Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates/Archive/2004-2008

< Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates‎ | Archive
Learn more about this page
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Selection Process

Should we attempt to work out some sort of formal algorithm for choosing destinations? Wikipedia's style is that anything uncontested for a week passes, with the caveat that any objections given must be fixable (ie. "need more info on X" and not "j00 are teh sux0r"). (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:11, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

That would work. How to decide "ties"? Add them to The Queue and do them in chronologic order? I would also propose that no country shall have a DoM twice in a row. If the DoM is a country, then this rule applies to continents. This should spread the love around a bit. Do we allow for a special rule for really huge events? For example it would have made some sense to put Portugal up as DoM during that soccer championship (that is assuming the article is "fairly complete" and again nobody objects). I think this makes sense for truly global events (large soccer championships and olympics are the two that come to mind, there may be others). -- (WT-en) Nils 11:00, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Just wanted to say this page is a good idea... and I like the idea of "constructive criticism." Events should be taken into consideration, but it's hard to say what's "global" and there are plenty of places that would come up for the same month-- I'm just thinking of Aug as an example... I wish there were more months in the year! (WT-en) Majnoona 19:06, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

This is all cool, but I have another suggestion... what if we just take all the suggested featured destinations and use them? I mean, a month is a long time... we could use one for a few days, and one for another few days. --(WT-en) Evan 20:04, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Having a "Destination of the Week" was already suggested on Talk:Main Page, but I'm not sure Wikivoyage has all that many "showcasable" articles yet... especially since thumbnails still aren't working, making the picture requirement tough. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:42, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Destination of the week is not feasible yet simply because of the lack of really good articles. It's also a lot of overhead.... also I wager the average visitor does not show up weekly. We can always switch to a weekly schedule later, but for now I'd say monthly is definitely the way to go. -- (WT-en) Nils 01:30, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)
About events: Could be done with a simple "no objections" rule again. But I do think that the number of events of global scope is limited. We only want events that many people travel to, and events that are not repeated at the same location every year (because, frankly, we can really expect people interested in say the carnival in Rio to look up Rio directly). I already mentioned soccer championships and olympics, I haven't yet come up with a third example. -- (WT-en) Nils 01:30, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)


Additional criteria

Some suggestions for additional guidelines:

  • The article should be featured at a good time to visit
  • The article should cover a destination, not an entire region

Opinions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:32, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I agree on both points. "Why this months" is something I think should be considered: New Orleans is a great article right now, for example, but it would be silly not to run it for Mardi Gras...
I disagree on the second one. Regions are destinations, and I see no reason not to have Basque Country or the Ionian Islands be a DotM. --(WT-en) Evan 15:06, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)
How complete do we want the cities in the region to be? Clearly it would be best if a DoM region had at least a few cities with high quality articles so that people can find somewhere to sleep but... should all the city articles be reasonably complete? (I know trying to complete some of the New South Wales regions is proving a big task ;) ) -- (WT-en) Hypatia 15:15, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)
And where is the line (is there a line?) between an acceptable region and a too-large region? Basque Country I can live with, but what about Spain or Europe? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:39, 31 Oct 2004 (EST)
There's probably a rule-of-thumb, something like "can see a reasonable amount of the destination in two weeks" say. Just a rough guide. I agree that regions should be able to be featured, although there seem to be even fewer really good region articles than there are really good city/attraction articles at this stage. Nevertheless there are definitely regions that are more than the sum of their parts, if you like. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 07:31, 1 Nov 2004 (EST)

I think we all more or less agree on this, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reason why eg. United States and South Africa were considered unsuitable "destinations". One attempt:

  • The nominated article should cover a single destination or manageable region, not entire continents or large countries

I don't like it though. Better ideas? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:25, 14 May 2005 (EDT)

Procedure

So, I'd like to suggest the following: let's plan on making the DotM decision a few days ahead of the first of the month. That way, we can spend some time polishing up an article to a high sheen. --(WT-en) Evan 02:46, 1 Dec 2004 (EST)

Agreed. Should the 'deadline' for choosing be fixed at one week (7 days) before the end of the month? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:30, 1 Dec 2004 (EST)

Smaller places as DotM

There seems to have been a trend towards the monumental lately: Paris, Bangkok, New Orleans, all huge cities. Isn't it time to showcase some smaller places for a change? One problem though is that it's hard to find small cities that many visit & hence contribute to... (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:52, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)

Requirements for pictures

Wikivoyage's growing, our articles are getting better, and I think we need to raise the bar for DotMs a little too. I've just changed the requirement from "one picture" to "one good picture" — after all, this will be seen by hundreds of thousands on the main page, and it's not very pro if there's some blurry, overexposed picture with a tilted Eiffel Tower and somebody's grandma in front of it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:57, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Is that picture in Las Vegas? -- (WT-en) Mark 04:57, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)
Can you take a "good" picture in Las Vegas? An evil picture, I would believe. :-) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:17, 16 Dec 2005 (EST)

Winter destinations?

We're a little low on wintery/winter-escape-y/southern hemisphere destinations for January and February. Any nominations? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:19, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)

Innsbruck would be good since there are ski resorts near by. just a few photos added to the page.

One week to go and Santa Fe and Kuala Lumpur seem to be the only viable candidates. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:44, 21 Dec 2005 (EST)
I assume you mean Santa Fe (New Mexico). How much does it bother people that, as I mention in the root article, this doesn't look like a very good year for skiing there? I honestly think that it's the article of the two that's in the better shape (no pride of authorship here, no really...), but in this particular January, it may be a less interesting destination than KL, although it's still a great place to be a tourist. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:10, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
How about Kuala Lumpur for January, and holding off on Santa Fe (New Mexico) until at least February, by which time the skiing should be better? I don't think there's any doubt that Santa Fe will eventually be featured, the issue just seems to be a matter of getting the timing right. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
Possible, I suppose, but I'd recommend the reverse, skiing or no skiing. February skiing at Santa Fe can be a bit slushy, and the switch would give time to populate the "Do" section of KL, which really should have at least something in it for a DotM. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:20, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

Additional Criteria revisited

Old thread, but something is bothering me about this one:

  • The article should be featured at a good time to visit

Problem is, during the "good time to visit," in many places it may be hard to secure accommodations on the spur of the moment. To use an example not currently being proposed, the most fun time to visit Albuquerque is during October, for the Balloon Fiesta -- but if you don't already have your hotel reservations many weeks before you visit, you may have to find a room at least 50 miles away (literally) and maybe more. It would be far more of a service to readers to put Albuquerque up as a DotM for August or even July so that they have at least some shot of getting hotels when they actually want to be there. This isn't a problem with all DotM candidates (how far in advance must you reserve hotels in the Falklands?), but for those where it is a problem, posting it before the "good time to visit" might be better. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:12, 16 Dec 2005 (EST)

Valid point, but how much before? How do you nail this down into a criterion? And if we're going to feature (say) Turin for the Winter Olympics 2006, then you should have done your reservations about 10 years ago...! (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:32, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
I don't think it hurts to feature a city while a big event is going on, but it also wouldn't hurt to feature it a few months in advance. Thus Turin may not be the best DOTM choice for April 2006, but anything prior and up to the Olympics seems OK to me. Perhaps the criteria could be modified to state that a destination should be featured during a "good month to visit or a few months earlier in cases where advance planning is needed". -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:02, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
If Turin is really booked up right now then there is pretty much no chance that we can feature it. I'm willing to pack the family up and spend a long weekend down there around the end of January to do the research, but if we won't be able to find a place to stay then there's pretty much no way. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:44, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)
If a destination is going to be featured when it is a good time to visit at least it highlights what to see, do, eat and drink even if they cannot get a bed. Besides, if you have to plan to go there, showing the destination on the month that an annual event occurs probably means it is the best time to visit and gives travelers 12 months to plan for the next best time to visit. Perhaps the criteria should be: a good month to visit to see annual events, or several months to a year in advance of a one off event. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:57, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)

Nominations

Any reason why my Budapest nomination is getting deleted? This is the 2nd time it happened.

I removed the second listing for Budapest because it is already the third nomination on the list behind Belfast and Oxford.
Also, you can sign your postings by typing four tildes (~~~~) which makes it easier to communicate. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:13, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

Deadlines

I see the deadline for the picking of Destination of the Month is a little informal. How about the decision about the destination of the month on the last day or the 2nd last day of the previous month and have a deadline for submition of a Destination of the Month candidate.(WT-en) Kingjeff 21:14, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

There have been several proposals for when to choose DOTM, with the most popular option generally being that choosing at least a week or two in advance is the best because it gives people a chance to finesse the article a bit prior to its being featured. Unfortunately the administrative overhead is sometimes such that it's not possible to narrow down the (often limited) choices within a specified time period, so the reality is that as soon as there seems to be a consensus the DOTM is chosen, and barring consensus a default is chosen if the end of the month arrives. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:32, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

Special Events

I suggest that the host city/region/country of special events like a FIFA World Cup or Olympic games should be automatically be destination of the month. (WT-en) Kingjeff 18:40, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)

Well, Germany is hosting the world cup and I think all the major cities on here can improve by then. Even though there will not be a lot of tickets available then, there will be a the odd tickets available at that time. (WT-en) Kingjeff 12:04, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

There are a lot of "special events" going on all the time around the world... we've already had this discussion re: Athens and the previous Olympics, and the consensus was that, if the article is not up to shape, then it should not be showcased. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:47, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

DOTM Candidates page

Should the DOTM Candidates page be cleared of at least of the old stuff?? (WT-en) Kingjeff 14:14, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)


I put what i thought was current and futre candidates under the line in the nominations sections. I know it probably isn't the manuel of style. But I thought it would be easier to participate. (WT-en) kingjeff 22:47, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)


The DOTM page looks much more organized. (WT-en) Kingjeff 10:22, 27 February 2006 (EST)

Planning ahead

It strikes me that we should be able to plan further ahead than just the next month. Simply saying

  • (Current month): Frozen Gopher, Minnesota
  • (Next month): ??

is an expedient, not a plan. There are enough places in the nomination queue now, with emerging clarity as to what they are good for, that we should be able to do better.

A six-month, rolling-but-not-binding proposal might make sense. It would focus some of the discussions, and also would provide enough advance warning to really spruce up sites that need work. At the same time, it would provide enough flexibility to introduce spectacular new pages that didn't exist until a couple of months before their ideal DotM month. Call it the "straw man" that people could comment on, as new, individual DotM candidates for inclusion in the straw man are introduced here. As of today (12 Jan 06) the straw man might look like:

-- which captures the current nominee list, reflecting recommended months for at least some of the articles, and allows the planning to advance well into the future. At the same time, if a super-cool alternative comes along, there'll be time to discuss it.

Would this work? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:15, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)

I'm kind of undecided on this. The good side is that it would reduce the current problem of having to decide a DotM at the last minute; the bad side is that I can foresee the list either a) becoming the subject of debates, or b) becoming carved in stone and the decision threshold is then just pushed 6 months ahead. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:54, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)
Your first "bad side" isn't bad at all, it's the whole point. DotM candidates should be debated if a debate is necessary en route to consensus. By projecting the planning a little farther into the future, we get the debating done well enough in advance that it doesn't hold up the process of finalizing the chosen articles. Most of the time, however, I don't think a debate will occur; consensus will rapidly appear, as soon as there is a structure within which to achieve it. Maybe I'm wrong... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:29, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)
I think you're right. I've plunged ahead and moved to your system, let's see how it works. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:53, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)

Right now I think Berlin has the only vote for next month. (WT-en) Kingjeff 21:12, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

I can't support Berlin, for reasons explained in the root article, but in any event, it's the structure that I'm advocating, not the particular places I use in the example (although each has been proposed for the month or time of year I put it in). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:19, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)

Was this a good idea? A dead quiet seems to have descended on this page which used to be the most interesting one in all of Wikivoyage. People have started satisficing. Once one sees nice looking articles slotted for the next 6 months, he is not motivated to look for a better one. Jpatokal's scenario b) has come to pass.

We should have a two-stage nomination process. In the first stage, we shortlist articles. In the second stage, we choose a destination for the month. We continue to have a rolling selection process, but for the next 3 months instead of 6. The only major difference from the current system is that we have nominations for each month rather than the current strawman list, which, even though that is not the intention, makes it look like it has been cast in stone. We fix the problem of last minute selection by making the 15th a hard deadline for the selection. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 00:50, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're proposing -- are you saying nominations last for only one month, and anything that 'fails' is automatically cast off into the slush pile? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:17, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
I think the "dead quiet" is a temporary, one-of-a-kind thing, arising from the fact that the existing list of candidates is largely serviced on the straw man. It'll get lively again when the February DotM goes up and we start thinking about the August addition(s) -- which is the whole idea, do the discussing far enough in advance to work out the glitches. Speaking of which, anybody got any ideas for August? :-) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:10, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

Hangzhou

So the first test case is upon us. Any reason not to go with Hangzhou in three days? The long-term plan seems to have at least quieted the end-of-the-month rumbles, although I'm probably going to regret saying that ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:02, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)

Discussion Page

There really needs to be another page for DOTM. The page is starting to get to long and confusing. The current pge should be for the next month and maybe have Future destination of the month. It would make things a lot easier if this is done. (WT-en) Kingjeff 11:37, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

Suggestion

How about we use 

===[[ARTICLE]]===
; '''Reason:'''
; '''Support:'''
# ~~~~

; '''Comments:'''
*
----

It'll help organize the page even more. (WT-en) Kingjeff 21:57, 28 February 2006 (EST)

I think the current system seems to work quite well. It seems a bit churlish to make such a swift decision on the selection of an article possibly 6 months ahead. Perhaps 1 month to make a decision would be better. (WT-en) DanielC 08:08, 2 March 2006 (EST)

If we do continue to select in advance, may be should go to 

====April 2006====

====May 2006====

====June 2006====

Before the page was organize the way it is now, it was very disorganized. If we do it the 2 ways I've suggested, then I think it'll be easier to go through all the nominations. (WT-en) Kingjeff 16:21, 3 March 2006 (EST)

I don't see any of this as necessary. Lack of organization isn't a problem with the page as it stands, and adding all this stuff just makes the page cluttered. The current standard is fine. Thanks for thinking about alternatives, though. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:34, 4 March 2006 (EST)

Since DOTM are planned for the next few months how about we have months are the subsections and the actual nominations are the subsections under the designated month that the nominator wants it in? 

====April 2006====

====May 2006====

====June 2006====

(WT-en) Kingjeff 14:00, 5 March 2006 (EST)

DOTM volume

The DOTM queue seems to be getting a bit crowded, with strong nominees jostling for position. This is a good problem to have, of course. But it gets me wondering if there's a good way to feature more than just 12 articles/year. Destination Of The Week is way too much, too quickly. And a Destination Of The Fortnight or Destination Of The Semi-Month wouldn't roll off the tongue very well. :) But what about having two concurrent DOTMs, such as one for each hemisphere (West/East)? That would provide an outlet for the inevitable volume of U.S. destinations (with Latin America and Canada getting slots as well of course) without short-changing Afroeurasialian destination articles. (And there'd be a natural tendency to oscillate between South and North hemispheres over the course of the year.) Doubling up would have the added benefit of making it clearer to first-time visitors that the site features more than just... whatever kind of place the current DOTM is.

For the sake of example, the queue could look like:

Thoughts? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:50, 2 April 2006 (EDT)

My biggest concern would be that we have lots of summer destinations, but many fewer winter destinations, so I'm not sure we can support two a month just yet. Additionally, as an alternative proposal to an East/West split it might be interesting to do something like "Destination of the Month" for more popular destinations (Paris, Montreal, Munich) and an "Off the Beaten Path" feature for places like Svalbard. I don't think we have enough good articles to suport that yet, but in the future it might be an interesting way to highlight our most useful guides and some of our more interesting guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:18, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
Very interesting idea, Ryan! As I look at the current nominees, they break into the two categories thus:
Seven to six, which (1) suggests that there's already a rough balance between the two and (2) says we already have enough nominees to fill both categories for a while. (Not sure but what Santa Fe and Pattaya should be swapped, but it doesn't change the outcome.) Admittedly there are two or three of these that I don't think are quite in DotM shape yet, but they're not far from it, and the number of high-quality articles is increasing, not decreasing.
From a content perspective, this clearly looks doable, and it's a bone to throw to some of the nabobs who've argued that the front page needs some updating occasionally to avoid looking stagnant. However, it's a fairly substantial change in the way we do business that should be socialized more broadly than just on this talk page before it is implemented. If someone who's more fluent than I am with wiki markup would take a stab at a redesigned front page via the Project:Graffiti wall, with an "Off The Beaten Path" box added, I'd love to see it, and would help advertise in some of the relevant places. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:18, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
I do like the idea of Off The Beaten Path, and I think candidates for it would be pretty plentiful. A few current DotM candidates would fit, but it could also draw from other kinds of "smaller" destinations (quirky resorts, state parks, interesting towns) that probably wouldn't be considered for DotM, but which take less effort and commitment (and tend to be more fun) to write than the kinds of major destinations that DotM seems geared for. I've done a rough mock-up of the front page on the Project:Graffiti wall as suggested (with duplicate destination links added to fill out that space a little more).
It sounds like determining the difference between the two features might be a little tricky. Personally, I would consider Oxford and Pattaya pretty beaten-path destinations, the former because it's familiar (at least by name) to most English-speaking people and near London, and the latter because it has so many visitors (even if it's off the radar of most upstanding Western tourists {smile}). Hard and fast criteria might not be practical, but some kind of general agreement of what "OtBP" means might help. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:28, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
I also like this idea. The easiest split would be just by the size of the destination: if it's using the Large or Huge city template, it's a big place and thus on the beaten path. Small, National Park or Region would be off the beaten path. Common sense can still be applied — eg. in the lists above Yosemite is rather firmly on the beaten path — but this seems to work for the rest of the list (if Pattaya and maybe Oxford are shifted into the beaten path, which to me seems better anyway). (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:06, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
I like the idea of the beaten/unbeated split, but I'm concerned that one of them is going to be too far down the main page to be noticed. Could we have DoTM and OTBTofTM sharing a month? Or something? -- (WT-en) Colin 23:22, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
Todd's way of implementing this seems to address this issue well; check it out.
I don't think it'd make sense for Off The Beaten Path to be too prominently placed. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:04, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
As for what goes where, I pulled the examples above out of some bodily orifice, and they are not binding. The sensible way to proceed is probably for the nominator to give his/her opinion on whether a place is a traditional DotM or OtBP. That strikes me as more reliable than basing things on the template type, etc. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:14, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I like this idea. I had been thinking for a while about how to get smaller places as DOTM and this seems to do this rather elegantly. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:23, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I like the idea, although if we're separating the I'd really love to break up the Main Page so that the "Project" parts are at Project:Portal or Project:Project or something. I know it's orthogonal, but it's been a while since we made a major change to the main page. --(WT-en) Evan 11:48, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I like the idea as well, but I took a look at the example and I actually think that both DotMs should be better showcases, either centered or moved to the upper left... I have to agree with Evan that this might be a great excuse to move forward with giving both the Guide and the Project more space on their own pages. This would allow us to highlight not only more than one type of DotM (maybe IofMs & TTothM?) as well as the Collaboration of the week too ... (WT-en) Majnoona 14:00, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
As an aside, I thought that the usual phrase was Off the beaten track rather than path. -- (WT-en) DanielC
An unscientific survey of Google yields 7.6Mhits for "off the beaten path" and 2.7Mhits for "off the beaten track". So both are widely used, but "path" more so. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:52, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
It all you Yanks!!! I tried it on Google UK and got 480,000 to 76,000 in favour(!) of track. Well, I've learnt a new Americanism now. -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:09, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I agree with (WT-en) Maj that this could prove to be a good prompt to divide the main page in two, with more space on each resulting page for interesting new things. What would you call the "project" page? Project:The Project? -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:05, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
Wikipedia's got "Community Portal", which isn't too bad in my opinion. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:48, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

Are we going to go through with this? If so, is it too late to do at least just the DOTM/OTBP split for May (and save the larger main-page redesign for later)? Part of the reason I ask is that Svalbard would be an ideal inaugural OTBP candidate, but it's scheduled to instead become DOTM in a week. Is Oxford ready to be the next DOTM? (I think so.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:19, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

I vote for adding OTBP for May. Not sure that Oxford is really in 100% compliant shape, but it's close enough, and you gotta start somewhere. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:25, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

New Main Page with Dotm/OtbP split

Without further ado → User:(WT-en) Jpatokal/Main Page. Edit at will. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:29, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

US-heavy dotmotbpiness coming up

5 out of the 6 shortlisted DotM/OtbPs for Jun/Jul/Aug are in the United States, which is a wee bit concentrated for my liking. I do realize that many of the national parks in question are best visited in the summer, but could we scrounge up a couple of more European/north Asian destinations? I've just nominated Hanover, which would be good in June thanks to the World Cup in Germany.

And I'd like to claim first dibs on the handy adjective "dotmotbpy" (DOT-mot-PEE). (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:05, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Jani, you perhaps speak Wikiese with an accent; it's obviously "DOT-MOP-pee". Think of it as though it's Welsh, where consonants can be thrown away or included at random. :-) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:14, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Maybe I've been studying too much Thai lately; some romanizations actually use "bp" for the unaspirated bilabial plosive (the 'p'-without-a-puff in English "spot"). Add in the use of a trailing "y" in some hilltribe dialects to flag tones, and "dawt mawt bpee!" in a sing-songy Thai voice sounds perfectly natural. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:31, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Seriously, the problem isn't quite as severe as you say it is, because Penticton isn't in the US, but rather in Canada. (You were counting it as US, right?) The challenge, if that's still considered too dotmotbpy, is to find OTBP destinations elsewhere. The extensively-developed and -visited US national park system produces a natural "leg up" on those that is exacerbated by the seasonal issues. I don't think this just must be fixed, although it should be observed to make sure it doesn't become a trend.
All of that said, I personally would be agreeable to substituting Hanover for Yosemite. Looking to the future, we need more non-North-American OTBPs; thanks for getting Iya Valley in the queue, and may others go and do likewise. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:14, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Regarding the 51st state, mea maxima culpa (I even looked up the article but somehow entirely managed to miss that). Anyway, I just added South Luangwa NP to the nominations, it's also a summery OtbP destination. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:31, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Again, I think the correct terminology is "mea screwa-uppa". Would South Luangwa work for October? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:38, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
I'd pip it ahead of Iya Valley into September. Iya should be nice in October, while Zambia's rather painful hot season is starting by then. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:43, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Our coverage of Australia and New Zealand seems to be pretty good. It would be good if someone who knows these could find a couple of places from there for OTBP during the difficult to fill northern winter. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:18, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
I'm actually struggling to find really good quality articles about things that are actually off the beaten track: Sydney and Melbourne -- the latter has already been DotM -- are pretty well beaten, as are Cairns and the Barrier Reef islands. I don't know New Zealand well enough. Jervis Bay and the Blue Mountains would be good regions to feature (they're not really off the beaten path for Australians, but might qualify here) during the southern summer, I may be able to get one or both of them to the required standard by the time December rolls around. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:49, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
One option would be Hinchinbrook Island. It's rather short though, but then again, I'm not sure there's all that much more you can write about it -- unless somebody can describe the Thorsborne Trail in detail. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:59, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
Aw man, I was really looking forward to the Yosemite-vs-Isle Royale matchup. But there's too much Norteamericano stuff even for my tastes. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:41, 4 May 2006 (EDT)

Capitalization

I know this isn't a major matter, but in an alternate reality I'm a high school English teacher, and MediaWiki is case-sensitive, so I fret over things like capitalization. So, is it "Destination of the Month", "Destination of the month", "Destination Of The Month"? And "Off the Beaten Path", "Off the beaten path", or "Off The Beaten Path"? I don't think it matters much how people abbreviate them ("DOTM", "DotM", "dotmotbpy") because none of that's official, but it'd be nice to settle on an official treatment.

  • My preference is for "Destination of the Month" and "Off the Beaten Path". They're the names of specific features of the site, and this is how they'd be capitalized if they were the names of, say, books, movies, or nation-states. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Breaking ties

We're heading for a situation for June that's actually rather desirable, but will require some procedures to deal with it: there are two credible alternatives for DotM in the same block of the "Schedule" queue, and as it happens, that block is about to become the current one. This is the first time that that has happened since the inception of the queue. How to deal with this? Just vote? If so, where? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

In my opinion, both Yosemite and Hanover are fine articles, but Hanover pips Yosemite by the double virtues of being timely for World Cup 2006 and not being in the United States (see dotmotbpy discussion above). I thought this was already more or less agreed on and was in fact about to change the list to say so, any objections to doing so? (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:54, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
I don't think there's a clear consensus for that yet: the question of what this means for Munich in September and the desire to pair big Yosemite with quiet Isle Royale are still out there. Maybe we could set up a poll between the two candidates in the "Schedule" section, with a brief comment about why each arguably should be featured that month. Folks can then state "support" under their preferred candidate, with an optional explanation of why. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:24, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
I agree with Todd: this isn't clear-cut, and I have seen good solid arguments both ways. I personally don't have a strong preference as to which one "wins," but transparency in process is a good thing. The poll sounds right to me, if there's a consensus that the DotM Candidates page is the place for it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:35, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Gradations of "Do not support"

One unanticipated consequence of going to the 6-month schedule is that recently there have started to be some "Do not support" inputs (e.g. for Yosemite National Park) that may set up a problem in the future. Some people are saying they "do not support" a destination as DotM, when in fact they do not support it for the month for which it is presently nominated. There is a big difference between that statement, which simply implies that one prefers something else for that month and says nothing about the quality of the DotM candidate, and saying that one doesn't support a place as DotM at all because the article is not up to DotM standards. It would be good to qualify a "transient" DNS carefully, to make sure that deserving articles don't wind up in the slush pile. Suggestions on how to deal with this? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Would it make any sense to debate the article ordering right after the provisional schedule, and keep discussion about the articles themselves where it is now? (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:52, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
As long as people explain what they mean by "Do Not Support", I think we can put that phrase into context and ignore it when considering it for another month. But "Not This Month" would definitely be a better way of expressing it. I think we can keep the "this would be good/bad for Quintember" discussion under the article headers, but when/if we get into a direct A vs. B debate for a specific month, a "Quintember" section under "Schedule" might be useful. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:10, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

-

I am one of those do not support for that particular month people. Thought I implied that with the disclaimer "No real objection, but Hanover should get the nod" or whatever I said. Will rephrase to make my statement clarified. - Sapphire

Staggering DotM/OtBP change to different days?

Would it make any sense to change the DotM and OtBP at different times? So DotM would still change on the 1st, but the new OtBP would be introduced on the 15th. This would help keep the main page a little more dynamic. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:18, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

  • I like the idea! I get a little bored of the Main Page since it rarely changes in a monthly period. Having it change every 15 days would be a cool change of scenery. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:43, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Support, somewhat unenthusiastically. It would indeed be nice to keep the main page fresh, but it'll also increase the work load for the people who tend the page. On balance a plus, but be careful what you wish for; you may get it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:48, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

So, I'm going to implement this today and only change the DotM. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:37, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

This creates the poetic coincidence that Isle Royale will go Off the Beaten Path the day before I leave for there. I'll probably have some fresh photos and an update or two a couple weeks later. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:42, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Singapore

Is it time to feature Singapore as DotM yet? To those who are surprised why it hasn't been a DotM yet, the reason is that it was nominated by Jpatokal last year, got unanimous support, but then he withdrew the nomination in August 2005 with the mysterious comment that "I'd like to withdraw my nomination and hold off on having Singapore DotM'd for another 6 months or so. The reasons why will become apparent in due course...". It is almost a year now and I demand that the mystery be revealed. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:19, 6 July 2006 (EDT)

I regret to say that the mystery must, yet, stay a mystery. However, thanks to Bill's 6-month queue system, I wouldn't oppose seeing Singapore DotM'd in half a year or so. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:39, 6 July 2006 (EDT)


DotM for Winter 2006/2007

Hi

For the Winter 2006/2007 we are at the moment a little short of nomiantions. So if you have an interesting article please nominate it. Thanks, (WT-en) Jan 08:20, 10 August 2006 (EDT)

Eligibility for DotM

So, some candidates have been objected to on the grounds that "they're not destinations". I'd like to add a point to the rules to explicitly state that...

  • Any destination, region, itinerary or event that passes the "What is an article?" test is eligible for DotM/OtBP.

And there's even precedent for that "event" part of it: Expo 2005. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:06, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Not to mention Black Rock City, which is more of an event than a place in many regards. However, I'm not sure that I endorse the idea of itineraries or events for DotM, although I certainly do for OTBP. Shouldn't a "Destination of the Month" be a destination? IMO the criteria don't have to be the same for the two categories of featured articles. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:16, 31 October 2006 (EST)
I feel the same way as Bill does. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 23:24, 31 October 2006 (EST)
I don't see the rationale here. A region is an unordered group of destinations; an itinerary is an ordered group of destinations. If regions are allowed, why not allow itineraries? I mean, the fundamental objective of the DotM is to showcase great Wikivoyage guides -- if there's a great guide to World 66 or Svalbard (a region), then why not? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:39, 1 November 2006 (EST)
Personally, I don't disagree, but remember that the Main Page isn't there for the sake of the "regulars" ("addicts"?); it's there to be the project's welcome mat for the new Wikivoyageer or casual browser. It should therefore deliver exactly the information that it says it's delivering. Is a DotM a "destination" or not? What conclusion does the casual reader draw from seeing Route 66 as a "Destination" of the Month? Better to be clear about such things, even if it means relegating an occasional itinerary or topic to OTBP. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:04, 1 November 2006 (EST)
I think Black Rock City was a great DOTM, as was Expo 2005 - both are great articles that aren't covered by other guides. Route 66 seems similar to me - if we have a good article on Route 66, I'm not sure that the fact that it's an itinerary is a reason not to feature it. In this context I think of a destination as a "place you can travel to", and all three would meet that criteria. I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that itineraries can only be OTBP, but I don't see the need for it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:50, 31 October 2006 (EST)
I retract all of my concerns regarding this and I think a "DOTM" can and should incorporate itineraries or events. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:11, 14 November 2006 (EST)
I've plunged forward and added this to the criteria. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:55, 24 November 2006 (EST)
I still don't like this, but it's not a fall-on-my-sword issue. Let's see what kind of articles Jani's wording attracts and revisit the subject now and then, to see if the outcome looks good. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:17, 24 November 2006 (EST)
The reason I've retracted my concerns is due to the Olympics, World Cups, and the Euro cup attract millions of travellers (Why don't we use the singular "l" form?) and can't be considered Off-the-Beaten-Path, If, however, something like R66 was nominatedas DotM I'd be less inclined to support that as "DotM" rather than OTBP. -- Andrew (Sapphire)


OtbP candidates in Japan

So there's an index called Off the beaten track in Japan which lists, well, off the beaten path destinations in Japan. Most are not up to DotM standards but this may prove useful in the unlikely event that we start running low on places. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:54, 30 April 2006 (EDT)


Enhancement

I made some changes so that the blurbs that get on to the main page on the 1st and 15th can be written right here. That way, whoever wants to update can copy it instead of writing a good summary fresh under time constraints. When this gets botified, the bot can do the same. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 21:28, 13 November 2006 (EST)

Very good idea! Although the full justification looks a little funky? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 13 November 2006 (EST)
I've played around with it. Does it look better? Whoever updates the DotOTBP next should keep in mind that the div tags should not be copied along with the blurb. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 22:44, 13 November 2006 (EST)
I split the "blurb" section out from the nomination section, so the layout of the blurbs should now be closer to what will actually appear on the Main Page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:17, 15 November 2006 (EST)
So I decided to go one step further and actually just copy the code from the Main Page. Feel free to revert if that's not helpful. For my part I think it's helpful to be able to judge exactly what the new DOTM / OTBP will look like, particularly how much space it's going to take up. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:24, 15 November 2006 (EST)
Agreed on all points; it's useful, and better as a stand-alone section rather than part of the table. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:32, 15 November 2006 (EST)
And I've gone ahead and templatised the blurbs. Behold Template:DotMOTBP! But will someone correct the capitalization for me? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 00:17, 16 November 2006 (EST)

So where is everybody?

Interest in this feature seems to have sagged alarmingly. A number of candidates have been proposed, but reactions seem to range from "<yawn>" to "oh, not really." Meanwhile, the queue is getting rather depleted. Can we liven things up some, at least to the point of replenishing the queue? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:34, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Well, the queue does reduce the urgency of things a little, which is what it was supposed to do -- we no longer have the previous "OMG WTF we need a DotM tomorrow BBQ!!!11!1" situation we used to have at the end of every month. But I'll poke around and think of some candidates... (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:54, 1 February 2007 (EST)


Criteria for OTBP v DOTM

I have thinking for a while now about whether we need to agree some rough criteria for distinguishing OTBP form DOTM. See discussions at Project:Destination_of_the_Month_candidates#Zion_National_Park and Project:Destination_of_the_Month_candidates#Windsor_.28Ontario.29. For instance, Hoi An was OTBP when it's a primary tourist destination in Vietnam, but Swansea is probably outside the top 20 destinations in the UK. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, popularity is always a relative concept -- Hoi An is well known among the Indochina backpacker set, but it doesn't (for example) have a single branded chain hotel and gets only a small fraction of Vietnam's tourists, which totaled a piddly 4 million in 2006, while Wales racked up 8 million.
My rule of thumb is that if you say the name to somebody on the other of the planet, and they've heard of it, it's a DOTM, while if they haven't, it's OTBP. For example, "Canton" (=Guangzhou) probably rings bells for most people, while "Hoi An" will draw blank stares. Zion's pretty borderline, and on this scale the Windsor that doesn't have a big royal castle would be OTBP, while Detroit would be DOTM. It would be nice to have a more quantitative measure of popularity, but I'm a little at a loss as to what that might be -- should we really start counting visitors per year? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:18, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Not a bad metric, although I think it would misclassify Denali National Park (about as off-the-beaten-path as you can get), at least for people who know that Denali = Mount McKinley. But is there really a problem that needs solving here? There will always be a continuum between places that are definitely OTBP (Panmunjeom, Svalbard, to name a couple we've featured) and others that clearly aren't (Paris, New Orleans). Rather than getting too prescriptive, let's just have the discussion when a place seems to fall squarely in the gray area, as is the case with Windsor and Zion. Discussion is never a bad thing -- is it? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:55, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Jani we Americans are little, how do you say... uncivilized. You say Canton and we think Pro Football Hall of Fame. Windsor is an unusual place, because it's not OTbP since well over 20 million people use the border crossing every year and it's easy to get to from within the Continental U.S. This is an indication of cultural experience and values, but if you ask any Midwesterner about Windsor we don't think castles and England we think of Ontario.
I like Bill's proposal and leave it up to a coin toss. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
How about having DotM for places that people will have heard of (the kind of places that are on the country's list of main cities/attractions (i.e. Paris, Kruger National Park, Dubai, Yellowstone National Park), your OtBP places are the ones that your average Joe from the other side of the world would never have heard of. For instance, Berneray is a good OtBP, as no one says, "I'm going to Scotland, we must go to Berneray." Rather they will say, "We're going to Scotland, we have to check out "Edinburgh" or "Loch Ness"... So I guess OtBP is for all the quirky little towns/cities/villages/national parks/islands that no one in the world would think to go to... -- (WT-en) Tim 13:39, 7 February 2007 (EST)
I agree partially with Bill - there is of course a continuity and there will always be room for debate. However, what I was looking for was for us to provide a bit more guidance - after all there is some distance between Jpakotal's perception - "My rule of thumb is that if you say the name to somebody on the other of the planet, and they've heard of it, it's a DOTM, while if they haven't, it's OTBP" and Tim's "So I guess OtBP is for all the quirky little towns/cities/villages/national parks/islands that no one in the world would think to go to." There is also the issue of what we are taking as our baseline - is it that the place is OTBP for the country concerned, or the whole world, or a mixture? However, being a pragmatist I would rather keep the DOTM "category" quite wide as there seems to be less really good city articles around at the moment to choose from compared with small OTBP's which are much easier to sort out in a few edits. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:42, 7 February 2007 (EST)
These things are cyclic; for quite a time there were many more DOTM candidates than OTBP candidates.
Let me propose an exercise for the reader. Go through the articles appearing on Category:Usable articles and Category:Guide articles (or at least as many as you have patience for -- exclude "travel topics" and phrasebooks) trying to decide whether, in your own mind, they qualify as DOTM candidates, OTBP candidates, or "don't know." You can probably do this just by looking at the names of the places for 90+% of them, without reading the article. Then report back what you find. Are there really that many articles that fit into your personal don't-know category? If so, then maybe we should do as Daniel suggests and solidify the guidance, but I don't expect there to be, and if there aren't, I just don't see this as a thing to spend much time worrying about. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:35, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Surely the point is not whether you can personally put destinations into a DOTM or OTBP pile, but whether your distinction agrees with other people. -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:43, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Well, do the exercise. I just made a fast pass through the Guide articles (also excluding countries and major regions), with the result: 107 DOTM, 79 OTBP, 13 Don't Know. (This took me less than 10 minutes.) If others are coming in at roughly those same numbers, I don't think we have a problem here. If not, let's look for a way to fix it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:52, 7 February 2007 (EST)

To me the difference is a qualitative one, but one that can be illuminated by quantitative distinctions. The main difference is what they're for: DOTM is to show off the depth of Wikivoyage guides, demonstrating that we've got great articles for the places you probably want to visit. OTBP is to show off the breadth of Wikivoyage guides, demonstrating that we've got articles for great places you probably didn't even know you wanted. I think they'll usually appeal to different kinds of travelers. History so far suggests that in most cases, there's a natural consensus about which is which. As for more formal criteria, I don't think the "have people heard of it" test works very well, because it's too subjective. A question like "how many visitors per year" is a little more useful, not because that's the real criteria (which is why I don't want to set a hard number on it), but because it helps settle the "have people heard of it" test more objectively (e.g. "Oh, it only gets 50,000 visitors a year? That's pretty OTBP, I guess"). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:07, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Yes, that's probably a good way to resolve the lingering uncertainties. Searching out visitor data is more effort than is needed for most nominees, though. Treat it as a "tiebreaker" and move on. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:32, 8 February 2007 (EST)

Berneray's pic, and pics in general

Specific: For Berneray, I like Image:A_boat_at_dawn.jpg more as an arty eye-cacher for the front page, although I'll readily admit the current one is more descriptive. It'd just be nice to have other colors than green and blue for a change... (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

General: I propose that DotM/OtBP nominations should henceforth suggest the image as well, so this can be fought out ahead of time. (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea... and that's a nice image too for Berneray – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Wasn't part of the idea behind displaying a DOTM/OTBP preview on the nomination page so that people could tweak the photo and text prior to a destination launching on the main page? Is there anything else that needs to be done to meet your proposal for picture selection? As it stands now we have one month available to determine how the destination will look when it shows up on the main page, and any discussion can happen as it is happening here about the Berneray photo (I vote for the prettier picture - dawn photo - btw). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it's necessary to propose the photo explicitly as part of the nomination process. With most candidates there's one photo that sorta jumps out at you as the obvious image for the front page; exceptions like Berneray can be dealt with by simply toggling the proposed photo, as I have just done. (That dawn shot is so good that I think it's actually clear in this case too. BTW, the copyright on that one should be updated to our standards; I think it's clear from context that our Scots friend intended to release it, but we should be rigorous about such things.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Tagging former DotM/OtBPs?

As the list grows ever longer, it's getting increasingly difficult to remember which articles have been DotM/OtBP'd already. Should there be some tag on the article itself or its talk page to say that it's already been selected, the way we flag former CotWs? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:50, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

That sounds good... I would say top of the talk page similar to Template:Pcotw – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:01, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
See the discussion on Project:Article status#Putting status icons on the title bar. That never really went anywhere, but the comments were all favorable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:33, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Good idea. It also lets readers know that this is something we consider(ed) a quality article. And if it was a good place to go in June 2006, it's quite possibly a good place to go in June 2008 for the same reasons. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:10, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
This really should be done. What must happen to make it so? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:51, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, I (or anybody) can whip up a plain-jane colored box for the Talk page in seconds, but I think the question is whether we should use heavy wizardry like the status icon thing on the destination itself instead. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:15, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
A good idea and I agree with Gorilla Jones' reasons for adding the tag on the main page, though I don't think it should be too obtrusive. Something like the present tag for announcing that WT won the Webby should be fine. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:05, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Unobtrusive would be good - however, I think the space where we mention things like the Webby and Meet up should be reserved for universal announcements across Wikivoyage, so clogging it up with symbols for this that and the other wouldn't be best. I guess we have to figure out whether this is a logo to help us when we are editing, or whether its something to help the average traveller who uses the site but won't get into the nitty gritty of picking DotMs. Whichever we decide its primarily for, will help us figure where it should go... -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 16:19, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Wikpedia has a star in the title bar to reward a featured article. Something like that can be done, but I think that a star should be reserved for Star articles. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 00:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
I borrowed from Wikipedia's featured article template and came up with User:(WT-en) Wrh2/Sandbox, which is an example using two 20 pixel icons in the title bar (although it could be done with one, three, ten, whatever). Unfortunately I can't figure out an easy way to make it so that clicking on the image leads to the Project:Star articles or Previously Off the beaten path pages, but at least the mouseover can explain what the icon is for.
If this is of interest and someone is willing to make appropriate icons it should be easy to throw together a couple of templates that actually implement this - I'm imagining something like {{title icons|{{star}}|{{otbp}}|{{pcotw}}}}, where the "status icons" template handles all of the CSS and the "star", "otbp", etc are their own templates that simply display the image. Feedback much appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:10, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Strip out the extra braces and just do {{title icons|star|otbp}} etc -- you can invoke the templates in Template:Title icons. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the suggestion. I've put together a totally-untested and definitely broken suggested template layout on my sandbox page. I'm not a fan of having a lot of disclaimer boxes on articles ("this is a star! and it was a previous destination of the month!") so icons would seem to be an unobtrusive way to easily convey a lot of information about an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:03, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
I've cobbled together some sample templates that actually implement this functionality, and they are implemented on User:(WT-en) Wrh2/Sandbox. The template code still needs to be cleaned up a bit, but I don't want to do too much work until there is some agreement that these sorts of icons are actually something we want to start using. If we do want to add icons for previous DOTM, previous OTBP, previous COTW, and star articles then it would be good to have better icons - I just grabbed a couple from commons, but I don't think that they are iconic enough to make sense to a new user. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:16, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes for DotM/OTBP, Yes for Stars, Maybe for Guides, No for everything else. I particularly don't think that previous collaborations should be tagged in the article page. That is what the talk pages are for. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 01:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


The Italians are sneaky. Clicking on an icon should now go to the appropriate page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:32, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
The star (or similar icon) is good if the tag is to be used only as a means to alert regular contributors that an article has previously featured as a DotM or OtBT. However, if it is also meant to promote that destination as a suitable place to visit at a certain time of the year, then obviously more needs to be written, perhaps something along these lines: 'Taipei featured as Wikivoyage Destination of the Month for January 2007' However, I think that such a tag should be unobtrusive (perhaps like the Webby award announcement, though not in that location), and placed in a prominent position - maybe top left corner. So, as Tim says, we first need to define the main function of the tag. Is it to alert regular contributors or both alert regular contributors and promote the destination as a suitable place to visit at a certain time of the year? (WT-en) WindHorse 02:40, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea of icons in the title bar if they're good and unobtrusive... but don't really like the idea of more text there. For sure I'd support a star icon for star articles. And if a good icon came up for PDOTM or POTBP then maybe that too... but if we need a sentence saying something similar to Template:Pcotw I would rather it just go on the top of the talk page the way we've been using the pcotw template... I don't think the other things are important enough to warrant more text up there. Except maybe the current DOTM/OTBP. I'm surprised we haven't already started using at least a normal little box at the top of the current dotm/otbp like we do for cotw. I never realized that. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:23, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Ryan, thanks for efforts. The icons seem fine, and I particular like the global design. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
So then should we use a good ol banner for the current DOTM/OTBP's, and icons for the previous's? I agree those icons aren't bad, and if you think you can come up with something more iconic, that would be great too  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:29, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think a banner is necessary, adding to the front page already gives plenty of exposure. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:15, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm working on some designs for icons. I have a set that are based on the Wikivoyage compass-star logo, and some others that are not quite as distinctly Wikivoyagely. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:15, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Very cool. CSS I can do, but icons - not so much. I'll take a stab at simplifying the template code a bit later tonight if I get a chance, although anyone who wants to is obviously welcome to make modifications.
As a side note, there seems to be support for tagging DOTM, OTBP and star articles with an icon in the status bar. Ravi indicated he doesn't want to tag COTW articles, and I don't think guide articles should be tagged since we don't currently have a standardized way of gaining consensus for what is actually at "guide" status. There was also a brief mention of tagging articles with docents - is there anything else that we would or would not want to tag? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:29, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Docents already have a box in the left margin which I think is sufficient.... agree not to tag guides or COTW... I think it should sort of be an awards section... articles that have been highlighted because of their greatness... which would be stars, dotms and otbps... – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:41, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:STARDOTMOTBP.png|left]]Here are a few ideas for Star and DOTM/OTBP icons. The DOTM/OTBP icons were generally designed in pairs, but the Star icon in the same row doesn't necessarily go with them (hence the different row-identifiers). The top few are based on the Wikivoyage logo, inspired a bit by Mark's original treatment of the triangles fluttering about; the two rows below are more freestyle designs; Star 6 is the standard barnstar and row F are the clip-art samples Ryan picked out. I hope that the concepts behind them are self-explanatory; if not, they probably aren't that great of concepts. :) One of the main considerations was making them simple enough to "read" at about this size, and keep in mind that only DOTM or OTBP will be on a given page (and Star will usually not be on either), so they need to work independently of each other. Opinions/preferences/comments/suggestions are invited. And the drawing board is still available to go back to if these all suck. :( - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT) Responding to some of the feedback, I've added a couple more variations on the most popular options, including simpler version of 1 and 2, and versions of C and D with colors changed for enhanced Wikivoyageity. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:14, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

    • Hey Todd, thanks for your efforts. Comments: They are all pretty cool. Preferences: DOtM, OtBT line C and D both have a simple design, but clear indication of their meaning. They both get my vote (with no preference for one over the other). (WT-en) WindHorse 23:14, 20 June 2007 (EDT) Whoops, forgot to vote for the star. I'll follow Bill's lead - 2.
    • Agreed, thanks, they're all well thought out. I prefer star #2 (4-pointed star lines up with our master logo) and DotM/OtBP D. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:03, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
    • Nice work! I didn't think it was possible to come up with a tiny icon that says dotm or otbp, but you managed a couple good options. I also like C and D... C is more WT style, yet D is slightly more obvious in illustrating the point. I like all of the stars, but would lean towards one of the 5 pointed ones... 1 and 3 are probably my faves... #2 wouldn't make me think "star" immediately. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
    • I'll add in another vote for C and 1. D is too un-Wikivoyagey, and 2 onwards are barnstars, not Stars. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
    • Disclaimer: I've got the artistic sense of a rock, so I'm going for what hopefully will pass as constructive criticism; please don't view these comments as anything that would hold up determining that a consensus has been reached. That said, to me E looks the most interesting, but I don't think it passes the obviousness test. Would it be possible to utilize the idea for B (arrows made from the logo elements) and combine them with E (arrows towards or away from a destination)? It seems like that would achieve both the goals of re-using a common icon theme and conveying a message of function to a user. And thanks for putting these together! It's awesome how the varied talents around here lead to a fairly well-rounded guide. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Bump! It would be nice to get this implemented in the near future - any additional comment? We can always change the icons later if desired, so it wouldn't be too terrible to just start marking former DOTM, OTBP and star articles if there is some agreement to do so. The consensus seems to be towards tagging the articles, so any additional comments? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, let's do it! Coming back to it now a few days later I think C and 1 are still the best. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
I like 1 (good fit with the Wikivoyage theme) and 4 (simple, like a star-shaped link), and E/G, now that the colors are within our range. I like the map-esque feel and they're intriguing designs. I understand the logic of C/H (and prefer the color scheme of the latter) but there's so much whitespace in the OtBP - I think my first assumption would either be that something hadn't loaded properly or that the OtBP dot was a spot on my screen, not the site trying to tell me something. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
So barring further dissent (and I still think E has the most potential) can we start this out shortly using C and 1? Speak now or forever hold your peace... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
C and 1 are fine with me. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Me too. Let's just roll this out, it's easy enough to change the icons if somebody comes up with a killer design later. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

C and 1 sounds like they have the most general support, so I've uploaded them. See Isle Royale National Park for a look at two of the icons "in action". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Looks nice. Since 1 is more solid-colored (and prestigious among our articles), maybe make that the one on the right? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 09:17, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
The order they're displayed depends on what order you specify them when you template the article, so we can't impose that with the template. (Counter-intuitively for non-Hebrew-writers, the first one you list goes on the right.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Can we display the month in which it was OtBP in the onmouseover? "Off the beaten path, June 2006" instead of just "Previously Off the beaten path". I like having the month in there, for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 11:13, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Todd, the icons look great. Thanks for your efforts. Regarding, Gorilla Jones' idea. Can it be implemented? If so, I think it is worth acting on. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:04, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Adding non-uniform text would require some template changes - instead of writing {{title-icons|star-icon|otbp-icon}} we'd need to do something like {{title-icons|{{star-icon}}|{{otbp-icon|July}}}}. If that's agreeable then I can make the change tonight, or if someone has time during the day then please go ahead. As to the Hebrew (right-to-left) listing of icons, that's a bit more difficult to solve due to the need to use CSS absolute positioning - if someone else wants to try to address please go ahead, but I probably won't have the time to investigate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Woohoo, I think this was a great idea. Good job guys! I'm gonna start adding to some more articles too – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 12:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

What do people think about adding image:star-icon.png to the star templates that go at the bottom of the articles? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a good idea. Maybe stick it somewhere on the page that lists the star articles, too, just to make the branding consistent. Also, thanks, Ryan. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 14:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the suggestion of allowing the month to be specified for previous DOTM and OTBP articles, the approach I suggested above will break all of the title-icons templates that have been added to articles thus far. I'd rather not do that unless there is a clear consensus to do so, so please let me know if specifying icon-specific text is something that's desired, otherwise I'll leave things as they are. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:37, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Agree with Ryan. It's easy to get from the icon to the previous-DotM/OtBP pages, where the specified month can be found. Let's not break anything for the sake of marginal added convenience. As for adding the star to the templates, sure, why not, but not urgent. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:48, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the idea of displaying the month with the icon, I understand Bill's point, but I'm inclined to think that we should set up the best format we can. Also, for both DotM and OtBP, we only have 49 pages to change. That isn't a major operation, and from then on it is one page at a time. As for the template, I have no strong opinion either way. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:25, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, don't let my haste in adding the templates get in the way of new developments ;) And I didn't do the otbp's yet either, just dotm's... – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think that adding onmouseover text indicating the month it was featured would be particularly useful. While we try to put them on the main page when they're good to visit, those choices are very arbitrary and usually exclude a half-dozen or more other months when the destination is also good to visit. And more importantly, if a person who's already reading the article for Gotham City can't tell when a good time to visit is, there's something wrong with the article that onmouseover text won't fix. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Good point, and there are also other mitigating factors why a destination is chosen for a particular month (such as, not wanting to run too many articles from the same region in succession). However, in general, the month for which an article features will be one of the most favorable times to visit the place, and therefore I think adding the onmouseover function that indicates the month that the destination featured would be helpful to some degree. Certainly, it is not essential aspect, but it could be a nice bonus. (WT-en) WindHorse 09:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
I can't speak to deliberations in the past, but it seems to me we're being very careful with month placements of DoTM and OtBP this fall and winter - there's been plenty of discussion for Albuquerque, Namche, Guinsa, Hiroshima and others to the effect of "that's one month too early / that's one month too late". I think seeing that Article X was DoTM in June would be intriguing for some readers and would lead them to want to find out why. It helps move them from a casual browser to an involved reader. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:44, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
I think you may be expecting too much to come from a simple onmouseover event. For that matter, I think debates over whether a destination should be featured this month or that month ascribes more importance to that decision than it warrants. Featuring Swansea next week isn't going to send people scurrying to visit south Wales before July is out. I think the value of picking season-appropriate DOTMs is to avoid looking crazy because we're singing the praises of Iceland in January, and to show people who may be going there around this time of year that we have good info for them. It isn't so we can plan people's vacations for them. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:19, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Icons into sidebar?

So the Japanese wikivoyage is also adopting the DOTM icons, and some people there were wondering if it'd be possible to copy Wikipedia's trick of showing little stars etc next to the interlanguage links if the article has been dotm'd/starred on another version. Whaddayathink? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:09, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Why not (no idea from a technical pov though), it could guide people wishing to translate articles. (WT-en) Tensaibuta 08:38, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good to me too. Things promoting more interactions among the various language-wikis should be encouraged. How hard would it be? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
According to [1], it seems to be built into Mediawiki. I couldn't get it to work on my homepage though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
An example – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:53, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
A trial (css, js, template, result). MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js don't seem to be enabled, so I run it on my local pc. -- (WT-en) Tatata 01:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Nice job Ta! I think that's a great idea – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:05, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Single district as destination?

Is a single city district fair game for DotMing? This was recently floated for Chicago, and if the article's good enough, I don't see a reason why not. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

In this specific case, the coverage of Chicago is getting so good (with every prospect of continuing improvement courtesy of Marc and Peter) that I'd rather just see the whole place featured, the better to show off all their great work and present information holistically. That's the preferred general approach, IMO, but in cases where one district dominates the city from a traveler's perspective (definitely not true of Chicago), I could see an exception. Got anything else in mind? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:02, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
It seems that the preference should be to use the full city as the DOTM, although if there was an example where the coverage of the city wasn't up to the standards required but one district was DOTM-worthy then using the district would make sense. Similarly, if there was some timely reason to highlight the district ("April is the 300th anniversary of Poodoo's founding") that would make sense as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Just to clarify things, I think that the reason this came up was not about making a single district the DotM, but rather the OtBP destination of the month. The district in question was Chicago/Bronzeville, which is very rarely visited, unlike Chicago the city, and actually is not even included in other guidebooks (except Michelin, I think). I'm not commenting either way, though, about whether we should do this—it feels like a conflict of interest since I wrote that article ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Any opinions about this in general? Or specifically, some of Tokyo's districts are starting to get within spitting range of DotMosity or OtBPyness, but the city as a whole is still far from it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:36, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

I think it's a no-brainer. It would be odd to exclude certain articles from the DotM process that are included in the star process, especially since we have a travel topic coming up. Districts come into shape long before a huge city is ready to be featured, and can be plenty distinct from the city as a whole. I'd love to put the aforementioned Chicago/Bronzeville up as an OtBP for February (Black History Month in the US). (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 11:32, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Boracay Island: DOTM or OTBP?

Boracay Island is one of the well-known destination in the Philippines. I am not sure if it is an off-the-beaten path because the island is not that secluded nor isolated. The place has numerous hotels, resorts, restaurants, even a marketplace and residential districts. Also, there is a lot attraction within the island such as caves, man-made gardens, people, etc. A domestic airport was purposely built for the island located on the immediate district in the mainland Aklan.

It's definitely a DOTM in my opinion. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:27, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't sure where it best fit when I nominated it, and in fact was hoping for exactly this discussion. The partition between DotM and OtBP in some cases is pretty murky. However, it seems to me that if we consider Dalian OtBP on the grounds that nobody outside China has ever thought of it as a destination even though it's a huge city, other cases where a destination is important for "domestic" travel but out of the way to "international" travel might properly be considered OtBP. How international is the clientele that visits Boracay? If it's primarily Filipino, I'd still argue for OtBP, while if it's significantly international, that changes things. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:25, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

Phrasebooks as DotM/OtBP?

I'd like to nominate the Japanese phrasebook, but the current rules (written by moi, as it happens) say "Any destination, region, itinerary or event that passes the What is an article? test is eligible for DotM/OtBP." Hai or chotto muzukashii? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Chotto muzukashii. I dunno...I always thought of the DotM/OtBP as something you could see and do. Can you visit a phrasebook? Is a phrasebook a "destination" (hence the "Destination" of the Month)? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Discover might be a better place to feature the phrasebook. It is rather interesting to know that the months don't have unique names, but are simply numbered, while the first 10 days of each month is actually names. --(WT-en) Nick 14:53, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't think it's a suitable DotM (and certainly not OtBP), but I wonder: do we have enough good-to-great itineraries, phrasebooks, travel topics to populate a "Featured Article" front-page item separate from DotM and OtBP? If not, how many more would it take? I like where Jani is going with this, there are equivalents on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the main page has been sorta stagnant for a while now and could use something new and exciting anyway... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:15, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Virgin Gorda

Stop stop stop, the other picture is much much much better, than the current suggestion displayed as the next change on the candidates page! Can we change it? pretty please with sugar on top!? :o) (WT-en) Sertmann 20:54, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Sure. Look at it now. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:23, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Talk

Before I talk about it-I am not just saying it for Edmonton and Banff and other candidates (I've nominated). I mean, looking at a lot of them don't get replys for weeks or months. To me it's sad and shows that the site seems to have a lack of interest in it despite it being wonderful. I'm sorry if this causes people to be angry. I do not mean it that way. But I am just wondering-why does it take so long for people to reply to them? It just doesn't make sense. Of course a few, like Walt Disney World Resort - which has a lot of attention towards it, get instant replies (not instand-but what 3 within 2 days? as opposed to others that've been on for months and have only gotten 2?)...so why not the others? I just wondering-I'm not trying to make people comment but I don't see why a group of people that I know could don't. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:06, 18 November 2008 (EST).

People are still thinking about things, and there's no rush. We already have destinations lined out six months in advance, so there's really no need to worry about scheduling these yet. The Disney World article generates discussion because there is obvious controversy, while there isn't anything unusual about a Banff nomination. People will comment in due time, but please remember to keep a long term view of things—that's just how wikis work. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:16, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the lovely comment Peter. Yeah I know theres no rush, but I'd really like some comments regardless. I am really trying to be patient. Thnkya! Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:31, 18 November 2008 (EST).

6mo

It looks as though we have a lot of nominations that get the general opinion of "ok". Some dotms or otbps are good and there is so many i feel like we should start scheduling, of course, it can always be changed. I think we should extend it to a year. I have seen one's for July, August, September, October already that could be scheduled. What do you think? I understand it is a dumb idea and you will all bash it down most likely ;). (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:04, 6 December 2008 (EST).

This IS what it could look like. Now there is still some blank spots, as there has been with 6mo, but it is pretty filled. Remember these could be bumped for others still for a particular reason. Thoughts?

Month DOTM OTBP
January 2009 Phnom Penh? Saint Martins Island?
February 2009 Boracay? Preah Vihear?
March 2009 Walt Disney World Resort? Wake Island?
April 2009 Basel? Tywyn?
May 2009 San Francisco? Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park?
June 2009 Birmingham? Odense?
July 2009 Jakarta? Dalton Highway?
August 2009 Edmonton? Hovd?
September 2009 ? Saba?
October 2009 Frankfurt? Preah Vihear?
November 2009 ? ?
December 2009 ? Spring Green

(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:17, 6 December 2008 (EST).

Anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that there's an unusually high amount of activity in the DotM nomination page now than there's been in previous times. It wasn't too long ago that we were struggling to figure out how to fill out the winter months. Now I'm not saying EE's idea is a bad one; it might even be a great one. I'm just saying we might not want to consider the current state of the nomination page as a setting to make a change that will stay in place forever. Then again, Wikivoyage is growing, maybe this high amount of activity will continue? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:43, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Maybe people didn't find the good articles then or maybe there has been more activity on articles and now they are good-eg Dalton Highway, Edmonton. I think we could do this but if we find shortages, go back. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:08, 6 December 2008 (EST).

I think it would be a mistake to try to extend this table beyond 6 months or so. A little review of history is in order here...

There was a time when the discussion on this page was limited to finding the next DotM from a list of candidates appearing here. That had problems, because it often led to a last-minute scramble, or worse, real arguments about what article should get the nod. "Due diligence" was not being done. The 6-month table was an attempt to remedy that and conduct the process with some advance planning and deliberation, and in my view it has been successful in that. However, concerns were voiced, even with the 6-month table, that having it might reduce the discussion of interesting candidates, because of a sense that things were getting "locked in" without benefit of that discussion. For quite some time there was evidence that that concern might have something to it -- and although the current discussion is fairly active, it's actually no more so than back during the one-month-at-a-time phase.

Having more candidates than boxes in the table is a good thing, not a bad thing; it allows the very best candidates to be identified, and provides incentive to improve the ones that aren't the very best. Between that, the concern about suppressing discussion, and the fact that long tables are cumbersome to read (there's a reason why we aim at no more than 9 bulleted points per heading in articles, after all), I'd much prefer to leave this system as we've got it now. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:55, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I completely agree with Bill's reasoning above. 6 months is long enough. If a destination is in the table, that deters further discussion on the article's worthiness as a featured destination. There's no problem that will be solved by extending the calendar beyond 6 months. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)

What if to go with what I am saying and what other people have been saying, we extend it, but not 12mo, how about 8mo. I just see lots of noms that are definitely ready to be scheduled, and if we happen to have a shortage, then we can shrink it. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:04, 8 December 2008 (EST).

Scheduling discussion

Just a suggestion, but as with the nominations, can we have discussion beneath the table. I realize this might clutter things a little, but it would be nice to make comments regarding the timing and which articles should be placed in the table. Of course, suggesting when an article should be featured belongs in the nomination of the article and maybe in the discussion beneath the article...but I'm talking about "we should switch blah blah" or "someplace was nominated long before this other someplace...if both are good to visit in the spring, why shouldn't the first one nominated be featured earlier" and other issues that may arise. What led me to think about such an issue? Well: I'd like to comment that 5 of 6 featured articles in three consecutive months are in east Asia (Harbin, Yakutsk, Phenom Phen, Preah Vihear, & Boracay)...two of those in Cambodia. I understand that there are limited articles to feature in the winter and there may not be better choices...but shouldn't we spread articles out geography-wise? Anyways, what do you all think? (WT-en) AHeneen 18:19, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'm open to the idea, but the immediate problem that comes to mind is that this would clutter the page very quickly. We would also have to have an archiving process (which can be a pain). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)
I do think this could work, but what we should do is archive it after discussion is done. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:02, 8 December 2008 (EST).

Asian

Okay, Looking at the schedule, there is too many Asian places. Yes, Asia is a big place with a wide range of places and stuff to do on a vacation, but we've already had a few Asian locations. NOw - looking at the OtbP, it isn't until April when we actually get a non Asian one. Honestly, we need at least one non Asian one just to break it up. You know how much heck American cities get for going 2 in a row, this is 3-4 in a row. Next dotm/otbp for Feb/Jan - All Asian! Phnom Penh, Saint Martins Island, Boracay, Preah Vihear!! Aren't both of the ones on our Main Asian? Anyways, lemme know what you think and what to change one of them to. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 00:44, 13 December 2008 (EST).

We've got ten times more people here in Asia than y'all over in North America, so pipe down and wait for your turn =P
Slightly more seriously, it's common for winter destinations to be in Asia, because (with the exception of a few ski resorts) the vast majority of North America and Europe is rather unpleasant at that time, and we have regrettably few nomination-worthy articles in the southern hemisphere. I've swapped Wake Island into Feb though and suggested Putrajaya for March (instead of Preah Vihear, which would mean two Cambodian destinations in quick succession). (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:10, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Okay, Jpatokal,thank you. North America and Europe aren't bad in winter, it's just depends on what you want and usually it's better in summer, but winters' ok. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:43, 13 December 2008 (EST).
Asia is quite a big place, and terrain and culture varies wildly across it, I don't see this as a problem at all... it's far different than featuring too many US destinations in succession. Bangladesh and Cambodia couldn't be more different. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:11, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk:Destination_of_the_month_candidates/Archive/2004-2008&oldid=4650330"
Return to the project page "Destination of the month candidates/Archive/2004-2008".