Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile/2009

< Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates | Slush pile
← 2008 DotM slush pile for 2009 (current) 2010 →

It is the biggest city in Brazil, and it's very complete.

  • Don't support. It is indeed a very nice guide, but it's not yet at guide status. For guide status, all district articles would need to be at least usable. It also looks like the districts might need to be reorganized a bit to cut down on the large number of them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:35, 4 December 2009 (EST)
  • Don't Support There is a lot of work to be done before this article can be featured. Even the name of the article is wrong according to both the Wikivoyage Consensus and naming conventions. It should be just Sao Paulo, which was discussed and agreed upon until some user moved everything to this name. That's not to mention all of the issues with the districts...(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:53, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Historic city, with lots of attractions. There are still some formatting and content issues to be worked out, but I want this to be in contention for January or February 2010, because in March it will start getting hot. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 10:05, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Not yet I'd love to see another featured destination from India, and there is time to get this up to standard. You mentioned formatting, and that definitely needs to be addressed in some of the sections. The "Buy", "Do", and "Learn" need more descriptions. If "Work" is to be a part of the city's article, then it definitely needs content. I also think the "See" section would look better if it were organized according to location, rather than attraction type. Right now, I have no idea where any of the attractions are in relation to one another. In the "orientation" section, it seems to state that the city is spread out, which makes it important to know what sites are located near one another and what sites are located in other areas. If it were organized by district, I think that would make it a more useful guide. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:42, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
Thanks. I will work on these. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:13, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Support. Great article, lots of detail. The 'Buy' section needs to be tidied, and 'Work' is empty; I'd suggest handling 'Learn' as paragraph rather than a list, and perhaps being more selective, identifying highlights and specialties. Under 'Cope', the bookstores should be in 'Buy', and the list of grocery stores could be collapsed to a couple of sentences identifying the major chains to look for. None of the serviced apartment listings match Project:Accommodation listings, although DotM candidates needn't be formatted to a tee. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:44, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Not yet I tried cleaning this up a bit a while back, but I'm still not happy with it, a bit to chaotic for my taste, in the streets of Hyderabad I'm sure visitors don't need Wikivoyage to add to the mayhem. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:50, 4 December 2009 (EST)

One of the major destinations in Germany, with a very well written article. It lacks a map, and needs an external links attack, but otherwise looks very much up to DotM standards, I think. Don't know when would be best to feature. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:23, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Support. This was actually slushed once way back, but the article has improved by leaps and bounds since then. Definitely a late spring/summer destination though. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:10, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
  • I'd Support it for February 2009 or around there. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 00:02, 11 November 2008 (EST).
    • February is still deep winter in Germany at that time. Early fall is also an option though, mid-October was surprisingly pleasant... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:18, 11 November 2008 (EST)
  • Don't support. Overall a good article, but almost half of the Eat listings don't have descriptions, and almost none of the clubs or hotels have addresses. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:50, 8 December 2008 (EST)
  • Support It's a good article and it would be best in summer s loads of travellers arrive in September for trde fairs.(WT-en) jan 16:09, 24 January 2009 (EST)
  • Don't Support The "Museums" and "Other Museums" are redundant and shows poor organization. The "Skyline" is an odd sub-heading, as well. Not properly formatted. The page doesn't make a very enjoyable read/browse. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
  • I'm with Chubby. It is basically a fine article, but not properly organised or formatted so it still needs work. Could it be a Project:Collaboration of the month? (WT-en) Pashley 00:45, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

A UNESCO World Heratige site, the first national park in the world, and a very popular "nature" destination here in the US. It is best in the summer, which looks full right now, but wouldn't be terribly bad in the fall. (WT-en) AHeneen 00:47, 2 March 2009 (EST)

The Tower Roosevelt section needs some information/description, along with the Natural Bridge, but the page looks good to me! There is always that looming issue of too many American destinations, but I have mixed feelings about that. Of course, ideally, the featured destinations would be highly diverse, leaving no nation or area of the world out however, I also feel that if the Wikivoyage community chooses to make better pages for countries like the U.S., Japan, and strangely Cambodia has been featured a few times, there is not much that can be done (aside from those who want to see new places featured actually working to get them up to standards). I'd support Yellowstone. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 05:09, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Don't Support After looking this over again, I think there are way too many listings with either no descriptions or insufficient descriptions. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:41, 19 November 2009 (EST)
  • Support, with reservations. The article is quite good; I use it, despite being something of a "regular" at Yellowstone. However, as with most US national parks, I'm not convinced that a Yellowstone article shows Wikivoyage to best advantage (or vice versa, which is maybe less important). There are two problems. First, there's a great deal of good stuff on line on Yellowstone already, much of it in more coherent form than is true for other DotMs. Second, the "attractions" of the park are not well presented in the limited format that we've imposed on ourselves here. Yes, the article "can" be used in DotM, in that it meets all of the requirements for a DotM article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 3 March 2009 (EST)

A rather boring dotm, I'd say, but the article is quite well written and has about all the information one needs. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:42, 6 February 2009 (EST)

  • Support. Not much wrong with it that I can see, although I trimmed some of the more obnoxious warning boxes. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)
  • Iffy. It is looking pretty good, but there is still a lot more to say.... more info on the treks down Bright Angel, for instance, I think are crucial to a good GC article – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:19, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
It seems that the issues Cacahuate brought up have not been addressed, so should this be slushed for now? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
I say slush it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:24, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
Worked a bit on MoS items and added a few pics. (WT-en) Zepppep 15:03, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Low-key, semi-abandoned colonial hill resort featuring a very different side of Malaysia. Good any time of year, but probably best not listed until they finish fixing up the town square, sometime in "early 2009". (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I guess I can't say I don't support it on grounds of boringness, but I sort of feel like it's lacking something. Maybe an interesting picture of the birds, if it's so famous for them? It just seems REALLY dull. Hm.. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:11, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

I think this would be a great place to visit. It's so remote that most people never heard of it. But the landscape and the sustainability of the tourism is definitely worth a trip. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 93.43.172.58 (talk • contribs)

  • The article is only at outline status, so this isn't a viable candidate. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:36, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

I can't help but feel this National Park is a hidden gem overshadowed by parks like Yosemite, OTB this article is. There is a great picture, along with a park map. Great place & Great Article. -98.228.6.230 21:14, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Maybe I think the number of US DotM and OtBP destinations have been a little disproportionate. Don't take that as rude (I, myself, am an American), but that's the truth. If we do list another US destination, it should be something "off the beaten path", as in...away from big cities, in the middle of nowhere (somewhat), and someplace many have never heard of (this article meets that, but it is too close to San Francisco). Just my opinion, it's not as if I speak for everyone. (WT-en) AHeneen 19:48, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Maybe. I'll second that maybe. It's interesting, and the article is pretty well done. Is there nowhere to eat there? Only the one place 45 min away at Drake's beach? We should at least put contact info for that place. I think we could use this if we need to fill a slot. But I wouldn't cry if we skipped it either. If it does get featured, I'll do a WT style map for it first – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 15:55, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Support - overall it is pretty good just from a quick look. The only thing that the Buy and Get out areas need more loving and caring! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 13:05, 14 December 2008 (EST).
Having recently been here, I'm leaning towards not supporting.... this is a destination that relies heavily on nearby areas for lodging and food, and Point Reyes Station and Tomales are in need of TLC. Once it has proper support though from its neighbors, I think this is potentially a fantastic OTBP – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:57, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

I was told that the summer months fill up fast, so I want to propose this now, I suppose! Edmonton is a very touristy city (though you wouldn't think it upon glance): it's got North America's largest mall, vibrant theatre scene, growing retail market outside that mall (a lot already established), Canada's Festival City, Alberta's Captial, Canadas largest historic park, the biggest parkland system in North America, a growing population, and an out of this world job market. The best time would be between May and August. I would support it for June or July. What do you think? I have worked lots on the article and it has gotten praise by many people as being very good. So, from my mind, it's a touristy area (not the likes of Toronto or Tokyo, but holds it's own for it's size) and is a good article. Also, the new Art Gallery of Alberta will be open in March and will be a very amazing gallery that is going to be another major attraction-as opposed to previous when it was meh. Would you support it, gimme your thoughts! If you think there are major areas that need improvement (in the main and distict articles)...point them out for me so I can fix 'em. I don't think theres anything major wrong with it. Your thoughts? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 17:44, 16 November 2008 (EST).

  • Support. Reads pretty well, has a few maps and photos and probably the most exhaustive coverage of Edmonton anywhere. A couple of the districts are weak in non-touristy areas and not all listings are complete, but I don't think that should hold it back. If we go ahead with it, I'd recommend August -- still summer but a couple months space from DW and SF. (WT-en) Shaund 00:52, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks Shaund. You are right, it is very comprehensive compared to other guides. Why? Because not everything is promoted well and you need to know exactly on the web where to find it or you won't find it. I know all those, which makes a big bonus for Wikivoyage. Yeah, there are some non touristy areas-they're kind of the struggle. August would be fine, so long as it's one of the summer months-it'd be cool, Summer is the best time in the city. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 09:54, 20 November 2008 (EST).
  • Support Well it's the one thing EE is doing right at the moment, so i'll throw in my support. It's quite impressive coverage for a young city this size, a couple of maps, and most of the entries look good. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:38, 8 December 2008 (EST)
  • Not yet Two major problems: first, the status on the article is incorrect — Edmonton is at usable status, since at least two of its districts are outlines. Articles have to be guide or better to be featured as DotM. Second, there's a discussion going on right now (see Talk:Edmonton#Districting_-_was_it_truly_necessary.3F) about changing the district hierarchy or scrapping it altogether. Ergo, the article may wind up in a different form than it is now — perhaps better, who knows? — but it needs to be in that form before we can evaluate it here. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:44, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
Um unnecessary. The article will improve for the better anyhow. I've waited a long time for this to be DOTM for a specific time, and it's only fair that it follows through for obvious reasons. Edmonton is also at guide status, so I don't get where you get that from. Two districts are weak, yes, which is why I brought it up. I will be soon merging some of the districts so that problem could be resolved today. Technically Edmonton should be usable status, but just leave it be cause as you brought it up, I'll go and do a merger. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:53, 24 May 2009 (EDT).
  • Support contingent on districts being sorted out. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:31, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
Sorry, have you looked at Edmonton? The districts aren't sorted out — the map disappeared, and there are two districts without descriptions called "North" and "South". South is an outline and does not follow the manual of style ("Luxury"), ergo Edmonton is 'usable' per Project:City_guide_status. The article as a whole is riddled with grammar mistakes, particularly the new History section (which features lively writing such as "In the 1990s, the city was stable economically, but nothing much new happened"). This article needs a lot of work before it's ready to be featured as one of the best of this site. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:43, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
Excuse me, I've put a lot of work into those articles, and yes I've made some gramatical mistakes so what lots of articles have some grammatical mistakes. The map is gone, whupee, it's a great map, but it needs an update due to new districts, and am waiting for Cacahuate to help. Not to mention many districted places don't have maps. If I had the map up you'd complain its out of date. Can not win with you. The history section still needs some work, but not everything has to be pristine perfect as the Chicago articles, there are many articles in my opinion that have gone as DOTM. The Edmonton article definitely pushes it's weight above many Wikivoyage articles. The districts are sorted out, I just did that today, as I mentioned in the talk. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 00:43, 25 May 2009 (EDT).
Point taken, GJ... I've done a quick edit of the history - I just stuck to basic facts and tried to make it appear more travel guide-like and less like a history text book. It still needs works, but at least the grammar should be ok. Cheers. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:54, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Gorilla is absolutely right on all accounts, but we do have a couple more months before this is was be featured, so let's see if it improves in the next month or so. It has come a long way, but it does still need a lot of work, and must be up to guide status (meaning every district should be at least at usable status, no outlines) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:23, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Not Yet If I knew anything about Edmonton, I'd help out, but sadly I don't. However, if this is going to be featured, I think the Edmonton/West End page needs to be revamped. For me, the only thing I know to go to Edmonton for is the mall, and although I realize that is partly my own ignorance, I believe it is definitely the most well-known thing in the city. With that said, the West End page is disorganized and a bit confusing. For example, despite having the largest mall in the world, it states in the "Buy" section, "Most of the West Ends shopping is nothing interesting. Despite it not being a tourist attraction, it could be helpful to a traveller because some people like going to Walmart on vacation or want to know where to get batteries, etc. " This seems like an odd comment to make about the area that holds the largest mall in the world. Is it really only good for buying batteries? Also, I think the information about the mall is disorganized. I don't think it's a "See" thing. A mall is always a "Buy" thing, and this one also has many things to "Do". The sidebox could be trimmed down if the "Do" items inside were taken out and made into their own activity listings. I think that would also help to highlight how big and amazing the mall really is.

edmontonenthusiast: I guess you feel a bit blind-sided since much of these issues were not brought up until now, but try not to take the criticisms personally. You've done some amazing work with this city's page, so don't get discouraged. You are working on a large city, and it seems you are mostly working alone, so I can imagine this is quite tough, but if you reread the articles with the criticim in mind and think about how to better present your city, when it is finally featured, it will really shine, and you can be all the more proud of it! Definitely keep smiling! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:29, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks Cacahuate and CW. I think giving it another month or so would be fair, so yeah. Yeah I guess you could say except for the Central and Old Strath-Uni (now South Central - name is more fitting for the area), and in some cases the North it is disorganised. Maybe the reason my writting on West Ed is so terrible is because I really hate it. And comments like yours only further that, you basically only know West Ed, but don't know about Whyte Ave, the festivals, the river valley, the art gallery(ies), the U of A(lberta), 124th street, The legislature, etc. I guess I'm working on getting those things much more well known :). Thanks to the both of ya! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:34, 25 May 2009 (EDT).
Well, with the idea that the mall is the city's best known attraction (whether it deserves to be or not), perhaps it will be more bearable for you to make it look worthwhile by keeping in mind that if people are going to Edmonton and see that the mall descriptions are accessively negative or confusing they will be less likely to look at the other pages (which you hope they will look at) and more likely to refer to a more "fun" guide. One of the reasons I began working with the Okayama page was because I felt the guide was excessively negative, and it was obnoxious. Actually, it turned me off of the entire Wikivoyage site for a while, until I started contributing to the page myself. This is why I think it's beneficial to the entire Edmonton guide to make the mall look fun for travellers. Of course, if there are some particularly shoddy places or rip-off activities in the mall, I'm not saying you should lie about them, but from personal experience looking at a negative guide, I highly recommend only including negative remarks when you feel that a majority of travellers could feel disappointed or ripped-off by the activity/site. When it is a matter of personal travel preferences, I think it's best to give it nice presentation and let the traveller decide if it's worthwhile for them to visit. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:51, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
The mall is really against a lot of things I "believe in". I hate those suburban piece(s) of trash. I understand what you're saying but if I was visiting Edmonton, WEM would be the last thing on my mind. It's certainly not something I want to promote, and I don't think we should go overboard on making something look so amazing that is so tacky and unoriginal. Many people visit it and are dissapointed, just like they are with the MOA. Megamalls suck. But realistically, that's one of the few things that are "slightly" negative. I still show it's "amazement", like over 800 shops, the amusement park, etc. But thanks for the tip, I'll try to make it seem more uplifting, without it taking away and making it seem like it's the only thing to do. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:02, 26 May 2009 (EDT).
Come to think of it, I've been to the Mall of America, and I didn't really think it was anything special, but I think these mall attractions, particularly Edmonton's, are a sort of obligatory visit, just to say "I've been to the largest mall in the world!" (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:15, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
North America. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:37, 29 May 2009 (EDT).
  • Not yet, and I'm concerned about early claims of a consensus that I do not see. There are only two of the current five districts up to guide status at the moment, and there are a lot of writing issues left to work out - some of which will definitely require local knowledge (district descriptions on the main page, say... is "epitome of suburbia" supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?). However, great strides have been made in listings content, so there's not as much original research to be done as there once was; perhaps it could benefit most from a revised plan for CotM first, allowing time for more section completion and an aggressive bout of copyediting, then DotM in the future? It would take more time, but I would not want to rush an unpolished article through just to catch this year's warm months - as the header says, "timing can be worked out later". - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
I've taken Edmonton off the DOTM schedule to make everyone (but me) happy. I'd rather not have to debate this, so why not scrap the whole idea of a DOTM? What do you think? Am I being irrational or not? COTM? I'd made a COTM for Edmonton months ago - NOTHING happened! And I don't think many participate in CotM anyhow. Yes sometimes I word things incorrectly, usually if I read over it I can pick out the mistakes, but sometimes I do not have the time or forget. Really, if the DOTM doesn't happen as planned for months, in August, as it is the perfect time, I am not waiting until August 2010. That's so dumb. Hence the idea of me just scrapping the idea of Edmonton ever getting a DOTM. Maybe I'm being over the top, I don't know. The epitome of suburbia isn't a good thing, by the way. Districts do not have to be up to guide status to be a DOTM, they have to be usable, and the main article has to be Guide. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 01:26, 23 June 2009 (EDT).
If your heart is set on making it to dotm by august, then simply get to work and satisfy the current objections.... you still have time. If that happens, then we can consider replacing Okayama then – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 05:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
I could try. I've been busy lately, but I will have some free time now. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:17, 26 June 2009 (EDT).

Off the beaten path but certainly in the news; just named a UNESCO World Heritage site and Thailand and Cambodia are still squabbling over it. Now has a gorgeous new map from Wikimedia Commons. Good more or less any time of the year, perhaps best in the winter though. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Undecided. If "Thailand and Cambodia are still squabbling over it," is it really a good idea to recommend travel to it? How serious is the "squabbling"? Please advise. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
Not particularly serious. Thailand occasionally closes off access for a day or two, but it's fully accessible from the Cambodian side (if rather harder to get to). (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:08, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
You're positive? This article kinda caught my attention... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
Should we create an "adventurous dotm" section for the main page? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:36, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
I thought we called that "OtBP". (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
"Off," not "On," and "Beaten," not "Bombarded," "Besieged," "Battlefield..." -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:57, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
  • OK, if the squabbling has died down, I'll support, but let's keep an eye on it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:29, 2 November 2008 (EST)
    • I've popped this off the list for time being, but mostly because Phnom Penh is about to be featured. Let's see again in late 2009. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Best to Wait right now. According to the BBC , Thai troops have just taken over the whole temple compound. Not sure if that will mean a skirmish, but that doesn't sound like it will make visiting a safe thing to do. (WT-en) AHeneen 07:10, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
    • If the decision is to wait until Preah Vihear is safe, should it be slushed for the time being? According to this website dedicated to the site , the issue was supposed to be brought up at the recent UNESCO meeting, but since it failed to make the agenda, they may have to wait until the next meeting to discuss the issue. It seems like this issue is going to take a long time to resolve. If a resolution is what we are waiting for, maybe it should be slushed for now. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:01, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

This one looks like it has a lot of solid information. The only thing maybe is a map or two (I might be able to do it) and a few more images from my standpoint. Looks well written with lots of images. What do you think? If you think it needs improvement let me know where and I'll try and fix it when I can. the summer or fall months would be best, so maybe 2010? Or we bump October or November I suppose. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 20:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT).

  • User:(WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill nominated this one a while back, and the primary objection then was a lack of decent photos, something which I think still needs to be addressed. That Downtown Portland photo looks a little drab, and the pic of the MAX train looks more like an artistic photo than a traveler photo to me. Once that's done I think we could still do with at least 3-5 more photos on the page. Otherwise it seems like a pretty good guide - I'd tidy it up a little, add a few more phone numbers, but it's looking good. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:41, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the reply. I'd been working lots on this one as the city interests me lots. So I made two maps - I hope they are ok. I was just picking out some good photos from the commons really, but I could find some more. But I want to not upload too many as I'm going there this summer and I'd love to put some of my photos up. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:10, 4 June 2009 (EDT).
  • Don't Support I think the problems with this page go beyond simply needing pictures. The "See" section is not organized well at all. Most of it is a listing of neighborhoods that, as far as I could gather, have nothing to see. That's the majority of the listings. It reads like a districtification list rather than a travel page. Also, there is a "Districts" section that seems rather odd. If the page itself is not going to be split into districts, that little section doesn't seem useful. If this is to be featured, the "See" section really needs to be redone. Let people know what there is to see rather than listing neighborhoods. (It's also more helpful to separate listings according to location rather than categories like "museums", "art", etc.) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:55, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
Made several MoS edits and hope to see the article sparkling soon. (WT-en) Zepppep 16:00, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Good example of a guide for a large city we haven't distritified, and hence no poor quality outline districts. Good content, a few of the listings are missing phone numbers, and some others opening hours, but overall I still think it's pretty much up to standard --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:12, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Support A very good article in my opinion, but should it be districtified? (WT-en) AHeneen 19:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)
  • Oppose. This is almost a textbook example of why a huge-city article should be districtified. Packaged in a single article, the information (which I agree is nice and comprehensive) is unwieldy and inaccessible, and doesn't take advantage of the superior means of organizing information that our district structure offers. Districtify it, then re-propose. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:37, 20 January 2009 (EST)
  • Oppose. I think I go with Bill on this one. It's a great article on a great city, but needs to be broken up. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:37, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
OK, so maybe we should scrap this, as the main contributors to the guide have reached a consensus not to districify the city, per the talk page, and I have no intention of going against that. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:30, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Agreed. It's got a lot of great information, but until it is split into districts, it's not very useful, and it seems that there is no move to make these changes. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 08:35, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Alright, so this time I have discovered an article which is at guide status. Hotels and most restaurants list addresses. The buy section is a bit slim and there is nothing in the work section (but does the work section really matter). Iceland has recently gone bankrupt and the people are clamoring for money that isn't worthless so it would be a destination where the dollar (or pound or euro or loonie) really goes far. Hot springs in an arctic land would make for an interesting late-winter or early spring article (Feb-Apr?), although the best time to visit would be in the summer. (WT-en) AHeneen 04:07, 25 November 2008 (EST)

  • Dubious it's not DOTM yet, but it could get there with a little work, as it is pretty close (might do some myself, maybe we should make it COTM!?) - as far is I'm concerned, there is only one good time to feature this, and that would be during the super cool Iceland Airwaves festival in October, as the town itself is rather dull, Iceland's impressive nature non withstanding. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Sure dunt look boring to me. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 11:25, 2 December 2008 (EST).
  • Almost support. Generally good, but the 'Understand' section stinks, and there's almost no descriptive text in the 'Drink' listings. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

It looks quite solid and shows a lot of information that is useful. It's listings are complete and looks like a neat lil destination. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:11, 8 December 2008 (EST).

Almost support. 'Do' section needs to have some sense ironed into it and someone will need to choose a lead image. The concerns about touristic charms from Birmingham above may apply here as well. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

It's a great article, and an amazing destination for travelling.

  • Not Yet It actually looks pretty good and could probably be considered a guide, except the Cope section appears to have been overlooked. It's there but empty! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:15, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

It is a great article, and the main destination in Russia. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 85.247.106.197 (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose. The article is not at guide status. But it's below our standards in a host of other ways as well. It lacks any maps, which is a major problem for a city that has such a confusing street layout in the center. It also needs districts, given that it is one of the world's largest metropolises, the largest in Europe, with more than 10 million residents, excluding the immense undocumented immigrant population (we've been working on a layout on the Russian version btw, which we'll be able to import to here at some point). Having less than 20 restaurants listed for a city of this size (and for a city with a great dining scene) is an embarrassment imo, which should not be broadcast on the front page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:51, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Oppose as well. It is no more than a nice introduction to the city. Moscow is comparable to other large European cities (e.g., London or Berlin) in its diversity, so you can imagine how the Moscow article (actually, the main article and a bundle of district articles) should look like. Since I originate from Moscow, I will readily join a collaboration for improving the article. However, pushing it to the guide status will take pretty long time, and I will not dare do this alone. (WT-en) Atsirlin 18:18, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Oppose. What Peter said. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:40, 24 April 2009 (EDT)


The second biggest city of Portugal and a very famous tourist destination. The article is very complete.

  • Don't support. Not at guide status. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:48, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Don't support. Plenty of information, but virtually no complete listings. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:45, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this guide when I bumped into it, well written, has a map, it's not a remote tropical island (in fact it's not even land) but still indisputably off the beaten path --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

It's OK...but its shortness makes me think the article needs more information. Yes, there isn't a lot to be said of the N.Pole, but I really think a little more can be added to this article. (WT-en) AHeneen 03:02, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
Don't Support It's interesting, but I agree with the above comment that the content is rather sparse. It's also not at the proper status to be nominated. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:05, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

A very complete article, and not a very known tourist destination.

Countries shouldn't be nominated before all linked articles from the main page are are guide level/status. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
I've looked at the Ethiopia pages before and I don't believe there is a single Ethiopian city that could be nominated, the regions have no information or almost none... I would love to see an Ethiopian destination featured, but if you want that to happen, I'd suggest first updating a city and then nominating it once it has enough information to reach guide status before nominating the entire nation. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 05:25, 25 March 2009 (EDT)


The article is very complete, and it's a famous turist destination.

It's only at Usable status, and some of the cities listed are broken links, and most of the other cities and region links don't contain much information. If a nation is to be featured, I think at least the major cities and regions should be at usable status. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:25, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Indeed the large region that comes close at the moment is Northern Territory, but I'd like to see all destinations have guides before we feature that. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:56, 10 March 2009 (EDT)


I found this in the archive from last year, however it seems greatly improven and very rich in information. It is interesting and very intriguing. Seems there is a Ohrid Summer Festival starting in June, so I would have this one in June as OTB.—The preceding comment was added by 69.230.160.94 (talk • contribs) .

Still don't support. Please don't fish things out of the slush pile unless you've made significant changes to the article since the last nomination, and have fixed any previous objections. Get around tells nothing really of how to get around, what it costs, etc... I don't get an idea of the size of the town, what it will cost to get from one side to the other, etc. Eat listings are all lacking descriptions, addresses, etc. Once this town gets an overhaul, a lot of expansion, a map, and is at least a guide quality article, it will be a great choice. Until then, please don't bring it back continually – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:10, 17 January 2009 (EST)
Don't Support It's still a long way for the article.(WT-en) jan 16:02, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Popular place but still off beat. Took a look through it and information is valid and pretty good to use as a destination. Due to it's popularity, it only seems fitting for it to be a Of the beaten path, in my opinion. I really don't see anything wrong with it. I am sorry if this is a stupid nom, it just looked good. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:04, 19 December 2008 (EST).


A destination that is truly off the beaten path, Pyongyang would make quite an interesting addition to the list. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 59.190.38.7 (talk • contribs)

If this does get featured, it should definitely be in April to coincide with the Arirang Festival, which is said to be an amazing spectacle. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus (talk • contribs)
  • Don't support - I agree it's an intriguing destination, but the content is not really up there to say the least - which I know is hard - but still --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:31, 17 February 2009 (EST)
  • Don't support — I'll repeat Sertmann...it's certainly an interesting destination, but it needs a lot more content (guide status) before being featured. If it is, August would be better for the Mass Games. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:34, 17 February 2009 (EST)
  • Don't support. Same observation as the last two, but if someone would make the effort to get the article up to Guide quality, I could be persuaded to change my mind. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:08, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Pretty place, and its status in the hard-to-get-to "Restricted Zone" brings a whole new meaning to "Off the Beaten Path." Don't be put off by the sparseness of the Eat and See/Do sections; can't talk about what's not there. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:48, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Seriously? No offense, but how is this a GUIDE article? It is so tiny and even if there isn't much to do I am sure you could have added a bit of OOPH to it. Sorry for ranting, it just seems out of place. I don't get it. Personally I wouldn't nominate it yet, you just need to add some wording additionally to what you've got! NO FOR NOW.Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:51, 2 November 2008 (EST)
  • Objections for a place located in a restricted zone, and hence probably hard to get to, the get in section needs some work. Also I'd like some more information about why i should go through the trouble of going there (see/do) just some prose would be fine. Otherwise i find it very interesting (WT-en) Sertmann 11:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)
    • Inner Line Permits are a hassle, but they're a formality -- they're not going to reject you unless the village has just been taken over by al-Qaeda. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:46, 11 November 2008 (EST)
  • Undecided. I wrote most of the article, and yes EE, it's about as "guide" quality as this article will ever get! While I love love loved this village, it has very little infrastructure, and can't support a lot of attention. I'm not sure if we've touched on that subject at Wikivoyage before, but it's something LP is keenly aware of when choosing to feature destinations. As for the concerns with the article, the thing that would make it clearer is a map on the Kinnaur and Lahaul and Spiti pages, which would put things in perspective... There's only 1 road that loops through those two valleys, and if you take it all the way around from either direction you'll pass by Nako. The Nako article isn't really the place to describe that, the article assumes (rightly) that anyone reaching Nako will already have a very good sense of what they're doing. FYI, there's faaaar more info here than even LP devotes to it (or how to get to it). Lastly, I'd almost prefer to wait until Lahaul and Spiti or Kinnaur are up to speed, along with the major stops along the way, and feature them as little regions... that's the only way that anyone visits them anyhow, you don't go into this area to just see one specific place like Nako, you do the loop (or half of it, anyway) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:33, 2 November 2008 (EST)
We've featured more "forbidding" (and "forbidden") places than this before, e.g. Panmunjeom, which also has durn little infrastructure for tourism. Part of the idea behind OtBP is identifying places that are really off the beaten path, not just to alert travelers to their existence but to make the point that Wikivoyage can treat such places better than written guides can, exactly as you point out. I don't see the remoteness and restrictions of this place as a disqualifier. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:27, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Well, I've cleaned it up a little, and added more detail on getting in to the Lahaul and Spiti and Kinnaur articles. I also drew a map for Himachal Pradesh, so hopefully it's becoming a little more clear where the heck this is and how to get there. It is otbp for sure, and it is interesting, but I really feel like it should be the whole region that is featured as otbp when it's ready. I won't withhold support though, if we need to fill a slot. July thru September is probably the best time to feature – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:37, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I agree with Cacahuate. The Kinnaur region would probably be a better candidate for showcasing than this village (which I believe I trekked to some years ago), but will go with majority ruling, and neither support nor object. `(WT-en) WindHorse 11:08, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Actually, Panmunjeom is visited by tour buses daily, so while it's unusual, it's not that off the beaten path... but I agree that featuring a slightly larger region would be good. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:46, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Should there be a "stay safe" section????? Anyways, I agree that a slightly larger region should be featured. This town is very small and the description is quite short...it just doesn't make me want to get up and start planning my trip there. The article may be as good as it possibly can be, but there just needs to be more substance for a featured OtBP article. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:36, 3 December 2008 (EST)
No need for stay safe section, very quiet and stable area. At the moment this is near perfect for what I think it should be, but I also have concerns about trying too hard to sell tiny destination with no infrastructure... and also, half of what's special about this place is its remoteness and the fact that it's a bit off the trail for most people, even among those that come to this region. So writing a fabulous salesman intro that makes you want to go there, to me anyway, is not at all what the article needs, and would then probably let down the tourist who decided to make the journey based on that sell. If that makes sense – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:38, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates/Slush_pile/2009&oldid=5005195"