Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile

Article Improvement Drive

Is there anyway that we can have an article improvement drive like Wikipedia? (WT-en) Kingjeff 10:25, 27 February 2006 (EST)

We just started a Project:Collaboration of the week a week back. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 12:35, 27 February 2006 (EST)

It doesn't seem it's as good as it can be. We should try to do something very similar to this (WT-en) Kingjeff 21:19, 27 February 2006 (EST)

How is it better? Feel free to make any improvements. It's just one week old. So I am sure that there is a lot of room for improvement. Actually, it might be a good idea to slot one of the German destinations you want to get into shape before the World cup to see how it goes --(WT-en) Ravikiran 21:53, 27 February 2006 (EST)

The page design looks good at wikipedia and the proccess is very good. There are templetes etc on the wikipedia. (WT-en) Kingjeff 08:30, 28 February 2006 (EST)

Precisely as there are here. You're asking for things that already exist. However, you do make the point that we might consider looking in the DotM slush pile for CotM candidates; that's fair enough. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:01, 28 February 2006 (EST)

Ok. The original comment was asking the same thing. The concept is the same. But I think we should more or less use the same process as Wikipedia for Article Improvement Drive. If we develop it to the same standard then it'll be a better page. (WT-en) Kingjeff 13:31, 28 February 2006 (EST)

From slush pile to DOTM

Should articles be removed from the slush pile page, or perhaps moved to a new section (maybe at the bottom of the page?), when they are eventually featured as a DOTM?

I reckon just a small line saying theyve been nominated, and if they have actually been the DotM, then cut them out of the list. This isn't a record of what has been nominated but failed to become DotM, its more of a dump for putting discussions and objections. (WT-en) Tim 06:34, 15 August 2006 (EDT)

I'd been thinking the same thing as the anonymous contributor above, so I plunged ahead and created a section for "Upgraded articles". It's useful to have the record, not least as an illustration of how previously slush-piled things have been put into working order, so that others can go and do likewise. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Slush pile tag or template?

Feature nominations are slushed because of issues with the article, and they need to be fixed before the article can be featured (so it's pointless to nominate articles again before those problems are fixed). That of course means you need to recognize that there are problems with the article. If one can see what's wrong immediately, then most Wikivoyagers would just fix it and that would be it.

But sometimes it may be difficult to spot such problems in the article without carefully looking through it with microscope and tweezers. Sometimes not even that is enough. For instance if you need to be aware of the fact that the user who wrote much of it was banned, or if there's really no obvious reason why the article was slushed.

Now if the person nominating the article wasn't around when the article was slushed or it has been a long time since the article was slushed, they may not even come to think about looking for it here.

So I think it could be useful to add some kind of template to the slushed article's talk page, or to the bottom of the article, something like Template:Style where you could also add "suggested fixes" in brief, as well as a link to the entry on the slush pile. What do you all say? Ypsilon (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support maybe this is another case of Wikivoyage unwilling to use templates, but I too support a template that would preferably be placed on the article's talk page. I don't have anything else to add apart from what you said, but I'd also like to extend this as an opportunity to have a specific category for nominations that have been slushed (similar to what Commons has with unassessed QI nominations), something like Category:Slushed feature nominations or something along the lines of that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a category could also be useful. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How about just copying the dotm nomination thread to the article's talk page? That's much more useful than a tag, which I oppose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? Having discussions in two different places is a very outdated thing. AFAIK, no other project apart from the English Wikivoyage follows this because it IS a bad idea. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Also I'm confused on how you think it's more useful. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It shows specifically what was previously discussed, instead of merely making the general point that the article was nominated and slushed. The other option I see is to post a link to the slushed discussion on that talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this was more a misunderstanding (but agree that it was not clear), but I believe Ypsi is proposing something similar to c:Template:Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Which would be OK only if it included a link to the slushing discussion that would remain active in perpetuity. I don't want any tick mark on articles that were slushed, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ypsilon: I made a first attempt at making a template on User:SHB2000/slushedfeaturenomination‎, but it still needs an image. In addition, I'm trying to think of a workaround if an article has been nominated and slushed more than once, such as Venice, per se. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The image should IMO be some modified version of the green tick mark logo to underline the fact that it was slushed. Maybe the logo in red or black, or flipped upside down?

If the article has been slushed several times, the template could be added several times.

To Ikan's points, adding a pointer to the nomination discussion or copying it to the talk page could work for articles with short talk pages. But with longer talk pages, the discussion might be buried in other discussions and in the worst case it'd be archived and therefore disappear out of sight. Ypsilon (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't have automatic archiving and shouldn't archive slushing discussions, unless the article was subsequently featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)