I would expect there to be more than just two of them listed. After all, Eat is one of our four most important sections — the sections that must have some content for the article to be even usable.
Taking into consideration that the article is chiefly about a large archeological site rather than a town itself, the rest of the article is in a reasonable shape (but things like Get around could likely still be expanded) . Some coordinates are also still missing. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[]
I feel rather the same. There's indeed no consensus for replacing Kirthar, but Taxila seems like a great next Pakistani destination, so I do hope you'll continue to work on it, Saqib :-) My earlier remarks have not yet been addressed. The article is nicely improved as far as the archaeological site is concerned, but the rest of the (modern) city description remains undeveloped. That said, if Saqib still has an interest to do it later, I'm fine with leaving it up and not slushing. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Julia, ϒpsi, IK, and Andrew: Okay guys, I'm sorry for being so selfish and self-serving. I think lately I lacked consideration for others so lets feature Kirthar as planned. I was reading my comments above in Kirthar nomination and it was kind of funny and babyishness comments made by me. Anyways I will resume working on Kirthat article to improve it further as I can so lets slush this nomination. --Saqib (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Don't feel bad, Saqib. You do so much work for this site and Commons! I hope you come back to this article before too long, as it seems like a great place to visit, and I'd very much like to see it featured in due time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Look at it from the bright side. Here we have a possible OtBP candidate for the 2015-16 winter season! ϒpsilon (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • In early November, the community was asked if the progress made on this article since nomination was enough to make them overturn their Oppose votes; the response was that more work needed to be done. Six weeks have passed since then, and while Saqib has returned to activity, he seems to be focusing his attention elsewhere and there has been no further progress on Taxila. I'd say it's time to slush Taxila; would the rest of you agree? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Yes, unless User:Saqib has plans to get back to working on the article within the next few weeks. Let's see what he says. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[]
I have to agree. The Eat section is still sparse and coordinates are missing. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[]
My friends, I have said above that "slush this nomination" timestamp 11:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC) so Andrew, please feel free to do it. Yes I have become bit busy on Wikipedia lately but soon you will be seeing me active here. In next couple of days, I will hopefully work on Kirthar as featuring time is approaching. --Saqib (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[]

DelhiEdit

Place: Delhi
Blurb: Delhi is the capital of India. It is one of the oldest cities of India and with innumerable structures of historical importance, it is a great attraction for tourists who are history buffs. Delhi has more layers of culture, history, civilization extant than any other city of the world. It has tales extending from pre historic period to Indira Gandhi's assassination. The city has been destroyed many times, but each time it has been reconstruced like a pheonix from fire. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Thorugh out the year
Nominated by: Royroydeb (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: It is a heaven for history buffs as well as for photo bugs.[]

Nomination
  • Don't support at this time. Royroydeb has been doing splendid work enlarging this article; however, that very work underlines even more clearly the need to districtify the city. The boundaries of the districts need to be discussed and agreed upon on the Talk:Delhi page, and then all the listings will need to be moved to the appropriate district article, with more general information and illustrative examples in prose remaining in the Delhi article. In addition, the article needs more copy editing, but that's really a side point right now. Once the city is districtified and all the district articles are at least Usable, with the Delhi article properly edited to reflect its new status as a "Huge City" with districts, I will be happy to support featuring the article on the front page, but that is some way off. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. Delhi is one of the world's great cities and the article is certainly comprehensive, but I repeat all of Ikan's criticisms - particularly that it needs to be districted; there's really no excuse for a city of 11 million not to be. I'd like to add that in many sections, the article is longwinded to the point of absurdity - case in point, there's no need to devote north of 3,200 bytes of text (including 655 bytes in the directions argument alone!) to the New Delhi train station, nor to list seventeen different taxi-booking services in #By taxi. Sometimes less is more. And yes, I know I'm one to talk. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Would anyone else like to opine, or should this go on the Slush pile? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet - Delhi absolutely has to be districtified. Not only is it a huge city, the article is "huge" as well — e.g. 91 numbered POIs in the See section and almost 30 more lacking coordinates. I certainly don't doubt there are 120 places worth seeing in the Indian capital but it would be useful to have them organized into district articles. Moreover, many of the restaurants towards the end of Eat have to be listingfied and more info added about each establishment/the rest of the entries may have to be deleted as we're not the yellow pages. Overall, in the latter half of the article there are many many POIs needing coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Diving in South AfricaEdit

Place: Diving in South Africa
Blurb: The waters around South Africa have a lot to offer to scuba divers! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: any
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Just look at the stunning number of South African diving articles in Category:Guide articles, and then there are even some Stars. Yup, I know that Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay already has been featured and that almost all of those great articles are sub articles of that area. But let's give some credit to WV's diving expert's outstanding work once again (and also, as I've already said, African articles don't get featured very often).[]

Nomination
  • Support - as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Looks like a very comprehensive article. I made "scuba" lowercase in the blurb, because I think that we decided to do so at some point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. The article is comprehensive, as Ikan said, but the tone is off. Much of the information in "Understand" borders on the encyclopedic, and the "Read" section should be eliminated or at least drastically reformatted - as it is currently, it's dry and looks almost like a bibliography. Also, the lists of individual dive sites are overly long, and each entry should be accompanied by a one-line descriptor as is already the case in the "inland diving sites" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Would like to invite User:Pbsouthwood to comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • I'd like the editors who have commented on this nomination, and others, to take a close look at this article in light of the concerns I raised about it above, and carefully reconsider whether we really want it on the Main Page in its current state.
Pruning the information in "Understand" and "Read" that's of limited relevance to travelers should be easy enough, but the issue that I'm most concerned about by far – the Telstra vandal-style bullet point lists of individual dive sites; long, monotonous, and free of descriptions or context of any kind – is something that can't be fixed except by someone who has familiarity with the subject. To sum up, despite the wealth of information contained in the article, these glaring faults give it the appearance of being incomplete. I reiterate in strong terms what I said above, that Diving in South Africa is currently in no state to be put on the Main Page, and it's arguably not even truly at Guide status.
I placed this article on the schedule for the February 2015 FTT slot with the hope that Peter Southwood would weigh in and/or make the necessary fixes as Ypsilon had suggested. However, no substantial edits have been made to the article since its nomination, nor has its main contributor even commented on this thread. That being the case, I'm afraid that, absent some substantial work on it, I'm going to strongly suggest this article be slushed.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Hmm... I might have a look at the article tomorrow night if there's anything I can do, but the problem is that I don't know anything about diving. I'm a little disappointed that Peter hasn't even had the time to write a comment. We do have other travel topics thart could potentially be featured. But let's keep up the nomination for a couple more days. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Would anyone else like to comment? (Ikan?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[]
I just came back from a trip to California so I won't be able to consider this tonight and I'm not sure when I can (perhaps tomorrow), but I have no expertise in diving. It wouldn't bother me for this article to be slushed, and it sounds like you have good reasons for doing so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Okay then. I'm going to leave this nomination in place for another two or three days in case Peter Southwood's attention can still be caught, or anyone else who hasn't spoken up yet in this article's defense would like to do so. Otherwise I'll slush it and adjust the schedule accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Actually, I expected to find more information about each site in the linked articles. But I now see that there are many many cases like Wild Coast, Diving in Hermanus and Diving Aliwal Shoal where there is at best the same list of dive sites. Let's slush this nomination. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[]

LijiangEdit

Place: Lijiang
Blurb: Formerly capital of a small mountain kingdom, still a center of the Naxi ethnic group, and one of China's most popular tourist draws. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any except mid-winter (Northern hemisphere) when it is quite cold or major Chinese holidays when it is overcrowded.
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: See Yunnan tourist trail for context. The place is extremely popular with Chinese tour groups and also gets a lot of Western backpackers. It is also a jumping off spot for treks; see Tiger Leaping Gorge (quite nearby) and Three Parallel Rivers National Park (more of an expedition).[]

Nomination
  • Almost - Firstly, Lijang looks like an exciting and pretty town. My pet complaint are of course the missing geo coordinates :). A few more pictures towards the end of the article wouldn't hurt and there are style issues here and there. There is plenty of time to improve the article, as there are no free time slots before the cold winter. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • It looks close, but although this might not be the only problem, it's clear that at least some of the listings and transportation info needs updating. Some examples: "From Dali, minibus/bus at 55/60¥ about every 30/60min, ~4h (highway in construction, oct 2011)." "Walking is the only option in the old town, while taxis are often the easiest way around the rest of town for ¥7 (June 2008)." "Entry fee is ¥60 (Oct 2011)" "Note: Black Dragon Pool is virtually empty as of June 11, 2012." Until we can be confident that the article is reasonably up-to-date, we shouldn't feature it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Looks like Lijiang is headed for Slushville. Anyone care to prevent that from happening, either with a belated support vote or fixes to the issues cited by ϒpsi and Ikan? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Even if we keep the nomination here Lijiang won't be featured before October 2015 at the very earliest. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Bangkok/Yaowarat and PhahuratEdit

Place: Bangkok/Yaowarat and Phahurat
Blurb: This interesting neighborhood is the abode of Bangkok's Chinese and Indian communities, a lot of fantastic food, and good shopping. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Star (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: November-April, based on Bangkok#Climate
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A Star district article of a warm place that could be featured during one of the cooler months in the north. Bangkok itself was featured, but almost 10 years ago, in January, 2005.[]

Nomination
  • Support as nominator. It's conceivable that certain information should be updated in this article, and perhaps there might be more good photos to add, but this is a Star article, and all things being equal, it's an obvious one to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Ah, so it was. I agree with you: It would make more sense to slush this nomination and feature another neighborhood. Please go ahead and nominate any of the other neighborhoods you mention, instead. You can copy the time to feature, which I'm basing on which months have less rain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Let's move this nomination to the slush pile. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[]

EindhovenEdit

Place: Eindhoven
Blurb: Eindhoven is the fifth-largest city in the Netherlands, which despite a dearth of historic monuments holds a suprising variety of attractions to those interested in design and technology. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Oct the Dutch Design Week or Glow
Nominated by: PrinceGloria (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: While there has been a discussion whether we feature too much Europe, we certainly don't in Off the Beaten Track. Eindhoven seems like a perfect destination to me to show that there are off-the-beaten-track destinations in Europe that do not have to be small villages hidden in a remote location. I think it is a neat, complete and compact article, and the destination is relatively easy to reach. The Eindhoven tourist board also seem to be receptive to Wikivoyage, so we can have them involved if we notify them of impending publication on the fron page.[]

Nomination
  • [Previous remark deleted]Do you see that green check mark on the upper right of the article? It was previously an Otbp. This nomination should be slushed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oh bollocks, I didn't. I thought it was nowhere near guide status before a few other users and myself started editing it this or last year. Please slush at will, I will look for some other appropriate article :) PrinceGloria (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[]
Hey, check out Category:Guide articles. Personally I've been looking at Cannes (April or May for the film festival?), Valletta (needs some polishing) and Turku, plus a few of those more hidden places. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Yongding CountyEdit

Place: Yongding County
Blurb: A mostly rural are of China area with Hakka tulou, earth buildings/fortresses on the UNESCO World Heritage List. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep-Feb
Nominated by: Pashley (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A very unusual and interesting area. It does get some tourism, but mainly from nearby areas or overseas Chinese visiting the ancestral home. On a national or world scale, it is "off the beaten path".[]

Nomination
  • Not yet. Looks like an interesting enough destination, but there are many sections which very much need to be expanded - "Eat", "Sleep", also arguably "Buy" and "Get around". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I also took the liberty of amending the "Time to feature" - per w:Yongding County, spring and summer are fairly nasty times to visit due to monsoon rains. I'd say that if we run this article at the next opportunity, it should be toward the end of that range (i.e. Jan-Feb 2015) because we've had a glut of featured articles from this region over the past year (Xiamen, Kunming). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Is there anyone about who could improve it? Most of it was written by user User:(WT-en) Pinkfluffybrick who has not joined us here. I have done some editing but I've only lived nearby, not actually visited, so there is much I cannot do. It really needs someone on the ground to expand sections like Eat & Sleep, and it is far enough OtBP that we may not have anyone. Pashley (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Flying (Planning your flight, At the airport, On the plane, Arriving by plane)Edit

Place: Our aviation Tetralogy: Planning your flight, At the airport, On the plane, Arriving by plane
Blurb: Planning a plane trip? Have a look at our guides to the different aspects of flying. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (all of them) (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any (February?)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: We have four great Guides concerning flying. As they form a whole it would be totally stupid to feature just one of them. On the other hand, four months of almost the same topic would be too much. Therefore I would suggest featuring either Flying, with links to each of those four in the blurb, or as February happens to be exactly four weeks long, why not feature each of them one week during February-March? (21 Feb: Planning, 28 Feb:Airport, 7 Mar:Plane, 14 Mar:Arrival).[]

Nomination
  • Almost - All four of them plus Flying itself are Guides. There is probably a thing or another to add to the articles, but as this is a topic I believe almost all of us are familiar with and (at least slightly?) interested in, I'm confident the articles will be in a superb shape in February. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: We previously featured Fundamentals of flying (now a redirect to Flying, since the reorganization of the topic) in February, 2013. How would this be fundamentally different, and should the previous feature be an issue in whether to feature this topic again or not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
    • Further comment:I'm not sure that four months of topics on flying would be so stupid, considering how often people use air as their means of transportation. Four straight months wouldn't trouble me, but alternating them with other, unrelated topics would be OK, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Oops, I didn't notice it had already been featured as it didn't have the "already featured" logo in the banner (why?). Let's hear what Andre others think. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Fundamentals of Flying is a unique case: it was one of our first FTTs, but the article doesn't exist anymore, having been split off (if I'm not mistaken) into the four articles nominated here plus Flying. On that basis, I'm going to have to oppose this nomination as a de facto rerun of a previously featured article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Let's slush the nomination. But shouldn't we put the "previously featured" orange pen on Flying or even all of them, otherwise someone might nominate them again next year? ϒpsilon (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
For all intents and purposes, Flying should inherit Fundamentals of flying's history. Powers (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]

BucharestEdit

Place: Bucharest
Blurb: Bucharest is the capital city of Romania, also known as the Little Paris of East. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: March-November
Nominated by: Vladislavian (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Good article from a nice city. I was there last autumn and I recommend it.[]

Nomination
  • Not yet - The Bucharest article is Usable, as you can see at the bottom of the article. Yes, the article has a decent amount of information but in order to be graded as a Guide, there are a couple of things that has to be done. The restaurants need to be grouped into price classes and I do think there should be more of them in an article about such a large city. Here and there in the article there are small things that don't follow WV's manual of style and more photos definitely would be good to have. WV does not use any External links section, etc. I noticed that you've started some kind of translation competition for articles about Romanian destinations similar to the one we had about Wales, so if it gets enough participants, I think there's a good possibility that Bucharest can be bettered to Guide status and be nominated here. As of now I sadly have to say no. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[]

StockholmEdit

Place: Stockholm
Blurb: Home of the Nobel Prize, the Woodland Cemetery, and Stieg Larsson's Millennium series, Sweden's capital is an intoxicating blend of old and new. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: June-August
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: A lengthy guide, with many district articles.[]

Nomination
  • Maybe. I'm going to take a closer look at this article later, but right off the bat there are a number of listings in the "See", "Buy" and other sections that need to be moved to the district articles. The article certainly has potential, though - there's tons of information here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[]
The main article has been made slightly shorter. /Yvwv (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Support The map is non-standard and some links are not mos but in general a very good and districted article. jan (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[]

Just a comment—User:Blist did lots of excellent work on the Stockholm articles on WT after we had already migrated. It might be nice to see what new content he added there can be integrated into our articles here before featuring. --Peter Talk 05:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[]

  • Support. The listings that Andre said needed to be moved must have been moved. The article is extremely informative (even rather long, but not in a bad way) and beautifully illustrated with photographs. I just did a bit of copy editing. More is needed, but I think it's actually good enough to feature now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Update: I am not currently supporting featuring this article, per discussion below, but would support featuring it if the problems identified by ChubbyWimbus are addressed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Question: Why is this article getting so little attention here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[]
Well, for starters, per "Time to feature", Stockholm won't be on the Main Page till next year, so there's perhaps no real sense of urgency. Secondly, I wonder if it has something to do with my "maybe" vote above. I distinctly remember that at the time I made those remarks, there were stray listings in the main article that needed to be moved to the district article; those now appear to have been moved. I see no reason why I wouldn't change my vote to "support" now; once I look over the article to make sure everything else is in order, I will likely do that. But in the meantime, perhaps my reticence has influenced others. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Soft support. As my earlier, retracted vote stated, this is one of the most detailed articles on Wikivoyage not written by myself. :) My pet peeve, though, is the "See" section, which has a very troublesome format given the fact that Stockholm is districted. Those bullet points look deceptively like listings, and all those subsections probably should be converted to prose. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Strongly Oppose This article is riddled with issues. None of the districts are particularly well-covered, and many of them are barely more than lists. I don't think Stockholm warrants this many districts anyway. The content that does exist is improperly formatted from the listings to the district names themselves (Ex: Norrmalm, Stockholm should be Stockholm/Norrmalm). There are strange random subdistricts of the districts that make navigation difficult, as well. Two of the districts have the same grey color on the map... There is a lot of work that needs to be done to get this article up to standard. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[]
Per policy, the content of the district articles has nothing to do with anything. They're not the ones being featured on the Main Page. That leaves the color issue on the map, which is easily fixable, and the issues I brought up in my comment in August, unless they've already been addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[]
My opposition is entirely valid. The content of the districts are part of the feature, and most of them are rather bare outlines. These 'mega-cities' are treated as regions and regions with subsections must have a reasonable number of districts that are at least usable. In fact, I don't believe this city even qualifies for 'guide status' and therefore should not even be eligible for nomination since part of achieving guide status requires a significant number of the districts to be at least usable.
Beyond that, though, why on earth would we want to feature such a mess even if policy allowed it? The features are supposed to show off what great articles can and should look like. This article is what our articles can look like but a far cry from what they should look like. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
You seem to be regarding the district articles as part and parcel of the main Stockholm article. I don't think they are - any more than Buffalo should be regarded as an integral part of the outline-grade Northtowns article, the only marginally more substantive Niagara Frontier article, and on up the hierarchy - and as far as it seems to me, policy doesn't take that view either. Regardless of what may or may not be in the district articles, the information in the parent article is comprehensive and presented well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
Your analogies are incomparable. You're talking about different cities; I'm talking about Stockholm's own districts, such as Södertörn, Ekerö, Stockholm/Kungsholmen, Stockholm/Vasastan, Sigtuna, etc. These are all listed as part of Stockholm City's districts and along with others, they're outlines. Mostly just lists or lacking content completely. The parent article is useless without its districts. It says directly to "refer to the district articles" for details, but if the details aren't there, only there as a list with no information, or presented with strange formatting then the parent article is also rather useless. They cannot be looked at independently. If you delete Manhattan, Queens etc. how useful would our New York City article be? Mostly useless. That is what I'm talking about here. We have a parent article (with an improperly formatted See section) and then a lot of hollow content beneath it. That's not acceptable, and this article should only be at "usable" status. Discussion on the article's talk page also suggest what look like much more reasonable district breakdowns than the current district overload that I believe is contributing to the great lack of content in many of the articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
You said my "analogies are incomparable", but you also said "'mega-cities' are treated as regions". I think we're getting into uncharted territory here in that I've never heard this particular issue brought up regarding a nominee. Let me ask you this: if we were to feature an actual region article as a DotM - say, New York (state) - or even a country article, would you make the same argument if the article's subregions on the next lowest rung of the hierarchy weren't up to snuff? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
I have never visited Stockholm, so I'm not sure why some of the district articles that are classed as Outlines are Outlines, rather than Usable, but that aside, I think ChubbyWimbus' points about district articles are valid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that regional articles cannot even be classed as Usable unless all the cities linked from them are at Usable status? Perhaps that should be true of city articles, too (or at least that they can't be Guides unless all their district articles are at least Usable), but even while it isn't, it seems to me that his arguments - especially inasmuch as readers are referred to district articles for specific listings - are pretty unimpeachable. I know that several of us spent a lot of time getting all the district articles in Manhattan to at least Usable status. Still, the point has been made below that there aren't enough geographic coordinates in the district articles for Manhattan. Cities and their district articles are to some degree a package. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
I agree that a Huge City article should not be at Guide status unless all of its districts are at least Usable. Powers (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps we should hold a front-page feature of this article in abeyance until the problems that ChubbyWimbus identified are rectified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[]
I noticed Andrew put up Manchester for DoTM but reverted it later, because that would make two UK articles in a row which is something I think we do not want. CW is right, the requirements for a city article to be a guide requires all districts to be usable or better in the case that the city is districtified. Now this is not the case, so we need to find some other article to feature or fix the problems with Stockholm, which I think is a fairly easy task. Currently there are a whole lot of districts each of which contains relatively little content. It wouldn't be too hard to combine some of them and get fewer but more comprehensive district articles. I guess I could do this to some extent, but it would be better if Yvwv who I believe is a local and suggested Stockholm for DoTM would at least comment on this. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[]
What is the preferred length of a district article? As I see it, each Stockholm districts has a sufficient number of notable venues for an independent article; please provide a counter-example, if you disagree. /Yvwv (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[]
(indent) It's not completely about them being long enough. Less districts are preferred when possible for usability, and I think this article has way too many. Districts that don't have much content: Eskero, Vasterort, Sigtuna, Skeppsholmen, Kungsholmer, the Northern suburbs, all of the southern suburbs.
The hierarchy is also messy. Stockholm isn't a mega-city, so the districts shouldn't have districts, yet Sodertorn, the Stockholm archipelago, Norrort, and Normalm all have one or two districts that make navigation confusing. Some places are described as 'cities' as well, so I honestly don't even know exactly what is Stockholm from reading the article or districts. The articles also don't use proper district naming conventions, which contributes a lot to this confusion. Are all of these places actually Stockholm or are some of them actually independent towns?
I do not know the city, so I'm not comfortable trying to district it however, it looks like all of the Southern Suburbs could be combined into a single Stockholm/Southern Suburbs or Stockholm/Southern article. The northern suburbs look the same. Could Skeppsholmen just join Norrmalm? Kungsholmen doesn't have a lot of content, but looking at the map, it may still make sense to remain its own article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[]
I've started a thread about this at Talk:Stockholm#Destination of the month and districts ϒpsilon (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[]

A timeframeEdit

I continue to think that this article has potential, but recognize that consensus says major changes need to be made before Stockholm can be featured. I'm noticing that the talk page discussion initiated by Ypsilon is off to somewhat of a slow start. I'm going to say let's slush this nomination if substantial progress hasn't been made by July. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[]

André, i agree with your position. The districts don't work out at the moment and more needs to be done to make on the mainpage. jan (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Stockholm is really a place to visit in the summer and this is also stated in the nomination. This summer there is not going to be any free time slot for Stockholm, so in practice I cannot imagine it being featured before earliest in May 2015. I do know (central) Stockholm, but for me other articles and projects have priority right now. Unless someone else is signing up for the job, I'd say we could slush this nomination and put up a new one towards the end of the year. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Ypsilon, i agree with you. I think it is best to slush Stockholm and get a fresh start. There are so many issues with the article at the moment that i would strike my support from above otherwise. jan (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[]


Three days in SingaporeEdit

Place: Singapore
Blurb: A stopover in Singapore? Make the most of it! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Any, but a good “filler” when the weather is cold and crappy in the Northern Hemisphere where I believe most Wikivoyagers live.
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Well written, the maps that you need are included, otherwise Singapore is probably our best covered country and I’ve personally used this guide and found it very helpful. Who says “personal” itineraries are necessarily bad?[]

Nomination
  • Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Pashley (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Not too keen on it, as it's a prime example of how good itineraries can be and yet how personalised and outdated they become. It's something like five years out of date without mentions of some major new Marina Bay, Orchard Road and Sentosa developments, and the last huge update to it has probably been even longer ago, but still pretty useful as Ypsilon pointed out. -- torty3 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose, for the reasons outlined by Torty3 as well as the fact that Wikivoyage now discourages the creation of itineraries of this type, and many articles similar to this one have been deleted on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    That's getting dangerously close to "I don't like it", which is not a valid reason to oppose. If there is information missing, that's a different story. Powers (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[]
You're right that "I don't like it" is not per se a justification for opposing a feature. But it would be a bit hypocritical if we delete One day in Hong Kong, which is currently in Vfd, for being merely Usable and then feature this "personal itinerary" for being a Guide, wouldn't it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[]

AucklandEdit

Place: Auckland
Blurb: Ringed by rugged wilderness and pristine beaches, New Zealand's capital is a vibrant metropolis where a heady mix of cultures rub shoulders. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Nov-Mar
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Something with which to replace that pesky ? in the March 2014 DotM slot.[]

Nomination
  • Support. Listings in "Eat" and "Sleep" could use prices, but that's an easy fix as far as I can tell. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Support. I don't have time to look through this with a fine-toothed comb right now, but it looks good, and I've been following its progress some. It seems to me like several people have done a fine editing job. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]
A map is missing. Sleep section is without mid-range subsection. I also realised descriptions of some listings in the "see", "eat" and "drink" sections are quite short while some listings are without descriptions. To me, the guide status of this article is questionable because most of the tourist attractions are missing. See this for comparison. I've also checked LP article on Auckland and some attractions are missing. --Saqib (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
On second thought, I think I agree with you, Saqib. Luckily, we have another DotM nominee, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, that would work well as a March feature. I'll leave Auckland on the nominees list without slushing it, and hopefully by November 2014 it will be fit for featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Andrew, I know Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was nominated earlier than Karachi, but Karachi is first Pakistani DotM and so far got 4 support votes within 2 days. And btw March is not that hot weather either. Can't you compromise please? Its a humble request deep from my heart. If Karachi will be feature in March, I'll be able to start working on other Pakistani articles earlier to get them at guide status otherwise my focus will be remain on Karachi article until its not featured. --Saqib (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Per this article's talk page, we're supposed to keep destinations in the same country as far away from each other on the schedule as possible, but you're asking us to schedule Karachi for the very same month as Mohenjo-daro, which is also located in Pakistan. Both of these articles are spectacular and definitely deserve to go on the Main Page, but if we move Karachi into the March 2013 slot, Mohenjo-daro would need to be put off till at least the fall. It's your call. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
I've spent really a lot of time lately working on both Mohenjo-daro and Karachi article almost alone, and got them both at the guide status within the short period of time with the hope that they would be featured on the main page as soon as possible but now since the DotM slot is almost full, I'm very disappointed. If you really want to sort out the issue, you can replace Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park article with either Xiamen or Georgetown on the slot and put Karachi somewhere to feature in either April or May. Frankly speaking, I lives here and April is still not that hot weather. And btw, Madison was featured as DotM this September and Clarence as OtbP in October and then Pittsburgh was featured as DotM in June and Childs in July. Please consider. --Saqib (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Hi, Saqib. You make a good point about work that still needs to be done in the Auckland guide, so I've struck my support for featuring this, for now. I'd suggest that you not be so disappointed that both Pakistan articles you nominated won't be featured so soon, though. The fact that articles about the US have been featured at the same time doesn't mean we should compound the error by featuring two Pakistan articles at the same time. Instead, we're trying to avoid featuring articles about the same country at the same time. That's also why the time to feature Mitzpe Ramon and Golan Trail has been separated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
I might add that even though we were overloaded with U.S. nominees last summer (which was a major bone of contention with some editors, and which led to a lot of discussion on the need for more diverse features), we still managed to not feature any two American destinations together in the same month, as you propose to do in March. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

BlanesEdit

Place: Blanes
Blurb: Blanes is an old Catalan fishing town that's become a major tourist destination. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: June-August, July ideal
Nominated by: Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: User:Eloi.sanmartin has done a wonderful job, starting this article and bringing it up to Guide status in short order, with a bit of editing help from several other folks. Eloi is still working to improve the article, but I believe it is ready for nomination now.[]

Nomination
  • Support as nominator, and the article will just continue to improve. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[]
One issue: User:Eloi.sanmartin says this town gets about 1 million visitors a year, though he also says most of them are from Europe, mainly Spain. Should it be a Destination of the Month, rather than OtBP? Or is this a case in which this should be a DotM in es:Wikivoyage but an OtBP in en:Wikivoyage? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Soft support. The information in here is good, but the article badly needs copyediting—not to put too fine a point on it, but it's obvious its main author is not a native speaker of English. It's an easy fix, but it really stands out (and experience tells us that just because it's an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean it will get done quickly!) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Regarding OtBP vs. DotM, an extensive and time-consuming series of Google searches for "where visitors to Blanes originate from" turned up very little. The only information I was able to find mentions domestic tourists above all, followed by those from the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The fact that the only Anglophone country mentioned in that source placed last in a field of four and seemed tacked on almost as an afterthought, combined with the description of Blanes in the same source as a quieter alternative to the "hustle and bustle" and "tourist excesses" of Lloret de Mar, and of course, User:Eloi.sanmartin's firsthand experience, lead me to conclude that Blanes does indeed belong in the OtBP column, at least on en:. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Don't support — Sorry but I've concerns because the listenings have no or very short descriptions and because of this, to me, the article look like at usable status not guide. --Saqib (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Strike through after I found it was actually Ikan who promoted it to guide status. No offence, but I thought our guide articles are the ones that are at least as good as a comparable article in any printed guidebook like LP, rough guide but this one is not. --Saqib (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Saqib, I believe the passage you're referring to, in Wikivoyage:Guide articles, is: "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here." Leaving aside the problems I have with that text, the fact remains that it simply calls for a Guide article to be good enough that a visitor to the destination could conceivably use it as his sole source of information. The question of how our coverage compares with coverage in other guidebooks is not only never mentioned in policy, but it's also inherently subjective and likely varies depending on what each individual reader is looking for.
Looking at the number and variety of different attractions listed in the article, I am quite positive that if I were travelling to Blanes with a printout of its Wikivoyage article and no other tourist information, I'd get on just fine. It's true that some of the descriptions are short, but they give the basics of what each destination is—and while it's the polar opposite of my usual approach, I think there's something to be said for letting the visitor uncover the appeal of the various attractions him- or herself rather than "spoiling the surprise" by giving them all the relevant information beforehand.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
This article is still in progress. User:Eloi.sanmartin has said that he's still improving the article, and as he has added more content to it, I have been copy editing it. I may not be able to do that much in the teeth of final grading and then again when I'm in Germany for most of the month of January, but I thought the guide was already good enough to nominate. It's OK if people would rather wait for it to be improved further before supporting featuring it. As for the length of descriptions, I really don't use printed guidebooks much anymore, but when I did, I found that in guidebooks for entire countries or regions, some destinations were covered briefly and some (like Paris, London, Rome, Florence, and in some guidebooks even Siena, because of its great historical, artistic, architectural, and cultural importance) were covered at length. It hasn't struck me that the lengths of descriptions were insufficient in this article. If there are additional types of information you'd like in the article, maybe it's best to specify those in the article's talk page and see if User:Eloi.sanmartin or someone else who's familiar with the town can add them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Okay, I was not only referring to attractions but listings in the "Buy", "Eat" "Drink" and "Sleep" sections. Don't you think it looks like a directory and there should be some descriptions? --Saqib (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Yeah, you're right. Quite a few listings lack descriptions. We can hold off on this nomination for the time being. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Yes, especially because we've really got more DotM and OtBP nominees than we know what to do with. If we'd supported Blanes to be featured, it wouldn't have gone on the Main Page till 2015 at the earliest. I'd go so far as to say that, other than FTT, we hold off on any new nominees for a while. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Point very well taken. We should be looking for more FTT. I was hoping maybe the Chinese phrasebook would be ready, but I don't think it is yet (you can see my remarks in its talk page, but I digress). Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  • It looks like progress on this article has been at a standstill since three days after the nomination. Is it time to put this on the slush pile? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't object. I haven't been making copy-editing that article a priority. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[]

2013Edit

World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri LankaEdit

Place: World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka
Blurb: (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: April 2014
Nominated by: Saqib (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: April 18th is the International Day For Monuments and Sites and I think this article is appropriate to feature as "Featured travel topic" for the month of April.[]

Nomination
  • Support I think this is a good enough itinerary and as nominator and the main contributor of the article. If there's anything you think is missing, I'd be happy to know and fix. --Saqib (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Not yet. What's in the article so far is good, but more information is needed and the article needs to be organized better. Try fleshing out the "Prepare" section by giving the reader an idea how much time will be required for the whole trip and at each site (I realize much of this information is listed under "Go", but IMO that section should be reserved for describing the sites themselves and should be organized in a day-by-day manner: Day 1, visit Site A; reserve Days 2 and 3 for travel; Day 4, visit Site B and maybe check out Attraction C that's in the same town, etc.)
I'd also add a "Get in" section giving at least a brief summary of how people from outside Sri Lanka can get to the country: where should they fly in to? How expensive are tickets? Which nationalities need a visa, and which ones only need a passport? For how long are visas valid? How difficult are they to get?
"Eat" and "Sleep" sections with brief overviews about the kind, quality, and prices of food and lodging available along the route would be nice too.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[]
Text that should be inside the "Prepare" section can be moved from "Go" section and Sri Lanka and Colombo articles already mention how to get in. For "Eat" and "Sleep" sections, I think they're not necessary since all the sites in my itinerary have their own articles and contains the "Eat" and "Sleep" listings. --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[]
Regarding "Get in", "Eat", and "Sleep", you probably don't need to go into quite as much detail as there is in Sri Lanka and Colombo. A general summary should be fine. But generally speaking, we prefer not to force readers to search over multiple articles for information that's essential for one destination, itinerary, topic etc. in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Good work so far, and sounds like an impressive itinerary. I agree with Andre about the general information for eat and sleep. The destinations have articles, but most of them are outlines and some have no information about eating or sleeping at all - so basic info is needed. I also think it would be good to mention whether it's usually easy to just find a hotel when you're there, or if you should book ahead (or maybe only in high-season?). Also, there should be at least a little bit of information about what's to see for each place, or what it is exactly. Of course for details you can use the link to Unesco, but a few lines would be good for the article, I think. Lastly, I think the article should either be labelled as a bus tour, or it should say whether there are alternative ways for transport. For example, is it easy to rent a car and drive around yourself, in Sri Lanka? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[]
  • What can someone who does not like spicy food eat in Sri Lanka, once they get away from major cities? Pashley (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I agree with the others, for now, but I think this is very close to being a good feature article. As Andre says above, we wouldn't want individual "Eat," "Buy," or "Sleep" listings in this article, but a summary of the types of food, accommodations, and medicines (just in case) that are available, plus a mention of any regional specialities of the areas covered in the article would be nice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I think a World Heritage Site tour should definitely give information about the sites themselves. What will be seen and why is it special/important? Why is it a World Heritage Site? Maybe that information could be added in a similar format to the "Regional Highlights" in the Japan's Top 100 Cherry Blossom Spots article. It's hard to get pulled into a tour that is almost completely logistical. Information about the sites is important I think. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Please feel free to throw this in the slush pile. --Saqib (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Berne