Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile/2022
← 2021 | DotM slush pile for 2022 | (current) 2023 → |
Place: Liepāja |
Nomination
![]() |
- Needs work. Few eat, drink, and sleep listings have descriptions that is not to mention the lede and understand is rather short. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Close: Needs a real lede, and the eat and drink listings should be blown out. Three maps is maybe too many for me, but that's subjective. I would like to see a few more good images. But overall this is extremely good! ButteBag (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Place: Oia |
Nomination
![]() |
- Needs work. Many listings are devoid of coordinates. As I mentioned in the nomination above, this article is not otbp-standard; I will make it once I get some time, though – before the slot that's taken up by Navarre (Florida). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy slush? I was planning to work on Oia this weekend, until I saw the edit history – large parts of the article were written by various IPs, all likely the same person as 193.86.240.59 – and 193.86.240.59 is believed to be ArticCynda block-evading (see Talk:Monolithos). @Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, Yvwv:, a penny for your thoughts? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- We were getting short on candidates, but as we got an inflow of them, Oia is not necessary to keep. /Yvwv (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Place: Salzburg |
Nomination
![]() |
- Needs work. Many listings don't have coordinates. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Most also lack lastedit, and those that have it are mostly from 2018–2019. I assume listings without coords are from before when we started adding coords systematically. Thus, this article haven't been updated since COVID-19 hit and needs a thorough check. If many listings were lost because of it, there is quite some work to replace them. Most listings now seem to have good descriptions, but after owner changes they may not apply. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? No improvements since. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Unless somebody steps forward. –LPfi (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Outcome: slushed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Unless somebody steps forward. –LPfi (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Place: Kent |
Nomination
|
- Needs a little bit of work, though hopefully not much. A few points:
- The "By plane" section violates wv:airports. While it isn't the blatant kind of violation like what we encountered in the Nigeria Expedition where there'd be seven unrelated airports, there is still no information on how to get from the airports to Kent
- Some eat and drink listings need more contact details, if it can be found.
- Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites seems to be outside Kent. If it's covered in another article, should it be removed?
- Otherwise, it is mostly looking good, but the "By plane" section needs to be fixed before a feature. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Well formatted, a few subheads even have some supporting copy before the POIs! Just a few are missing coords. I would move any pois outside the dynamic map to whatever article they belong in. I would also remove the airport section, but probably no one agrees with me. Lose the "local" subhead under go next, doesn't add anything. ButteBag (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Slush? Still no progress since July 4. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Place: Madrid |
Nomination
![]() |
- Comment There really shouldn't be any see listings in Madrid#See. Will do a detailed analysis of the article soon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so ignoring the listings issue, I'm going to say this needs work. First of all, I find the map problematic. It doesn't have a static map, but I'm okay with that, but the dynamic district map relies on Wikidata IDs, and I think we all know that these can become victims of disappearing mapshapes; in this case, Madrid/Salamanca has already become one. I don't have much time in the near future to make such a detailed map for a city like Madrid (I can make a cheap one, but the dynamic map that relies on Wikidata IDs would be better in that case). Secondly, I noticed many listings were not in their respective districts, at least per the mapshapes. I haven't been to Madrid yet (though I plan to visit Madrid in 2025), so I don't really have much to comment on the content, but until this is fixed, this needs work. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? No improvements have been made since the nomination. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so ignoring the listings issue, I'm going to say this needs work. First of all, I find the map problematic. It doesn't have a static map, but I'm okay with that, but the dynamic district map relies on Wikidata IDs, and I think we all know that these can become victims of disappearing mapshapes; in this case, Madrid/Salamanca has already become one. I don't have much time in the near future to make such a detailed map for a city like Madrid (I can make a cheap one, but the dynamic map that relies on Wikidata IDs would be better in that case). Secondly, I noticed many listings were not in their respective districts, at least per the mapshapes. I haven't been to Madrid yet (though I plan to visit Madrid in 2025), so I don't really have much to comment on the content, but until this is fixed, this needs work. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Place: Yellowstone National Park |
Nomination
![]() |
- Oppose for the same reason why this star nom was slushed. It's ridiculously long and violates Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? No improvements have been made since the star nomination was slushed (and since this was nominated). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Place: Kingston |
Nomination
![]() |
- Comment From eat onwards, the article tends to become a little bit drab. May support if someone takes the initiative of making the eat section a bit more colourful. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Needs more work. If the blurb is going to call it the birthplace of reggae and a great place to party, we need at least one reggae club in there! The Stay Safe section is also a bit odd, with "ensure a pleasant experience" and "signing their death warrant" back to back. Johannesburg#Stay safe is a good example of actually useful advice for a dangerous city. Jpatokal (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Negative reviews and issues unresolved for a month. Are there any other worthy Caribbean articles? /Yvwv (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not yet In several places paragraphs appear to have unconnected sentences: Stay Safe has already been mentionned above, but I found this elsewhere, eg: in Understand - the second para links two completely different ideas. Route Taxis needs more explanation. Go Next is missing details for the places that don't have blue links. There have not been enough post-2020 edits to have confidence that it reflects all the changes as a result of Covid. AlasdairW (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Place: Gaborone |
Nomination
![]() |
- Support, whenever it's halfway reasonable to travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Supportper Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I did not take the time to fully look at the article earlier, but now I have so I'm going to say it needs work. Some issues:
- Understand is way too short.
- The "Modern architecture" section has no description nor addresses
- The same with the other "See" listings
- The same goes with the other sections
- That's just a start. So until this is fixed, I'm going to oppose a feature. However, in saying that, I'd like to see this being featured one day, perhaps maybe after these have been fixed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- I did not take the time to fully look at the article earlier, but now I have so I'm going to say it needs work. Some issues:
- Scheduled for September, for good safari weather and Botswana Day on 30 September. Scheduling was made before the comment above, and can always be reconsidered. /Yvwv (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- On hold due to remaining issues. /Yvwv (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? The article has unaddressed issues some months past nomination. /Yvwv (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Don't know to be fair. I'd love to see an article from Botswana be featured (as outside ZA, Southern Africa has had relatively few features), but at the same time, it needs some work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - the current page banner is dreadful and should be replaced. Was just looking at the page and noticed it was nominated.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? This article has quietly been sitting here since Jan with all issues unimproved so far. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Place: Australian cuisine |
Nomination
![]() |
- Comment: I think it needs a lot of work. Most sections don't look complete. The Meat section should mention that nearly all beef (and meat in general) is grass fed, not grain fed like it is in so many other countries of the world. Australia is also renowned internationally for its Black Angus beef and its marbled texture. There should also be a point on how experimental Australians are with meat. To what extent is game and offal eaten, for instance. The Fruit and Vegetable section briefly talks about one type of apple, no other kind of fruit and nothing about veggies. There should at least be a mention of Pink Lady apples and Calypso mangoes. The dietary requirements only touches on kosher, halal, vegetarianism and veganism. I think gluten free and nut allergies also need to be covered as a minimum. Iconic Australia ice creams like Paddle Pop, Golden Gaytime and Drumstick are all missing as are Twisties. Regarding seafood, Australia is known for its southern bluefin tuna and salmon (particularly Tasmania). There is no information on burgers which are more popular than e.g. Mexican-American, and no information on unique Australian twists on burgers like adding beetroot. It will come as a surprise to many foreign visitors the first time they order a burger in Australia. The takeaway section should have a sentence on Chinese takeaway plastic containers/boxes, which is different to the cardboard cartons you may find overseas. There's no mention of the great Australian barbecue nor anything on what kind of food is eaten on Christmas, the most important cultural event and festival of the year. Also missing Australian specific chains like Oporto and Red Rooster (see Chinese cuisine for comparison) and types of food establishments like the milk bar. I'll stop rambling now but I believe there is still a lot to do. Gizza (roam) 13:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not yet As the Australian drawbridge has only just been lowered, I think we should wait a year to allow edits as a result of readers using the guide. I agree with DaGizza that there is much to do. Snacks are well covered, but I think there is work to do on meals. Is kangaroo meat farmed, or are wild kangaroo's hunted or culled? Are there standards for the welfare of farm animals? Do Australian hotels serve breakfast? What times do Austrialians usually eat meals - will the restauarant be full of locals or empty at 6:30pm? What kind of food can be found in supermarkets - ready meals, hot food or just raw ingredients? AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd realised I as the nominator forgot to give my vote, but my vote is also needs work. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- My comment as nominator still remains needs work, but I feel skeptical of the "fruit and veg" section or an ingredients section itself. I'm making this judgment based on American_cuisine#Ingredients which is pretty much a blob of super long user unfriendly text and it's mostly not travel related. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The issue with the American cuisine section is that it lists nearly everything that's eaten by Americans. My suggestions were more towards mentioning varieties of fruit and veg which are unique or originated in Australia. Gizza (roam) 06:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- That makes sense and it is more doable, user friendly and travel related. We could also list some important food festivals too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- The issue with the American cuisine section is that it lists nearly everything that's eaten by Americans. My suggestions were more towards mentioning varieties of fruit and veg which are unique or originated in Australia. Gizza (roam) 06:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- My comment as nominator still remains needs work, but I feel skeptical of the "fruit and veg" section or an ingredients section itself. I'm making this judgment based on American_cuisine#Ingredients which is pretty much a blob of super long user unfriendly text and it's mostly not travel related. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Scheduled provisionally for February/March 2023. The article has improved, and can probably get good enough for next year. / 10:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Needs work. The blurb, the intro and the article itself all need work: not a single mention of Mod Oz food (!), and the characterizations as "sweetest" (what?) and "not be the greatest culinary destination" are offputting. Also, I'm sorry to say, but Indigeous ingredients are basically non-existent. Jpatokal (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- On hold due to remaining issues. /Yvwv (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Slush? I don't think I have the knowledge or capability to make this FTT-worthy (namely, I honestly don't know how to fill the "Fruit and vegetables" section) so I won't be able to fix some of the remaining issues raised. @DaGizza, Jpatokal: What do you think? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've given it a once-over, but I still think it needs more work. Jpatokal (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- On hold until ready to feature. /Yvwv (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Place: Destination |
Nomination
![]() |
- Agreed that the best time to be on the main page is around the Indy 500, i.e. May 2023. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Scheduled for May 2023. Please evaluate the article. /Yvwv (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. There's too much information in this article, which makes me think this city is probably large enough to be divided into districts. In that case, there's probably work to be done that would precede a DOTM nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Much of this article violates Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. +1 for slushing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Place: Cycling in the United States |
Nomination
![]() |
- I have upgraded it to usable, but maybe you could use the article talk page and a link on Wikivoyage:Requests for comment to see if it has reached Guide, before it is discussed here in detail. AlasdairW (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, that's the way to do it. Thanks @AlasdairW! ButteBag (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, speedy slush. Articles must be guide or star. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Who wants to slush it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Place: Freetown |
Nomination
![]() |
- Close – I'd love to see this featured, and I agree that outside South Africa, Africa is severely underrepresented. Some issues tho:
- There are two national parks on the static map, but there is no mention about them in the article. Maybe I'm nitpicky about this as someone who's into the concepts of metro national parks
- Many listings are missing contact info.
- There are no buy listings.
- Many of the beach listings have just the beach name and coords with nothing else
- Otherwise, it looks good to go. Once they're fixed, I'll support. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? this article has been quietly sitting here since March. Should we slush this for now and renominate this once we feel the quality has improved? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Place: Planning your flight |
Nomination
![]() |
- Close Some brushups needed, but otherwise looks good. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Slush? This nomination has quietly been sitting here since November and hasn't received a lot of support since. I would slush this for now and then renominate this if the article has improved. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Place: Las Vegas |
Nomination
![]() |
- Comment: Sorry for the lack of geographic diversity, with a fourth DoTM candidate from the American Sun Belt. They all have international appeal to be featured, though. IMO we should run the best and most relevant US article in March 2022, and the next one for fall 2022. /Yvwv (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Yvwv: we do have around three Australian destinations featured next year + this December, so don't think it's a huge problem. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Slush? No supports or opposes, but this nomination has just been sitting here for months now. I would have normally given my opinion my now, but I'm very undecided on this – on one hand, most of the districts are in good-shape, but none of the districts have {{mapmask}}s which IMO, is key for a good city article (as the outer borders are now undefined). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the maps are a problem. The mess of literal points of interest crowded in the maps on the page in several districts makes the maps nearly indecipherable without zooming in. And then there's the probably more serious problem of the "Las Vegas districts" map in Las Vegas, which does not show the boundaries of 3 districts. The age-old solution when there's a need to focus in on a city's downtown is to put it in an inset. So there should really be two district maps - the one that's already there and a zoomed-out one that shows the boundaries of the larger outlying districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alternatively, I'd be happy to support if someone's willing to make an interactive dynamic map using geojson.io, which also gives the benefit of the district articles having mapmasks (using Renek78's convenient tool), but I've only visited Las Vegas twice and both times, I only visited the city en route to either Arizona or Utah. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've created a quick & dirty dynamic map and added it to the article. Maybe you have some ideas on how to improve it? "Wikivoyage Districtifier" does not work here because the official administrative boundaries are quite different from what we use so far.--Renek78 (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- That map is an improvement, but I still think two maps, one an inset, are the best solution, considering that we want the page to be usable and printable as is, not only for people who have Internet access while they are using the map and are therefore able to look at it on a full page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's certainly an improvement so thank you for making the map Renek78 :-).
- @Ikan Kekek: But do we have anyone who can make an inset? If there is no guidance on how to make one (one that's in Wikivoyage-style), or if nobody can make them, then basically we're asking to do something that's impossible. I could do one IRL, but the way I would do it is completely against Wikivoyage style and I don't want to be unilaterally tampering our MoS. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure about other people but I use Wikivoyage within OsmAnd - a navigation app - while travelling. Printable maps wouldn't be a concern for me personally, but there are different user types of course.--Renek78 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since dynamic maps are being used in that article, the way to make an inset would seem to be to simply increase the zoom level for the inset and make sure its positioning is such that it shows the full extent of the smallest districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Nothing has changed since July 30, and I doubt it will. For the most part, this nomination has quietly been sitting here for 10 months now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Since dynamic maps are being used in that article, the way to make an inset would seem to be to simply increase the zoom level for the inset and make sure its positioning is such that it shows the full extent of the smallest districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure about other people but I use Wikivoyage within OsmAnd - a navigation app - while travelling. Printable maps wouldn't be a concern for me personally, but there are different user types of course.--Renek78 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- That map is an improvement, but I still think two maps, one an inset, are the best solution, considering that we want the page to be usable and printable as is, not only for people who have Internet access while they are using the map and are therefore able to look at it on a full page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've created a quick & dirty dynamic map and added it to the article. Maybe you have some ideas on how to improve it? "Wikivoyage Districtifier" does not work here because the official administrative boundaries are quite different from what we use so far.--Renek78 (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alternatively, I'd be happy to support if someone's willing to make an interactive dynamic map using geojson.io, which also gives the benefit of the district articles having mapmasks (using Renek78's convenient tool), but I've only visited Las Vegas twice and both times, I only visited the city en route to either Arizona or Utah. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the maps are a problem. The mess of literal points of interest crowded in the maps on the page in several districts makes the maps nearly indecipherable without zooming in. And then there's the probably more serious problem of the "Las Vegas districts" map in Las Vegas, which does not show the boundaries of 3 districts. The age-old solution when there's a need to focus in on a city's downtown is to put it in an inset. So there should really be two district maps - the one that's already there and a zoomed-out one that shows the boundaries of the larger outlying districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? No supports or opposes, but this nomination has just been sitting here for months now. I would have normally given my opinion my now, but I'm very undecided on this – on one hand, most of the districts are in good-shape, but none of the districts have {{mapmask}}s which IMO, is key for a good city article (as the outer borders are now undefined). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Place: Wengen |
Nomination
![]() |
- Close, but needs some work:
- Why is there only one listing in "Drink"? There are others mentioned, but they should be in a listing format.
- Do the churches pass wv:worship? If so, they should be in a listing or markered at the bare minimum
- The buy section is missing contact details, coordinates and addresses
- That's all from me right now. Will do the smaller fixes myself. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- No personal experience re: the other bars mentioned, alas. The Lutheran Church is picturesque and has great views, so it's worth a mention, but I'd drop the rest. I've cleaned up the Buy section. Jpatokal (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Needs work. A ski resort should have a description of the lift system and spectator events. Could use a climate chart. /Yvwv (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wengen is not a standalone ski resort, but just a node in the rather vast Grindelwald-Wengen-Murren-First-Schilthorn ski area: you can ski down to Wengen, but getting up the slopes requires taking the train or gondola. This is mentioned in passing but I'll try to make this clearer. Jpatokal (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe the region should have an article on its own, whether it is called Jungfrau Region or something else. /Yvwv (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wengen is not a standalone ski resort, but just a node in the rather vast Grindelwald-Wengen-Murren-First-Schilthorn ski area: you can ski down to Wengen, but getting up the slopes requires taking the train or gondola. This is mentioned in passing but I'll try to make this clearer. Jpatokal (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Zero support votes, and issues have not been addressed for four months. /Yvwv (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Go for it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Place: Yangshuo |
Nomination
![]() |
- Comment: I wonder if this qualifies as OtBP given that this is a heavily touristed area. Anyway, I'll support this nomination if others do. It looks like the article hasn't been updated much recently, so I will try to do some work on it early next year. STW932 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I also think this fits as a DOTM Tai123.123 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Close some brushups needed + coordinates and dead links. I'm neutral on dotm or otbp. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment just want to say it was slushed in 2015, it seems it’s improved since then though. Tai123.123 (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out. See /Slush pile#Yangshuo. /Yvwv (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Slush? Still no progress on coordinates and dead links for six months now (and I don't feel comfortable adding coordinates myself because of China's strange coordinate system). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out. See /Slush pile#Yangshuo. /Yvwv (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Place: Suwon |
Nomination
|
- There's a red-linked image of Suwon districts until I delete it. "Traffic" is usually not in "Understand". A walled city deserves a bit of historical background in that section. A lot of restaurant names are oddly given with initial lowercase letters. I don't have time to look through the rest with a fine-toothed comb, but this article clearly needs more editing and a more meaningful "Understand" section to be featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the Traffic section, which I think didn't add anything to what is in Get in. Much of Get in is confusing, possibly because of language issues. –LPfi (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I remember The dog2 once mentioned that motels in South Korea was a place to have sex (I can't remember where though). Would the motels listed in Suwon#Motels pass the Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't remember where, but yes, in South Korea and Taiwan, motels are a place to have sex, just like the love hotels in Japan. But that said, if you stay a night and decide not to have sex, nobody will say you can't. The dog2 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Found it; here it is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- But would it pass our sex tourism policy though? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sex tourism policy is about paying for sex, not going to a love motel with the person who is already your partner and having a discreet experience you choose to have as a couple. Houses of prostitution can't be listed, and we've discussed issues relating to gay spas (saunas?), I think they are, which are apparently really a euphemism for places where people pay to have sex with strangers of the same sex. That's not what love motels are, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- It that case, I don't think it will be a problem. Many people do engage a prostitute from outside and bring her to the love motel to have sex, but these love motels generally do not provide prostitution services. They are just providing a place for people to have sex. The dog2 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- If these motels are seedy and patrons are likely to run into prostitutes and their johns, we should warn people and could consider whether to list them or not, but if they're well-taken-care-of, clean and discreet and used by couples who are married or in relationships as well as people hiring sex workers, it's fine to list them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- It that case, I don't think it will be a problem. Many people do engage a prostitute from outside and bring her to the love motel to have sex, but these love motels generally do not provide prostitution services. They are just providing a place for people to have sex. The dog2 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sex tourism policy is about paying for sex, not going to a love motel with the person who is already your partner and having a discreet experience you choose to have as a couple. Houses of prostitution can't be listed, and we've discussed issues relating to gay spas (saunas?), I think they are, which are apparently really a euphemism for places where people pay to have sex with strangers of the same sex. That's not what love motels are, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't remember where, but yes, in South Korea and Taiwan, motels are a place to have sex, just like the love hotels in Japan. But that said, if you stay a night and decide not to have sex, nobody will say you can't. The dog2 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not yet. Several sections need serious copy editing. The language issues often make the text hard to understand or even incomprehensible for somebody unfamiliar with the context. –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Needs a lot of work Apart from the motels issue, there are a hell lot of issues with this article
- Its understand section is ridiculously short
- There is no information on how to get in to Suwon by car.
- The tone and language used is a serious problem. It's dull, for the most part, incomprehensible, and has a hell lot of grammar issues.
- Suwon#Supermarket (though the SH should be Supermarkets) is very bland
- The drink section needs a cleanup.
- Therefore, I oppose a feature of Suwon. However, if we do want a feature from SK, then maybe we should pick one of the Seoul districts at guide status. namely Seoul/Jongno and Seoul/Jung (the other two are missing coords). Yvwv, what do you think of that? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea. /Yvwv (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Place: Sopron |
Nomination
![]() |
- Close, but not yet. On a quick read it looks a good article, but I did see a few things that need to be worked on:
- There are about a dozen see listings with the marker 99 - maybe some of these should be moved to Go next and become a different type of listing.
- Interesting knowing what the bus fares were in 2014, but today?
- Several dead links.
- Following the recent changes, there are now more supermarket listings than we normally allow.
- Very few listings have edit dates, which implies that they are old and need to be checked.
Otherwise it looks promising. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have a point that the article has entries for too many historic buildings. Those that are not normally open to the public, and do not have any extraordinary importance (palace of a ruler, etc) do not need to be listed individually. /Yvwv (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Very close I don't have a problem with too many historic buildings, and as long as the churches listed pass wv:worship, it is fine. However, the we have the 99 problem, but that can be solved by creating a travel topic (such as Historic sites in Sopron), which also doesn't make this article long and unwieldy. However, the buy section does need a bit of work to reflect the recent wv:grocery addition and some of the eat/drink listings need descriptions, but otherwise the article has all the essentials for a feature. It seems a majority of the content here was added by Globetrotter19 in 2015, so it's reasonably up-to-date, but the dead links need a check but that can be done soon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - excessive detail, and out of date. Do we want to feature an article that lists every supermarket and the services it offers? Do we want to feature an article that lists all of the restaurants available in 2014 and their prices? (Hungary has had 30% inflation in the 78 years since these were posted.) I think this article need a major overhaul and update before it is featured. I cleaned up a lot of formatting, spelling and punctuation errors, but this still needs more work. Ground Zero (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? no major improvements apart from GZ's formatting fixes. I was unaware that Hungary has had a 30 per cent inflation in the last 7-8 years, hence my "very close", but the 99 issue will remain unless someone who knows the city well enough will be able to fix the historic sites issue. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Shall we find another worthy guide-level Hungarian town? Hévíz? /Yvwv (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Place: Blanes |
Nomination
![]() |
- Getting there, but not yet – some comments from me:
- Many listings, particularly in § Buy are missing contact info and have nothing but directions and coords.
- Many of the eat listings are missing addresses
- The drink section is missing many coordinates
- The sleep section has many listings, but with no description.
- Why is there an empty splurge section?
- That's all from me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Unaddressed issues for three months. /Yvwv (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Place: Tagbilaran |
Nomination
![]() |
- close, but needs work. some feedback from me:
- none of the eat, drink and sleep listing have coordinates
- surely there's more than one place to drink in Tagbilaran.
- many listings are missing descriptions
- once that is resolved, i'll support. --shb2000 (talk) 05:51 1 april 2022 (utc)
- Granted T is more a transit point than a destination in its own right. Still, I find it hard to consider it "off the beaten path"; the article says the port handled 4000 passengers a day pre-COVID.
- Should another destination in Bohol province be featured instead? The main tourist area is Alona Beach on Panglao island. I'd say an effort to bring one of those up to Guide would be a better use of time than fixing T. Pashley (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not yet per SHB2000. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? No work done for nearly three months. /Yvwv (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Go for it. If we'd like a feature from the Philippines, I'd say we should follow Pashley's suggestion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Place: Saas-Fee |
Nomination
![]() |
- Close but needs some work haven't fully looked at the article, but here's a few comments from me:
- The tourist offices need a description
- The capitalization needs a check
- From the #Drink section, Nightlife choices in the Saas valley are plenty but mostly limited to pubs and après-ski bars. If that's the case, then why is only one bar listed?
- --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? No improvement since nomination, and we have another Swiss mountain town nominated for DoTM. /Yvwv (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to. I guess we don't need two Swiss towns. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Place: Ta'if |
Nomination
![]() |
- Support as nominator. If the article needs more work, we can nominate it at another time. Roovinn (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Veryclose, the guide looks good to me, but the few things that can be improved are- all phone numbers must be uniformly written in +966 XXX XXXX... also in the budget part of the eat section, there is no need to make two listings for the same place, an exception can be made if there is significant difference between the two which must be clearly specified in the content of the listings. Some sections can be expanded like the buy section by adding listings for local markets etc. Optionally, a route box at the end of the guide can also be added. Apart from these, everything looks good to me. These are some minor glitches and can be fixed easily. 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)- @Roovinn, if this destination is an 'Underrated destination' and it 'is not exactly a household word' then it could be featured as OtBP 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also consider adding a 'Connect' section specifying telecom operators in the city and other ways to connect with the world. 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- @2006nishan178713 Done and implemented, to the best of my abilities. Thank you for your suggestions! Phone numbers I'll tweak later. Roovinn (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nice work, lets see what others think. I'll put my support once the phone number issue is fixed and no other issue catches my eyes. :) 2006nishan178713t@lk 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- @2006nishan178713 Done and implemented, to the best of my abilities. Thank you for your suggestions! Phone numbers I'll tweak later. Roovinn (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also consider adding a 'Connect' section specifying telecom operators in the city and other ways to connect with the world. 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Roovinn, if this destination is an 'Underrated destination' and it 'is not exactly a household word' then it could be featured as OtBP 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment
Isn't there a rule stating that there needs to be at least two years between features from the same general region, as both mecca and taif are in Hejaz we can only have one go up this year.No longer an issue due to slushing of Mecca. Tai123.123 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)- @Tai123.123, that's true. We can keep the Ta'if nomination open for a certain period of time and then we can choose any one of it which is more accurately written. 2006nishan178713t@lk 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not voting for now Have the same concern as Tai123.123. Anyway, my thoughts:
- The visa requirement section is not necessary as duplication can cause confusion
- What happened to the addresses? Nearly all of them are missing
- Some of the listings need a description
- So excluding Tai123's concern which I also have, I'm going to say close. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Close. Needs a more inspiring intro, a climate graph, and a general description for the Do, Buy and Eat sections. /Yvwv (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? The article has unaddressed issues some months past nomination. If they are fixed, we can run the article soon again to feature for mid-2023. /Yvwv (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support slushing – unfortunately not a single edit since the nomination (excluding a spelling and a lint fix). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I made an editing pass & I think improved some things. However I have not been there in about 40 years, so I'm not the right person to ensure it is up-to-date. I do not object to slushing it for now, but Roovin is correct; this is an underrated destination & well worth featuring at some point. Pashley (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Place: Arusha |
Nomination
![]() |
Wasn't Arusha slushed a couple of times? (Having checked) Yes, in 2013 and 2010. And a quick glance shows that some safari operators are still listed under P.O. boxes or lack an address at all, so it's not ready for a feature yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Needs (alot of) work The lead is short and should be improved. There is a lack of coords for most eat and sleep listing. Two see listings is too little for a city of the size, a quick google search makes me think that the "w:Arusha Declaration Monument" and the "Arusha National Natural History Museum" should be added. Also lack of addresses like Ikan Kekek pointed out above. —The preceding comment was added by Tai123.123 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not yet. In addition to what has been stated above, the Drink section has information but lacks listings and the destinations in "Go next" lack descriptions. Many of the listings may also be closed since they lack URL links so the article could be very out-of-date. Even Do and Buy have the potential to be expanded. A city of 400,000 likely has more than two non-safari activities and two markets (excluding malls). Gizza (roam) 05:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, and this would fit more into the new "informative" status – when I first saw this nomination in its current status, it was an absolute joke to me. Many of the listings are in a state of despair on top of the issues that Gizza, Ikan and Tai brought up. To Yvwv, I understand you want to feature more destinations from underrepresented parts of the world, but at the same time, but if it doesn't fulfill the criteria, it can't be featured. Also, I disagree that Arusha is "off the beaten path". It is far more significant than Arches NP which we decided would be a dotm. So no, I oppose featuring this, and I'm not going to spend my time on working on an article that is in a state of despair just so we can get more features from underrepresented parts of the world. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Due to negative feedback, we could slush this nomination early. /Yvwv (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Go ahead as you wish. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Place: Mecca |
Nomination
![]() |
- It's a nice article. A little bit of work needs to be done, such as a description for some of the do and sleep listings, some addresses. But I wouldn't want to feature it because has anyone from voy actually visited Mecca to confirm everything? If that's a yes, I would be happy to see it go on the main page, but thanks for improving that article :-) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also the drink section needs some work per Tai123.123 as well. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Needs Work I agree with SHB that someone who's visited Mecca should review it before a feature. There could be more sleep and eat listings for one of the most visited cities in the world, also there is only drink listing but the descrirption says there are numerous cafes. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Would it be an alternative to make Hajj a featured travel topic? That article is currently rated Usable, but looks to me like it could be promoted to Guide. Pashley (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Provided that a majority of the world's population is prohibited from visiting Mecca, should it be OtbP? /Yvwv (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know to be fair. It's a well known destination, but similar to #Punta Arenas, it's not easy to get to, and with Mecca, impossible. Since that's the case, I'm leaning towards OtBP. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it's more appropriate for Off the Beaten Path, that would be fine as well. Roovinn (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Provided that a majority of the world's population is prohibited from visiting Mecca, should it be OtbP? /Yvwv (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support for OtBP. My only concern would be that none of the most recent contributors have been there, so we're relying on internet info.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Can you imagine a path more beaten than the one leading here? You can dream about Paris without ever being able to go there, but that doesn't mean it's a hidden gem. For those able to visit Mecca it is certainly in the category of well-known and well-visited, and for those not, well. I don't think easiness of visiting has ever been a criterion for DoTM. –LPfi (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. Off the Beaten Path for Mecca is absurd to the nth degree. I would like to reserve judgment until a Haji/Hajjah has the chance to pass judgment on the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree this has to DOTM. Tai123.123 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Paris is quite a different story because anyone can visit there unless they have visa problems which applies worldwide. In Mecca's case, only Muslims can enter the city, so for most of the world's population, it's off the beaten track. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. Off the Beaten Path for Mecca is absurd to the nth degree. I would like to reserve judgment until a Haji/Hajjah has the chance to pass judgment on the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say the suggestion of OtBP is absurd; I'm not sure of current numbers, but before COVID something over two million foreigners a year came for Hajj plus Saudis doing Hajj & people visiting at other times. This is an extremely well-beaten path & has been for well over a thousand years.
- Either Mecca as DotM or Hajj as FTT would make sense. Pashley (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think featuring somewhere that most of the world can't visit as destination of the month on an international, secular website is absurd. Haven't we had Hajj as FTT before? If not, that would be an alternative. However, it's probably a moot point, because none of us have visited Mecca, because we're not allowed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, "mecca" literally means a place that's a huge draw for x-type of people. This discussion is IMO silly. You can't go somewhere, so therefore it's not off the beaten path but off-limits for you, but that doesn't mean there's no beaten path, just that you aren't on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with TT on this one. If it's off-limits to most of the world's population, then it's not on the beaten track – it probably might be well known, but if no-one here has been there, then how can we check if everything is accurate? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please be sensible. Which track is more beaten than the one to Mecca? Do you want to make this site a laughingstock? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree with others. Rather than thinking about Mecca in terms of who cannot visit, think of it in these terms: 1.9 billion people in the world are REQUIRED to visit this destination. Sure, not all of them will, but they should all be trying. That's nearly 1/4 of the entire population of planet earth. If 1 out of every 4 people have visited or are planning to visit a destination, there is no way it is off the beaten path. Almost all of our past DotMs have had less visitors. Everything will be "OtBP" if the DotM threshold is that over 25% of the world must have been there or be planning to visit said destination. Places like Tokyo, Sydney, Los Angeles, etc. would all be "OtBP" candidates. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- DOTM is just defied as a "Major Travel Destination", if one of the most visited cities in the world is not a major destination then I don't what it is. (This is per the definition at Previous Destinations of the month).
- OTBP is defined as a "lesser-known or unusual travel destination", you cannot argue that Mecca is lesser known as many non muslims have heard of it even id though don't plan on visiting, if we make Mecca OTBP under the second definition provided (unusual travel destination) I feel this could even be taken as offensive by some Muslims. (Again definition provided by Previously Off the beaten path) Tai123.123 (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how you think I'm not being sensible. As TT says, "featuring somewhere that most of the world can't visit as destination of the month on an international, secular website is absurd". Simple as that, how is that not being sensible? Hypothetically, if someone does ever manage to create a guide article for Area 51, would you call that a dotm or an otbp? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- We've made very clear why we think your argument is senseless. Where's the beaten path to Area 51? Gimme a break! I will say unmistakeably that if Mecca were to be nominated for "Off the Beaten Path", I will strongly oppose! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but none of us here have visited Mecca. We could get someone from Wikipedia who might've been to Mecca to check everything is accurate though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's a different issue. However, Muslims have edited here; they just don't look at this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why does it matter if any of us have visited, the definition listed at Previous Destinations of the month says it must be a major travel destination, not a place that Wikivoyage editors have been. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because we get a similar situation as to the the slushed Pyongyang – purely based on online research. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Again that's a different issue, if we were to feature it would have to be DOTM (though again I still think it needs work per my earlier messages) Tai123.123 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. However, as the drink section needs work, I guess it can't be featured until that's sorted out anyway. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Again that's a different issue, if we were to feature it would have to be DOTM (though again I still think it needs work per my earlier messages) Tai123.123 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because we get a similar situation as to the the slushed Pyongyang – purely based on online research. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but none of us here have visited Mecca. We could get someone from Wikipedia who might've been to Mecca to check everything is accurate though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- We've made very clear why we think your argument is senseless. Where's the beaten path to Area 51? Gimme a break! I will say unmistakeably that if Mecca were to be nominated for "Off the Beaten Path", I will strongly oppose! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please be sensible. Which track is more beaten than the one to Mecca? Do you want to make this site a laughingstock? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the current vote count if anyone's curious,
- Dotm: 6 (Me, Ikan, Roovin, LPFI, Pashley, ChubbyWimbus)
- OTBP: 3 (SHB, Ywwv, ThunderingTyphoons) Tai123.123 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a vote; we are trying to work by consensus.
- The notion of Mecca as OtBP strikes me as patently absurd. If you look at w:List of cities by international visitors, Mecca is 21st on the list, ahead of places like Prague (23), Amsterdam (26) or Miami (28). Las Vegas, Shanghai, Barcelona, LA, Milan & Vienna are in the 30s. San Francisco is ranked 72nd and Rio 98th. We would never for second consider any of those OtBP & should not consider it for Mecca.
- It would take far stronger arguments than any above to make me even consider OtBP here.
- Hajj as FTT would be an alternative. Pashley (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also w:Mecca estimates population at over two million. Pashley (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Mecca should be a DOTM, not OTBP. It's a very frequently visited city during non-pandemic times and well known among people who haven't been or can't go there. I don't think the fact that the city is exclusive to travellers following a particular religion can change a destination from DOTM to OTBP. Gizza (roam) 00:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I know we work by consensus I just wanted to see which proposal had more support behind, also if no consenus can be be reached I feel the feature should be DOTM not OTBP (I feel this about all articles not just Mecca) Tai123.123 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Even if we would settle on whether to run the article as DoTM or OtBP, the article has some issues pointed out, which have yet to be resolved, two months after nomination. In any case, if we feature Mecca and neighboring Ta'if, there should be some cooldown time between them. /Yvwv (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Yvwv Featuring neighbouring Ta'if seems like a better alternative to me on top of the fact that we cannot decide whether to feature Mecca as dotm or otbp. And as Tai123.123 mentioned, we can only feature one of them during the next two years, so feel free to go ahead. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Place: Havana |
Nomination
![]() |
- Comment The lead can be improved Tai123.123 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Needs work on top of what Tai123.123 mentioned, a lot of the casas particulares don't have coordinates. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are 12 with coordinates, 16 without. You could choose between the 12 if you want to use your GPS. The others can still be found by address, directions or by asking. Good of course if somebody knows how to find the coordinates of places over there. As we don't like long lists, should it be split up in some way (or pruned, but I suppose these get fully booked more easily than hotels). –LPfi (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that for a guide article, you wouldn't need to consult another guide because it's already there – but if you say "by asking", that is very similar to consulting another guide. Plus, many listings in this article also lack addresses – it's useless having coords but no addresses when printing it out unless it's a case like Port Campbell National Park where it's pointless because all the POIs have the same address. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose we should do something general about using our guides offline. You can download the guides, but if you get neither the map tiles nor the coordinates, and we rely on them, we turn those travellers down. –LPfi (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that for a guide article, you wouldn't need to consult another guide because it's already there – but if you say "by asking", that is very similar to consulting another guide. Plus, many listings in this article also lack addresses – it's useless having coords but no addresses when printing it out unless it's a case like Port Campbell National Park where it's pointless because all the POIs have the same address. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are 12 with coordinates, 16 without. You could choose between the 12 if you want to use your GPS. The others can still be found by address, directions or by asking. Good of course if somebody knows how to find the coordinates of places over there. As we don't like long lists, should it be split up in some way (or pruned, but I suppose these get fully booked more easily than hotels). –LPfi (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Zero support votes and severe unaddressed issues nearly three months into nomination. /Yvwv (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to. By the time the next time this gets nominated, Cuba will have developed even further. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Place: Ingolstadt |
Nomination
![]() |
- Support once information is added about the theatre. For me, this is borderline DOTM/OTBP. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Supportas well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I had a relook at it, but I'm going to say some urgent work is needed – are there really only five places to eat? Until that is resolved, I don't support a feature for the time being. --04:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Scheduled provisionally. Avoiding to feature at the same time as German cuisine. /Yvwv (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Put on hold? The article has unaddressed issues. Should we run Deventer instead? /Yvwv (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Or possibly Gavle? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Very close to Archipelago Trail, so they should not be featured the same month. We could run Gävle for August, or delay the Archipelago Trail to June/July. /Yvwv (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Another possibility would be to feature Perce to May replacing Ingolstadt, move Budderoo NP one month forward so we feature both in a more favourable season and then feature Savaii during October which works for all three destinations. We could feature Gavle during December as it has more support than Punta Arenas. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to have the Archipelago Trail featured in May as planned, as that gives it all the season, while a feature in July would mean that places are closing down by the end of the feature. –LPfi (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah it's likely that the Archipelago Trail won't change. Looks like this might only be featured next year. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to have the Archipelago Trail featured in May as planned, as that gives it all the season, while a feature in July would mean that places are closing down by the end of the feature. –LPfi (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Another possibility would be to feature Perce to May replacing Ingolstadt, move Budderoo NP one month forward so we feature both in a more favourable season and then feature Savaii during October which works for all three destinations. We could feature Gavle during December as it has more support than Punta Arenas. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Very close to Archipelago Trail, so they should not be featured the same month. We could run Gävle for August, or delay the Archipelago Trail to June/July. /Yvwv (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Or possibly Gavle? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? Has been nominated for months with remaining issues. /Yvwv (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Go ahead and feel free to. We have many destinations from Deutschland that are in better shape. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Place: Ohio state parks |
Nomination
![]() |
Conditional supportIf the red links are eventually created, I'll support. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm changing from support to not yet per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Scheduled provisionally for June/July. /Yvwv (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support as a well-formatted article with extensive travel and activities information, and a model for any articles providing lists of parks. I'm not concerned about the redlinks, which are to county articles that don't fit into our region structure. These redlinks can be removed or redirected to those counties' regions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: But the red links do have to be dealt with in some way. My feeling is that this is a very practical guide to what facilities are available in each park, but what it doesn't have enough of for my taste is overviews of why you would want to go to Park A, Park B, Park C, etc. I would like to see every entry have a statement of what's special about that particular park, especially considering that none of these parks appear to have their own articles. If they had their own articles, such a statement and indeed some of the practical details could be farmed out to those articles, but that isn't the setup. So ultimately, my vote is not yet, but I consider this a very useful and promising article and believe that with some work by people who know these parks, this could be not just a feature but a particularly good feature. (I made a small change to the blurb: Sceneries -> scenery. I don't think I've ever seen that word in the plural except on this site.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- On hold due to lack of support. /Yvwv (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? The article has many identified issues that have not been addresed since the nomination three months ago. We could re-nominate when the article has improved. /Yvwv (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you as the nominator feel it should be slushed, then go ahead. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Place: Keszthely |
Nomination
![]() |
- Close some fixes needed and a lot of the listings don't have descriptions. I also have a somewhat concern, that there's far too many European destinations squished together, although mostly Western Europe, so not a issue for this article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Slush? – it's almost three months and no improvements have been made. We have many fine destinations from Europe, so geographic diversity is not a problem. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, many Hungarian towns have guide-level articles. Would any of them be more ready to feature? /Yvwv (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Place: Helsinki/West |
Nomination
![]() |
- Not yet why is there no understand nor a get around section? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- See Wikivoyage:Quick district article template, they aren't required in city districts. I should really go through the Helsinki articles again some day and have a look what needs to be updated... --Ypsilon (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting. Always thought they were meant to have them, but that's probably because a lot of district articles just have those sections anyway. In that case, I kannattaa (google translated) this article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- See Wikivoyage:Quick district article template, they aren't required in city districts. I should really go through the Helsinki articles again some day and have a look what needs to be updated... --Ypsilon (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think the banner isn’t that nice, I have no idea what it’s a photo of. Tai123.123 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's a closeup of the dome of the Church in the Rock from the outside. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- It’s difficult to tell it’s a photo of a church and the Colors are bland Tai123.123 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- The church doesn't look like a traditional church (see c:Category:Temppeliaukio Church) but it's actually one of the most popular tourist attractions in Helsinki (TBH I can't understand why, I've always found it ugly). Perhaps the photo could be better, but otherwise the church is a good banner topic for Western Helsinki. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Banners aren't considered a reason for opposition to a DOTM feature. We ought to consider changing the banner if image quality is poor. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I’m not opposing it I just thing the banner is subpar Tai123.123 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand now. I would agree, as I don't think the current banner is informative about the city. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Although I'd tend to go with Ypsilon's local knowledge though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand now. I would agree, as I don't think the current banner is informative about the city. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I’m not opposing it I just thing the banner is subpar Tai123.123 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Banners aren't considered a reason for opposition to a DOTM feature. We ought to consider changing the banner if image quality is poor. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The church doesn't look like a traditional church (see c:Category:Temppeliaukio Church) but it's actually one of the most popular tourist attractions in Helsinki (TBH I can't understand why, I've always found it ugly). Perhaps the photo could be better, but otherwise the church is a good banner topic for Western Helsinki. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- It’s difficult to tell it’s a photo of a church and the Colors are bland Tai123.123 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's a closeup of the dome of the Church in the Rock from the outside. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- On hold with zero support votes, and Archipelago Trail featuring just before. /Yvwv (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Yvwv: There is one support vote, by me :D It's just that I used the Finnish word for support (kannattaa according to google translate)... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Scheduled provisionally for September, not too close to the previous Finnish article. It can however get a bit cold, and there are no major events, except the Finland-Sweden Athletics International. /Yvwv (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- On hold again as some issues remain, and we have an overlapping feature from another Nordic country, and an excess of European articles. Replacing with Gaborone. /Yvwv (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Slush? We have many great articles from Finland and other Nordic countries, both destinations and travel topics, some recently featured or upcoming. This article is not bad, but could see some improvement, and is not the strongest candidate for its country. /Yvwv (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Place: Del Valle Regional Park |
Nomination
![]() |
- Comment: I wrote this some time ago and will need to review this if we’re going to feature the article. However, this is a part of the Diablo Range, a place which was just featured, and it may be better to feature somewhere from a locality we haven’t featured previously. However I’d leave that judgment to others and by no means oppose this nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Late reply, but if that's the case, then would it make sense to feature this in 2023, 2 years after Diablo? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I’m OK with this. However, we’ll have to keep an eye on the fires this and next summer, as I don’t think this park has experienced a fire in a few years and with its woodland vegetation is a likely target for one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- (this is probably the millionth time I've accidentally thought June and around that time was winter :-( ) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Would late 2022 also work? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Sorry I didn’t see this earlier. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I’m OK with this. However, we’ll have to keep an eye on the fires this and next summer, as I don’t think this park has experienced a fire in a few years and with its woodland vegetation is a likely target for one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Very close. Has most of the essentials but needs a more inspiring lead section, and more on climate and safety. /Yvwv (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Slush? It is customary to slush a nomination which has been up for for three months, if there are zero support votes and unaddressed issues. This is still a decently good article, and deserves more evaluation. /Yvwv (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Yvwv I'd say slush it, and I think we can renominate it two years after the Diablo Range has been featured. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Place: Deventer |
Nomination
![]() |
- Oppose and speedy slush. Must be guide or above. Nominate when it's a guide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- As mentioned in /Slush pile#Doetinchem, the article meets the formal criteria for guide level. Status brought up in Talk:Deventer. /Yvwv (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Then promote it, but don't nominate any article when it's not yet a guide or star article. Promote it first, if that's warranted. That's a fundamental requirement for nomination, as you know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- As mentioned in /Slush pile#Doetinchem, the article meets the formal criteria for guide level. Status brought up in Talk:Deventer. /Yvwv (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Place: Doetinchem |
Nomination
![]() |
- Needs work Many of the listings need a description, and others need coordinates. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure. Speaking as a citizen of Doetinchem, I don't think my city has that much to offer, and even less now that Covid is a thing we deal with. There's one large event planned this year that I know of, The Passion, which is performed in the Dutch language only, and will be held without spectators because of the pandemic. Also, focussing on European history is a bit unfortunate for this city. It got bombed thrice in March 1945 and very little of its historical character remains to be seen. It really doesn't have much to offer when it comes to history. Nearby Doesburg is a better pick on that front. It already sees a lot of German tourists every year, and does actually have a more quaint historical feel to it, with a history within the Hanseatic League to back it up.
- That said, I think there's a potential for a good OtBP, but as a candidate, it might be better to 'steal' some nearby locations from their respective articles. Connection to them isn't an issue, since Doetinchem functions as a hub for most of the region. It could definitely benefit from being merged with Hoog-Keppel, Laag-Keppel and Hummelo (currently Bronckhorst) or alternatively 's-Heerenberg and Zeddam (currently Liemers, but an independent municipality within that region (Montferland)). Honestly though, if we want a Benelux article to be featured somewhat soon, it'd be better to look elsewhere, and I'm more than happy to help find that candidate.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)- Point taken. Would you recommend any other Benelux article which we could feature as is, or with some simple updates? /Yvwv (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yvwv: Of course. Here's a little list with some of my thoughts:
- Deventer (Overijssel, usable) - I see little wrong here. Deventer might be a guide article in disguise?
- Drenthse Veenkoloniën (Drenthe, guide and Unesco-site) - I am the sole author of this article, so it could benefit from revision.
- Arnhem (Gelderland, usable) - Needs work to fit MoS closer, can use some leading texts.
- Nijmegen (Gelderland, usable) - Coords mostly, it seems.
- Liège (Wallonia, usable) - Seems to need mostly coords and some more leading text.
- Oostende/Ostend (Flanders, usable) - Might actually be a possible DotM instead, if so Nieuwpoort might be a good alternative?
- Echternach (Luxembourg, usable) - Hasn't seen major edits since 2016.
- Belgium hasn't had a OtBP yet, the Netherlands has had two (Groningen, July '17 and Simpelveld, April '21), Luxembourg one (Vianden, May '14), so I think Belgium would be most deserving of one. In which case I would push forward any of the above. I'm not the most familiar with Belgium though, so it might be handy to involve someone that is so we feature worthwhile articles.
- In general though, Deventer is my favourite. It is perhaps best featured in December for the Dickens Festival and Christmas market, assuming those happen this year. Nijmegen is a strong second. Oostende would be third, but it seems to require more work. Veenkoloniën, I would rank high, but I am not willing to grade it since it's mostly my own work, and I might be blind to whatever it might lack.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yvwv: Of course. Here's a little list with some of my thoughts:
- Point taken. Would you recommend any other Benelux article which we could feature as is, or with some simple updates? /Yvwv (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Place: Bandung/Central |
Nomination
|
- Close some fixes needed, but looks good. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Close. Looks good in general, but should have a header for each section. For "Buy", what budget brackets for shopping can be found? For "Drink", during which hours are the bars most crowded? For "Stay safe", what kind of crime would a visitor need to prepare for? /Yvwv (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Slush? With little improvements and another alternate Indonesian destination, any objections before I slush my own nomination? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indonesia is one of the countries with many guide-level article. This article is certainly not bad, but not the best of its country. /Yvwv (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok sure. Slushing this. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indonesia is one of the countries with many guide-level article. This article is certainly not bad, but not the best of its country. /Yvwv (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Place: Amsterdam |
Nomination
![]() |
- Support - Great minds think alike etc., namely this is one of the articles I've been looking at for next summer's DotMs. A few small things; some sections of the article could use more photos, outdated information should be updated or deleted (a month or two before it's featured rather than now) and while the district articles look informative enough (and all at usable status, of course), it would be "nice but not mandatory" to find something to fill into their empty sections. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Support. @FredTC: want anything to comment anything about this? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to everyone, but I strongly oppose featuring this now. I've just removed a bunch of copyvio text (which looks like someone copied theirs) and so this needs a lot of work to bring it back. Due to this, I will be removing it off the list unless someone brings it back to a somewhat decent quality. (cc @Yvwv:). If anything, I'd slush this now. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. As Ypsilon said, it needs a bit of work, but is a great candidate nonetheless. Especially the "Understand" paragraphs are completely blank for some districts, most notably the Canal District. Something to consider would be the districts of Amsterdam, since per March 2022, nearby Weesp will become a part of the municipality of Amsterdam. Logically, it would be included in our hierarchy as such as well. Additionally, it feels weird to me that Duivendrecht and Diemen aren't districts either. They may be different municipalities, but we don't have to be limited by that. That's an entirely different discussion though, but I am not sure whether to have that discussion before or after featuring this as DOTM. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support per comments of those with local knowledge. As usual, some minor fixes would be appreciated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Scheduled just before Pride 2022. /Yvwv (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Slush? Until the copyvio thing is fully sorted out, should we slush this? We can renominate this later if improvements have been made. For its slot, I think Havana or Queensland are two viable options. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- cc @Tai123.123:. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Slushing makes sense. When it comes to scheduling, we should keep common practice only to schedule articles with at least one vote. Leave the slot empty until we have a candidate with some support. /Yvwv (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Outcome: slushed due to copyvio. I'll try and work on it, but sometime soon. It can hopefully get renominated for 2023. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Place: Sochi |
Nomination
![]() |
- Slush? While no one has evaluated the article, Sochi is near the border to Ukraine. An escalated conflict might make Sochi an unsafe international destination. /Yvwv (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is some distance from the border and is in Russia, and surely wouldn’t be harmed by the conflict. I’m not sure we need to slush at this point, although if outright war takes place in Donetsk, we might consider it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It also needs a lot of work (such as coords). Ima slush this as the nominator is fine with it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is some distance from the border and is in Russia, and surely wouldn’t be harmed by the conflict. I’m not sure we need to slush at this point, although if outright war takes place in Donetsk, we might consider it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Place: Hollywood |
Nomination
![]() |
- Close. The article needs a more substantial lead section, more on public transit within the district, and a stay safe section. Summers can be hot with great crowds at many venues, and we have many upcoming destinations in the US and elsewhere. Spring and autumn have the most comfortable weather. /Yvwv (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Close per Yvwv. I also don't have too big of an issue with featuring three US destinations at once. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- On hold due to zero support votes and unfavourable weather. /Yvwv (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I'll try to look over this article later, but I think the blurb is a little hyperbolic. To me, the strip in Hollywood is worth visiting once, kind of like Times Square (unless you're going to Broadway shows repeatedly), whereas L.A. is worth visiting over and over again. Much of the rest of the neighborhood is actually kind of rough, or has been the previous times I was in L.A. (the last time was a few years ago). Would you all consider changing the blurb to "Every year, loads of movie fans visit the center of America's entertainment industry, Hollywood" or some other alternative phrasing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Done I would also agree with you there. I went there in 2017 and it was certainly a nice place, but I wouldn't want to go there again and again. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Slush? While this is a decent article, it has zero support votes, and a couple of unresolved issues two months into nomination. We have four scheduled features from the United States, and do not need this article for geographic diversity. /Yvwv (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)