Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Archive/2012-2015

Dumaguete

 * Support. I've been watching the progress of this article and doing some copy editing along the way. What's your feeling about this city as DotM vs. OtBP? Is it a huge draw for tourism? Also, is there a rainy season when we should avoid running the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say DotM; it is a provincial capital and Dumaguete says it is among the top ten tourist destinations in the country. You certainly see lots of tourists, plus plenty of expats & retirees, and there are good services for them.


 * Dumaguete says the wet season is June-Nov, so I'd say run it Dec 2015 or a bit later. Pashley (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as DotM. Attracts far too many international tourists to consider it for off the beaten track, imho. Great progress has been made on the article, and I'm sure Pashley will polish it up even more. No hesitations here. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can make this DotM when Trondheim and Turku are Off the Beaten Path. Each is on its country's list of nine cities; Dumaguete is not.  Powers (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We could discuss at Talk:Philippines whether Dumaguete should be among the 9 listed cities, in place of one of the currently-listed cities, but I don't think your objection is really that obvious. For example, don't you think that the United States has more than 10 cities that would obviously be DotM, if run? Perhaps the Philippines does, too, but in any event, the remarks by Pashley and JuliasTravels satisfy me as to Dumaguete's appropriateness as a DotM. I get the feeling that you believe that every country or region should have an equal number of DotM, but I'm not sure anyone agrees with you on this, and I certainly don't. There are quite a few countries that have no DotM at all, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to explain my rationale; if I'd go to Dumaguete as suggested OtbT destination on WV, and find myself in a tourism dominated town with international visitors all around me, I'd feel mislead. I know I did not get that impression in Turku, but I haven't been to Trondheim. I have no strong feelings about this, however. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course every country doesn't have the same number of DotM-worthy candidates, but I think any country (of significant size, so excluding places like Liechtenstein and East Timor) probably has at least nine. Powers (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not think LtPowers' comparison is either fair or would be particularly useful if it were. Sure, Trondheim and Turku are among the 9 for their countries (population 5.something million each) and Dumaguete does not make it to the 9 for the Philippines (100 million), but is certainly one of the two most important cities on Negros Island (4 million), and it does make the list of 9 for Visayas (17 million).
 * Anyway, the important question is its importance as a travel destination & I'd say on that basis it is clearly a DotM. Pashley (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support — not bad. I'm not really familiar with the Philippines, so I don't have an opinion whether Dumaguete should be DotM or OtBP. Tiny nitpick: as of now there's no Eat#Splurge section. Is any of the listed restaurants perchance a bit more upscale than the rest? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added a section at Dumaguete but it is not in our usual format. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's OK with me because I believe it serves the traveler well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support with no strong opinion either way on the DotM vs. OtBP question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the DotM vs OtBP question, there are several arguments for DotM &mdash; provincial capital, tourist town, transport hub, ... &mdash; but where the town really stands out is as a retirement destination. This gov't-private group promoting Philippine retirement rates it as one of the country's five main destinations, Forbes has it as one of The 7 Best Places To Retire Around The World, Yahoo has it as #5 in the |The 10 best places to retire overseas in 2014 and US News & World Report has it among |The World's 9 Most Affordable Places to Retire.


 * It was high on my personal list before my current scouting trip and now tops it. Lots of older westerners including several who have moved here from other parts of the Philippines. I talked to one who moved from Manila; says D is cheaper, quieter, safer. Another came here after 15 years on Boracay; cheaper, much better medical facilities and better transport connections. Pashley (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Talked to one today who moved here from Bangkok, mostly because it is cheaper. Pashley (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delay until after merge . Discussion at Talk:Sibulan suggests some articles on nearby towns should be merged into D, and there seems to be consensus on the question. We probably should not feature D until that work is done. Pashley (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pashley, I had envisioned scheduling Dumaguete for very late 2015 or very early 2016. Do you predict nine months will be enough time to sort out those issues? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly. There is only a hour or so of work involved. However, I will not get to it soon & no-one else has volunteered, so it seemed worth a note here. Pashley (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Merge done. Pashley (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for December 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Taxila

 * Support — Surprise? I'm back with Taxila again which was slushed not so long ago. I was able to work on it a bit. In my opinion, the guide is ready. YPSI and Julias raised the issues that while Taxila is major town, only few eat listings are provided and article is mostly focussing on archaeology sites. I've provided some more eateries that are worth to eat-in, and still there're many out there but they are just basic. I don't know how to describe a typical normal eating place so instead of mentioning them as listings, I've just mentioned all of them in as one liner. Other than ruins rather, there is nothing worth to see in modern Taxila. Yes, there're some Hindu temples but they are more like a religios site rather than a attraction. Please take into account, I'm not nominating it for star status and Taxila is not as big as many of you may think. 'm pretty sure the guide will serve the traveller best. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Pashley (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% ready to support a feature yet ; I find the one line at the end of "Eat" frustrating because there's no indication of where the named hygienic eateries are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, can a suitable caption be added to the uncaptioned photo, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IK: I mentioned the location. Taxila is not a big town with not so many good eateries. I know you' and others may still want to see more eat/drink listings but pleae be note that Taxila is a town with not more than a hundred thousands residents and given that a visitor is not going to spend more than a night in Taxila, the provided eat listings should be sufficient. Anyways, with that being said, I will continue to improve the guide as time passes. --Saqib (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Saqib, this is the part I'm talking about:


 * A few other establishments that serve basic but hygienic Pakistani food are Sherazi Restaurant, Dream Land, Valley Food, Krispo fast food, Hang In and Kabli Hotel. Most of them are on Khanpur Rd and near the station.


 * You say where most of them are, but are these restaurants in particular on Khanpur Rd and near the station? If so, maybe that's specific enough, but right now, it isn't clear where these places are. I don't insist on more listings, just a clarification of where these are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I might as well support the article. If the eat section cannot be expanded, I guess we just have to leave it as it is. I can understand that if there are just basic eateries very similar to each other, there is not much to write about each of them (this is usually the case in smaller countryside towns everywhere in the world). But maybe there could be POI markers showing where the clusters of eateries are located. After all, our guides are aimed at people who have never been to the destination and they should not need to consult other travel guides.
 * Which months are suitable for featuring Taxila? Climate-data would suggest October to June. This would mean November or December 2015. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right YPSI. POI markers could be added. I will insert them in a while. As for featuring time, offcourse winter time would be recommended so that visitors can walk as well. Between October and March would be perfect. BTW it is unfortunate for Pakistan that none other than LP ever wrote a comprehensive travel guide on Pakistan. And It may sound silly to say that our Taxila guide is far better than theirs. They mention only 2 hotels but no eat/drink place so I don't think a visitor will have to or able to consult any other guide. --Saqib (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Very close. Needs some copyediting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My somewhat minor concerns having been dealt with, I am now happy to support featuring this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for December 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Driving in New Zealand

 * Support – The article looks informative to someone who doesn't know anything about driving in New Zealand and it's at Guide status. Though I would appreciate if our Kiwi contributors would have time to take a look at the article to make sure there isn't anything important missing. Also, some more photos would be nice. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think three AU/NZ features within six months of each other is a bit too many. On the other hand, 1) Auckland hasn't even been officially nominated yet, 2) it's far more difficult to find qualified FTT candidates than DotMs or OtBPs, and 3) the quality of this article's content (aside from the minor issues you've already pointed out, Ypsi) is beyond reproach. So I suppose I have to support it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk)
 * Almost I wonder if we should first merge in Buying or renting a vehicle in New Zealand. A few points are missing from the article (some are covered by the other article or New Zealand):
 * That insurance is not compulsory (due to the Accident Compensation Corporation see New Zealand)
 * Road user charges for diesel cars
 * Parking
 * Ferries between north and South Islands - rental cars are often swapped when taking the ferry
 * AlasdairW (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:‎Lcmortensen, User:Nurg? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with merging Buying or renting a vehicle in New Zealand into this one, but I'd also be fine leaving it as a separate article (it's long enough). Do as you like. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for December 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Jaipur

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for November 2015 (with Fortaleza in October). Thanks to both Ypsi and Ikan for your help with this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Good work IK. But I'm not entirely satisfied with "BUY" section. As already mentioned in the guide, there're plenty of bazaars and it is always good to have bazaars listed seperately in listings in order to give an overview and classification of bazaars and other shopping areas. One example is Karachi. --Saqib (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I just finished updating prices in the "Eat" section. I agree on "Buy". The article is not perfect, but I submit that it's good enough to feature now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for November 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Praia

 * Support. I made a few minor copyedits, and other editors might want to take a look at the article in case there's any I missed. Otherwise, Praia looks good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support — A couple of listings could use some longer descriptiosn but I can take care of that sometime during the next month and a half. This is again an article that could work as both DotM and OtBP. Yes, it's a national capital but of a quite OtBP country. I've understood that Cape Verde's main tourism destinations are the easternmost islands of Sal and São Vicente with their resorts. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I copy edited some text that was probably translated from Portuguese, to make it more idiomatic in English. To paraphrase ϒpsilon, some listings could use a description (a few, including some "Eat" listings, have none). But that's not a major problem, and I'm perfectly satisfied with featuring this article as long as we can be reasonably confident that the information in it is current and accurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Of course this is not the most extensive article we have, but for a place like this, it's quite good and complete. Fully agree that this has to be an OtbT feature. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Problem - a friend was there a year ago and sent a message after reading the article:Some parts of the article are personal opinion, not factual – Eg, (1) “so probably not worth visiting in itself, but worth a half-day exploration” is the opinion of the author, and not my experience, especially as a trip to the nearby original settlement and Portuguse fort at Cidade Velha (Old City) is a day trip in itself. (2) “There are also domestic flights, including ones to Cape Verde's largest airport in Sal (45 mins)” is not completely correct, there are flights from Praia to the islands of Fogo, São Vicente, Sal and Boa Vista on a regular daily basis not just Sal. It should be pointed out that the costs quoted in the article are Escudos. and 3) “You can get in by freighter from Fogo and Brava (12h), but the schedules are somewhat unreliable.” – is incorrect, there are regular and reliable ferries to Fogo, Brava and São Vicente. and he boat trip from Fogo to Brava is designated as taking 12 hours - incorrect! The ferry service from Fogo to Brava takes 40 minutes; and the ferry service between Praia and Fogo takes 4 (vomiting) hours (better to take a daily flight). - for those who might be interested. JarrahTree (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try to add some of that, but feel free to add anything else to the article that you or your friend think should be there. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for November 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Begging

 * Support… or is there still something missing? This has actually been a guide since 2006 — just check the history! ϒpsilon (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article should give an overview where begging is legal or illegal. --Saqib (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a fraught topic, but we should face the fact that it's an important one for travel and travellers, and it's covered well enough currently to merit a feature, in my opinion. User:Saqib makes a good point, but I'm not sure whether it would or wouldn't prove too complicated to deal with on this non-encyclopedic site. For example, it's perfectly legal to donate to beggars on the streets of New York but begging is illegal in the subway system. However, is it illegal to perform on a moving subway train (platforms are another matter) and then ask for donations? What if you are asking for money for food but your request is made in an entertaining patter? So where I'd come down is, if the legalities can be dealt with in a way that's useful to travellers without becoming overly detailed in a boring way or approaching encyclopedic scope, that would be great. Otherwise, a general remark that it's good to know something about the laws on whether it's legal to beg where you are visiting would suffice, and then the details could be left to each country-level, state or city guide, as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be useful, but the problem is that it's not easy to find a comprehensive list of begging legislation in different countries. w:Begging just mentions a handful of (first-world) countries.ϒpsilon (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The information given in the article is very general, but I think that's inevitable given the complexity and moral ambiguity of the issue. To the point raised above about an overview of where begging is legal or illegal, that strikes me as irrelevant given that the reader himself will (presumably) not be the one doing the begging. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a good introduction to a difficult issue, the specifics of which are best handled at country or city level. I don't see the need to go into the legal situation, except if there are places where it is illegal to give money to a beggar - where an innocent traveller could end up in trouble. AlasdairW (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is no-one else concerned about a statement like:  Most, however, are not desperate at all; begging is their chosen profession and they make very good money at it by local standards. The truly desperate will not be found begging in most cases? I'm no expert on the theme, but I feel uncomfortable with such statements. I have no idea about the world-wide statistics, and I'm well aware of organized begging and all that - but I've also seen my fair share of beggars who do not make anything close to good money, even by local standards. Desperation is a hard thing to define, but I dare say that there are plenty of beggars who would not call this their chosen profession and would very much like to find another way to make a living, but just don't have anywhere to start. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember reading the statement. I definitely don't approve of it at all. I'll look at the article and edit it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's overkill to describe "most" beggars as doing so voluntarily. However, I think it's fine to allow the reader to consider this possibility in his decision of whether or not to give. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to thread the needle in my edit. See what you think of it, and edit it further if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for November 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fortaleza

 * Not yet — Per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost . Ypsilon, your words above prepared me to think the article would be much messier than it really is! Actually, Fortaleza is not in terribly bad shape. The most obvious need is for geo coordinates and a map, and while the other fixes Ypsi listed are apropos, they only apply to bits and pieces of the article - there are many other sections ("Understand", "Get in", "Get around", arguably "See") that probably need no further improvement. October 2015 is the earliest month for which we have no suitable DotM candidates. The level of work this article needs is such that I'm sure we can get it to a featureable state by that time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet — Need work. I found majority of listings are one-liner. Lead section need few lines. Would appreciate if "SEE" listings could be slightly expanded. Too many sub-sections in "DO". Content could be merged all into two or three sub-sections. Since Fortaleza is one of major cities of Brazil, I'm sure there'll be plenty of basic, mid range and spluge restaurants so the section could be written accordingly which will make things more clearer. A dynamic map with all listings marked can significantly improve the article. --Saqib (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't advertised it heavily, but spent several days with this article a month ago and today it's really a different article. User:Ibaman and the IP user who should get a barnstar and others have helped out too. I think I can give Fortaleza a support vote. What do you, Andre and Saqib think now? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I went harsh with Amritsar so let me go easy with this one, atleast. So i would say this is very close my friend BUT it still need some work. Repeating again that would appreciate if some of the "SEE" and "EAT" listings with one-liner, could be slightly expanded. As for EAT section, don't you think local dishes should instead go to country level article OR are they really relevant here? --Saqib (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will look into the one-liner See and Eat listings in the next couple of days. User:Ibaman or IP200 (the same person?) added many of the individual dishes. I, too, would rather move them either to Brazil or Ceará unless they are specialties of or originate from Fortaleza. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Andre, below you were worried about not having an article to feature in October. Do take a look at Fortaleza now (tried to alert you last week, aren't the notifications working?).
 * Saqib, I've tried to fix the issues you mentioned last week as well as possible.
 * User:Ibaman, muito obrigado ;).
 * ϒpsilon (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about this, Ypsi; I did see myself tagged here, but was swamped with other things. The article could use a copyedit, and I'm not sure about the bullet-point listings in the Culture section for the same reason Saqib was unsure about the dishes described in the Eat section - are they specific to Fortaleza or do they belong in the country or region article? Still, these being minor issues, the article has my support.
 * As to my concern about October, I had envisioned Fortaleza as our November 2015 DotM. It could certainly work for October as well, but then we'd be faced with the problem of what to run in November, which is an even more difficult month to choose for - locations in the temperate latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere might be borderline justifiable in October, but would be fully out of the question in November.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For November, I was thinking Banff for the start of the skiing season as soon as I'm done fixing it :). As I said when nominating Banff (for March 2015 actually!), we still never had any winter sports destination on the Main page. And Dumaguete for December.
 * (Oops, I actually noticed that many of Fortaleza's Sleep entries could use better descriptions and I'm trying to patch them before someone notices...). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would definitely work. I was actually still holding out hope that we could fix up Yangshuo in time to feature it in October; if that does happen, we could still run Fortaleza in November and Banff later in the winter. Either way, it appears we're covered. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * YPSI: Thank you for fixing the issues. This nomination have my Support now! --Saqib (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * just for the record, yes, Ibaman and 200.252.135.74 are one and the same. :D Ibaman (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I have yet to visit Brazil, so someone who personally knows the city may see problems that are obvious to them and invisible to me, but the article looks good to me. Incidentally, for whatever it's worth, it didn't feel to me as a reader that "Do" has too many subsections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two questions, though: Would it make sense to recenter the map over the city and zoom it in? Also, do the walking tours mentioned under "See/Other" pass muster under this site's tour listings policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To me it doesn't matter very much how the map is zoomed, but a few days ago I saw a discussion somewhere, where André said he didn't like it when too many POIs were outside the mapframe. So maybe it should stay as it is.
 * Those tours gotta go, already because the links are both dead (you cannot determine whether they fulfil the critieria of tour) and thus there's a good chance the tours don't exist any longer. Also, they were apparently in Portuguese only and this is en WV. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would recentering the map before zooming it address the problem of having too many POIs outside the mapframe in any way? Right now, we have a huge regional map with loads of plus signs, and it's not too helpful unless it's clicked on and zoomed in once or twice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no idea. As you can see I made an attempt to center and zoom in the map, feel free to improve it further.
 * Honestly speaking I think our guides would be better off without the mapframe. There could instead be popup maps that would open in small windows next to the POI icons in the text when clicking on them (similar to WikiMiniAtlas in Wikipedia). ϒpsilon (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That might not serve people without good connectivity or access to printers optimally. I think the map should be bigger and zoomed to 14. I'm not sure how to make a mapframe bigger. I'll see if I can make sense out of the instructions at this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just recentered the map again, to decrease the amount of water, zoomed it to 14, and made the mapframe larger, so that it covers the same territory the previous version covers, but with fewer + signs. What do you all think of it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a fierce discussion half a year ago concerning the size of the embedded maps, can't remember if it was on an article's talk page or somewhere else. I think at least User:Texugo was strongly opposed to maps larger than absolutely necessary. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In theory, no map in the article is actually necessary, as we could adopt your proposal of having maps only as popups; however, if a map is used at all, it should be at least marginally useful to the reader. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The pop-up maps would be a nice supplement to a pair of custom static maps (one for the full city and an inset for the area of dense markers). Powers (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A pair of static maps for this article, as you describe, could be really helpful if anyone wants to make them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for October 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hyden

 * Support — not sure if POI markers/dynamic map is needed for such a small place but if needed it can be added in ten minutes. --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost. I don't know the town (I have yet to visit Australia), but it seems like a great place to visit and this seems like a beautiful article. I'll vote for it when there's a map that shows where the attractions, including those 18 km out of town, are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you, Google. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking it had been awhile since we featured any Aussie destinations on the Main Page, and had actually been poking around to see if I could find any suitable candidates for October 2015's DotM (Sydney came closest; the only thing keeping it from being promoted from Usable to Guide are the district articles, but getting all of them up to Usable would be a massive undertaking). Anyhow, with the map issue that Ikan pointed out having been solved, I can't see anything that stands in the way of my support. As you said, Ypsi, the article is short, but necessarily so, and everything noteworthy seems to be included. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would take a while to get Sydney up to DotM standard. Right now we have one other Australian article we could featured right away — Lady Elliot Island (OtBP). Alice Springs (OtBP) or Hobart (DotM/OtBP?) need some work but not as much as Sydney. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - Hobart does look like a good DotM contender. But perhaps a better way to go would be Auckland, which is already at Guide status and was a nominee some time ago. Its nomination was ultimately slushed because of lack of a dynamic map and some prominent attractions that were not included in the article, but more and more I'm thinking that after I'm done with the districtification process for Buffalo (the last district article should be finished well ahead of June 2015, when it's scheduled to begin its run on the Main Page), I should maybe start touching up Auckland with a view to renominating it for DotM in the late austral summer or the early austral autumn (February or March 2016). Even assuming we do run Hyden as OtBP in October 2015, that would still be plenty of time between feature articles in that part of the world, especially because Australia and New Zealand are separate countries. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Australia and NZ are indeed separate countries just like e.g. USA and Canada, so there's perhaps room for a New Zealandian travel topic as October's or November's FTT? (If it's a bad idea, let's not nominate it). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Some antipodean DotM contenders would be good & I agree several mentioned above are close, but meanwhile let's go ahead with this for OtBP. If we end up with too many Oz/NZ destinations & have to adjust schedule later, that is OK. Pashley (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost. It is a good article, particularly on the things to see, but it would benefit from a little more about the town to put this in context (an Understand section?). I expect that a lot of readers coming here from the main page aren't going to be familiar with the Wheatbelt. Unfortunately commons doesn't have any photos of the town, but WP does give the population, and this climate data is available. AlasdairW (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ϒpsilon (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I now support it. AlasdairW (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for October 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Natchez Trace Parkway

 * Almost — ...it definitely needs a dynamic map with the POIs plus some more photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost and the necessary fixes are relatively easy. The most obvious deficiency is the one ϒpsi mentioned: the article needs a dynamic map with the POIs listed, and for that matter, it strikes me that the descriptions of the POIs ought to be expanded upon as well. Also, the "Prepare" and "Sleep" sections mention that drivers can find food, fuel, lodging, etc. in the towns that lie along the route, but nowhere does it mention the names of those towns or where they are located. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article should be updated to make this point clearer, but since the parkway is over 400 miles long there are dozens, if not hundreds, of towns along the route, so it wouldn't be practical to name all of them. The "Go next" section names the biggest and/or more interesting for visitors. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, now I've added a map, POIs and photos. Actually, I think I can support the article for FTT now.
 * When activating Destinations on the dynamic map I see that out of the towns actually on or immediately next to the route, there are very few that have an article here. But should we mention them anyway? Secondly: there are some cities 20-30 miles away from the route that we have articles for; would it make sense to mention them? Thirdly: should we keep the cities that are just there for food, gas, lodging etc. in a separate section or included in the Drive section? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I might make a separate "Eat/Drink" subsection for that information, listing not individual restaurants but nearby towns where you can find places to eat and drink - especially towns close to the road itself, prioritizing further-away towns based on abundance of options with an absolute upper limit of, let's say, 30 miles away from the road itself. Also, I'd split up "Sleep" into two subsections, with one set up like the above "Eat/Drink' section with standard hotels and motels in nearby towns, and the other one including the information on campgrounds that's already in the article. As far as mentioning towns that don't yet have Wikivoyage articles: I wouldn't go crazy adding redlinks for no good reason, but I certainly wouldn't let the lack of a Wikivoyage article keep me from mentioning a town whose existence is notable and that travellers should know about. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryan? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I probably should have made my original comment clearer - since it's a 400+ mile long route, I don't think we need to call out each and every town along the route for people to stop at. Instead, I think making it clear what the major towns along the route are (basically, those noted in the "Go next" section), and making it clear that there are frequent options along the way to exit the parkway and find food/lodging nearby, would be sufficient. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. A look at the article history will show that I'm biased in this case, but I think it's a nice article that would be very helpful to someone driving the route. Many thanks to ϒpsilon for improving the article with the map & POIs. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks like my earlier concerns have been addressed - thanks, Ypsi, the article looks great now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice article. One concern I have, though, is that when the map is clicked to get a full-page map, it expands to show almost the entire South, including Texas, and beyond to Kansas. Is there any way the dynamic map can be rigged to open a full-page map that focuses only on enough land to show the entire parkway? And by the way, I don't think "parkway" should be capitalized except when used as part of the name, so I edited accordingly. It's otherwise a word like "road" and "street," neither of which is capitalized except as part of a name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still hate the full-screen map. Can it please be zoomed? If it's really essential to include the entire parkway in the zoomed map, it still could be zoomed to 7 (which it looks like I complained about before as too large a zoom level!), rather than 6. 8 shows all but the ends of the parkway, but 9 is the zoom level that's necessary to see more than a few numbers. Seeing everything from Colorado to Rhode Island when clicking for the full-page map of the parkway is absurd and should be corrected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Better now? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's back to where I believe it was before, when I complained about seeing parts of Texas and Kansas on the full-screen map. I'd prefer Zoom Level 8, but this is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikan and Ypsi, I'm wondering if it might be better to adapt the public-domain map on the U.S. National Park Service's website for the Natchez Trace (visible here; click on "View Park Map") for use as a static map. The main disadvantage with the dynamic map as I see it is it's locked into a north-up orientation, so including the entire parkway in the mapframe means dealing with vast areas of deadspace to the northwest and southeast of the route. Conversely, the NPS map would lend itself very well to a long, narrow custom mapframe along the side of the page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It has to be zoomed a few times to be really visible, but I think it's a good solution, yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not much more you can do with the dynamic map. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for October 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Munich

 * Support Great city and article. jan (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The article and its districts look good. Yes, the best time to feature it would be September. But as of now September 2014 is already taken so it'll have to wait for 15 months if we don't feature it in the spring (or if Munich looks and feels beautiful and cozy with Christmas lights and some snow maybe already in December) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon, i'm under the impression that some editors want to get a step further and bring all districts up to guide and additionally update some pics. That might need a while, so i was rather aiming for Sep 15. At the moment we are not lacking nominations, so i don't mind if it takes 15 months. jan (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The article(s) look(s) pretty good now. And by September '15 the two remaining districts hopefully will have guide status, too. Tbp386 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm delighted to support this article, and I applaud all the work that has been done to improve this article and the district articles. I respect the opinion that September is the best month of the year to feature an article about Munich, but the city is beautiful in other seasons, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for THIS October (2014) - I guess we all agree that the Munich articles are pretty much ready for sharing with the wide world. I also believe that the ideal month to feature Munich is October, for obvious reasons. Why should we wait a year to feature it if we have an October coming? I believe we can reschedule Karachi to a later month, as the original nomination therefor called for "Nov-Mar", so no harm would apparently be done if we put Munich in October and then Karachi anytime later. Besides, we seem to feature quite few European destinations. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Munich is ready now. But please explain how you would suggest reshaping the schedule. Karachi has waited a lot longer than Munich since it was nominated, let's not forget. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Europe has traditionally been overrepresented among our feature destinations, and inasmuch as that has not been true this past year, it's due to an intentional effort on our part to diversify our offerings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Andre - I am only active on Wikivoyage for a short time, in my time Europe has been underrepresented. It does attract unproportionally high tourist traffic and number of major attractions/destinations, this is why we have "Off the Beaten Path" where Europe is currently not present at all. I don't think we should go to either extreme. I'd say 3/12 or 4/12 DotM's from Europe annually are fine.
 * Re: Ikan - it is not about how long an article waits IMHO. When it's ready, it's ready. It will be fine today, tomorrow or in a few months. Munich only makes sense in October obviously, and I guess we should make amends for destinations that have a strong connection with a particular month. Like e.g. Vienna or Milan should be our DotM for May since the Eurovision will be held in the former, and the Expo opens in the latter. Let us hope either is rife for featuring by then - if not, any other destination can fill in.
 * I would simply reschedule Karachi to February, I don't think that would do much damage. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In principle, I’m not opposed to featuring Munich in October of this year, but Saqib might be. If I remember correctly, he was already disappointed at having to wait so long for another Pakistani destination to be featured after Mohenjo-daro last February. Anyway, February 2015 is a no go in any case, because OtBP that month will be either Kirthar National Park or Taxila. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oktoberfest is really a party that precedes October, only a few days of the event is actually in October but most of takes place in September. Therefore September would be the right month to feature it if we want to bundle it with the Oktoberfest. Otherwise you would have quite a hurry to get there to experience even the last day of the event, especially if you're not in Europe. That would also give us the question, what to do with Calgary? Or with Karachi?
 * I don't see how overrepresentation would play a role in this particular case, as Munich, Calgary and Karachi are each from the regions (E+Asia+US/CA) that make up the 92% of our featured destinations, however, admittedly this year we haven't had that many DotMs or OtBPs from Europe (Asia on the other hand...). Anyway, I'm also of the opinion that when articles are ready they should be featured as soon as possible, if other articles are nominated later they will have to wait unless there are some specific reason to feature them a particular month. Also, per above, Jan and Tbp386 are fine with featuring it after a year, and plan to write up some district articles to Guides. Therefore: let's don't.
 * We could of course also feature Munich in the upcoming spring/summer. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower, I wouldn't oppose featuring Munich article in October if community thinks that is best in the interest of WV. Even though Karachi was nominated quite earlier than Munich and I put lot of efforts into the article but honestly speaking, there's no need to give me favor if you think I would mind or upset. I may get disappointed but that will be temporary. But we need to see in this case whether Munich worth to feature in October? I've been to Munich once but I don't know much about the city as Ypsilanti Da Vinci knows and he have disagreement with PrinceGloria over featuring the article in October. --Saqib (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, October is no good if we're going to highlight Oktoberfest, for precisely the reason Ypsilon mentioned. It's almost gotta be September, and that would mean September 2015.  Powers (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, to be perfectly frank, it would tick me off to have gone through what I went through in finding a banner for Karachi only to have the feature delayed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a whole lot of people who know more about Munich (Andrewssi2, Ikan, our German colleagues and of course Prince) than myself, and I haven't really even looked at the article. However I do know that the event ends early October, and if going to Munich e.g. October 10th, you'll just see a bunch of construction workers packing down the tents and stuff for next year's event. It could be compared to featuring "Christmas in X" as December's FTT from Dec 21 onwards. Featuring it in September would mean Calgary would displace Karachi or have to wait until the spring. As well, Jan and Tbp desired to build further on the article before it gets featured.
 * If there's really problems with getting Karachi ready until October, it can change places with Muscat and be featured one month later. Also, remember that Saqib has done a lot of work on the article and it was nominated already last November (the same goes for Calgary). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I guess we all agree on September 2015, can we already schedule it for then? I see no problem with scheduling far into the future to secure place for articles that we agree are good enough to be featured. I would also move to block May 2015 for either Milan or Vienna, whichever's ready. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially after the way the schedule looked for most of this year, I don't agree with extending the grid further into the future than policy says. At this point in time we may all agree on September 2015, but it's pointless to talk about what we'll feature on the Main Page over a year from now when no one knows what new and exciting articles will be nominated or what other variables might come into play between now and then. This discussion will be easily accessible on the dotm page right up to the time Munich is featured, so I highly doubt that we'll "forget" about it. (As for Milan and Vienna, those haven't even been nominated yet!) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not been following this project earlier, so I do not know what you are referring to, but I guess if the policy says otherwise, the policy should thus be changed. On the one hand we say that "Karachi should go first because it waited for so long" (no issue with Karachi, I am very fine with it going on the front page anytime), and almost with the same breath you say that "anything can happen in the future". So, if we agree that Munich is rife for featuring, and that Sep 2015 is a good date, why can't we schedule it already. If something absolutely bombastic and even more urgently needing the Sep 2015 spot appears, we can always change the schedule even on Aug 31. But I'd rather make sure we book this place for Munich and, unless something really revolutionary appears, keep it that way.
 * BTW, I guess only the hardcore enthusiasts of DoTM would keep track of what was said when and where. I can't see myself digging through all the lenghty discussions here on destinations that are not necessarily in my area of interest, and thus I don't think that everybody coming here will necessarily read this discussion on Munich which has already grown super-long. Unless there is a "general secretary" specifically tasked with keeping track of every discussion and possible outcomes, I believe we should simply close a discussion whenever there is an agreement, archive it (for reference if anybody would want to dig through it and reopen) and just put the nomination up there in the table for whenever it is agreed. This is the way GA and FA work on Wikipedia and I guess this is a mightily fine mechanism. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) PrinceGloria - this is not Wikipedia, and policy changes here require consensus. You can read at the beginning of the "Schedule" section of this very page where the policy says that the grid is to extend for six months past the current month. The reasons why we don't put articles on the schedule that far in advance are simple: in addition to the reason that's already been brought to light, if we were to list every month between now and September 2015 the grid would be long and unwieldy, and if we were to jump right from January to September it would be confusing. Now as you've already acknowledged, the consensus is that Munich will go on the front page in September 2015, and it appears to me that everyone is on board with that, and nobody here is operating in bad faith, and there's no grand conspiracy afoot to keep Munich off the Main Page. So I don't understand why you won't just accept the community's word that Munich will be featured in September 2015 barring any truly extraordinary turn of events. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply because I believe that the current process and policy makes it hard for a non-involved user to gather and grasp. There is only a limited number of users involved here, and I believe we would be better served if the widest possible circle were. Moreover, "community" is not a person, and I can take anybody's word, but if all five of us are away or not looking, this whole consensus might just as well be overlooked in 12 months from now. And, as I said, I'd hate for anybody to have to read this lenghty discussion before making sure they can put something up for featuring in Sep 2014. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as of now there are only some 3-5 hardcore enthusiasts that in practice are continuously involved with in the DotM/OtBP/FTT (all of which are supporting Munich for DotM) while average users just comment on their favorite articles now and then. In fact, I myself got involved with this section last winter when I noticed that the Travel topic section was about to entirely run out of articles. If we eventually get more people regularly involved that might have to change. Also, unless someone nominates a really bad article in which case it ends on the Slush pile within days, articles are in general not dropped out of here unless there are issues with the article which aren't fixed in a couple of months. Munich does not have such problems.
 * Also, when September's slots will emerge in April, this thread will be almost at the top of the page and the "Time to feature" parameter of Munich's nomination box says "September" so I don't think it will be forgotten.
 * Plus, the risk for someone suggesting something for only September 2015 is small. Articles are virtually almost nominated for a range of possible months, not just one. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Prince, just a suggestion but why not you start a policy discussion somewhere else rather than stretching this nomination discussion? Otherwise, for the record, I agree with Andrew and I'm absolutely fine with current queue contain six months' worth of upcoming destinations. And Your Royal Highness Prince Gloria of Poland, Andrew is serving to this tedious task since a long time now and I'm pretty sure he'll keep continue it for many years to come so no need to worry about as Andrew will surely remember Munich when September 2015 will come. --Saqib (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for September 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Altai Tavan Bogd National Park

 * Support. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I had forgotten this article had never been featured. The high quality of the article is mostly due to the great work of User:Altaihunters (formerly User:Eaglehunter), who also did such great work on the previously-featured Ölgii article. I'll inform him of this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Magnificent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone else want to pass judgment on this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I find it flawless. Ibaman (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for September 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Breaking Bad Tour

 * Support as nominator. The article is well-written, as I mentioned above, and looks to be substantially complete - though perhaps someone who's a fan of the show could prove me wrong. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I was a bit surprised to see this nominated as a DOTM since it was only created two weeks ago. Nevertheless, it is indeed impressive to see how much work has gone into it and how comprehensive it is in such a short period of time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like a comprehensive article to someone who's not familiar with the tv series, also apparently including eateries and shops that have been seen in the series. I'd imagine fans of Breaking Bad really appreciate such an itinerary. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I've never watched the TV series, but I do like this article, and providing that fans of the show find it accurate and acceptable, I will be glad for it to appear on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I've watched the whole of it last year, a long time, so I cannot comment on its accuracy; however, the article makes me want to watch the whole shabang all over again. Ibaman (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Fun article, well written and an original topic for a feature. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for September 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Manchester

 * Strong support — Well done Nick, you made it. I never been to UK but the articles look very detailed but few points but very minor. You replaced the map with another which looks not fine to me so I'll begin work on improving the map soon. The suburbs district such as North and South are quite large in size however the article contains only 1 see listing each and buy sections are empty. Are you sure there's no other attraction there and nowhere to shop? I also strongly suggest to expand the get in sections all all the district articles. --Saqib (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Saqib! I simply replaced the map as the previous one didn't have any roads on. If you'd like me to make any changes, I can do and that might be easier as I still have the original files. I will add some more detail to the sections you describe as well :) --Nick talk 02:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment At a quick glance, this looks very good, but I thought we weren't nominating any other destinations right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I should probably learn to read! :) --Nick talk 13:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ikan is correct that we've been strongly discouraging folks from advancing new nominees from anything other than FTT, but if Nick is willing to be understanding about waiting till next year for this to be featured, then I'm willing to support it. It's a first-rate article and Nick really did good work on it. I disagree with the Time to feature, though. Per Manchester, May-Sep (possibly extending into Oct) seems like a more reasonable window. On average, temperatures in the dead of winter top out at 7°C (47°F) and dip down to just above freezing at night. In a strict sense, climatic conditions like that are probably tolerable, but certainly far less than ideal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your thoughts on timing Andrew - I only suggested the end of the year as that seemed to be the next available time for featured articles, but I'd be happy to see it featured at any point. --Nick talk 13:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On this basis, I am happy to support this article. I still haven't read through the entire thing, but it seems outstanding and rather comprehensive to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment(s) - The article looks really good and the districts look OK. I'd prefer to have coordinates for the POIs and them plotted on a dynamic map, though. BTW did you really mean the end of 2015 (after two years?) or rather late 2014 (unlikely as the table above is full) or March/April 2015 if the "tourist season" starts in May? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will work on the co-ordinates and I've changed the date above accordingly. Thanks for the feedback! --Nick talk 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Pashley (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I last visitted Manchester during the Commonwealth Games, and it brought some good back memories - it is a good article. It would be good to do a little work on some of the districts before it is featured - few have maps. AlasdairW (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for August 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Davenport

 * Support as nominator. Needs a lede, but other than that, it looks ready to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost. The article is beautiful, but there is a well-justified style tag on the "Eat" section that needs to be addressed before this is run. I also had thoughts of nominating Seattle, by the way, but not a soul has responded to my questions at Talk:Seattle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan - It looks like Davenport should be an easy enough fix. The listings themselves are fine; they just need to be reorganized by price point rather than type of cuisine. Assuming there is nothing else wrong with the article, I should be able to get it whipped into shape in no time. As for Seattle, I will take a look at that as well and weigh in on the thread at the talk page, but assuming Seattle falls under DotM rather than OtBP, I doubt there would be room for it on the schedule until 2016. As far as I can tell, summer 2015 is booked solid either with destinations that have been waiting an inordinate amount of time to be featured (Buffalo, Łódź, Manchester), are timed to take advantage of a special event (Vienna), or both (Munich). October 2015 might be a possibility, but I'm not sure that would be an ideal month to feature a destination that's so far north. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Seattle would definitely be a DotM. Once the restaurant listings are fixed, I'll be delighted to support running Davenport. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about nominating some American town or national park for OtBP for the upcoming summer but wasn't sure which one to choose. I also wanted to wait a bit to see how André's interesting Quebecois project is growing — that one plus Iseo and Altai Tavan Bogd National Park would fill up the summer months. Davenport has my support but I would love to see the listings in the Eat section arranged into Budget/Mid range/Splurge before we put the article on the Main Page.
 * Seattle is definitely a DotM. It's one of the largest cities in that part of North America, has a major airport and I believe welcomes quite many visitors. As of now the DotM schedule is completely full for the upcoming summer and as the weather doesn't seem to be particularly good in October, I foresee that Seattle probably will have to wait until 2016. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - regarding the Gaspé Peninsula, that's looking more like a summer 2016 feature (mostly because I'm having a hard time learning how to write Usable articles rather than Guide-level ones!) After the New Year, I envision shifting my focus away from Quebec and several offwiki projects I'm working on toward breaking ground on Buffalo/East Side, so we can consider one summer 2015 OtBP slot as yet to be filled. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Progress report: The Eat section has been reformatted in accordance with mos. It looks like there might be some minor copyediting yet to do; would anyone else (especially those who've commented previously: Ikan, Ypsi) care to opine about what else needs to be done and/or reassess their votes? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Eat" section was the only thing preventing me from offering my support for running this article, so thank you for taking care of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already voted "support" and didn't have an problems with anything except the Eat section; great that you fixed it! Should leave the "local chains" as a separate section? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article also needs a proper lede. As for the "local chains" section, I have the Buffalo district articles set up that way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support — But the lead section needs to be expanded. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for August 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hiking in the Nordic countries

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a very impressive article. It seems quite unlikely to me that any important substantive edits are needed or even appropriate in this article; at most, it may benefit from a bit more copy editing (I did a bit just now). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Beautiful article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Three votes of support. Anyone else? User:Erik den yngre, would you like to vote? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can vote support, although I am bit biased.... --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Very comprehensive, great job. Danapit (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. A good article, which is making me think about a trip to Norway sometime in the future. A minor point is that mushrooms seem to be mentioned a lot, when I am not sure that we are able to properly cover the safety issues. AlasdairW (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I cut down a little on the mushroom text in Do; Eat should now have the complete discussion. I think mentioning mushroom is justified, as mushroom is one of the important food items you get on the trail (beside berries and fish), and a reason for many locals to go on forest trips. With due caution, keeping to a few safe species, I think also a casual visitor can eat mushroom safely. As you say, we cannot cover the safety issues, but I think mentioning the worst culprits (the four poisonous mushrooms mentioned account for nearly all critical incidents), hinting on some relatively secure options and warning about eating mushroom at random is better than not covering the subject at all. I think the section is balanced (I did my best), but I am happy for any further comments. --LPfi (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it was important to make clear that the photo of mushrooms in the article was actually of poisonous deadly webcaps, not chanterelles, and as a result, I also added a photo of chanterelles by way of contrast. I will work on a disclaimer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for August 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Łódź

 * Support. This guide is much better than I remember it being, no doubt in large part because of all the work User:Half past has done on it, lately. One concern I have is that the default scale of the map should be larger, so that the default view is of individual city streets, rather than the position of the entire city in relation to its suburbs, with only superhighway numbers showing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Followup My concern was addressed. The map now is fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. As a lifelong resident of Buffalo, I've got a soft spot in my heart for scrappy, down-at-the-heels cities that are actually diamonds in the rough. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not a bad article, however isn't Lodz more of an Off the Beaten Path destination? Compared to Krakow with surroundings, Warsaw and the Baltic Sea coast, I believe one doesn't run into very many camera-waving fellow travelers in Lodz, but I don't know for sure as I've never been to Lodz (did I just answer my own question? :)Prince and Jjtkk probably know. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take a look at it through the six-point metric proposed a while back by Pashley, which, though it never got off the ground in terms of becoming an "official" policy, I still think is about the best barometer I've yet seen.


 * Population of the destination—Per Łódź, 715,360 in the city proper and 1,428,000 in the metro area as of 2013. Not too shabby.


 * Importance as a travel destination, not just for tourism but also for business, pilgrimage or whatever—The article's text leads me to believe that tourism is a pretty middling sector of Łódź's economy for now, but that the city is pulling itself together and beginning to attract more visitors. But in the final analysis, we really need someone with more expertise than myself to weigh in on that. However, it's one of Poland's major cities and a provincial capital, so it probably attracts its share of business travellers.


 * Importance as a travel hub - do most visitors to the region pass through it?—To quote the article, "Łódź lies at the centre of Poland's road and highway system", so probably.


 * Political importance (for example whether it is a national or state capital, or a major center for a minority culture)—Yes indeed. It's the capital of the Łódzkie Voivodeship (voivodeships are basically provinces).


 * Historical importance—The city's history appears to be pretty brief by European standards, but eventful: a 19th-century industrial center that played a pivotal role in the Polish resistance to Nazi German occupation, as well as the scene of the Łódź Ghetto and other important elements of Holocaust history.


 * Desirability as a destination (Would you go there if you were in the region, or recommend it to a touring friend?)—That's kind of subjective, but speaking for myself personally, I definitely would. As I mentioned in my support vote, I have a thing for scrappy industrial cities.


 * Judging by that, I'd say definitely DotM.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't know such a six-point test existed. Pashley has come up with some good points. I always thought the DoTM vs. OtBP distinction was about Famous destination where restaurant menus are available in eight languages vs. hidden gem where you can experience local local life as it is.
 * However the "population of the destination" is often but not always a good indication whether it's a famous destination/worth visiting or not. Very few people live near Machu Picchu, while a (sorry to say) 50 year old collection of concrete buildings in Siberia can have half a million of inhabitants and not much of interest to visitors.
 * I do support Lodz as an article to be featured on the main page, but I'd also like to hear Prince's, Jj's or someone else's opinion who is familiar with the city.
 * (Ps. Tampere, "Finland's Manchester" was among the first OtBP's we had.) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "However the 'population of the destination' is often but not always a good indication whether it's a famous destination/worth visiting or not"


 * Indeed. A high population is a clue that a destination might be DotM-worthy, but no single one of those listed factors has the final word. If you read through the discussion on this page's talk page, you'll also see where it was argued that more than one of the six requirements should be fulfilled before it's no longer debatable whether or not the article really should be DotM.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hard one, but I'd say OtBP. Łódź is not considered a travel destination even in Poland, partly becaue of its negative press (addressed in the article) and, I guess, partly because it lacks typical tourist drag most cities around here have -> medieval Old Town. Anyway I wouldn't use the population as an indicator in this case. I almost support this nomination, we should add lat/long to the listings and I think Learn section is not what it should be. Jjtkk (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I really, really wish we would get away from the erroneous assumption that DotM-vs.-OtBP discussions boil down solely or primarily to a question of a) a destination's population or b) its popularity with leisure travellers.


 * As for population, it's only one of six factors in Pashley's proposed metric, and as I've alluded to before, a destination that has a high population but fails the other five litmus tests will probably end up as an OtBP. As for the second point, Wikivoyage's target audience doesn't just begin and end with leisure travellers. We aim to be of service to business travellers, travellers who may be passing through a particular place on their way from Point A to Point B (cf. Ryan: "I think anyone planning a trip will click on the articles for towns and regions along their route looking for things that sound interesting... and with a trip coming up, I'm using Wikivoyage in exactly this way"), folks who may be taking up a longer-term residency in a particular place, and a whole slew of other categories of people. Accordingly, the definition of DotM as opposed to OtBP is a bit more multifaceted than "places that are more popular with tourists", which is as it should be, IMO: if it were simply a popularity contest, it would follow that OtBPs are inherently inferior just because they're smaller or have an appeal that is as yet undiscovered. I think it goes without saying that Wikivoyage does not want to foster such a sentiment.


 * Now in a previous comment on this thread, I broke down my argument of why Łódź should be DotM rather than OtBP pretty comprehensively. And Jjtkk and I are actually in agreement that "Łódź is not considered a travel destination even in Poland". But in order to arrive at his pro-OtBP conclusion, Jjtkk completely ignored Łódź's importance politically, historically, and as a place travellers pass through even if they don't seek it out as an end destination in itself, which is really frustrating because all six of these factors are supposed to be of equal importance. It bears mentioning that Pashley's proposal gained broad consensus among the community when it was advanced, and the fact that it hasn't been officially enshrined as policy is probably due to nothing more than nobody ever getting around to editing the relevant policy page.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, perhaps less importantly, it's the only viable nominee we currently have for the August DotM slot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I should have addressed other factors, but the fact that I didn't doesn't mean I didn't think about them. As I said it's a hard one.
 * Population of the destination - already discussed, it's big, it was bigger, now it's dwindling.
 * Importance as a travel destination, not just for tourism but also for business, pilgrimage or whatever - I think it's great for 19th century architecture/industry enthusiasts. There are Fairs but not very important.
 * Importance as a travel hub - do most visitors to the region pass through it? Łódź lies in the centre of Poland so it lies in the centre of most networks. Highways pass around it, Łódź Władysław Reymont Airport is empty, has only Ryanair.
 * Political importance (for example whether it is a national or state capital, or a major center for a minority culture) Yes, it is a voivodeship capital cause it's big.
 * Historical importance - Litzmannstadt played pivotal role in resistance? I'd say Łódź insurrection (1905) was more important historically.
 * Desirability as a destination - that's subjective, not my first choice but well worth visiting - so, OtBP for me but I won't argue against DoTM. Jjtkk (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is the population mostly moving to the suburbs or further away, or is the population decrease due to a larger number of deaths than births? Sorry if I missed a discussion above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More deaths than births and young people run away to Warsaw and London (or western Europe in general) due to high unemployment rate. Jjtkk (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think Lodz is a good article but lacks pictures and i agree with j that it is not a growing city. I'm fine with either Dotm or OtBP as both categories do have reasons (but would personally lean towards otbp due to airport). How about taking a bit more time and change Tallinn & Lodz in the schedule? I would oppose to slush Lodz but maybe it needs a bit more time to get it things sorted? jan (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's slush Vava'u and feature Lodz in September as OtBP. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose that my concerns about the August 2014 DotM slot have been addressed given that we have a suitable candidate in Tallinn, and while I continue to personally disagree, I'm willing to recognize and concede to the fact that consensus is trending strongly in favor of Łódź as OtBP, rather than DotM. However, I remain strongly opposed to slushing Vava'u, a perfectly featureable article whose flaws, while persistent, are not major enough to preclude anyone's support (including, it should be noted, Ypsilon's, who is the one proposing it be slushed!) In addition, I am also opposed to moving it out of the September OtBP slot, given that it would in that case have to wait till summer 2015 to be featured, per its "Time to feature" and the worthiness of the July and August 2014 OtBP nominees. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! I would also like to see Vava'u featured (our first Oceanian article outside Australia on the main page ever). Four months ago I fixed the issues with the article and gave it a supporting vote. This afternoon I could just see my support vote and Ikan's soft support and RP's "not yet", so I believed nobody really would be interested in having it as OtBP. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Per consensus, this article has been moved from the DotM column to OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus for that? It's a little big for OtBP, but if that's the consensus, fine. It sure makes me retroactively reconsider Rochester, New York and Madison, Wisconsin, though, both of which are a lot smaller than Lodz. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you, Ikan, but as of the category change I was the only one still holding out for Lodz as DotM (vs. Jjtkk and Ypsi in favor of OtBP, and Jan who had no particular preference). It's going to make it a lot harder to argue for Buffalo as DotM in a few months, but it is what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really not too happy with this large a city as OtBP. Would anyone like to reconsider? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's borderline, but consider this: if Łódź is OtBP, does that mean there are only 2 potential DotM articles in the entirety of Poland? That seems bizarre.  I think this has to be DotM lest we limit ourselves far too much.  (There is no way in hell Buffalo is OtBP.  Come on.)  Powers (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure how borderline it is. I guess we're talking about a place that isn't on the most worn path, but that's not my way of thinking about OtBP. Something has to be more out of the way than a big provincial capital like this for me to think of it as really off the beaten path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Poland does have more than two potential DotM articles (I guess you mean Warsaw and Krakow that have a larger population than Lodz - BTW if those two would be competing for the title of Poland's most important destination I think I would vote for Krakow). IMO Gdańsk is a far more important destination than Lodz, both due to its historical significance, the Baltic Sea beaches and its role as an important port. Wroclaw is another city I would put above Lodz.
 * I'm not entirely against featuring Lodz as a Destination, it does have a varied array of things to see and do, even as it has no Wawel. But I do think Jj presented some very valid points above. Another reason for suggesting it for OtBP was that there at one point was a free or semi-free OtBP slot in the fall where this destination would've fit in nicely. (Ps. Prince, would you say Lodz is an important destination on a Polish scale?). Also remember that OtBP does not mean that the place isn't worth visiting.
 * When developing the 10 question DotM/OtBP barometer I presented on the talk page, I specifically thought about the Lodz case. Population size is not the only, and not even the most important criterion for determining how "prominent" a destination should be. If this would be the case, for example the list of nine cities in the United States article would contain places like Houston and Phoenix and I'm sure this is not what we want.
 * Concerning Buffalo, of course it is more of a DotM. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't follow why Lodz would be an OtBP and Buffalo would be an obvious DotM. I think the two cities would seem to be quite comparable, as pretty large cities that are making a transition from centers of heavy industry to something else and have lost population, and both have major universities, too, don't they? The one major difference I can think of off-hand is that Buffalo is quite close to Niagara Falls, which is an obvious DotM because it's such a huge tourist attraction, but it's a cinch to go directly from the airport to Niagara Falls or take the train directly there, thereby avoiding Buffalo. I do agree that population alone is not conclusive, and that, for example, in countries like China and India that have loads of cities of over 700,000 inhabitants, it's quite easy to imagine some of them as OtBP, but I wouldn't put Poland in that category. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm out of town with spotty Internet access, so I hadn't noticed this discussion brewing until now. Powers' comments about the implication for other Polish cities of running Lodz as OtBP cut to the heart of the reason why I was such a vocal supporter of placing it in the DotM column, but by the same token, I have tried to be very careful not to abuse my status as by far the most active participator in the DotM process to dominate the discussion and force my opinions on others. However, if this discussion can help sway the consensus, I'm all for that.


 * On another topic, to address Ikan's comments, I actually think that Buffalo's proximity to Niagara Falls weakens the argument for it as DotM rather than OtBP. There is plenty in Buffalo for visitors to enjoy, but the fact is that Western New York's big, obvious marquee tourist attraction is located outside the city limits. Other than touching down at BUF (which, technically speaking, is not in Buffalo either – it would be covered under the Cheektowaga article), I would say that most tourists who are in the region to see the Falls and have a limited amount of time at their disposal likely won't set foot in Buffalo. Visit Buffalo Niagara is trying their hardest to market Buffalo as a daytrip destination for tourists to Niagara Falls, but the fact is that we are and will almost certainly remain outshined. However, one counter-argument that I haven't heard mentioned yet in favor of Buffalo as DotM is our importance as an international border crossing – on the United States' northern frontier, Buffalo-Fort Erie is second in cross-border traffic only to Detroit-Windsor.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is far too much text for me to read, but I have apparently been called out to opine somewhere above. Just to think how much better the Łódź article would have been if all this effort went into it instead is quite promising. Perhaps one day we could simply have a quick process for assessing articles which would result in automatic adding to the DotM queue, with the option of suggesting a particular month if significant for the destination. And all this OtBP / DotM nonsense is just that - we should showcase our best work and not worry about labels. Back on topic with Łódź - I would say it is among the top destinations in Poland, it surely isn't totally "off the beaten path". Throngs of Jewish tourists visit it every year due to its importance inthe Polish-Jewish collective heritage, plus the design and fashion festivals and such. This is surely a major destination, even if arguably behind Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, Wrocław and Toruń on most people's lists. That said, I believe our selection should be based first and foremost on the quality of the articles featured. IMHO, all of the destinations in Poland lag seriously behind our standards, and need reworks, updates and upgrades before we conside featuring them. IS anybody willing to help me on that? We can start with Łódź, or any other destinations for that matter, e.g. finish cleaning up the mess that resulted from the redistrification of Warsaw. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that this article should not be scheduled for a feature yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, I shan't get impossible. Let's make Lodz a DoTM instead.
 * Some minor polish ing :) perhaps would be needed, most notably Geo coordinates and the Learn section, but nothing radical. Lodz is in practice going to be featured sometimes in the upcoming spring, so we're not in a hurry.
 * We're around 30 regular contributors here (who drop in at least once a month), plus the occasional visitors who all too often drop in to write a splendid article about their home city and then disappear. Therefore, unfortunately, many articles "drop under the radar". I have some familiarity with Poland, so I could help out but there are a couple of travel topics and translations of some of de's Guides that have already been waiting a few months... ϒpsilon (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK now, thanks for the reality check! My constructive conclusion would be that with 30 contributors having DotM, CotM, OtBP and whatnot and multiple discussions over those is going a bit overboard. I'd suggest we merge everything into "actually good and reasonably updated articles for the main page" and make them automatic CotM - this can go both ways, i.e. if there is an article that should go onto the front page in a given month, like Milan for the Expo, let us rally around it to make it the best we can. Conversely, if there is an article that is being significantly improved, and by chance attracts the interest of more than one editor (as e.g. in the case of Stockholm where User:Ypsilon and the humble myself did a bit of work), let us put it in the
 * For now, Tallinn is scheduled to go onto the front page next month, and I found the article in terrible shape. I will do my best to improve it as much as I can, and so can you - even if you have never been to Tallinn, you can still do some research, visit official website, check and update info, add pictures from Commons and coordinates for the map etc. etc. I myself do all that when I prepare my travels even to places I have not been yet, and find it very rewarding, almost as much as travelling itself. It does require setting our fave topics aside for a moment, but then unless you really hate the destination, I guess we can make it more rewarding to ourselves knowing that others work alongside to do more, better and faster.
 * I also believe such efforts may be useful to recruit Wikipedians interested in the topic (as evidenced by their edit history, or rather edit histories of the relevant Wikipedia articles) to join the effort and they may stick around if they are interested in travelling in general and will find our project fun.
 * As regards Łódź, I believe it needs much more than minor polish'ing, I will list the issues as a checklist in the talk page in due course. I agree though that it may be a good Polish DoTM as it is not a huge destination with many districts and uncountable POIs, so it should be reasonably easy to cover. I am very much ready to put my knowledge of Polish, and the city itself, to good use if we decide to collaborate on that. I am also happy to schedule a field trip for any of the coming weeks whenever I shall be in Poland if we make a list of things to check out / photograph. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Tallinn article isn't that bad, is it? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now after the many changes, including yours, it is starting to take on a reasonable shape, but I believe it is hardly one of the best ones we have, or one I would like to show as examplary, which is what I believe we should promote. I also believe it may and probably will become good enough by the time it gets featured if we continue to work on it. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Going back to a couple of PrinceGloria's earlier points:


 * Regarding Lodz and other Polish destinations, policy states that if the article is at Guide status or better, it can be featured, full stop. Our standards for featured articles are not as high as our standards for Star nominations, and that's by design: if Guide articles were not eligible, we would very quickly run out of articles to feature. Anyone who wants to improve a nominated article in advance of its stint on the Main Page should be encouraged to do so, but let's keep our expectations realistic.


 * Regarding featured destinations as CotM and other radical changes to policy, those are far beyond the scope of this page and should be brought up elsewhere. Purely for the record, though, my personal take on the matter is that it would be better to simply abandon CotM for the time being because we simply do not have enough manpower to maintain interest. Same for Expeditions, probably. But as for adopting current Main Page articles as automatic CotMs, it's not a given that among our relatively small population of editors there will always be someone who has the personal on-the-ground familiarity with every destination we'll ever run that's necessary to make meaningful contributions. Nor is it reasonable, in that vast majority of instances when a DotM nominee is not of Star-perfect quality, to expect unpaid volunteers who work on Wikivoyage in their spare time to take on a top-to-bottom revamp of the article as a prerequisite to running it on the Main Page, especially when the numbers say that most likely that editor would be working alone. I think we should be very proud to have the quality of material that we do have, given the current size and activity level of our community.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that with 30something active editors, and we all know who we are, being so worked up about policies, guidelines and other formalities is quite pointless. We have probably contributed far too much time and effort to many discussions on them vs. contributing actual content. We are still a community in the making and even if we agree on some very strict and detailed policies, I sincerely hope we will soon be outnumbered by many other editors. And the majority of them may have very different views and we will end up revising the policies anyway. I guess the best thing now is to check how things work in practice and try to put down rough notes resulting from that and be ready to revise them once experience proves otherwise.
 * As regards what to put on the main page as DotM, I believe those should be our best articles. I am not sure our qualifications as guide or star are up to date with the developments such as dynamic maps and such, and I am not sure if our processes to confer a status upon an article are reliable enough for us to rely on them to instantly assess the article's quality. I guess that the process here, if we focus more on the quality of the article rather than whether the destination itself is "worthy", is actually a good one to assess an article's quality as it garners enough attention.
 * I also would say that while many good article here have essentially been written by a single person, the best articles stem from collaborations of multiple users (either concurrently or at different points in time, but I find concurrent collaboration bringing about the best results). Therefore, I believe we should essentially be featuring destinations that garner enough attention. This is a good page to gauge whether there is enough interest to help improve an article for it to be good enough to be featured on the main page, as I guess most of the truly great articles have already been featured and pretty much everything else is a work in progress.
 * And you are right about this discussion being more general than just about Łódź, I will copy this to the talk page of the general DotM in due course. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Andre, in view of your remarks about CotM, your views of the discussion at Wikivoyage/Lounge would be appreciated, as they concern the possibility of featuring Milan, which is currently Usable and will require improvement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm at the in-laws' till Monday night with Internet access limited to my phone, so doing the Wikivoyage thing has been and will be a bit tedious. But I'll check out Meta when I get back home. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No urgency about that, anyway. Enjoy your visit! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Per shift in consensus, this article has been moved back to the DotM column. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I naturally like my six-point list for DotM/OtBP a lot, but it is worth noting that there has been extensive discussion and at least one other list of criteria proposed. Pashley (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for July 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Trondheim

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trondheim is one of the nine cities listed on the Norway page. Are we sure it's off the beaten path?  Powers (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Powers makes a good point; I would argue that this is better suited to DotM. It's not likely to be placed on the Main Page in either category until 2016, so I propose we re-categorize this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case we should upgrade Turku as well/instead, if we want to be consistent. Turku is not only among the nine cities listed in Finland, but also in Scandinavia (which Trondheim is not), has a larger population, functioned as the capital when Finland was a Swedish province and is as least as popular for visitors to Finland as Trondheim is for visitors to Norway.
 * Let's just slush this nomination. It's silly to have it up here on the nominations page for a year and a half. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right about Turku. Should we change it to DotM? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Turku is fine where it is, IMO. Switching it to DotM would mean either delaying it till 2016 or packing the summer 2015 schedule with yet another European nominee. The question of DotM vs. OtBP is at least partially subjective, and Estonia is a much smaller and less touristed country than Norway. Furthermore, I would oppose slushing Trondheim. It's a perfectly worthy article, and there are many nominees on this page (Palmyra (New York) is one, off the top of my head) that are still going to be here in 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower, Turku is in Finland, not Estonia. Does that change your opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alas, I'm confusing Turku with Tartu. I think a case could be made for Turku as DotM, but as I described above, it would cause a good deal of disruption to the schedule, so I still prefer the status quo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the rationale for making Turku OtBP is that despite its size, few people from the English-speaking world travel there. If that's equally true of Trondheim, what then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they're both gray areas and should be placed in the schedule where it's most convenient. For Trondheim it's a toss-up, though my personal preference remains DotM; for Turku OtBP is clearly the path of least resistance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering how far in advance we're talking about all this, I don't think inertia should keep us from placing these destinations where they belong. Ypsilon certainly makes a good argument for Turku not being off the beaten path. Powers (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't really an issue that will change with time; as none of our current DotM nominees are slush pile material, none of them will be removed from this page except through being featured, and it's ludicrous to make articles wait until 2016 that have already been waiting over a year in most cases. Łódź is another gray-area case that many of us have been clamoring to recategorize; switching it to the OtBP column and Turku to the DotM column would probably be the least disruptive way to rearrange the schedule. Ikan, Ypsi, Powers, others: how do you feel about that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, first of all, I wasn't the one who objected to Trondheim being OtBP. My point was that if Trondheim is a DotM, then why wouldn't Turku also be? I have no stake in either of those being OtBP. I do not agree with Lodz being OtBP. Isn't it considerably bigger than either of these other cities? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is hurting my head.


 * Okay, let me rephrase the question. On our nominees list we have three European cities – Łódź, Trondheim, and Turku – which, it has been argued, could be featured as either DotM or OtBP. However, for 2015, there is space on the schedule for only one of them to be featured as DotM. Or, if we really want it to be DotM rather than OtBP, we can hold Trondheim off until 2016, which, since it was nominated at the tail end of 2014 and given how long nominees have generally had to wait lately, does not strike me as unreasonable at all. How do we work this?


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have a role in giving you a headache. I just want us to base decisions on logically reasonable bases, that's all. I'm OK with however you solve it, except that Łódź should not be OtBP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent reset) All those cities could be featured as either DotM or OtBP, I think all score something around five on the ten-point test I suggested on the talk page. As we currently have more nominations for DotM waiting for their month on the Main Page, if new nominees could be featured as OtBP instead then they should.

Above I wanted to say that it'd be dumb to have Trondheim as DoTM while a Turku is OtBP. My preference would be having both Trondheim and Turku as OtBP — that's what I've nominated them for after all.

Turku is already in the schedule and I believe there is still room for Trondheim in the September OtBP slot. On the other hand if you think we have too many European destinations in the upcoming summer, just say it, I fully understand (in that case, let's just slush or postpone Trondheim). Concerning Lodz, I'm fine with having it as DotM per all those discussions above. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is indeed still one summer OtBP slot up for grabs, and while we currently have a glut of European DotM candidates, the number of European OtBP candidates on the docket is much more manageable (only Iseo and Turku as of now). I'm not opposed to featuring Trondheim as OtBP in summer 2015 so ,long as no superior candidates come along. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, though, if Trondheim and Turku are really off the beaten path, why are they listed at such high levels in "Cities" sections? Whether a destination is a DotM or OtBP should be based on the qualities of the destination, not on scheduling convenience. Powers (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From Trondheim: "With a population of 181,513 (October 1, 2013), it is the third most populous municipality in Norway." From Turku: "As of 30 September 2014, the population of Turku was 183,811, making it the sixth largest city in Finland." The fact that a country has small cities, other than the capital, doesn't automatically entitle them to be DotM. Unless there is a great deal of tourism to these cities, it's quite appropriate for them both to be OtBP. Conversely, in a country that has dozens of cities with a population of over 1 million, such as China or India, the mere fact that a city has a population of over 1 million shouldn't guarantee that it would be a DotM: That would also depend on how well-known and well-touristed the city is, and how important it is as, for example, a provincial capital or major center of commerce and/or education. I think it's fine for both Trondheim and Turku to be OtBP. What would be a little stranger to me would be for both of them to be DotM, and stranger still would be for Trondheim to be DotM while Turku is run as OtBP. That might be justifiable, partly on the basis that Trondheim is the 3rd-largest city in Norway, whereas Turku is the 6th-largest city in Finland, but also on the historic basis of Trondheim being the former capital of Norway, but since Turku is Finland's oldest city and seems to be similarly full of interesting things to see and do, that criterion is blunted. I think that the best way to treat both these smallish cities is as super-interesting OtBPs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're focusing on the population numbers; I didn't mention population at all in my question. I should also point out that tourism isn't the only reason someone would visit a destination. My question revolves around this issue: If Turku is one of the nine most important destinations in all of Scandinavia, but it's off the beaten path, that implies that there are no more than eight possible DotM cities in all of Scandinavia, while there are hundreds of destinations that would have to be considered OtBP because they're less important than Turku. Similar reasoning applies to Trondheim and Norway. I think that kind of imbalance between the two categories is far too extreme. Of course there will always be more OtBP-eligible destinations than DotM-eligible in any given geographic region, but it seems like this division goes too far. Powers (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I focus on population because it makes both of these non-obvious DotM candidates. I agree that tourism isn't the only reason to travel. So are these cities really big draws for international trade, nowadays? How about for international students? All those could be salient criteria. Also, how populous are their metropolitan areas? That could be salient, too. All that said, the possibility that the 7th, 8th- or 9th-most important destination in Scandinavia might be off the beaten path for international passenger traffic is hardly a revolutionary idea, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that, with the exception of extremely clear cases like Manhattan or London (or Childs or Wake Island), anyone who argues vehemently that a destination absolutely has to be a DotM rather than an OtBP, or vice versa, is probably taking the whole thing a bit too seriously. Notwithstanding recent efforts to establish guidelines as to how to identify DotMs as opposed to OtBPs, the decision-making process has a great deal of flexibility built into it, and that's by design. I see absolutely no reason why scheduling factors can't play into the decision of where to place gray-area cases like Trondheim and Turku - as far as I can tell, the system was set up for maximum convenience in that regard. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Unlike e.g Italy or France, Scandinavia has very few destinations that would absolutely have to be featured as DotM and under no circumstances ever as OtBP — those would be the capitals plus Gothenburg and maybe Malmö. About 2-4 other destinations from each Scandinavian country can be featured as either DotM or OtBP (including Turku and Trondheim). As of now we have less OtBP than DotM candidates, therefore it's better to feature Turku and Trondheim as OtBPs. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But that still doesn't address the issue I raised, which is that assigning these destinations as OtBP implies that there are several orders of magnitude fewer DotM destinations in any given geographic area than OtBP destinations. Powers (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, ϒpsilon addresses that issue squarely, directly above your latest reply. You might not like what he has to say, but if you think he didn't address that issue, reread his post. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I'm not seeing it. He's asserting exactly what I'm questioning, but not with any justification or solution to the problem it raises. Powers (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the problem that needs solving? I guess you disagree that Italy or France has a larger number of obvious DotM candidates than Scandinavia, but that doesn't mean other people consider that a problem or anything to be solved, just a statement of the way things are, as they see it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My earlier comment, as well, contained an alternate answer to Powers' question, namely "does it really matter that much?" The world isn't going to come to an end if we figure Trondheim and Turku as larger than average OtBPs rather than smaller than average DotMs; in fact, I just now briefly skimmed Previously Off the beaten path and found several cities that should probably have gone in the DotM column (Tampere, Niamey, Petra). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is running out of DotM candidates by limiting the pool. Powers (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like a remote problem. Don't forget that London/Hampstead is also ready to go and currently in the Slush Pile only because its feature was postponed in favor of the City of London article for the Wikimedia conference. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not as remote as you think; our attempts at greater geographical diversity will be made much easier if we have a larger pool to choose from for DotMs. And there's always the possibility we decide to move up to weekly features in the future.  Also, if Hampstead is ready to go, it shouldn't have been slushed.  Powers (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there might be a problem with a limited pool of articles, then we definitely shouldn't move to weekly features. Hampstead was slushed because it would have had to wait so long to be featured. I think I can unslush it, though, and maybe now's the time to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure if it's time to unslush that nomination: AndreCarrotflower, it was judged that no part of London could be featured again until 2016. Should we wait longer before unslushing London/Hampstead? Also, that's another European OtBP nomination, not a DotM. Would that present a scheduling problem at this point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm not worried about running out of DotM candidates, we would run out of OtBP candidates before that would happen. Our guides are mostly written by people who have some familiarity with the place. Therefore, places like Manhattan have plenty of content and usually at least Usable status, while very little is written about destinations that are OtBP (by definition, few of our contributors have been there). Sure, for each DoTM candidate we have at least ten articles for destinations off the beaten path... but too many of those consist of "X is a town in Y", a restaurant without an address and the default banner on top of it all. Of course, we do have good OtBP articles too — just look at Altai Tavan Bogd National Park for example. Browsing through Category:Guide articles from A to Z a few months back I found tens of good looking articles that could be nominated right away or need just a little formatting. So, I don't think we risk running out of destination article candidates anytime soon (though it'd be nice to have some more travel topics for FTT).

Concerning Hampstead, I too thought we had a rule that there has to be two years between articles located in the same city? In that case it's guaranteed that Hampstead won't be on the Main page before late spring 2016, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to bring the Hampstead back to this page yet. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Powers: In slushing London/Hampstead, I was following the precedent set by Jan when he slushed Buffalo the first time around: the article was not slushed because it was unfeatureable as it was, but because it had lingered on the nominees page too long. You can see the play-by-play of the discussion to slush Hampstead at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates, and I might also note that you yourself seemed to be in favor of doing so on November 15th of last year.


 * Ikan, I don't know what good it would do unslushing Hampstead now if the goal is to keep nominees from lingering in limbo too long. The purpose of placing nominee destinations on the dotm page is to attract support or oppose votes, no? By the time Hampstead was slushed, there was already a pretty ironclad consensus that it was worthy to be placed on the Main Page, so any further support votes would be redundant, and in that light its presence on the nominees page eighteen months or more ahead of its featuring seems fairly pointless. (And, in anticipation of one possible rebuttal: the reason Buffalo was unslushed so far in advance of its projected feature date was because, unlike Hampstead, the Buffalo article had been altered so radically since it was slushed that any yea or nay votes on its previous nomination were effectively meaningless.)


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think you're right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good point. Articles that languish here risk becoming out of date, which is why I agreed with slushing Hampstead. I'd forgotten about the 2-year moratorium on districts of the same city. Powers (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Lots of photos, copious and properly formatted listings in all sections, well-written. An exemplary article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I just looked through the article, tweaking a few wordings. I've never been to Norway and now want to visit Trondheim! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful, well-tweaked article. I have just looked for something to add and/or correct but it's so complete. It deserves to be featured. Ibaman (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for July 2015. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Frequent flyer programmes

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words - do comment on how it can be improved further. I certainly see there is a fair amount of verbosity that could be cut down to make for better readability, so I guess anybody with a moment for some copyediting could make a very worthwhile contribution. I guess we could also use more incoming links. I would also propose to use the pic used for the banner for the main page, not the JAL one. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know very much about frequent flyer programs, never having been a member. There's also nothing wrong about the article's language or layout as far as I can see. BTW the grainy photo for the article banner is taken of a friend's membership cards and I don't believe it would make a very successful Main page banner. Luckily, André has so far created great Main page banners for both destinations and topics. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I skipped through the article. Does it mention anywhere that, at least in the US, it is solely up to the airline whether to arbitrarily change the number of miles per award or even suddenly end the program, and that members of frequent flyer programs actually have no rights whatsoever, per a US Supreme Court decision stating that this is not a contract between the cardholder and the airline, but merely a one-way promotion? I think that's actually relevant information for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I should clarify that I don't support running this article unless and until it covers this in a clear way. It's also important for it to be stipulated whether there are countries that have different laws in regard to airline behavior in regard to frequent flyer programs. Once this important topic is covered satisfactorily, I will support running this article, as it's otherwise good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone around who is member of an frequent flyer program? Preferably of an American airline? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IK: Is this something to ask about? It is typical that airliners reserves all rights at all times to make any changes to their frequent flyer programmes and conditions, miles, benefits offered, at their sole discretion. --Saqib (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus Maria Joseph, now that's a storm in a teacup. I have just quickly added a verbose para addressing the above, which is still shorter than this discussion. Whatever happened to plunge forward? At any rate, this is not FlyerTalk (which is run by IB, BTW), it is Wikivoyage, I think it is enough to say that. Anybody to whom the changes that spurned the Supreme Court subpoena would matter at all would be far more advanced that the ones our rudimentary guide is aimed at. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your edit, which I tweaked slightly, but the thing is, I don't know whether this is true of frequent flyer programs throughout the world or is just the law in the U.S. as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so it wasn't as simple for me as plunging forward. If it's true that these programs are regarded under all nations' laws as purely promotional and in no way incurring any contractual obligation on the airline, I'd be happy to support running the article. I take it, that is true? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is safer to assume it does, it would require some very quirky consumer protection law for it not to be. Most countries do not restrict businesses from conducting operations based on common sense as much as the US does, and neither do mass riots erupt over the devaluation of Tesco Club Card points. The issue is petty and its importance narrowed to a few crazy people who spend enough money (theirs or usually not) on flying for them to get worked up about it. FlyerTalk will always offer them better and more specific advice and a safe, warm feeling of an exclusive lounge filled with similar nutters. And yes, I am one of them. Case closed. Can we find a better picture? PrinceGloria (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, case closed. I am satisfied and have no further hesitation in supporting featuring this fine article. Thanks for addressing this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, but I think it's also important to include the information Ikan brought to light above. I searched the article at some length and did not see it mentioned at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It is a few years since I have benefited from such programmes, but it looks a good article. It may be worth mentioning that frequent flyer miles earned on business flights may be regarded as a "benefit" for tax purposes, or subject to employer's rules. AlasdairW (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a section on this and travel insurance issues. AlasdairW (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for July 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Buffalo

 * Support, naturally. Aiming for May 2015; while we could probably get away with April, it tends to be cool at that time, with an outside chance of snow and many outdoor attractions (Outer Harbor, etc.) not yet open for the season. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — Andrew, you've done an amazing job on Buffalo article. I don't think we've such a comprehensive article on a destination other than Buffalo. Buffalo articles are very detailed and mentions every little information. While two district haven't started yet but I hope by May 2015, you'll be able to finish the work. --Saqib (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. After many years of development, if Andrew says it's ready to feature then let's do it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Normally I wouldn't support a city article with two districts as redlinks, but seeing how hard Andre hitherto has been working on Buffalo's articles I would eat my hat if he wouldn't have made good articles for those too until next spring/summer. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks like my memory did not deceive me, and the slushed discussion actually approved this guide for a feature. The reason the nomination was slushed was to work on districts more. So I don't actually think the article needed to go through the approval process again, but I guess a new discussion can never hurt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously. Indeed one of the most comprehensive city guides we have, and no doubt the few missing pieces are already in production. Needless to repeat, but excellent work, Andre. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a six-year resident of the Buffalo area, I'm going to take a look, and also pass it on to my wife and a couple of other native Buffalonians from her family. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for June 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Turku

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, this appears to be a well-developed and polished article, and despite Turku's size it certainly lies off the beaten track for most English-speaking tourists. I have two major comments. First one is that the map is pretty much unlegible, a higher zoom level would be much better, not all of the outlying POIs have to fit. I also believe this is a good candidate for a non-standard-size map, as the POIs come very dense and the city seems to have an East-West orientation so the map needs to be wide. Secondly, such a long article could use more photos. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I've liked this article for a long time, though it's been a few months since I last looked at it. It's really good! I do agree with PrinceGloria about the map, but there are a lot of photos, so if there are no more good ones, the ones in the article now are quite sufficient. This article will be great on the front page! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support --Danapit (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A beautiful article, exhaustively detailed, lots of photos. I took the liberty of changing a few section headers to more closely match our style. A few little nitpicks (which aren't even remotely serious enough to preclude my support): from my cursory skim of the article it looks like some minor copyediting may be in order, and is it really necessary to include such detail in the entries in "Read" and "Watch"? It seems like one-line descriptions would suffice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for June 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sunburn and sun protection

 * Almost -per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost . The photo issue seems to me to be the major one - the article lacks any at all, and is thus technically ineligible for featuring - but that's a fairly easy fix. I also agree with Ypsi about the section headers, which need to be more descriptive. Aside from that, I get the sense that the article is missing something, though I can't put my finger on exactly what. I'd like to hear some input from other Wikivoyagers, because while this article definitely has potential, I don't think it's quite ready for the Main Page yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added some nice and meaningful photos + moved around stuff. Hopefully the one showing an example of a facial burn isn't against our people in photos policy (hey, the pic is from Commons!).
 * Something missing? Can't come to think of anything in particular right now. Perhaps there could be some more details about how to treat sunburnt skin? Dr. James, if you have a few minutes, is there something important missing from the article? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The text says "UV-A radiation which does not cause reddening or pain but may cause other damage", but the adjacent graphic states that it's UV-A that's responsible for sunburns. Powers (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting it! Apparently the text is correct and the author of the picture didn't check the facts. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making these necessary changes, Ypsi. I especially like the photo of the facial sunburn caused by reflection from the glacier, which shows that sun protection isn't only for folks visiting tropical latitudes. I think I can support featuring this article now, though I would still like to see some of those section headers tweaked a bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * About the blurb: Evidence is mounting that even "nice golden tans" are unhealthy. I'm not sure we should be promoting that. We can talk about the sun allowing for enjoyment of outdoor activities, of course. Powers (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Point taken. But I don't think that it's our place as a travel guide to preach to our readers about the dangers of tanning, and I doubt we would change anyone's mind if we did. I think the approach that best serves the traveller is to accept the fact that tanning is popular among a large number of people, assume that our readers are capable of making an informed decision on the subject, and at least provide them with information on how to minimize risk. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Powers on this and seem to be in disagreement with you. The informed decision is to use sublock, and I think that, at least in the US, we've come a long way since people were ridiculed for coming back from summer vacation in the 70s without a tan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ibaman and Saqib; I think you're the active Wikivoyagers living in places with most intense sunlight. Do you have some "secret tips" for protecting oneself or treating sunburn that we've forgotten to add to the article, or something you notice dim-witted tourists from the north are doing time after time? :) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess major points are already covered in the guide so nothing extra-ordinary to add. But if it make sense we can mention about sun pills under protection section. --Saqib (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Powers. There is no reason for us to tell about nice tan instead of about enjoying the sunshine. I would also change the rest of the blurb: we tell nothing about where to draw the line, and should not, but about how to avoid crossing it by mistake. --LPfi (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I continue to strenuously object to these quibbles about the blurb. I think many of us are seriously overthinking what a blurb is supposed to be or do. Think of it like ad copy - although Wikivoyage is supposed to avoid anything that smacks of "promoting" or "advertising" the destinations we cover, and especially the businesses that are listed in destination articles, nonetheless the DotM feature functions very much like an internal "advertisement" that promotes really well-written articles to readers who are already here.


 * And what does ad copy try to do? Is the emphasis on providing an accurate, balanced summary of the topic at hand? No. It's supposed to be a snippet of text, as brief, upbeat and catchy as possible, composed so as to entice readers to further engage with what's being advertised. Our DotM blurbs are meant to make readers click on the banner - that's it, period, end of story.


 * Furthermore, regarding tanning and informed decision-making:


 * # 1. The vast majority of our readers know that exposure to sunlight correlates with skin cancer; however, many of them tan anyway. It's to be assumed that in the personal cost/benefit analysis these people have done in their own heads, they've decided that the relatively modest risk of contracting one of the most easily treatable forms of cancer is worth the benefit of having their preferred skin tone. As an extremely fair-skinned individual myself, and as someone who personally finds fair skin more attractive than tanned skin, it's not the decision I would make. But it's not my job to judge (see #3 below).


 * # 2. All that's required for a decision to be "informed" is for the decision-maker to have all the relevant information at hand at the outset. What he then does with that information in his decision-making process is beside the point. Despite what others have insinuated, a person hasn't necessarily "made an uninformed decision" just because it's one you don't agree with.


 * # 3. The whole point of Wikivoyage is to provide information that is useful as possible and applicable to as many readers or potential readers as possible, without passing judgment on what our readers do with that information. Whether our editors agree with it or not, and regardless of whether the days are over when "people were ridiculed for coming back from summer vacation... without a tan", the fact remains that tanning is something millions and millions of people do - a major vacation-time activity, in fact, and one that directly has to do with sunburn and sun protection. Bottom line, Wikivoyage is about the traveller and what they actually do - it's not about our writers' personal opinions about whether tanning is worth the risk.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with your premises. The problem is that the blurb as written violates #3, that we shouldn't pass judgement on what our readers do. In particular, presenting a "nice glowing tan" as the positive alternative to "look like a lobster" is passing judgement on those who choose not to get a tan. Powers (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. And we do choose what aspect to include in the snippet. In this case those most interested in getting a tan probably know everything about sunscreens, we should foremost get the attention of other readers.


 * In Swedish there is a distinction between "annons" and "reklam". Both are advertisements, the former vacant positions etc., the latter the big or colourful ones. I like to define the former as something you buy the newspaper to read, the latter ways of touting something on you. We can try getting as many as possible to read the article, or have fewer ones read it but appreciate they did.


 * The blurb cannot be a balanced summary of the article, but it should hint on something the article really covers (or that can be found at the destination). Otherwise it is like evening papers' front pages, making a hen out of the feather and disappointing the naïve buyer. Those clicking the link should get what the blurb promises.


 * --LPfi (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My whole problem with passing a judgment on whether to run this article is that I am not confident I know enough about this health matter to do so with enough knowledge, but if we're promoting the article by adding to potentially dangerous thinking about sun exposure, that amplifies my concerns. How about trying another tack with the tag line before concluding that this is the only possible catchy one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Ikan. I'm not defending the blurb I wrote so much as I am objecting to people finding fault with it without making any effort to come up with one that's superior. I'd love to judge an alternative blurb on its own merits. Another issue I have, though, is that I think it's a bit too much to ask that articles about travel health be vetted by a medical professional before being featured. We have a small enough pool of potential FTTs to choose from already, not to mention only one medical professional among our ranks (Travel Doc James), who is barely active anymore. Most of the advice given in this article is pretty intuitive and/or verifiable to a high degree of reliability thorugh Google or another such source. As for the balance of it, frankly, anyone who would take a travel guidebook for an authoritative source of medical advice is a fool. No travel guide - not Lonely Planet, not Frommer's, not TripAdvisor, not us - is in a position to guarantee the accuracy of its content; doubly not when the content at issue lies outside the parameters of travel per se. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the blurb a little bit, replacing the explicit mention of tanning with the oblique rhetorical question "how much is too much". Is that satisfactory? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it. I hadn't come up with an alternative yet because I wanted to see if others agreed with the concern first. Powers (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this better, too. I also take your points, Andre. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, anyone else who would like to comment on this article's nomination? It'd be nice to have some more approving votes before it goes live! ϒpsilon (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ANYONE??? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have more votes, Ypsi, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. The four-votes thing has no basis in policy, it's just a sort of rule of thumb I use to decide when I'm comfortable putting an article on the schedule grid without the "needs further support" disclaimer (which itself is basically meaningless). All the concerns of those who've voted "almost" or "oppose" have been addressed, and nowhere does it say we can't run an article that's received less than four "support" votes (Saba is a recent example). It's a judgment call. As long as no one comes out of the woodwork with a laundry list of reasons why they oppose running this article (and in fact, I'm almost tempted to say let's not draw too much attention to this for that reason), there's no reason why it can't be run. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am still a bit uneasy about the blurb, especially as it says one should read the article to learn something we do not (and should not) tell. What about changing
 * Ouch! How much is too much? Check out this guide to learn more.

into
 * Ouch! How do you avoid that? Check out this guide.

--LPfi (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we get a couple more support votes for this before the 21st? As it is now, we only have two. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for June 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Vienna

 * I'll try my best to look through this article and the district articles soon, but I have yet to visit Vienna, so if those who know the city well are satisfied with the article, I'll be happy to vote to support it for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that it is a good idea to list during the song contest, but searching the site for Eurovision I didn't find any Vienna pages listed. If we are going for this timing, then song contest details need to be added (maybe just to warn of full hotels during the contest). In which district will the contest be held? On a quick look the Vienna article looks good, but I have only spent one day in the city and so I can't comment in detail. A dynamic map would be a useful addition, and the map on Vienna/Innere Stadt need to be tweaked - it is a sea of yellow crosses. AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for weighing in! The contest will be held at the Wiener Stadthalle, in district 15., which we cover as a part of Vienna/Outer West, and I guess this is a good opportunity to bursh up that district in the time remaining. The example of Malmo and Copenhagen shows that events and pop-up POIs related to Eurovision spread all over the city, or at least the central / most touristic areas. We will need to cover them as the plans unfold.
 * I will add the notices regarding the contest in the main page, I am not sure we need to add them in every district, we shall see if hotels are getting booked out. By now I can still book my fave hotels at the usual rates, seems like Vienna is large enough to absorb the Eurovision effect.
 * All of the districts seem to have dynamic maps, but it does seem they could use resizing indeed, especially the Innere Stadt. The problem with the latter is that it is so chock full of POIs (in real life, not only in our maps), it will always be hard to pan out. I also fear the wrath of Texugo and LtPowers for resizing the maps, so it would be good if you (AlasdairW) could wathclist the article to support me if I get down to it and a conflict ensues. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember a squad of Wikivoyagers doing massive work on Vienna, and that work is visible. Even as there are many district articles, they all seem to be at least in a decent shape. Vienna/Outer South and Vienna/Outer East seem to be at outline status (they need some more content in Get in). If we are to feature Vienna for the Eurovision month it's of course natural to have information on the event and its related events too. I've just looked at the articles now, not read them in detail, but I don't see anything big to complain about. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost - per my comment two months ago. Moreover, some of the district articles have empty sections and a some listings here and there still need coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, what Ypsi mentioned above is actually a major problem. For a Huge City to be at Guide status, all its districts have to be at least Usable. Therefore, Vienna is technically not a Guide and not eligible to be featured. Vienna/Outer South and Vienna/Outer East absolutely have to be brought up to Usable status or else we have no choice but to slush this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed PrinceGloria just upgraded those two to Usable. The mentioned district articles are sort of usable, there are sights, restaurants and hotels. The Get in sections however should preferably contain something along the lines of Vienna/Margareten or Get in in most other district articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The two district articles are not Usable. City guide status (which also applies to districts of Huge Cities) says that to be Usable, an article needs "at least a Get in section". The "Get in" section of Vienna/Outer South simply refers readers back to the parent article for information on how to get in to Vienna as a whole (rather than district-specific information); Vienna/Outer East does not have a "Get in" section at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now those two articles include instructions for getting in from other parts of Vienna by public transport. I upgraded the articles to Usable, Vienna to Guide and hereby support the article. Prince, Stellar, Axis and other who have worked extensively on Vienna probably know better what, if anything, still has to be done with the articles to make them even better. There are still four months before Vienna goes on the Main Page. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. If we want to improve things further, I would suggest some of the district articles could stand to be filled out a bit. But as for Vienna itself, the article is well written and comprehensive, and I would be hard-pressed to find any fault with it. It has my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't know Vienna, but it's a very good article. I do have a couple of relatively small comments, though: Before it is featured, there are some footnote-style external links (at least 10, I think) that need to be converted to front-links. Also, a few of the photos look a bit hazy or unfocused in places, including the beer garden photo and the photo of the InterContinental Wien, showing the revival furniture (the Sofitel photo is also a bit hazy, but I think that's OK because the interior lends itself to haziness). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I like the place, and I like the article - my favourite features include Zentralfriedhof, the tram system, and the museums and galleries. I dont like the smoking inside cafes - that really offended me.  Hundertwasser, and Klimt, and the range of obscure artists that are held in the galleries might be better served somewhere in the article, but then I can remember when Ralph Steadman's Freud book came out, it gave one a sense of the architecture of the city. Jung, Freud and the cultural ambience that was in the Nicholas Roegs film bad timing dont seem to be parts of the article either.  To be a good article - the specifics are all there - billiant for someone wanting to get in and around - somehow my speed read of the article suggested that some of the more obscure components of the history and cultural history might have been better served - but hey as it is it is great. sats (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for May 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Iseo

 * Support - might need minor copyediting, but nothing big. Overall it's a nice little article about a seemingly nice little Italian town. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Needs a bit more work. [Edit as of 20 September, 2014: Nevertheless, I support it, as detailed below]. I read and copy edited through the end of "See," and there were some sentences that were ambiguous enough that I want to look at the version in it.wikivoyage to try to make sure of what was really meant. Once all the meanings are clarified and the copy editing is reasonably complete, I expect to be able to support running this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not yet . An interesting enough destination, but there are multiple issues that need to be solved here before I'm comfortable supporting this as a Main Page feature. To wit:
 * the article needs a proper lede, more substantive than the boilerplate (x) is a city in region (y) of country (z)
 * "Understand", "Get in", and "Get around" need to be filled out, with the part about the three hamlets Clusane, Pilzone and Cremignane possibly split off into a separate "Districts" or "Orientation" subsection of "Understand"
 * some listings need blurbs and/or geo coordinates
 * the article needs a map.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * On Italian version of voy, both it:Clusane and it:Pilzone have their own pages, if you want I can create them. About the map, can we use the one generated with listing coordinates using openstreetmap? I'll add blurbs and coordinates ASAP. -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC) AndreCarrotflower (I've forgotten to link you before) -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Lkcl it - To answer your question about the map: yes, since most of the listings have geo coordinates already, a dynamic map is probably the way to go. As for giving Clusane and Pilzone their own articles, if you think that the two hamlets can each support an article themselves, and you're willing to translate and/or write the content for them, I say go for it; if not, it's fine to lump them all together in one large Iseo article. It's your call. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * AndreCarrotflower I've hadded all the blurbs and the geo coordinates missing and the dynamic map. I'll sure create an article on Clusane, but I'm not sure about Pilzone (I have already added as much information as I can on it:voy, I don't know if here is enhough) - I'll work on it starting from Tuesday, I'm sorry but probably I'll have no time before. Could you give me more details on what do you (and voy policies) want in "Understand", "Get in", and "Get around" sections?. Thanks -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: I have created an article on Clusane. I'll add some contents and the geo coordinates to restaurants and hotels tomorrow. -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Lkcl it - Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. I think the problem with "Understand", "Get in" and "Get around" has more to do with how long they are than any information that may be lacking. "Get in", in particular, covers all the bases it needs to, but it does so very tersely and without going in to much detail. In particular, if I were you I wouldn't rely so much on external links to give information you could simply include in the article. Check out Rochester (New York) for a comparison.


 * As for "Understand", I see that a listing for the tourist information center has been added since I last checked, which is definitely a good thing. You might want to also include information about climate, any minority languages spoken in the area other than Italian (since this is the English Wikivoyage, you might want to indicate whether there are a lot of locals who are proficient in English), and other things like that. "Get around" would probably benefit by adding tips for other forms of transportation than walking or biking - those two may be the best ways to get around Iseo, but surely some people use cars or other methods. Also, is there a bus system or any other public transportation? What about taxis?


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower Thanks for your reply. I have added some information in Get in and Get around. But I have a question about taxis: the only company in Iseo is Iseo Taxi but you usually don't use it to move from different parts of Iseo, but from Brescia or from Orio al Serio international airports. Should I add it to Get in section? No, there aren't any bus systems or other public transportation. -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 14:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, Iseo Taxi is probably worth a mention in the "By plane" subsection of "Get in". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added as much information as I was able. Let me know if it is enough. -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 17:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Lkcl it - Great work! It still needs some minor copyediting and a proper lede, but that should be easy enough for anyone to do given the information you've added to the article. I'm going to go ahead and support this with the understanding that these things usually do get taken care of before they come on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As Andre says, this article does still need some more work. Aside from writing a real lede, we should also insert some more photos. However, after copy-editing the article, I'm happy enough with it to support its nomination for Otbp. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek I have a question about photos: Where do you think is better to add some more photos? See section is full, can I add some photos of some monuments in other sections? Thanks -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 14:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Photos can be put anywhere in an article where there's room and they look good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lkcl it just suggested Iseo and Turku should switch places (ie. Iseo in May and Turku in June). I think it's a good idea. Objections? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - that would entail a minor issue vis-à-vis what I envision featuring in the months after June. My intentions for August are Manchester as DotM, Davenport as OtBP, and Hiking in the Nordic countries as FTT. Right now Trondheim is scheduled for July, but moving it ahead to August would cause two problems: it would run at the same time as Hiking in the Nordic countries, and also Davenport would either have to be pushed back to July, in the middle of tornado season, or ahead to September, which in turn would mean that Altai Tavan Bogd National Park couldn't be featured till October at the earliest, which is later than I'm comfortable. So if Trondheim has to stay in July, switching Iseo and Turku would mean having two Scandinavian OtBPs in a row.


 * On the other hand, it's mentioned in Turku's nomination blurb that June and July is festival season there, and featuring Turku in June would be ideal from that standpoint. I'd say if no one has a problem with Turku and Trondheim next to each other, it could be done.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really have any problems with the two Scandinavian T's being featured after each other. But if others don't like the idea I'm absolutely fine with keeping the schedule as it is now. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with ϒpsilon. -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for May 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Travelling during Ramadan

 * Support as nominator. Kudos to User:Saqib for starting and putting so much content into this beautiful article, and thanks to User:Pashley, User:JuliasTravels and other contributors for helping to make it what it is. Any further improvements and additional relevant information (including things discussed at Talk:Travelling during Ramadan) would be wonderful, and I'm sure some will be forthcoming during the ~year before the best time to feature in 2015, but I think this article would be good to run as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support or should I say "Strong support"? I'm fine with featuring this important travel topic in June next year so it can run along the month of Ramadan. I really want to further expand this article so I'll think over what can further enhance the article. --Saqib (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, at a first glance the article looks quite good. The Ramadan is obviously the right time to feature it. Saqib is probably the one who knows most about Ramadan can come to think of different things travelers need to know and take into consideration. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support. A lot of this is obvious to locals, but to an outsider travelling or working in a Muslim country it is not at all obvious, at least not the first time, and can be very useful. I think the article as it stands is Guide level, good enough to feature, but I wonder how much more it might be improved. Pashley (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting topic, good article and plenty of time still for finishing touches. Nice work! JuliasTravels (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent work, Saqib (and others). This is a spectacular article packed with helpful information. I took the liberty of doing some copyediting, so it should be good to go now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As for "time to feature", I prefer May 2015 to June. If we feature it in May, the article's stint on the front page will be just wrapping up as Ramadan begins. Perfect timing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - if not relevant so far after the earlier votes - endorse the importance of such an article at this late stage sats (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for May 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Suzhou

 * Comment: I am planning to visit here in the next few weeks, so maybe after I can add some content? Otherwise we should try and add a map if we can... Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, and other than the map issue cited by Andrewssi2, I'm not even sure how much of a pre-feature "polish" this article needs. In any event, I'm thinking March or perhaps April 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - basically yes; I'd appreciate coords, a few more pictures and maybe a map too. Sometime in the spring probably would be good, but one thing that slightly concerns me is that over the last 11 months we've had six Asian DotMs (as many as from all the other continents combined), and for the upcoming "winter half year" we already have quite a few Asian DoTMs and OtBPs both in the table above and ready to go here among the nominations. I'd say we should pick just one from Suzhou, Lijiang and Yongding County and put the other ones on the shelf for a while. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well over half the world population is in Asia so an emphasis there makes sense. I agree we should spread the Chinese destinations out some, but would oppose delaying Karachi or Georgetown (Malaysia).
 * Of the three Chinese destinations mentioned, Suzhou is easily the most important. Large city, central, major tourism destination, ... Pashley (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed with both Ypsi and Pashley: we need to diversify our DotMs beyond Asia, especially in the winter months, but the current slate of nominees is such that the Asian ones can be spaced out fairly widely, and in any case I too would be resolutely against delaying Karachi or Georgetown. It's also worth mentioning that Yongding County is likely to be slushed anyway, given the nature of the reception to its nomination and the lack of attention given to the needed changes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Asia is also a very diverse continent from Turkey to the Philippines and we have a lot of great articles about interesting destinations there (even some Star articles). No, I do not want move or remove Karachi, Georgetown or anything else in the current table, but I'd like to see more of something else towards the spring. Looking at the history, Africa and South America together have had 6 DotMs over the ten years we have had featured articles (Andre, did you notice what just I posted in the pub?). I found it a little sad that out of 213 featured articles (D's+O's), Americas south of the US+Africa+South Pacific together account for only 19 - not even 10%. It's absolutely fine to have Suzhou and Kirthar National Park in the spring, maybe 1-2 other Asian destinations but let's not get overly excited, OK? :) ϒpsilon (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Ypsi, it's not as simple as just featuring all areas of the world equally. The English Wikivoyage has 26,100 discrete articles, but only a tiny fraction of them are Guides or Stars - and very few Guides or Stars are about destinations in Africa, South America, etc. Unfortunately, the geographical breakdown of featured articles over the past 10 years actually is a pretty accurate reflection of the pool of eligible articles they're drawn from. In the short run, we can do our best to showcase those eligible articles from underrepresented destinations that we have available now, but in the long run the answer is to improve more of our articles on African, South American, etc. destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is related discussion, now partly outdated, at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates. Pashley (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember the discussion, yes. In addition to that we have had relatively few featured articles from Europe lately, but I have a feeling that 2015 will make up for it (Stockholm, Manchester, Lodz, Munich, Milan?, Turku?, Lisbon?, what else?). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost "Go next" needs a little work, as it should not normally have specific listings and should have Wiki-links, rather than links to city websites. Otherwise, it seems good, from what I've seen so far. I edited some sections for style, syntax and readability. Suzhou sure has changed drastically since I visited in 1987! As for when to feature, China has a population of well over 1 billion, so featuring a couple of Chinese destinations every year would be totally fine with me, but definitely not at the expense of other worthy Asian destinations we've already approved for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I rewrote "Go next". Comments? Pashley (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good job! The article looks good now, and I'm inclined to support it, but is there really no "Splurge" restaurant worth listing in Suzhou? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I move the Southern Cross into Splurge, but I think the Eat & Drink listings are somewhat incomplete. Places I've been to but do not remember enough detail to do listings for are a good Brazilian all-you-can-eat BBQ place near Guanqian Jie, an OK Indian place near the Southern Cross, several restaurants on Shiquan Jie including a great Mongolian one, and some expat bars in the SIP. Probably there are more. Pashley (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done a fair bit of editing, including adding co-ords and pictures. Others have also edited, including adding a map. I am starting to wonder if this could merit a star nomination.
 * However, there is still one fairly major problem, a subway line the maps don't show; see Talk:Suzhou.
 * There are also various lesser problems. See my comment just above on incomplete Eat & Drink listings. Almost none of the hotels and restaurants have co-ords, only three out of four train stations (I could not find them for the SND station) . There are some broken links. Pashley (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for April 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Vista

 * Almost - the lead section needs expansion and the article could use an additional photo or two towards the end. Eat and Sleep could use price categories. Otherwise the article (which even has a docent) looks good. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost. I like the article very much, and it might be acceptable to leave the lede as short as it is, but the none of the "Eat" listings has price information. Also, minor point, but per policy, the "Learn" section should be deleted unless these colleges run some courses that last 2 weeks or so for non-matriculated students. Otherwise, if you want to mention the schools as part of the character and identity of the town, they can be mentioned with a link in the lede, or if they're interesting to visit, they could be made into "See" listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - suitable destination and an already very useful guide. I agree with Ypsilon that the place should get a proper lede, and preferably short introductions for some other sections too. For anyone finding themselves in Sierra Vista, I'm sure everything they really need is there. And that's sufficient to meet our standard guide criteria. But as someone who's never heard of this place, a quick glance through this article doesn't really tell me why I would want to go there. I have to read through the lists of sights to get an idea of the place, and I'm likely to lose interest within seconds. Therefore, I think we should strive to create good introductions for our featured articles, grasping people's attention and encouraging them to read on and just discover and consider the destination. I'm rather sure that otherwise, few people will really read them. That said, I do support the feature when the small changes mentioned are made JuliasTravels (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'm quite surprised this article was nominated, as personally I would recommend nearby Bisbee for being more interesting to travelers (disclosure: I grew up not far from Sierra Vista). Unlike Bisbee, the town of Sierra Vista itself is rather charmless and is simply the largest population center of southeast Arizona; however the immediate environs are I think very interesting and quite scenic. I'd been hoping to eventually get the regional article up to guide status, but still have some way to go on that. However if there's enough interest I can continue to work on the Sierra Vista article. Regarding restaurant prices, it will likely be a few months before I will be able to confirm prices in person. –StellarD (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with Bisbee too, that article is at guide status as well. Remember, a certain "WTF-factor" is never a drawback for Off the Beaten Path's :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - Though it's classified as a Guide, Bisbee is not in any way feature-worthy at this point. (See my comment on this thread timestamped 20:36, 3 June 2014; there've been no substantial edits to the article since that time.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This nomination looks headed for the slush pile. In order to avoid that, can I interest anyone in effecting the changes suggested by the commenters above (expanding the lede, adding photos, categorizing Eat and Sleep by price point, adding section intros)? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Making the required improvements for the article has been on my list of things to do, but I've not gotten to it as I've been traveling in southern Mexico for an extended period. I'll carve out some time for it in the next couple of weeks, and do plan to visit in February with more updates then. However I certainly won't object if there's another more polished nomination for that time slot. –StellarD (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the type of improvements the article needs can be done by anyone. For example, most of the restaurants listed in Eat probably have menus and prices posted on their websites; similarly, finding out rates at the hotels in Sleep can be easily managed through the hotel websites or perhaps booking.com. As for the section intro blurbs and lede, a summary of what's contained in the listings will do fine. As far as I can see, the problem has more to do with getting people to take out the time and effort to follow through with these easy but somewhat tedious fixes, rather than a need for someone who is actually on the ground in Sierra Vista. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have had it on my list too (as the nominator) but the last month and a half I've had very little time for WV. Will try to fix the issues during the next couple of days (and the same with Ad's path). ϒpsilon (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. And Support! ϒpsilon (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, and thank you to Ypsi for helping out with these fixes. Ikan, StellarD, and JuliasTravels: would you care to opine on the progress and perhaps reassess your votes? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There still is no price information in the "Eat" section, other than the fact that the eateries are roughly grouped as "Budget," "Mid-range" and "Splurge," but those categories are not defined with any price range. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, now I've added price ranges for each restaurant. Most restaurants didn't have any web site so most of it is from Yelp or Tripadvisor (photos of actual menus whenever available) so I think the information is reliable enough. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your editing work. I'm willing to support this article on that basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think we should avoid expressions like "Not far from the Mexican border". The point is it is near the Mexican border of USA. The expression is OK in a USA context, which make the site look USA centred. Without that context the expression becomes meaningless, the town could very well be in Mexico, near any of its borders, or in Guatemala (although I think anybody here would state that explicitly). Or am I supposed to know that town already? --LPfi (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there anything that you think should be done to make it clearer that the town is in the United States? If you know the town is in the United States, what's wrong with mentioning that it's not far from the Mexican border? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is I do not know. Those who live in USA think "by the border" implies "... of USA", I had to turn on USA mode to get it. I think adding the implied "of USA" would fix it, but my English is not good enough for reliably finding elegant wordings – or evaluating them. --LPfi (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Not far from the Mexico-U.S. border" would introduce confusion as to whether it's in the far southern U.S. or far northern Mexico. The blurb doesn't mention which country Sierra Vista is in, and I think that's the crux of the problem. Perhaps a better wording would be "Not far from the Mexican border, this charming Arizona desert town..." or somesuch. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an easy fix. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * LPfi, I finally realized you were referring to the OtBP blurb and not a problem with the article itself. I agree with your point. My initial attempt to address the problem isn't elegant, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(indent reset) There are now four support votes and the lead section User:JuliasTravels noticed was missing has now been added. Can we remove the "pending stronger consensus to support" from Sierra Vista's entry in the table above now? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for April 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ad's Path

 * Almost - could maybe use some minor polishing, but we have plenty of time for that, as it won't be featured before spring 2015 at earliest. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost. It's already a good guide. Here are the things that I see need more work: (1) I think the "Prepare" section needs some rephrasing. The hike describes something? (2) We need to decide whether the start of each bulleted direction in the "Go" section should be capitalized or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Polyglot ϒpsilon (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw your nomination and thank you for the honor. I looked at the article back then with the above comments in mind, but didn't see how I had to go about improving it further. Since June I have added 30000 bus stops of the Walloon (South of Belgium) transport company to Openstreetmap. Now I'm working on adding the tram rails and routes in Brussels. And at this very moment I'm adding nodes and itineraries of a hiking network into Openstreetmap, which I surveyed this afternoon. I feel more comfortable contributing there than here. I'm glad I created the article. I learned a lot while doing it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm not a very talented writer.
 * The hike/cycle ride doesn't describe anything. It connects the artwork Ad Wouters was permitted to create here and there and it's a nice way to see the woods and enjoy the surroundings and good air.
 * For me it was also a way to see whether I could accomplish creating the map which was included in the first versions. (It's still in the Ad Wouters article on WP).
 * What I probably should do is reupload the pictures which were removed from Commons, because of this silly lack of Freedom of Panorama we suffer from in Belgium.
 * To think that I went to visit each and every one of those statues to make sure I knew the exact position for Openstreetmap and make pictures for Commons... Oh well. Another lesson learned.
 * It's funny how investigating linking to Wikidata from OSM, lured me into contributing a bit to WP and then WV. But now I'm back to Openstreetmap full time, I guess.--Polyglot (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In any event, it seems the fixes that Ikan and Ypsi have suggested are fairly easy. Pending those, I support this nominee and would like to see the article on the Main Page in spring 2015. Polyglot, I hope you continue to come to Wikivoyage from time to time, and know that you don't have to be a topnotch writer for your contributions here to have value. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Polyglot, I'm glad you came by to make some comments. My criticisms of this article are very high-level and based only on the difference between an article being a good guide and one that's featured on the front page, so please don't feel like I'm calling you a bad writer; far from it! I like the fact that the various Wikis and similar sites really provide people with a way of discovering the areas of work they're most interested in volunteering for, but though Wikivoyage doesn't concentrate singlemindedly on transportation, we do have articles like Urban rail that someone with expertise like yours could really add spark to. Anything you can do to further polish the articles you've contributed to or others you're covering on Openstreetmap would be welcome. We'll leave the light on for you (without wasting energy :-) any time you'd like to drop by. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad that the "e-mail user" function worked :). Personally I'd say the bulleted points should be turned into complete sentences, this would make the article more comfortable to read. The "Prepare" section is indeed a bit short but I think we could add a paragraph about the sculptor (from WP) and perhaps another about the physical properties of the path (e.g. Is it paved? Are there potholes that bikers have to be aware of?) — Google maps — and then Prepare would be sufficiently long. In any case this is stuff anyone can fix in an hour or so.
 * Polyglot, you're welcome to contribute here anytime - you don't need to write a whole Guide like this one but if you notice a nice café in your home town is missing or there's some bus ticket price you notice is outdated, don't hesitate to edit! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan said we should decide if we should capitalize the letters for the bulleted directions in Ad%27s Path or not. As of now both upper and lower case are used randomly. In my opinion they should all be written in lower case, but I'm pretty bad at exact punctuation rules in English, so I'd prefer to hear your and André's opinion. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with that. I think that the first letter of every bulleted line should be capitalized, as if it were the first letter of a sentence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That whole section reads weird, frankly. I agree with Ikan about capitalization, but far more importantly the directions need to be reworded so that each bullet point is a complete sentence or at least a stand-alone fragment, rather than the whole of it being in narrative form. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ and support. By turning the bulleted points into complete sentences, the text got shorter and most photos were far below the text of the statue they depicted. Using would've just created huge white areas and for this article I wasn't comfortable with removing 2/3 of the photos. Therefore, as you can see, I decided to put the photos of the statues in galleries in sets of three. Ip says using galleries is OK for "showing multiple examples of a specific topic", which the statues actually are. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ypsi - it looks like you've made some solid progress. The most glaring issues have been resolved, but the article still needs some copyediting, which should be easy enough for me to do. I'll make this a priority over the next few weeks, and soon enough I'm sure I'll be able to add my unconditional support for this feature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow guys, that's incredible! The reason why the instructions were written in such an odd way, is how the translation I made was formatted like on the Dutch Wikivoyage. They have this template from public transport, indicating each turn. It's way better now! But I could honestly never have accomplished that. --Polyglot (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you underestimate yourself, my friend. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower, I'll look forward to any further copy editing you'll do (I just did some), but I'm ready to support featuring this itinerary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have any interest in this article? Polyglot, would you like to vote on whether to feature the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgot about this article, Ikan - I've got a good headwind behind me in my work on Buffalo/East Side, but I still fully intend to make the copyedits I promised. When that's done, I'll be happy to give the article a fourth support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just discovered Mapillary. I'm uploading the pictures I made while surveying for Openstreetmap and this article over there at the moment. It takes a while...
 * Do you think it'd make sense to link to them? On the one hand it may make the experience richer, providing a peak preview. On the other hand it may distract people away from the article... Example of the bivak zone which is mentioned It's an entire sequence. At the beginning of the sequence is The Bat. Oh, and of course I support the nomination. --Polyglot (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Polyglot, I see that you've added a few links to Mapillary to the article already. I would urge you to hold off on that until we get community consensus as to whether and under what circumstances we should link to that site. Folks, Mapillary is a crowdsourced mapping application that's analogous to OpenStreetMap, yet also including street-level photos analogous to the Panoramio overlay on Google Maps. All the content is copyleft-compatible (CC-BY-SA 4.0), but it also duplicates the functionality of our dynamic maps. I don't think it does travellers any good to have some POIs on a dynamic map and others on Mapillary, and I also see it as a hindrance to our currently ongoing efforts to optimize our dynamic maps for offline readers, given that Mapillary data used on this site comes in the form of external links and are thus completely unusable for those without access to Internet. Any thoughts? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Andre, I had missed this message completely. I'll refrain from adding more links and just feel free to remove the offending ones.--Polyglot (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Polyglot, but I'm sceptical to the Mapillary links. As a rule, content itself rather than links, should be included in Wikivoyage articles — be it text or pictures or whatever. Plus, it's possible to achieve (almost) the same result using our dynamic maps; you just add an "image=" parameter to the marker and put the file name there. Now the reader can see the picture by clicking on the icon and get a larger version when clicking on the picture (example). Of course that means you need to upload your pictures to WV or WMCommons.
 * Ps. the pictures themselves are certainly very useful and make it easier to navigate along the path. Although I would prefer to have them here instead than on Mapillary. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been reluctant to express an opinion about this because I really value Polyglot's great contributions and don't want to turn him/her off, but yes, I do agree with you guys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm experimenting (a lot, not to say most of the time). And I was awaiting your feedback, good or bad, it doesn't matter. I tried uploading those pictures to Commons. They have all been removed because of some silly lack of Freedom of Panorama in Belgium/France/etc... I can upload them here on the English WV, without them getting removed and on the German WP, but then they are not accessible from articles on the other projects. (It's a learning experience, involving a lot of stumbling, slaps on the wrist and whatnot). For this article that would be a solution, for the translations and the WP articles about Ad Wouters himself, they aren't.
 * Please move them to where they might be appropriate and if they aren't appropriate, just remove them. It's not important. I thought they might improve the user experience, but if they don't that's fine too. No need to worry about my feelings. I discovered a new project and I am experimenting to see how other projects may integrate with it, or not. If there are pictures you deem useful to have here directly, just let me know and I'll upload them. Maybe I'm shortsighted for seeing this as an electronic medium primarily, where linking to other projects makes sense. If WV is meant to be printed some day, I understand it makes more sense to have all source material available inside the project. The advantage I though Mapillary has, is that it's not a link to a single picture. That picture is part of a sequence, and one can choose to look at all pictures nearby. I'll probably be going out once again this spring to map(illary) as much of possible of the region. It's the same principle as WP, WV and Openstreetmap. Users contribute and the content can be reused under a free license. Anyway, it's a solution to a problem I had: what to do with all those picture I'm taking during the mapping surveys I do for OSM? And the other problem: Google doesn't give OSM permission to use their Streetview for improving Openstreetmap, so we had to come up with our own source which enables us to go look around locally. Of course Mapillary is/will be better than Google Streetview eventually, as we can go where their cars cannot. Just like our maps are better, as we have all the small pedestrian roads as well. Anyway, time to stop my rant ;-) Feel free to remove those links once again, it was just an experiment. I might try to add them to the nl and fr versions, to find out how they feel about it, but I'm not sure yet. --Polyglot (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for your understanding, Polyglot. I want to make sure you understand you didn't do anything wrong here - you plunged forward, which we explicitly encourage people to do here at Wikivoyage!

Also, as far as I understand it, the fact that freedom of panorama restrictions prevent certain images from being hosted on Commons doesn't mean any WMF project can't use the photos you took - they simply have to be hosted locally on all the individual wikis that use them. It's an annoyance, but not a hard-and-fast barrier. I do understand your desire to use Mapillary to streamline the process, and frankly Mapillary sounds like a very worthwhile project. If the community is interested in finding a way to cooperate more closely with Mapillary, as we did with OSM for our dynamic maps, I would be enthusiastically in support of that.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that. I think of myself as planting seeds here. They don't have to prosper and grow right away, but it's good to be aware of the growing set of possibilities the internet is providing.
 * I wrote an entry in my diary on OSM: . One in Dutch and one in English (under it) and I (finally) updated my user page on the OSM wiki: . That was long overdue, and it's what triggered me to come over here once again and see your messages.--Polyglot (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering how the article would look with small thumbnails of the sculptures, rather than galleries. I'd prefer for the images to be a little larger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm finally ✅ with the copyedits I've been gradually doing over the past weeks, and I'm happy to say I can now support this article unreservedly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for April 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Bangkok/Khao San Road

 * Support - the article looks good, at least to someone who's never been to Thailand. G-t perhaps could have a look if there's anything outdated or otherwise wrong. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a no-brainer to support the nomination of a Star article, and ditto to what you said. It looks like User:Globe-trotter substantively edited this article in the last week of September, so I'm guessing it's up to date, but he, User:Seligne and anyone else who's familiar with the neighborhood can always check on details. I trust that it's still very much a Star. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. A brilliant, brilliant article and deservedly a Star. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Used this and other Thailand articles extensively on my last trip there. Great work. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive guide. I found it alot better than most of other guide articles. --Saqib (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for March 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ushuaia

 * Support - yup, I will google up coordinates for the POIs at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - a worthwhile article for an interesting South American destination. I had hoped to whip Antigua Guatemala into shape in time to nominate it for March's OtBP, but I decided against it - between districting Buffalo and trying to get Gaspé Peninsula up to Guide status by summertime, I have enough on my plate as is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does take a whole lot of work to write articles compared to translating them. If someone has some other interesting OtBP candidate for March and really would love to feature it that particular month, I won't probably oppose postponing Ushuaia. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I expect to support this article after I finish reading and copy editing it. I'm through "See" so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have finished copy editing and support running this article. I should mention that, because this article seemed to be written mostly but not completely in US English and based on the destination being in the Americas in an area that was never a British colony, I put the entire article in US English, but I'm not sure whether that's optimal, as I remembered late in the process that I had had a discussion with Frank in which he indicated that British English is actually more strongly established in Argentina. So I hope I didn't create a slight problem, and if anyone would like to turn the "car rental"s back into "car hire" and all the "kilometers" into "kilometres," be my guest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Andre, I noticed you recently changed the time to feature parameter. According to the article (and what I translated) people go there for winter sports in the Southern Hemisphere winter. "The ski resorts have snow from May to early November." (wouldn't it be interesting to feature a ski resort when most readers don't expect it?) Also, the winter temperatures aren't that much lower than in the cool summer and overall it doesn't seem to get colder than a few degrees under freezing. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ϒpsilon: The assumption under which I was operating was that the majority of travellers to Ushuaia visit there as the starting and ending point of an Antarctic cruises, which naturally take place mostly during the Southern Hemisphere summer. I imagine most of the hikers, etc. at Tierra del Fuego National Park come in the summer too. There is a ski resort mentioned that sounds large, but is it popular enough, and/or is the seasonal variation in tourist traffic in general large enough, for Ushuaia to be truly recommendable for winter visitors? After all, there's not many places where there's literally nothing for tourists to do offseason. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I am not opposed to running Ushuaia in March 2015 (especially if de: also featured the article in March). The reason I altered the Time to feature was that in case some other article comes along that the community feels should be put in that slot, we can know where on the schedule to move Ushuaia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly how big the variation in visitors is. At least the temperature does not seem to vary very much (you can't go in swimwear in the summer but you don't need a fur in the winter). By that I mean that hikers have to have fairly warm clothing even in the summer, and they don't need much more to be able to hike in the winter (but again if there's a lot of snow it may not be possible in the first place...). The "best ski center in Argentina of 2013", as it promotes itself, seems to be quite popular in the winter, but perhaps it's only among domestic tourists. About the cruise passengers, yes, most of them will pass through, however if you've paid the price of a small car to be one of the 30,000 persons setting the foot on Antarctica each year, Ushuaia will probably not be the highlight of the trip anyway.
 * It's OK to save this for a later time if needed (although I generally don't like "saving" articles for too long - what if someone would've suggested something from eastern Ukraine for this September a year ago? :P) ϒpsilon (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, ϒpsi, at this point I don't foresee any problem at all with Ushuaia being run in March. I changed the Time to feature only as an insurance policy, to avoid confusion in case something unexpected happens. I'm also not married to the Oct-Feb range; in fact, the arguments in favor of featuring Ushuaia during the Southern Hemisphere winter are also persuasive. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, a quick bit of research seems to indicate that the ski season in Ushuaia runs from June through October. I've changed the Time to feature accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Muy bien. Gracias! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[unindent] By my count, we have 3 votes of support. Would anyone else like to pass judgment on this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole Cape Horn and Tierra del Fuego - area either from the Chilean or the Argentinian side is closer to an area of intrigue and more complex history than is alluded to here, and this is where my wikipedian hat needs to come off, and voyage hat on - as a straight voyage info article it is supported and straight forward. I think something more of the mysteries and the intrigues of the region might have given it more of a place connected or linked to stories in the area. sats (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for March 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ninoy Aquino International Airport

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I read through some of the article with a fine-toothed comb and skipped through the rest. I think it could use some more editing for elegance, but it seems to be a very complete article, so I'd be OK with it being featured tomorrow, which obviously won't happen. If there is a way to place all the eateries and points of interest clearly onto a detailed airport map and these small edits for style take place, it would be reasonable to nominate this article for Star status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Three votes in favor. Any other input from anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * BUMP. This article is scheduled to go on the Main Page in three weeks. Can we get a fourth support vote? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Support. Support. You want more? I came across this guide last month and though I had already supported it. I found it of good article overall.BTW. I've been through this airport back in 2009. --Saqib (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's get it featured. Ibaman (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Spectacular! Thanks, Saqib and Ibaman. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for March 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mombasa

 * Almost - There might be some small errors in the article (misspellings, mistranslations, unfinished sentences, in the worst case even some leftovers in French plus the content that already was in our article with Improper Use Of Capital Letters), but I'll have a thorough look at it tomorrow. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I've fixed the mentioned issues now. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not yet. Great work, ϒpsilon! However, it is not ready for a feature. For example, the "Communication and transport map" needs to be translated into English and is just about completely useless at its current size. Also, I feel like some of the facts in the "Geography" and "Terrain" sections are too encyclopedic, but I was loathe to just summarily delete them. I haven't read past there yet, except to look at that map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relief et géologie ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are issues with Mombasa, too. I posted about them at Talk:Mombasa. This'll be a very good article, but some of the standards on en.wikivoyage seem to differ from those at fr. wikivoyage, so some more changes need to be made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not Yet An awful lot of listings contain little information or just things like address, etc with little content for the traveler. Even the "See" section seems sparse. Are there no other attractions? If no, perhaps more can be said about those that are listed. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll notify the person who's written most of the French article if he/she can help. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What's the story with Mombasa now? We have only one support vote for it and two opposed, but most of the objections cited above seem to have been corrected. It would be great if some previous commenters here could take another look at the article and amend their votes if necessary, because if the scenario doesn't change Mombasa will likely be slushed, and I don't know that that would be a fair fate for it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've fixed what Ikan mentioned earlier, but as I haven't been anywhere near Mombasa, anything more I'll add to the article will be third party information, if that's OK. See can likely be expanded with paraphrased WP content and the other sections with summaries from the businesses home pages or perhaps even Tripadvisor . It would be wonderful if someone who's been to Mombasa would be able to help out, but likely we don't have anyone around. I've notified the author of the French Star article at User talk:Omondi and even sent him/her an e-mail without any response...
 * We've featured very few African articles so far. Therefore it'd really suck to have to slush Mombasa :( ϒpsilon (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't support slushing this article, but out of respect for ChubbyWimbus and his remarks, I would prefer to withhold support for featuring this article until his points are addressed, at least to a fair degree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is a pretty spectacular article, with a nice lede, a wealth of background information in the "Understand" section, and lots of listings. Because Mombasa is not treated as a Huge City, the "Districts" section should probably be renamed to something like "Orientation" (and perhaps should be made a subsection of "Understand"). To Ypsi's comments: as long as you can distinguish between factual information and promotional fluff, it's fine to use an establishment's official website to fill out its listing. Also, I don't even think it would be a massive contravention of Be fair to source information from Tripadvisor or other such sites, so long as any opinions or other subjective content (especially negative opinions) that you use are borne out by multiple different reviewers who say the same thing. But even if we never get around to adding to the listings, I don't think the issues with them are anywhere near problematic enough to preclude my support for this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong, and a lot right, with determining a consensus opinion of a listing from other sources. Powers (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so now most of the listings have descriptions (except for post offices and such), and I've managed to find a few more sights. Many of the descriptions might sound a bit monotonous and boring, but the full marketing version is always just a click away. I haven't done anything to the Mombasa section yet, but if y'all still think it's too encyclopedic, I'm fine with axing it partially or completely. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Ypsi - I'll take a closer look at your edits when I get home from work. But, preliminarily, the Geography section looks like an easy fix. Most of it is indeed pretty encyclopedic and should probably be chucked, but there are a few tidbits here and there that seem useful to travelers and could probably be incorporated into other sections. I'll have a crack at it over the next few days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just getting around to making the fixes suggested above, but it seems like someone else beat me to it. I did some minor reorganization of the "Understand" section as well. I can't imagine what else could be wrong with this article, so are we finally able to support it unreservedly? If not, what more needs to be done? (ChubbyWimbus?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I hadn't commented before, but do support the article as it is now. Great work. Perhaps we could spice up the intro a bit, borrowing from the first section of Understand, just to make it a more appealing first read. That said however, what's our policy on destinations for which a negative travel advise is in place? The UK simply advises against travel there, and US department warns for risks in Mombasa and Niarobi specifically and has restricted US personnel there. I'm just asking - I have no strong opinion on this. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Great work filling in the missing info! I Support this nomination however, if there is interest in further improvement, more addresses, hours, and prices could be added. I'm not personally a big fan of the separation by categories like "buildings" either. I'd prefer to see the sites organized by area like most of our guides, but once again, these are just suggestions for improvement beyond what is done which I think is sufficient for featuring. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. With the caveat that I don't personally know Mombasa, this seems to me to be an outstanding article now! Small issue: Can we have an address or Geo for Leven House? In terms of the "Buildings" category, I'm fine with it, but how about if we use that as a category and just subdivide it into "Religious" and - hmmm...not sure "Secular" is the word we're looking for. In terms of the question of risk, I would not support running the Mogadishu article if it were a Guide, but as long as Mombasa isn't an actual war zone, despite risks, I think it's fine to run it. Mombasa is a major tourist destination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent) The Mombasa Tusks are not even a building. The thought of labeling the buildings "Religious" and "Secular" make me want to eliminate those subheadings even more. Religious and "Other" are not particularly helpful subcategories and could be potentially offensive. I don't see why we would isolate religious structures when we have specific rules against isolating things like Gay and Lesbian Bars (which in contrast is probably more helpful). To be honest, with only 13 attractions, no subcategories is a viable option. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. Would "Structures" be a good heading? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Without knowing the city or its layout, it seems that there are 2 main areas; that central island/peninsula that has about half the attractions and that strip along the coast. To me, it would make more sense to find out the names of those locations and make those the groupings and then have a 3rd heading for sites located on the outskirts of the city outside of these two main areas. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for February 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirthar National Park

 * Comment. Saqib, although your enthusiasm is laudable, it bears mentioning at this point that Pakistan is becoming overrepresented among feature-article nominees. Mohenjo-daro is on the Main Page now as OtBP, Karachi is up for DotM in October, and if we follow the "Time to feature" on this nomination and the guidelines we've set out for how far apart features from each country should be spaced, the article is going to languish on the nominees list till late 2015 or early 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very disappointing. When it comes to US articles, its fine to feature an article with a gap of only few month but why not Pakistan? Mohenjo-daro (OTBP) is featured in February, and then a long gap of seven months and Karachi (DOTM) in October and then I think it is fair to feature another Pakistani OTBP in December or January '15. Currently we've on slot: Biscayne National Park to be feature in April, Manhattan in June, and Chicago/Far Northwest Side in August. All three US articles with only one month gap are featured candidates and last year in 2013, 6 US destinations (DOTM and OTBP) along with 3 or 4 US related travel topics were featured. Don't you think that US is actually overrepresented here? Again, very disappointed. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is slowly coming together, and that's nice. I think it's not yet ready though. I'm not sure it's a good thing that we're seeing more of these "not yet ready but I'm working on it" nominations, securing places in the slot beforehand. I think ideally, an article should be ready in the eyes of the nominator, and then still has some time to incorporate suggestions from others. For the rest, Andre is right, even if it would be ready, it should wait a bit for the sake of variety. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Its correct that I'm trying to secure the place for this article on the slot before the article is ready, steady, go (I mean 100% guide status) but fairly speaking, it seems very near to guide status to me but I know this is not appropriate practice and I agree with you. I admit my assumption can be wrong in judging an article whether it becomes a guide article or still at usable but I want to clear that I've no intention to nominate an incomplete article just for the sake because it belongs to Pakistan or I contributed to it. I want to know what information you think is missing from this article that should be in a guide article and I'll try to address your concerns and if I realise something major is missing from this article, I'll be more than happy to withdraw my nomination myself. BTW, recently, some of the nominations caught my eyes and some of them were seems not guide to me but I even though I didn't opposed the nominations except one which is today slushed because I believe the articles will be manage to get the missing details before they appear on the main page. --Saqib (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting you withdraw the nomination, I just agree with Andre that it needs some time. My remarks on completeness are general, nothing personal. As for your remarks of Pakistan vs the US: I think that's not a good comparison. We try to also spread US destinations on the schedule, and yes, the US is a bit overrepresented because we have many editors from there. But the US is also ten times as big and the number 2 tourist destination in the whole world, receiving about 67 times as many visitors as Pakistan. It's quite normal that it will get some more attention. Getting a good overall balance will be achieved by improving articles on destinations all over the world, not by over-representing other regions. That said, I think its great that you're working on Pakistan articles and with a bit of patience, there's plenty of room to feature several Pakistani destinations over the next few years :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, your point is valid and I'm sorry for over-reacting. My comparison (Pakistan vs US) was definitely not correct and here, I withdraw my nomination. But I'll remind here that Andrew actually last month said here that he won't have a problem featuring Sindh (A Pakistani destination) in February next year but I don't know why now he saying a Pakistani destination can't be featured until late 2015 or early 2016. --Saqib (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think all Pakistani nominees should have to wait that long. But in the individual case of this destination, you set the "Time to feature" as October thru January, with December as the ideal. By that very definition, we have to feature it either next autumn or the autumn after that. If there are any Pakistani destinations that are good for the spring or summer, there would certainly be no scheduling problems. As far as Sindh in February, even that would be pushing the envelope under normal circumstances, but we make exceptions for timely annual events and you mentioned that the Sindh Festival took place that month.


 * On another topic, I took a look at the article and it looks very well-written and seems to be an interesting destination. So long as you're willing to wait for it to be featured, I would encourage you not to withdraw the nomination. I'd love to see this on the Main Page at the right time.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm getting you correctly, did you mean that If I don't withdraw my nomination, this can be featured early next year? If so, thanks for doing your best to support this nomination and that will be great. Yes, December is definitely ideal time to visit but I think we can extend the time to feature until February because Mohenjo-daro (featuring in February) belongs to the same region where Kirthar National Park is so I'm sure visiting the park in February is fine as well. --Saqib (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell you what: Plan A will be to feature Sindh in February if you're still interested in nominating it. If not, we'll feature Kirthar in February instead. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Kirthar. --Saqib (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not yet, but close I will support this nomination when a map is inserted into it, and that map should clearly indicate where the M-9, M-10, Karchat, and the roads enabling access to the park are. This article actually is at Guide status; do some of you feel it shouldn't be? What are the main things you think are missing from this article or require editing? I did some copy editing throughout the guide, and there are a few phrases that might need a bit more clarification, but otherwise, it's a good article and really almost ready to run right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is challenging the status, and I will support this article when it's ready. My remarks were general; I feel we should include articles in the slot when all the issues already identified at their talk pages have been addressed. As for this particular article, I'm still not all comfortable with the remaining "borrowed" sentences (or parts of sentences) from other articles, it needs some copy-editing, and I also think it should have listings like we have everywhere, including coordinates. But these are details that can easily be fixed before February. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @IK, the map was already created few days back but it didn't looks good to me although its near to complete so I didn't uploaded it. Anyway, I've just uploaded it on Commons please have a look and let me know what do you think about it. --Saqib (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Saqib. I think that map is not too easy to read, partly because the gray on gray doesn't contrast well. I'd suggest using black for text and using more attractive colors like blue and green, maybe - something other than just gray. Also, you refer to the Hub Dam in the article, and on the map, it's Hab Dam. Which spelling is used more? Either way, the article and the map need to agree on spelling of names. On another matter, I think it's a good idea to have black dots to represent villages, and the resolution will need to be considerably magnified for people to be able to read the names of the villages - or the pitch can be increased for those names, which would work better if it's easy for you to do in map editing mode. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quick suggestions. I've improved the map. Please have a look again and let me know what do you think now? --Saqib (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good, and much more readable than many other maps that are now in articles. I think it's ready to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Julias, I've paraphrased the copied do section. Do you still think it need more paraphrasing? --Saqib (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Julias, Hello! I noticed you're quite busy nowadays in real life but I appreciate if you kindly manage to give a quick view of the article and let me know of the things need to be fixed. --Saqib (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I don't have much time now, sorry. I'm sure it's much better already and there's plenty of time left until the feature date, so no hurry. I'm fine with putting it in the slot, I'm sure any remaining issues can just be fixed over time. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

[unindent]I'm afraid I still can't support featuring this article yet, as long as it has unintelligible passages like this:

For Khar, take the Kirthar Park Rd, which branches off from the Karachi Northern Bypass (motorway M-10) in the halfway which radiates north from Karachi.

What does "in the halfway" mean? It's no kind of English I can understand. And please understand, I'm not saying this to insult anyone or hurt anyone's feelings; I just think that it's important for the entire text to be clearly understandable and in correct grammar and syntax before this article is approved to be featured on the front page. I don't mind continuing to do some copy-editing, but if I can't understand the meaning, that's a problem. So to summarize, this article needs more editing before it should be approved for a feature; however, next February is a long way away, and the project is a worthy one, so let's keep at it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support After a few more passes of editing, I'm satisfied with this article and certainly support featuring it, provided that no more problematic passages of the type that bothered me before are introduced into it. It's a beautiful article that will be very good on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — This nomination was created mid-February and its been more than 2 months now and still no good support except a vote from Ikan Kekek. And even though Andrew has said that this article could be featured but so far no support vote means the candidate is of no good interest so I'll have no problem if this nomination is slushed. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding, Saqib. I do support this nomination and hope to see it on the Main Page ~February 2015, as we'd discussed earlier. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks. Actually I was going to suggest a new and better nomination because I thought this one is not of good interest for the community. I'm talking about Urdu phrasebook. Urdu phrasebook is ready to go on the main page but I'm working on to make it star status phrasebook. Urdu is very similar to Hindi in spoken language and together they both makes one of the most spoken language in the world (according to some sources, maybe 2nd or 3rd). Urdu is widely understood in Pakistan, India and in many countries across Middle East where there's large South Asian communities so definitely Urdu is very useful for a visitor visiting India, Pakistan and as well for someone visiting Middle East. What do you think which is better candidate? Kirthar National Park or Urdu phrasebook? --Saqib (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is for Kirthar. Personally I find phrasebooks kind of dry and boring, and I think they should be placed on the Main Page only sparingly. I won't be upset if others think differently, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I would not object if both of them were nominees, as long as you understand that it would not be until around July or August 2015 that Urdu phrasebook would be featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Andre. I'd like to see Kirthar featured, as it's a very interesting OtBP park. It's also totally fine to feature the Urdu phrasebook, but I'd hope Kirthar could be featured first, as it seems more compelling to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek and AndreCarrotflower. Thanks again for supporting this nomination but I'm no more in favour of featuring this article anymore. Even inside the country, this place is not popular and only few visit it. When it comes to national parks, majority of people, both local and foreigners, heads to Northwest Pakistan and Gilgit-Baltistan for breathtaking sightseeing. Previously I suggested to feature Urdu phrasebook but that was not a better idea so today, I've a good suggestion and that's Taxila which is recently created. Taxila is an important archaeological sites of South Asia and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, not to mention, is counted amongst the top visited tourist sites of Pakistan. The article is guide but I'll work on its expansion and will make it more polished, detailed and informative. I'm pretty sure this article will generate a good number of visitors to WV and will be helpful to those visiting Taxila. Can we please feature Taxila in February 2015 instead of Kirthar which can slushed due to lack of support and interest. --Saqib (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Saqib, I'm honestly a bit confused as to why you no longer support running this article. You said that Kirthar is not particularly popular or well-visited, but I don't understand why that is a problem—after all, it's nominated for OtBP, not DotM. I also disagree that there's a "lack of support and interest" for the nomination: as far as comment threads on this page go, this one actually seems longer and has more participants than average. Furthermore, it has three supporters including yourself, or four if you count JuliasTravels, who said she would support the nomination pending some edits which have since been accomplished.


 * If you want Taxila to be featured, you can nominate it on this page, but it's an open question what will happen after that: the community will either support or oppose it. Furthermore, in case of opposition (or if February isn't a good time to visit Taxila), we're left high and dry as to which article should be featured in February's OtBP slot. Even if Taxila gains support, I don't know that I would be in favor of withdrawing Kirthar from consideration. It's a perfectly well-written article and IMO there's no basis in policy to slush it.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have a good argument to defend myself other than that when it comes to Pakistan, I'm only in favour of featuring well known, popular and most visited sites. February is definitely the best time visit Taxila as the weather is cooler and navigating around the ruins makes the trip enjoyable. The community has right to oppose Taxila if they think but there's a good reason to oppose featuring such a worthy destination. --Saqib (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Saqib: I would encourage you to nominate Taxila and see what happens. If the community supports it, then I see no problem with running it in February instead of Kirthar. As far as throwing Kirthar on the slush pile, though, I honestly don't know. It might be a good article to run in the winter of 2015-16, because it is usually so hard to find articles to feature during that time of the year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew. I've nominated Taxila below. If you think Kirthar shouldn't be slushed then I've no problem but I don't think it would be a good idea to keep this nomination for too long on this page. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find a much better candidate for featuring during winter 2016 otherwise we can feature this one. --Saqib (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why Kirthar should be slushed. As AndreCarrotflower said, an interesting destination that lacks many visitors is - almost by definition - Off the Beaten Path. I'll have a look at the Taxila article later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I could support this article. It's certainly not a bad thing for an OtBP to be unknown and little visited (look at the nomination right above)! Also, looking at previous DotMs and OtBPs tells me national parks don't get featured that often. It would be a shame to throw it on the slush pile, on the other hand articles should not be hanging around here for many years. The question is what to do with Taxila, feature it later on sometimes? It's not a bad article either.
 * When it comes to articles to feature during the winter time; I've made a little list of almost 20 articles from the "just 8% of all features" half of the world (most of them warm and pleasant during northern hemisphere winter) that could be made into guides (by translation or even just a cleanup) and featured so finding articles for those months would not be that much of a problem. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I am not up to reading through the entire Taxila article tonight, but in principle, there's no problem with featuring both articles in successive years, or even - depending on the "Time to feature" schedule - perhaps in the same year. One or two articles on Pakistan per year wouldn't be too many. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * YPSI. Thanks for belated support vote but I think I'm no more willing to support featuring this article in February 2015, perhaps it can be featured later in 2016. As I said above, I know my argument is not solid but Pakistan is not a leading tourist country so I think we should try to give priority to those destinations that are more popular and well-known. Recently, I contacted UNESCO Pakistan and asked them to add the the link to our Mohenjo-daro article on the Mohenjo-daro page on UNESCO site. The first thing they asked me was "What is special about this Mohenjo-daro article on WV" and my answer was that it's a previously featured article. I think they're convinced to include the link but they've asked for some time. Now imagine, we'll get plenty of traffic once the link included in that page. So you can say I'm trying to do the same with Taxila as well. Once the Taxila is confirmed as successful featured article candidate, I can talk with UNESCO about it. --Saqib (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument, Saqib. If we decide the Taxila article is ready to be featured, we can certainly consider featuring it before Kirthar, on that basis. However, I don't think it's good to decide to withdraw a good article from consideration for a feature after you nominated it, unless others have made good arguments for why the article is not ready to be featured, nor do I think that the nominator should have the power to simply unilaterally decide to have an article slushed. And while the quality of the destination is not supposed to be relevant to decisions on whether to feature an article, Kirthar is quite obviously a great destination, even if it's off the beaten path for Pakistanis as well as foreigners. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IK, I'm not making any decision to slush it. I've said above, if you want to feature it, do it but do consider that I've a better candidate for featured article. In last couple of months, I felt Kirthar is of no interest for many thats why until today, it had only 2 supports vote and that made me go against featuring the article. Anyways, I've made the nomination of Taxila below. You guys have right to oppose Taxila if you think the article is not ready yet. --Saqib (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, Saqib. I'll try to have a thorough look at Taxila within the next few days. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - and oppose slushing. Any nominations for other articles an editor has come to like or expand should not lead to slushing others like this one, for which ample discussion has taken place, support gathered and several editors have taken the time and effort to assist in bringing it up to the demanded quality. I'm all for selecting interesting articles to feature, and keeping those that are less interesting to just read only as a backup: something that's gained me some criticism in the past. Slushing Kirthar National Park on a personal preference of popular sites over those less so, or of Unesco sites over parks, goes way further than that, imho. It's surely no valid reason in terms of policy. And also content-wise, I would argue it makes sense to feature a park rather than another (in many ways similar to Mohenjo-daro) ancient settlement when featuring two Pakistan destinations in a year, for the sake of diversity. I think Kirthar is an excellent example of a really off the beaten track but great destination. Just give Taxila some time and feature it too, just later. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I saw you added Kirthar National Park into the slot above and wrote "pending improvements to Taxila". What does it means? --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Saqib - As you can see at its nomination, the community sees a lot of potential in Taxila but is not ready to support running it as OtBP until some improvements are made to the article. I'm not comfortable placing an article into the schedule that hasn't received a single Support vote. I am confident that as time goes by you will make the improvements to Taxila and we can place it into the OtBP slot for that month, but if by some small chance the article's not ready by February 11th (or if you change your mind again) Plan B will be to run Kirthar in its place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay I got it. Actually, I realised community wants to run Kirthar first rather than Taxila so it made me abandoned working on Taxila article but if still there're chances that Taxila could be featured in place of Kirthar in February 2015, I will resume my work on it soon and will try to make it up-to the standard. --Saqib (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well actually, you sure understood my concerns correctly, Saqib, and I hope you understand why. Andre, I'm a bit surprised you don't even respond to my opposition to slushing or postponing and support for Kirthar, on which I worked with Saqib. Instead, you just do the exact opposite and make Kirthar's feature a matter pending on the development of another article. Again, I don't see why the good article for Kirthar should be postponed for (the not up to standards yet) Taxila only because of a personal preference of Saqib for popular places? Especially when the park would ensure more diversity, as Taxila and Mohenjodaro are a similar kind of attraction. JuliasTravels (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also did a lot of hard work editing this article to bring it up to snuff, so I'm glad that it will be featured. The featured articles are very often a product of teamwork, and this one definitely is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * JuliasTravels - Your comments were duly noted. Saqib is an incredibly prolific and valuable contributor and a cornerstone of our community, and his opinions (especially about Pakistan, which he knows better than any of us) ought not to be discounted. I am of the opinion that the current schedule is a fair compromise between slushing Kirthar outright, as Saqib would like, and postponing Taxila, as you would like. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, where in policy does it say "all final decisions regarding DotM are made by User:AndreCarrotflower"? By default the task has fallen almost exclusively to me over the past year or two, but the fact remains that if someone doesn't like the schedule, he or she is perfectly free to change it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words Andre. I'm flattered. --Saqib (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * His words are true, Saqib. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt about Saqib's great value of course! :-) Still, this is not really a matter of knowledge about the area, but rather one of personal taste. Me not plunging forward and changing has everything to do with the respect I have for the way you've taken the task upon yourself, Andre :-) But very well then, since there's no consensus to postpone or slush Kirthar, and since several people have put a lot of effort in that article, I will do so now. For the record, I see absolutely no problem with featuring Taxila when it is ready, but if for some reason we need to feature it very soon, we should have a proper discussion about which article would have to make way for it. I don't think it's a problem to have two or even three Pakistani destinations per year either. It's great that we're getting such great articles about that country :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care anymore whichever guide feature first. The discussion is getting too long now so lets stop discussing it anymore.But yes I won't be able to work on this Kirthar article anymore because I'm really not interested in it anymore. I hope someone else will take care of the article if someone wants to fix the issue in-case if it still have some, before articles goes on the main page. Also, I always tried to bring Pakistani article up-to standard when it's featured article candidate and I really wanted to bring this one up-to that quality standard but I couldn't able to and that's the reason why I never mentioned Kirthar on my user-page because I was not and am still not satisfied with its current state. --Saqib (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just try to feature them both, Saqib :-) Can you explain what you think is still an issue for the Kirthar article? I'm happy to help improve it if I can. To me it seems to be quite good already, surely good enough to feature as OTBT, but any improvements are always good :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I never been to a lot of national parks so I really don't know what should be included in a national park guide. I believe this is very near to guide but actually I'm not satisfied with it. I was planning to visit this national park again after I nominated it for featuring here and wanted to add more value able content after my trip but I couldn't able to make my trip. Later, the trip seems impossible for me due to some other activities so I decided to make it on hold and thus nominated Taxila. If you read my comment above, you will see the reason why I nominated this article for featuring (securing the slot). I thought I will able to bring it up-to standard I'm aiming at but I'm failed in it. So later, I proposed Urdu and then Taxila. Now if you think It can be featured as it is then I've no opposition anymore because I don't care about it anymore. --Saqib (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you no longer care about an article that you and some of us worked so hard on, to bring it up to a good level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for February 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Finnish phrasebook

 * Support - as the nominator. At the first glance it looks quite OK, but if there are any errors, I can fix them.ϒpsilon (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — I've to agree with Andre above, phrasebooks are actually boring yet useful but we should avoid featuring them too often and in my opinion, we should only feature a phrasebook when its star rather than just a guide. Sorry YPSI but you can take this as oppose vote. --Saqib (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it's fine to feature Guide-level phrasebooks, but since they're not so exciting, I feel like we should save them for times when we have no more interesting travel topic to feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. To address Saqib's comment, I also argued repeatedly above that the mere fact that an article is "boring" should not be an absolute barrier to running it as a feature. Ikan's suggestion to save it for a month when we need a slot-filler article makes sense, but I do not know of any grounds in policy to oppose this article outright simply because it is a phrasebook. However, before I can support this article, pronunciations need to be added to the "Common verbs" subsection, some of the entries in "Clock time", and all sections below and including "Lodging". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, phrasebooks are not as exciting as travel topics related to sights and activities, but as we have around 40 Guide phrasebooks, why not show one or two of them per year? Well, as I just picked it quickly out of Category:Guide articles rather than having been actively working on it, it's OK to slush it. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsi, there's no basis in policy to oppose the article simply because it is a phrasebook. You are right, we have many Guide-level phrasebooks that are useful to readers and they should not be treated any differently than other potential FTT's. However, as to slushing it, I'm going to leave that decision up to you. It should be a relatively simple matter, especially for a native Finn such as yourself, to add pronunciations to the translations that are already typed out in the article. If you choose to do so, the article will have my unreserved support. But if you really feel that it should be slushed, I won't stand in the way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, in order to further gauge how much support we have for the article, it would be good for Ikan to clarify whether or not his comments above amount to an "Oppose"/"Not Yet" vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can fix the things in the article, not just to get it featured, but because it's useful to the reader. If many Wikivoyagers think phrasebooks should not be featured unless we have no other choice, well, let's not feature them. Also, if this would be an article I've been working on for days or weeks I'd been protesting in ALL CAPS :), but this is not the case. There are certainly other, more exciting travel topics that we could feature.
 * In general I think it's good to feature electrical systems, winter driving tips and phrasebooks now and then to show that WV is about all aspects of traveling! ϒpsilon (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think featuring one phrasebook each year would be enough. --Saqib (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's about the right amount of time to feature a phrasebook each year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew, it's hard for me to judge a phrasebook in a language I don't know, and I don't really feel qualified to do so. What do you think about the external links at the end, though? Are they OK, given the site's external links policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely fine with having just one phrasebook per year. For 2015 that would probably be Urdu, as discussed above. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No YPSI. That would be Finnish phrasebook. I wanted to bring Urdu phrasebook up-to star status but I couldn't managed to so I'm not willing to feature that ugly phrasebook. Finnish phrasebook will get my "Support" vote once the issues raised by Andrew resolved. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan - I don't know why, but I didn't see your comment above till now. I'm not sure how I feel about the external links at the end, but I'm leaning toward keeping them. The first one contains audio samples which are a big help in learning any language, especially a difficult one like Finnish; the second one would seem to work well as a continuation of the colorful, sometimes irreverent tone we try for in our articles themselves. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I believe 1 phrasebook per year might be a good frequency. The Finnish one looks very useful and I had a chance to test it in action myself :) Danapit (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like the problems I cited above have been resolved. I can support this article now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I have no way to pass judgment on the content, but the article is attractive, and if people who know Finnish are happy with this phrasebook, I'm glad to be the 4th vote to support it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for February 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Montevideo

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The Understand section with the districts as a starter is unusal and confusing but i guess that will change until the presentation. jan (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually Wycsi says that districts should be in an Orientation subsection in the Understand section of the city page, so they should be somewhere in the Understand section. I put them right at the top where the districts are listed in huge city articles, but perhaps it's not a good idea. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been quite some time since i was in Montevideo but i remember it as rather compact city. Imho districts are need in big cities as points of orientation. They are in the correct section but i wouldn't start with it because an intro is always better to get an understanding. jan (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved them to the bottom of Understand. IMO the old town was compact and 18 Julio could be walked in about 45 min provided you just walk and don't stop but places like Punta Carretas and Prado seemed quite far out. The fact that there is no fast underground rail transportation makes the city feel bigger, I think. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon, good work. Unconditional support for the nomination. jan (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. That's really impressive work! It's beautifully illustrated, has an interesting, unique, and logical structure, and is a good read (I haven't read the entire article with a fine-toothed comb yet, but I've certainly read enough to approve of featuring it). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Absolutely beautiful article. I'm thinking January 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support It's a nice article. Before featuring, I'd suggest weeding out some of the images. There are too many and some are a bit washed out by the sun anyway. A bit more information about attractions (prices, open/close, phone numbers) would be nice to make them look more complete. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Which photos would you suggest removing or finding substitutes for? I generally love the fact that there are so many photos in this article, but I do agree that if any article might have too many, it could be this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's hard because the quality of most are good, so I'm not sure which would be best but the tango picture and the street view towards the bottom are a little washed out, so I'd nix those. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I just skimmed the article and it seems to me that if we're culling photos, I'd start with some of the ones that are clustered together three- or four-in-a-row in certain sections (especially those sections where photos are less essential, i.e. Orientation and Get around). It seems better to me to distribute the pictures more evenly throughout the article than to judge by quality. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to choose. Poor quality photos should be removed regardless, and of course the clustered photos are the ones that need weeded out. For me, I don't know which are "better" as representative images of Montevideo. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for January 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Saba

 * Support as nominator. The article is probably featureable as is, but for those who are skeptical, here are some easy fixes that would go a long way toward sprucing the article up:


 * 1. The "Do" section - where Saba's main appeal to tourists, namely diving, is covered - could use some expansion. (The "See" section is short by necessity; other than diving, there's not much to do here but relax.)


 * 2. Much of the information on The Road and Yrausquin Airport should probably be merged into "Get around" and "Get in" respectively, with historical details and other information that's not of immediate practical use to travellers perhaps retained in "Understand" (though not in their own subsections).


 * 3. The article could use more pictures.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost. I expect to support this article very soon, but two things have to take place before it is featured: A bunch of listings need to be Wiki-listified, and the article needs to be edited for style. On style, I have a question: Does Saba use the same English-language spellings and English measures as the US? I imagine not, but right now, the article uses primarily American spellings and uses feet, rather than metres, as default measures. This needs to be resolved. Both of these fixes should be easy, but the second one requires agreement and could really use some knowledge of local practices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost - pictures and cleanup is needed as Ikan said. While it's a territory of the Netherlands at least the official tourist web page uses American spelling. As with other Caribbean destinations I believe most visitors come from the US, as does probably the person who wrote the text about the runway (and gave the length in feet). On Saba itself I'm quite sure they do not use the imperial units. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the talk page I actually mentioned "Latin America" by which I meant to say everything south of the US, also the Caribbean (apparently the term doesn't officially include all of the Caribbean). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So it sounds like the article should perhaps use American spelling but metric units (so "meters," but not "metres"). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's just the United States, Burma and Liberia and to some extent countries with a British history (e.g. distances in the UK and Ireland) that haven't switched to the Système International (yet?). I imagine most countries in the Americas that haven't been part of the British Empire have gotten their English-language influences mainly from the US and therefore use the American spelling. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I made some edits. In my opinion, "Eat," "Drink" and "Sleep" need to be completely Wiki-listified, and then we can run this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Our German friends have collected quite a lot of information about Saba and even made separate articles for the villages (IMO this is something we don't need to do, though). Part of it are yellowpageish long lists but I believe we can make use of some of the rest of it, wherefore I put a translate de tag on Saba as a reminder. Will take on the task at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - fixed all of the above issues+added POIs, hiking trails and small bits and pieces of info here and there from de:Saba. It's a perfect OtBP for the coldest winter month and now I'm absolutely confident we can run it. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Some "Eat" and "Drink" listings still have no locations or just the name of the village where they're situated. I assume that numbered street addresses aren't used in Saba(?), but nevertheless, at least we should have clear location descriptions for every listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added what village they are in, that's pretty much everything there is both on their own web sites (one in three businesses on Saba seems to have one, and they include stuff like "Employer of the year 2007"...) and on sites like Lonely Planet and other Saba travel info sites. Businesses mail addresses seems to be "village+P.O box" and neither our dynamic map nor Google Maps seems to have any street names written out so maybe they don't even have street names on Saba. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's the best that can be done, so be it, and in that case, I'm ready to support running the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks for pitching in, Ypsi. I had intended to take care of that myself sometime before January, but these things have a habit of getting away from me, especially with as much on my Wikivoyage plate as I have. Bringing the Gaspé Peninsula up to Guide status is requiring more work than I thought it would. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: We have 3 votes so far in favor of running this article. Would other people like to pass judgment on it, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for January 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Winter driving

 * Support. After a relatively brief check I do think it's an extensive article covering all aspects of driving in winter conditions. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite. It is basically a good article on an important topic, but it needs polishing before it is ready to feature. There should be time for before the next Northern hemisphere winter. Things I noticed in a first perusal were some duplication (e.g, washer fluid is discussed in four places) and heavy use of external links, I think contrary to policy. Pashley (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a full overhaul within the next couple of weeks if the main authors aren't quicker than me. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also added some more pics. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost . I looked through most of the article and did some copy editing, but there's one thing that we have to decide on: Will we use British, Canadian or US English for the article? Right now, it is a combination. For example, British spelling is tyre while American/Canadian spelling is tire, but Americans don't hire cars, we rent them (and a cursory look at web search results suggests that "car rental" is also used more often than "car hire" in Canada, though a Canadian will confirm or refute this). It's probably a good idea to put any possibly confusing terms in one English-language version with the other version(s) in parentheses, much as is done in most of the article with Celsius and Fahrenheit, but we should make a decision on which version to favor and stick with it. I'm not sure it matters much which type of English is used. Otherwise, this article looks ready to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm Canadian. Cars here have tires, hoods and trunks, not tyres, bonnets & boots. They are rented, not hired. Pashley (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming that and adding more info. Do you have an opinion about what form of English we should give primacy to in this article, or whether that matters as long as it's consistent and all ambiguous terms are explained sufficiently? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not think it matters much, or that things like tire/tyre need explanation. Canadian English is an odd mix, following American usage for words like 'tire' and 'program' but Commonwealth spelling for 'traveller', 'colour', etc. We could use that & irritate nearly everyone a bit, Pashley (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Country Wife has written most of the article, presumably in Canadian English. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, agreed on tire vs. tyre. However, this article is not consistently in Canadian English, as I pointed out that, for example, "tyre" is used, as is "car hire." I would have no objection to the article being in Canadian English, with explanations only for terms speakers of other varieties of English are likely to find confusing, but we need to pick a single variety of English and use it throughout the whole article, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * +1 support for Canadian English. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no better place in the Anglosphere to experience winter driving than Canada. I vote Canadian English as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd call that a consensus, as it seems quite reasonable to me for this article to be in Canadian English. So let's go with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weighing in a bit late here, I realize, but Pashley is quite right about car "rental" vs "hire" in Canadian English. I'll do an editing pass with an eye to standardizing on Canadian English. The more eyeballs, the better, as it's a fairly long piece. Country Wife (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks, Country Wife! Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like Country Wife fixed the article on August 7. I therefore support running it and thank her. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Country Wife is a superstar! Can we get one more support vote to take the "pending stronger consensus" disclaimer off the schedule, please? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * SupportSure :-) Good work indeed. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Good - a small issue may be that all the examples and photos seem to be of Europe or North America. AlasdairW (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for January 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

George Town (Malaysia)

 * Comment I think this is a good article and a good place to feature, and if featured, it definitely should be a DotM, not OtBP. From the article: "Modern-day Georgetown is one of Malaysia's largest cities with 600,000 inhabitants." One thing the article is lacking is a "climate" subsection, but perhaps it would be best to just insert a link to Penang. Another weakness is that the article lacks a map. What do you all think? Not quite ready, perhaps? I think it's close, if not completely ready yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is well-written, rich in photographs, and with robust and lively "See", "Do", "Eat" and "Sleep" sections ("Drink" is a bit short, but perhaps that's to be expected in a majority-Muslim destination?)


 * Aside from the lack of a map, which Ikan mentioned, information on prices is a bit scanty. I see both of those as minor quibbles, though.


 * I'm not sold on Georgetown as a DotM rather than an OtBP, though. A population of 740K in the city proper and 2.5M in the metro area (per Wikipedia) is pretty impressive, but the metric I use for distinguishing OtBPs from DotMs is the question of whether the average citizen of a different country than the one where the destination is located would ever have heard of the destination. I'd never heard of Georgetown myself prior to this nomination. However, I'm somewhat less familiar with Southeast Asia than other regions of the world, so I'm willing to be convinced. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Andre, have you heard of Penang? That's what the city is usually called. And it's a well-known city, such that someone who's heard of any Malaysian city other than Kuala Lumpur has probably heard of Penang. Georgetown is the formal name of the city, so as to distinguish it from the state of Penang (Pulau Pinang in Malay, which is also the Malay name normally used for the city).


 * To the comment about the "Drink" section: Penang city is actually a mostly non-Muslim city, primarily Chinese. I actually haven't visited Penang since 1976 (I didn't make it there on my last trip to Malaysia in 2003, and that's already 10 years ago, anyway), so I couldn't add any bar listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, though I wonder if the nomination should be for Penang as a whole.
 * On the DotM vs. OtBP question, I come down firmly for DotM. I'm often rather conservative on such questions &mdash; for example I argued that Madison should be OtBP &mdash; but I see no doubt here. Penang is one of those places like Santa Fe in the US, not among the greatest cities of the region but still DoTM because it is a fascinating place and a substantial tourist draw. Pashley (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pashley's points regarding Madison are convincing. Despite the fact that by my own metric Madison should have been OtBP, I pushed hard for it to be DotM for the sake of consistency (Rochester's nomination as DotM rather than OtBP was uncontroversial) and because it's a state capital and the site of a major university. Georgetown is also a state capital, with thrice the population of Madison no less. DotM it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To reply to Pashley: The Penang state article is only Usable, so if that status is accurate, it can't yet be featured. I'm not actually sure why it isn't classed as a Guide, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I'd like to look at, and I realize this isn't the place for such a discussion, is establishing some hard-and-fast guidelines as to how to distinguish OtBPs from DotMs. I recall that this subject has been broached several times in the past, with responses ranging from indifference to outright opposition. The protracted debate on what to do with Madison is still a relatively recent memory for me, and we could easily have gone down the same road with Georgetown.


 * I'm given to understand that the metric I cited above for how I make this determination is maybe the most dominant one among the community at large - I've heard the same method cited by several others, or slight variations on it. One of the arguments I've heard against having guidelines in place for this purpose was that the community should have these debates, and consensus should determine the disposition of each featured article on an ad hoc basis. What I'm concerned about is that, after all, this is the English Wikivoyage, and any attempt to define "off the beaten path" in the way I've cited will inevitably be filtered through the prism of Western culture. I'm afraid that if we "wing it" completely, we'll inevitably shortchange into OtBP-hood many DotM-worthy destinations that are not located in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, or maybe South Africa or Latin America.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your concern is well-placed, and I don't like your metric, if you hadn't heard of Penang, but the discussion might best be broached on Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, as a great fan of Asian cuisine, I had heard of Penang the island - just not its capital in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Which points out a problem with your metric, since the city is officially called Georgetown but commonly known as Penang. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Or you could say it points to a problem with the name of the article, but I think it would cause more confusion than clarity to rename the article "Penang (city)". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I really like the article and even remember some stuff! jan (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It still needs a map and I suppose I'll put in a link to the climate data for the province of Penang. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead, I copied the "Climate" section from Penang. If that's not OK, please let me know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support It is my first time playing part in DotM nominations. I am very fond of Georgetown and Penang so I will gladly bolster this article over the coming months. It is a very diverse and interesting city that will keep me coming back many more times. One thing I would like to mention is regarding the blurb; I have never heard of Georgetown being referred to as 'Penang City'. Though I do get that people just usually refer to the whole area as Penang for the fact it is part of Penang (State) and on the island of Penang. But saying that, I assume blurbs are not final anyway. Correct? DTW (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. I've usually heard it simply called Penang, or Pulau Pinang (referring to the city), but in a guide, some kind of differentiation has to be made between the city and the island.
 * Thanks for your great edits that have made the article so much better! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (Stupid?) question - What's the current situation with Georgetown? We voted on the banner and I could swear it was in the schedule at one point. I don't see any major problems with the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Its spot in the schedule was bumped by Hue because of the much smaller number of decent months for visiting that city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. BTW as we now seems to have quite many articles standing in line to be featured I came up with an idea; adding a fourth category, however I don't know what to call that category yet. What do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for December 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fox Glacier

 * "Buy", "Get around", and "Go next" could use expanding; entries in "Sleep" need geo coordinates, but as it stands there are no issues with this article grave enough to preclude my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What does the fox say?. Support! :) OK, seriously, it's a tidy article with information in all sections. Geo coordinates would be great to have, that's fixed in half an hour with Google. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Good one from the southern hemisphere. jan (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for December 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cruise ships

 * Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with ϒpsilon that we should find more pictures, but I don't know if we should necessarily do a lot of pruning on this article: the information given is thorough but rarely excessive or redundant. I'd suggest running this article in the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2014-15 as most cruises serve tropical destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It is a good article. I have added a couple of pictures, but it needs a few more, including inside cruise ships. It might also be improved if smaller ships got more mention - river cruises etc. AlasdairW (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have never taken a cruise (I don't think Hai Xing Shipping Company's 3-day ferry from Hong Kong to Shanghai in 1987 really qualifies), so I can't really pass judgment on the content and would trust the rest of you, and there certainly is a lot of information in this article. The only evident problem is that the last two sections require edits in keeping with current external links formatting standards. That's a required fix, but it's easy, and once it's done, you can put me down in support and schedule this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tweaked the article a bit more. I'm happy to support it. By my count, that's 4 supporters with no detractor, so I will take the caveat off the schedule for this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for December 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Muscat

 * Support, preferably not in the May 2014 slot as that's a bit too close for comfort to the Musandam Peninsula. My only complaint is the map, which is of astoundingly low quality - I'm not sure how it would be addressed, though; from the looks of it Muscat's attractions seem widely spread-out, so zooming in probably wouldn't help much. Is there any way to alter the aspect ratio of dynamic maps? Would it be feasible to break it up into two or more separate maps? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, although the 'Understand' and 'Go next' sections still need work, and 'Get in' and 'Cope' need to be updated. Regarding the map, Muscat's sights are indeed very spread out. Including a map for each district could be an option (I don't believe the city is large enough to warrant subdividing into separate district pages). Seeb however (to the west of the airport) could be broken off into a new article, and perhaps the outlying areas of Al Bustan and Qantab to the east could be broken off (although in most guides they are included with Muscat).
 * Also, in May it's already broiling – it's best to visit from October/November to March. I'd like to add I find it a much more interesting city than Doha which is slotted for February, though as someone who's visited several times I'm admittedly biased. StellarD (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with the criticisms, especially of the map, which is pretty much unusable, but nevertheless, it's a very good article and makes me want to visit the city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This was nominated to be featured between November-March then waiting for what? Let's add it to the slot (probably November '14). --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per dotm, the schedule grid should only consist of about six months' worth of destinations. We currently have nine. If you'll notice, there's an HTML-hidden note placed above the schedule that reads "PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY NEW MONTHS TO THE SCHEDULE FOR NOW. WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY AS IT IS". We'll feature Muscat at the appropriate time, don't worry. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I had a quick look at this article and i believe that there is some work today before we should feature it. Get in is/was outdated. I see that User:StellarD & User:Pashley did good work but i think that there are better to maps. The current in Get in is to wid to be useful. Several listing e.g. rental cars & money changer have not been touched. It is in better shape than Georgetown so i will not object but think it could be better. jan (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How about creating 3 different maps for the traditional areas of Muscat, Matrah, and Ruwi? Would that work and cover the area sufficiently? I ask because I don't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This article absolutely needs a new lede before it can be featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the lede, but it is now rather short. Pashley (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a good start; enough so that my continued support is no longer in question. But it would be good if some editor, preferably one who has knowledge of the destination (StellarD, who appears to have written much of the article?), could help develop it a bit more. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know I've neglected this article about this most interesting city since it was first nominated – thank you for reminding me. I'll resume work on it in the near future, particularly to expand the lede, and to clean up 'understand' and 'go next'. – StellarD (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * StellarD, what do you think about my suggestion of 3 separate maps for Muscat, Matrah and Ruwi? I'm very troubled by how large the scale of the map is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi IK, I think the current map has too small a scale, which is why I had originally enlarged and centered it. It's not currently possible to place more than one dynamic map in an article (the potential has been suggested here). If it were possible, I might suggest splitting the area into four sections: Muscat and Mutrah; Al Ghubrah, Al Khuwair, Al Qurm, and Bawshar; Ruwi and Qantab; and Seeb.


 * Eventually it may be worthwhile to districtify the city; right now however, Seeb doesn't really have enough entries to make it more than an outline, and I don't know Muscat well enough to to write a full-fledged 'understand' section for each possible district. Also, that process might jeopardize its prospects for being featured in November. –StellarD (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah [sigh], I take your point. I guess several static maps wouldn't work, either? User:Saqib is a real master mapmaker. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did someone called me? I'm here I'm here at your service! Let me know what I can do to help? --Saqib (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned your expertise as a mapmaker. :-) I'm just suggesting that if StellarD decides she wants any static maps for the Muscat article, you can be her man for the job. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll wait for her instructions. --Saqib (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

After experimenting I see a couple of options for improving the map(s):
 * 1) detailed maps provided as weblinks, following Mey2008's example, placed a) directly under the main dynamic map (sorry I don't know how to center the group), or b) in each individual district; or
 * 2) three or four sectioned static maps, perhaps shown directly under a larger overview map all in 'Get in', or placed in each district.

Any of these options present layout challenges – we may have to eliminate some photographs, and the style police will probably object. I'm working on a 13" laptop, and can't really gauge how this would look on a large monitor. Options 1a and 1b do seem to look OK on a tablet. – StellarD (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If we serve the traveller best by making an exception to usual mapping procedures, that's what we should do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The 'Understand' and 'Go next' sections have now been reworked, and the map issue has been addressed. However, the blurb is inaccurate – the business district of Ruwi is not characterised by 'glass and steel'. The urban landscape in general is low key and modern buildings are by decree required to adhere to certain traditional Arabic architectural guidelines.
 * Then by all means, feel free to amend the blurb. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for November 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Taketomi

 * Support - Sure. The article is well written and if there are just a few points of interest on this island, the article is already as extensive as it can possibly get. One or two more eateries maybe could be added, but on the whole, I think this could make a nice OtBP for upcoming November.ϒpsilon (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I'm happy to support it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is short and sweet, but seems essentially complete. A fill-out of the "Buy" section might be nice - any individual shops that are recommendable? - but if not, that certainly doesn't preclude my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It has enough to be featured, but concerning its overall appeal, I don't think some of the descriptions, particularly in the "See" section really do it justice. The island is most famous for its historic district (well, that and the water buffalo carts), so I think some focus should be given on that, especially since there isn't that much else to talk about. For example, it is one of the nation's designated Important Preservation Districts (重要伝統的建造物群保存地区). Perhaps this place could be referenced or just more information about the buildings in general. At the moment, the appeal is all in the Understand section, while the "See" section's tone doesn't make it sound very interesting.
 * In addition, a little more information about the utaki would be nice. The paddle boats are giving a passing mention, but where can you do it and how much? The description of Kaiji Beach is confusing and awkward. I feel like I'm supposed to already know something about the beach that is not stated in the article. What does "you must pick the individual stars" mean? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think the article can be featured (It has enough to be featured) however, if some of the above are addressed/added, it would be a much more complete article and interesting feature. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The same as Muscat, the lede really needs to be fleshed out here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ten days till Taketomi goes live on the Main Page; would anyone like to write a proper lede for it? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if someone who knew the island would write it. With no edits or attempts to address any concerns above for months, it seems the article was abandoned after nomination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've written a short lead section for Taketomi. It's not first hand information but I guess it's better than nothing. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need up-to-the-minute on-the-ground coverage for the lede, Ypsi, just something that sums up the body of the article in a snappy way that makes the reader want to delve deeper. Well done (and not a moment too soon!) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for November 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Electrical systems

 * Comment - Plenty of information, and I would almost support it, however I'll still look at it more thoroughly before giving it a support. As it's going to be featured in a couple of months there's enough of time to fix anything that needs to be fixed. And it's already got a banner! What do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support. What a wealth of well-presented information on a topic that's quite neglected in many other areas of travel literature. Articles like this one are where Wikivoyage really bests the competition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to thank ϒpsilon for his (her? I should know this by now; I apologize) work in finding FTTs to fill the empty slots in our schedule. Slogging through Category:Guide articles and filtering the ones that obviously aren't up to snuff can be tedious, but it's a big help in keeping the DotM feature running smoothly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merci! There are quite a few other articles too that are already at guide status (it's really not that much work, just check out the entries in Category:Guide articles that don't sound like places). Ps. I'm male. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Very useful topic and well covered. It might use a few more pictures. Danapit (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Now I've gone through the article, fixed some minor things and added pics. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll play devil's advocate here and oppose.
 * Yes, the article is comprehensive, well-written, well-illustrated and has useful maps. It either meets or is very close to the criteria for a star nomination.
 * However, for featuring on the main page I think we need topics that will catch visitors' interest and lead them to explore the site. This topic gives useful info on coping with one of the annoyances of travel, but it is very long way from exciting. Pashley (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pashley, what if I nominate an guide status article on a very non-touristy place to be featured as DotM. Will you oppose that nomination because its very non-touristy place thus unexcited? --Saqib (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd probably suggest it would work better as 'Off the beaten path'. Pashley (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you think "non-touristy" is the same as "unexciting"? For a good part of travellers (including me), it's quite the other way around. I have to agree with Pashley however that the number of visitors who get excited by such practical nuisances as electrical systems is probably very small. I too believe it's probably not a good article to invite people to further browsing, even if it's an excellent article about the topic. I'm afraid we'll be told that's not a "valid reason" for opposing, though ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant either DotM or OftB so that means you won't oppose. Thats good. Now back to topic, If articles like Fundamentals of flying, Leave-no-trace camping, Bargaining, Kimono buying guide, and Travel photography could be featured as FTT then why not this. I didn't found anything exciting or interesting in Fundamentals of flying, Bargaining and Kimono buying guide either. On the other hand, sometimes we don't care whether destination is touristy or not and we still featured them as OtbP then why are we picky on FTT's? --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not defending this nomination nor I even didn't casted my support vote yet. I'm just trying to say that we don't have much articles to be featured as FTT so lets feature those what we've currently. --Saqib (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what Pashley and Julia mean. Electrical systems for travelers aren't that "exciting" (or I could add exciting stuff about DIY transformers and modifying devices but that'd be out of WV's scope and irresponsible as well). It's something you will have to deal with at certain destinations, like a sunburn or malaria whether you want it or not. And flying and bargaining is something that you do, not because you must, but because you want to and therefore it is exciting and maybe even a reason for going somewhere. I figured any comprehensive travel topic would be eligible for FTT, not just the interesting ones, but I can have a look at other topics in the Guide category then. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(reindent) JuliasTravels's prediction was absolutely right: arguments about whether featured articles "catch visitors' interest" have no basis in policy or precedent. The sole requirements for an article to appear on the Main Page are that it's at Guide status or better and that it hasn't been featured previously. Arguments in favor of changing policy belong on Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates, but right off the bat, I'll tell you that my response to any such argument would be that our pool of eligible articles (and especially eligible FTT's) is shallow enough already without additional requirements further constraining us. What's contained in this article may not be edge-of-your-seat stuff, but it's essential information and it's well-written to boot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that's your interpretation of policy and opinions and I know you fee very strongly about it so yeah, I saw that coming :-). I don't share it though, and I also think we shouldn't be all that uncompromising when it comes to discussions. There's a difference between blunt personal dislikes about a destination ("I don't like it doesn't count") and the issues Pashley mentioned above. The good of the main page, although not covered in the examples of issues mentioned in policy, is also not ruled out and seems like a rather valid concern. If policy becomes a thing of letters rather than spirit, we're on the wrong track. I also think the shallow pool argument was a pressing one a while ago, but fortunately is increasingly less a problem. In fact, we have waiting lists of a year for destinations, and half a year for TT's now :-) Since there's nothing wrong with the electric systems article (in fact, I think it's well written indeed) it would be no problem to feature it. But we also don't have to feature anything. Why not keep it on a kind of backup list, and just see if something more exciting comes up in the next half year or so? JuliasTravels (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't have anything to do with my "interpretation" of policy; the policy is pretty unambiguous. I realize that no one is really debating anymore whether this article belongs on the Main Page, but in a larger sense, your concerns cut both ways: while it's not good for us to be too conservative or overly hung up on the letter of the law rather than the spirit, neither would it be good for us to be too reckless. I'm not just talking about DoTM, I'm taking about all areas of policy. It's hard enough to get Wikivoyagers to all fall in line behind any initiative - we're a community of people with strong wills and wildly divergent opinions, and while that's great from a standpoint of coming up with creative solutions to problems we may face or innovative ideas for directions to take the site, it makes it essential, if we want this place to run smoothly, for individual users not to simply ignore policy whenever they get the inkling. Status quo bias dictates that we'd better have a pretty convincing consensus behind changes to longstanding policies or precedents - the question of whether DotM nominees should be disqualified for any reason that's not spelled out in policy has come up several times (i.e. Udupi for OtBP in March 2013 and Ann Arbor for DotM in June 2012) and in all cases, the general sentiment was that we should not be needlessly restrictive - but if we're being asked to accept a change without even undertaking a policy discussion, how are we even supposed to establish a consensus? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm... I was discussing the article too, actually, proposing to keep it as a back-up option :-) If you want to move the rest of the discussion to a talkpage, please go ahead. I'm sorry to say my point is much the same as in other places. You're talking about a change in policy and ignoring consensus, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't see this particular discussion as a change in the first place. As I see it, there's policy to set ground rules, but it's not an all-embracing set of permitted reasonings and it's also not cut in stone. I still don't see why arguments that are not explicitly mentioned in policy (whether positively or negatively) would have to be off limits or against consensus. In such cases, not predicted by policy, it seems just fine to work towards consensus on a case to case base. In this case, (the electrical systems) I'd much prefer that discussion over trying to catch it in policy, as it's more flexible. It allows for other arguments (e.g. the availability of alternatives, making difference between really unsuited or fine as a backup or whatever) to be taken into account. If any argumentation leads to a regular lock up of discussions, we can always make it part of policy, but let's cross that bridge if we get to it. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Some remarks This article looks very good to me, and I actually find it somewhat interesting. However, it strikes me as a rather encyclopedic topic, although obviously travel-related. I'd like for the encyclopedic nature of the topic to be discussed before a judgment is made on whether it's good to feature on the main page, but I certainly think the quality is sufficient for a feature, and that it will interest people who like technical subjects. I just question whether we really want to feature a technical subject on the main page, partly because I wonder how much of the audience for a travel guide is technical-minded, but then again, as this is Wikimedia, that might not be an issue. I've read through this thread, so I can see I'm likely to be told that the question of whether a topic is encyclopedic in character is irrelevant to judging it for a feature, but I'd like to discuss it, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether they're interested in the technical aspects of electrical systems or not, the fact is that frying one's electronic devices because of differing voltage standards is an issue for many travellers, for example North Americans who are travelling overseas for the first time. Certainly we can work to make the article less encyclopedic in tone (I'd start with a new title), but if the question is whether a topic itself can be disqualified, I maintain that no, it shouldn't be. I should say that over time, I've grown more amenable to Julia's proposal to save this article for a time when we've got nagging ?s in the FTT column and need something as filler. I believe that in my above arguments, I was concerned that we were on a slippery slope that would end with a sort of tiered system where "interesting" articles would be given preferential treatment and we'd have a less diverse range of topics covered in FTT, but in this isolated instance I think it's perfectly fine to use our judgment as to what fits best at which time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be interested to see if or how it could be made less encylopedic-sounding. I tend to think that the topic itself is pretty technical though, again, obviously travel-related. I wouldn't stand in the way of featuring this article, but I do wonder whether there are any implications of featuring something with an encyclopedic tone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For DotM and OtBP we also try not to feature destinations from the same country simultaneously or after each other, so IMO the same should be true for FTT (we should feature both interesting and "just because it's necessary" topics). In fact I was considering nominating winter driving for December, like Electrical systems that's something you need to deal with rather than a fun activity.
 * Maybe one thing that makes this article sound encyclopedic is that it also deals with bringing and using equipment not designed for travel use abroad and situations where access to electricity is not guaranteed (third world countries etc.) and in these cases stuff unfortunately has to become a little bit technical with generator types and such.
 * Are there some specific parts that should be explained in less technical terms? I'll see what I can do about them. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I said above that I wouldn't stand in the way of featuring this. I might as well just support this, without taking back any of the comments I made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for November 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Karachi

 * Strong support — I'm too late to get it at guide status. I know its not perfect yet, and still required a lot of things to be done but please lets put it in the queue and feature it as first Pakistan DotM early next year. I promise everything will be fixed and sorted out before it goes live on the main page. I'm pretty sure I would not be disappointed. --Saqib (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a good guide with a lot of information in it. I gather the reason there are no district articles is that some of the districts wouldn't have enough interest for visitors, but the question of why such a large city isn't districted is an obvious one. I also think the "Stay Safe" section might profitably be divided into titled subsections. But overall, I like the guide and think it would be a fine one to feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need a better blurb. What do you suggest? --Saqib (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a stab at that: "Karachi, known locally for its beaches, is the largest and most cosmopolitan city in Pakistan." It's not terribly creative, but at least it's a clear statement and not overly long. Is there a way to fold in something about the way its architecture expresses different historical periods/styles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should add "Former British colony" since Karachi is the only city in Pakistan where one can still see the glimpse of British era by means of architecture. What about something like "Formerly a British colony, Karachi is Pakistan's largest, most diverse and cosmopolitan city and a truly mega city." --Saqib (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire Indian Subcontinent was formerly a British colony. To make it clearer, I'd say "Previously an important British colonial city" or something like that. Or perhaps better yet, something like: "The diverse, cosmopolitan megacity of Karachi has modernized while preserving the British colonial architecture of yesteryear." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Stupid me. You're right. I would go with "Previously an important British colonial city". --Saqib (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: well-written, appropriately formatted and complete. To Ikan's point about districting: it seems to me not to be as simple as all that. To my understanding, articles are districted based on how much content is included, not how large the city may be (which is why it was justifiable to district Buffalo). It could well be that everything in Karachi that's of interest to tourists is already included, and it may not ever be appropriate to treat it as a Huge City. I have no familiarity with Karachi, so I cannot even begin to say whether that's true or not, but hypothetically it could be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Simple as what, Andre? I summarized the discussion about districting in Talk:Karachi. I wasn't making an argument, just an observation or two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "...the question of why such a large city isn't districted is an obvious one". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it is indeed an obvious question, in my opinion. That the answer may not always be the same is another matter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Majority of the content belongs to South district, so I'm definitely not certain that districtification is necessary and work out. --Saqib (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support-- Andyrom75 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Support: A really nicely written article that Saqib's done a great job of improving. It reflects the excitement and bustle of this city really well. --Nick talk 23:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article needs copyediting for spelling and grammar issues. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely, but I regret I won't cause I'm not not native English speaker. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please continue your work, if you want, i will try to help with the eat section but maps & pics would be very good before October. jan (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Soft support: Saqib, i think this is the best Karachi article i have seen so far. Nevertheless i would like to raise some points:
 * 1) Pics: B/W picture in Understand are not really helpful for today's travellers imho. In general more pics would be great, to ensure each subsection has at least one.
 * 2) Maps: I can accept that there are not districts but it would really help to have then a set of detailed maps, e.g. airport area, south and an overview.
 * Buy: I understand the Saddar is an area but could you add a listing for the cooperative market? Maybe geo data for the central point of Saddar as well? My problem in mega cities (same goes for Delhi) is orientation.
 * Eat: The intro part is to long. Is there a reason you didn't add geo data? Today i see lots of travellers just taking this data and plug it into google maps.
 * Do, See & Sleep: Very good work!
 * Jan, ultimately your comment is here. Many thanks for your suggestions and appreciations, actually I was expecting you to comment on Karachi article since a long time. I'll respond to your concerns below one by one:

I'll definitely need your help to further improve the article. As for photos, I would like to tell you that in mid-September this year, Wikimedia's officially recognised affiliate in Pakistan is organising a "Wikipedia Takes Your City" photo contest in Karachi and I'm part of this contest. I want to make you guys sure that we'll have plenty of photos related to Karachi in mid-September. Also, I want you to have a look at Talk:Karachi but unfortunately the things are getting late due to some reasons. --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Pics: I thought such old photographs are useful when we talk about history of the city but if think they're not useful, I've no problem removing all of them.
 * 2) Maps: You know what I created a static map for Karachi last year but I removed it from the article per here. But I would like to tell you that I've plans to draw a new static map which will be more detailed then the one I created previously and I hope the map will be ready before the article goes live on the main page.
 * Buy: Okay. I will do it.
 * Eat: I'll start trimming down the section as early as possible.


 * Let's discuss the blurb. You improved it, AndreCarrotflower, but it still bugs me. How about "Once an important port city in British India, Karachi, now Pakistan's largest metropolis, blends glass-and-steel modernity with the colonial architecture of yesteryear"? I think we need to make sure the blurb doesn't try to pack so much into one sentence that it weakens the syntax. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The overuse of the word "colonial" bothered me too. I fully approve of the new blurb. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for October 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mitzpe Ramon

 * Support. As I said, I think this is a fascinating and really good article. What do the rest of you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A really nice article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good! --Danapit (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, and thanks for your positive feedback --Tamuz (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (the article's main contributor)
 * And please also provide feedback at its star nomination. Tamuz (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Well done, seems like an interesting place too. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support & Suggestion The article looks really good. BTW there isn't any OtBP for April 2014. How about featuring Mitzpe Ramon already then? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding scheduling, if it were run in April it would coincide with Golan Trail, March 2014's FTT, which is also located in Israel. See Golan Trail's nomination discussion for more details. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't notice that. Then I guess we need to look for some other article for April. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Before we feature this article, something needs to be done about the dynamic map. Though the town site is shown, the default frame dimensions and zoom level leave most of the important sights off the right margin of the map. Could someone with more expertise in this area please fix it? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would support featuring this, but only after we feel it's time to take down the "don't go to Israel" warning from the Israel page. Regardless of whether this is off the beaten path or away from the fighting, it still requires a trip to Israel to get there, and we don't want to both discourage that and feature it simultaneously. Texugo (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mitzpe Ramon in the southern half of the country while the last month's events that have made it to the news are about 100 km further north - on the other hand those areas include the country's major airport. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are multitudinous other options for arriving in Israel besides Ben-Gurion Airport. Travellers can fly into Egypt or Jordan and then cross into Israel by land while avoiding the general vicinity of Gaza entirely. Respectively, the Egypt-Israel crossing at Eilat is even further south than Mitzpe Ramon, and the three Jordan-Israel crossings are also well out of rocket range. Perhaps we should put an infobox at the top of the Mitzpe Ramon article, but as far as cancelling the feature on short notice, I don't think that's a strong enough reason. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to cancel it, just to suspend it until it makes more sense to recommend a trip to Israel. For most people it wouldn't make much sense to plan a trip to Israel that doesn't even include any of the major cities. Texugo (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We should not cancel the feature as for now but an infobox to Get in would surely be useful. Perhaps also a Plan B. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cautionbox added to the Get in section. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should consider the situation again closer to featuring time. Hamas has "promised" to shoot rockets at Ben Gurion Airport again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And since that time, a ceasefire was arrived at and has held so far. As long as that continues, no problem in featuring this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for October 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Travel photography

 * Strong support, as someone whose own travel-photography portfolio encompasses thousands of images. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support You've done a lot of work on this article. I like to photograph but know much more about art than about sophisticated photographic equipment, so I'll defer to the knowledge of others. As long as experts on photographic technology and techniques are satisfied, I am, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A concern is that it may focus too much on the gadgetry, not enough on how to actually use it &mdash; visual design and useful techniques, Is that something that you could improve, looking at it from the artistic side? Pashley (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me give that some thought. My artistic sensibility in regard to photography is greatly influenced by my understanding of how to read space and appraise the composition of a painting, and I think my views wouldn't necessarily be shared by everybody. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Any further comment? This is still tagged "pending stronger consensus" above. Is there a consensus? I'm willing to do some fixing if any requirement is pointed out. Pashley (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no issues with the article whatsoever, but I like for there to be more feedback than this before I'm willing to describe a consensus as "strong". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Good topic, should make it. jan (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for October 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Calgary

 * Strong support as nominator. Copious listings formatted properly, a full slate of events and festivals, a street map and a map of the public transit system, as much info as you could want in "Understand", "Get in" and "Get around"... what an article!


 * Could use some more photos, but that's an easy fix as far as I can tell. It shouldn't be hard to find material on Commons. I'd like to see it on the Main Page in September 2014.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I've followed the progress of this article, too. It's really good, and we definitely should feature it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is an easy call. Great work. Pity that not all of the wide range of listings are on the map, but that might be changed in the future, and it's still a good guide. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Yeah, the article does look comprehensive, User:Country Wife has done and does a great job on this article. Some more pictures wouldn't hurt, though and like Julia I'd really like to have the coordinates in all the listings by the time Calgary gets featured. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All listings now have coordinates, and I've completed my first pass on the article. I also just added another half-dozen stub listings which now need details & coords :( I've been really impressed by the great work that has been done by the WT/WV folks who came before me; it's a pleasure to work on an article that's already in such good shape. And the existing photos are awesome! I'll have to see what I can do about adding more photos, but my city isn't at its most photogenic just yet.Country Wife (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Outstanding article by User:Country_Wife. I dared to add the mapframe to make the geo data visible. Only minor quibble: Some more pictures would be nice. N.B. Is there in September already some kind of "Indian Summer" in Calgary,too? I know it is more in the New England states but i remember lots of trees. jan (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for September 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Vava'u

 * Not yet. I will support this nomination after the red-linked photos are dealt with, a map is created and inserted, a pagebanner is created and inserted, and all the old-style links are changed to the current external linking practices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I agree with you Ikan. I just thought I'd put ahead and nominate it to invite myself and others to plunge forward, since it's otherwise really good for OTBP.  The earliest it could be featured at any rate is November 2014, which is plenty of time. Rastapopulous (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but I will say that Rastapopulous' strategy of using a DotM nomination as a catalyst for improvements to a "close but no cigar" article is interesting. I think there's definite potential in this article, and I imagine I'll be in full support of it once the fixes Ikan cited are executed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, folks. I'd love to see this article improved as discussed above—but if we're not going to do it, this nomination needs to be slushed. We should not be in the habit of keeping nominations alive for a long time contrary to consensus solely to remind us to get to work on them (especially because that tactic doesn't seem to be terribly effective anyway). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. My feeling is that it's fine to nominate an article you're not sure is completely ready, but if you know it definitely isn't ready, it's best to improve it first, then nominate. It's worth noting that two of the problems I mentioned above have been dealt with: The red-linked photos are gone and the external links have been converted to current practices. However, it still needs a pagebanner and a map, and it could use a few more photos if possible (though it does already have 4). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A pagebanner has been added. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And a beautiful one at that! I'm almost ready to support featuring this article. It still needs a map and something in the "Connect" section, and then I think it'll be ready to go. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've created and added the map to the article. --Saqib (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And now I've added some information to Connect (harvested from 3rd party sites using tweezers and microscope...). It would be nice if we could find some Voyager who's actually visited Tonga. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan: when you're able (I know you're travelling at the moment), could you please weigh in on whether this article is featurable at this point? I'd like to run Vava'u in October 2014 if possible, and your support appears to be the deciding factor. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the article, guys! I'm a little concerned that we don't have on-the-ground info in "Connect," but the map is now OK (I enlarged it to 450px, so that the individual features are viewable). I'm OK with running the article, and for now, I give it my soft support, though with the hope that there will be an update between now and feature time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Yes, I'm so shameless that I'm giving this one a supporting vote. As this is a relatively small destination I guess we're already covering a relatively large part of the island's points of interest. BTW I also weeded out all the dead links in the article earlier today - it was a bit sad to find more than ten of them in such a short article. As I said before it would really be wonderful to if someone who's actually been there to have a look at the content of this article (User:Nurg who is based "only" a couple of 1000km away?). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added everything I've been able to google about the island, and as probably nobody of us has been there and the main contributor also can't help, the article is likely going to stay in the condition it is now. It looks like it doesn't suffice to get enough support votes, so unfortunately it looks like we have to send it to the slush pile :( ϒpsilon (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All content issues with the article have been addressed to the extent that Ikan, who had been the lone holdout, rescinded his "not yet" vote. All we're waiting on is one more "support" vote. Even if we don't get one between now and September (hard to believe), that still doesn't mean the article should be slushed. It's not unprecedented to put an article on the Main Page with less than four support votes, and it's not even written in policy anywhere - the four-vote thing is just an arbitrary rule of thumb I made up for myself to gauge the strength of a nominee's support, which no one has yet bothered to challenge. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Rastapopulous still has an outstanding "Not yet" vote. Nonetheless, I reiterate what I said above: it's also not unprecedented to feature a destination on the Main Page with less than unanimous support. Also noteworthy is that Rastapopulous said he thought the article was almost good enough for OtBP, so he jumped the gun on the nomination in the hopes that others would be inspired to whip it into shape. That actually did happen, and he hasn't weighed in since then, so does his "Not yet" vote still count? In effect, his judgment is of a previous and substantially less developed version of the article, not the current one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to get a comment from Rastapopulous before making any assumptions about whether he would rescind his "Not yet" vote. I'm still concerned about the lack of up-to-date info in "Connect," though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I've added everything about communication I could find. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rastapopulous' last contribution to Wikivoyage was in October 2013. I suppose it's not completely outside the realm of possibility that he'd weigh in, but it strikes me as highly unlikely. However, given that the concerns he cited as getting in the way of his full support have all been dealt with, I don't think it's unreasonable to a) assume that he would be in support of the article now, and, more to the point, b) not let an outstanding and outdated "Not yet" vote from an inactive contributor stand in the way of an article that everyone else agrees is worth featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, for the record. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for September 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

El Camino Real
Outcome - FTT for September 2014. --Saqib (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure about the blurb; if you can think of anything better, please change it. But this is a really good article, and even if its starnom is slushed, it's still plenty good enough to feature on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (as article creator). I beefed up the blurb a bit Pur ple back pack  89    00:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Pashley (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tallinn

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Minor quibbles: do we really need to list hairdressers under "Cope"? And if so, we should convert the "Buy" templates to "Listing" templates, because as it is there are two each of #s 1 through 4 on the dynamic map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I took up the matter on Tallinn's talk page. I think they are not relevant for visitors from further away and could be removed altogether. (If one could get a haircut or new glasses in Niagara Falls (Ontario) for a third of a what it costs in Buffalo it would be relevant information for you but likely not for someone from Europe :)) ϒpsilon (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The question we should be asking in that case is, what proportion of the people who will read the article are Finns? My first instinct is to say "very few", because Finland is not an English-speaking country, nor does it have an especially large population. However, if the bulk of visitors to Estonia come from Finland, perhaps they might make a larger share of the article's readers than I realize.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good compromise would be to simply mention that a lot of visitors from Finland come to Tallinn to take advantage of lower prices on various goods and services, and that Finns, or travellers who will be visiting both Finland and Estonia, might want to take the opportunity to save some money if they happen to need a haircut, optical exam, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's the best solution. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. With the caveat that I've never been to Talinn, it seems like a very good article to me and ready to be featured. Thanks for nominating, ϒpsilon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article. I will use it this month and will try to add something (just in case there is something missing). jan (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for August 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Chicago/Far Northwest Side

 * Comment The article needs a pagebanner, and some of the photos may need to be enlarged, but the writing is so entertaining. I think we need to discuss whether a neighborhood in Chicago can really be off the beaten path, though. Would this be more appropriate as a DotM, even though this part of Chicago is not really a tourist destination? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments: I'm not going to officially register my support or non-support of this article until I read it (see below), but to address Ikan's question about OtBP vs. DotM, my own opinion is that similar guidelines should apply to districts as to city destinations. When we have cities as featured articles, the question we ask is whether the average resident of a country other than the one in which the city is located would have ever heard of the destination - if so, DotM; if not, OtBP. So I think it would be good in this case to ask whether those outside of Chicago's metro area have ever heard of the Far Northwest Side. Now there are some pretty famous neighborhoods in the world - New Orleans/French Quarter, London/Westminster, and Tokyo/Shinjuku come to mind - that, assuming guide or better status, would work great as DotM's. But other than the Loop (and the Magnificent Mile, which redirects to the Near North), I don't know of any Chicago neighborhoods that are famous enough outside Chicagoland to justify featuring them as anything other than OtBP.


 * As to when to feature it, I envision May 2014 as the ideal month: well after O'Hare's tenure as FTT, and before the worst of the blistering summer heat.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel like there's an awful lot of Chicago on this page. We already have O'Hare and the skyline guide nominations, and now a district? I grant that the Chicago guide is quite arguably our best city guide, but this is starting to feel like overkill.
 * I'd also want to point out that if we do feature this, we'd be setting quite the precedent. We've never featured a district article in this manner before, and I think we should be aware of the potential implications of doing so. The strength of a district article relies not only on the content of the district article itself but also the quality of content on the main city page (and to a lesser extent the strength of the other district articles), seeing as there is plenty of info there (Get in and Get around info in particular) that would also be necessary for travelers to know. That isn't a problem with the Chicago guide, but it should be something to keep in mind for other cities. I'm not necessarily opposed to featuring a district, but just want to point out that it would be setting a precedent for others. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I think Perry's point that Chicago is being featured so much is a very good one. Therefore, we could consider waiting until 2015 to feature this district article. I'd also like to explore further his other points about district articles. To what degree does the strength of a district article rely on the quality of the main city page and articles about neighboring districts? Perhaps this should be discussed further on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Another comment. We actually have featured a district before: New Orleans/Lower 9th Ward, after discussing and agreeing (I think) that it may sometimes make sense, particularly in the case where the huge city has already been featured a while ago, and when the district has a character sufficiently distinct from the rest of the city. See Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates and the individual nomination discussion here. I think a good case could be made for this one on the basis of the notion of visiting Poland in the Midwest! Still, though, I think the really best Chicago district feature would be Chicago/Bronzeville to coincide with Black History Month in the U.S. (February), since it's one of the most historic African-American neighborhoods in the country after Harlem, but unfortunately not well known to non-Chicagoans. Anyway, if featured, this should definitely be OtBP—it's pretty rare to visit this area for any visitor to Chicago. --Peter Talk 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply I see that Chicago/Bronzeville is a star article, so yes, it's definitely better to feature (or at least feature first, with plenty of time between featuring that neighborhood and this one). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness, this would be a star article too if nominated. I think that's true of all the Chicago districts, actually. --Peter Talk 19:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I totally forgot about the Lower 9th Ward. Well, that basically nukes most of my argument out of the water. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support wholeheartedly. This reminds me of some of the hidden-gem neighborhoods on Buffalo's Far East Side. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article still needs a custom pagebanner. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW Support. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for August 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian Railway

 * Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost support. It is a great topic, one of the world's classic routes, and the article is basically fine.
 * However, there are links in the footnote format which we decided to stop using a while back, some external links that are broken and some that may be questionable. I think it needs a final polish before it is ready for prime time. Pashley (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made some copyedits and removed dead links. The German article is quite good and I plan to translate some of that content too. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Translation from German completed (although it would perhaps not hurt to have a native English speaker to fix any funny sounding passages I've possibly introduced). I've also added a bunch of pictures to make the article more lively and colorful. Wouldn't this awesome itinerary be something for for instance August and then we could save Electric systems for the last empty slot in the table above? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 *  Conditional support. One concern I have is that the article is classed as an itinerary, yet the vast majority of it is given over to background information ("Understand", "Get In", information on ticket pricing and visas, etc.) A tiny, context-free list of places that the train passes through does not suffice, IMO, for the "itinerary" portion of this... itinerary. If it were me, I'd use Across Canada by train as a model for how that section could be expanded. I might even take a line or two to describe the main attractions in or significance of the towns along the route, especially the more important or tourist-friendly ones. I would go so far as to say I'd be hesitant to feature this article without a revamp of that section, but we have a great deal of time between now and August.


 * Those concerns aside, there's great information here. As ϒpsilon said, the article could use some attention from a native English speaker, but that seems an easy enough fix to me. As far as timing goes, I still don't quite see eye-to-eye with JuliasTravels on the subject of Electrical systems, and I would be dead-set against either disqualifying that article entirely or instituting a "backup list" or any other formal process of ranking articles according to subjective interpretations of how interesting or worthy of Main Page coverage they are. However, it's certainly not unprecedented to shift the schedule around because of concerns about time to feature, and in the case of pretty much anywhere in Russia, travel-friendly weather conditions occur for a short enough time of the year that your argument for moving Trans-Siberian Railway to August in favor of Electrical systems is definitely compelling.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, you're right that the article doesn't really have a proper itinerary section. I'll try to make a list of cities and towns that the train passes through and some stuff from our articles about those places. The German version has a list of important stops but it's a bit messy (the distances written in a confusing way) so I'll have to polish it a bit. But as the Trans Siberian is very high on my personal travel wish list I have absolutely no problems working with the article.
 * Electrical systems should most definitely not be thrown off the list. After all, I spent two evenings expanding and reviewing it before nomination. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Sure, some polishing up here or there - but essentially a great article. I've travelled most of this route and this itinerary combined with some destination articles along the way should be an excellent guide. I agree a somewhat more complete list of stops or perhaps two or three suggested itineraries for when one doesn't have time to do the whole trail would be useful. Plenty of time to fix that. It's not a no-go for me without that, though. We've had great trans-continental travel topics with limited practical route advise before (eg. Silk Road). Still, better if you can add it. Good work! JuliasTravels (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I've done a pass through it adding wikilinks and copy editing; I found very few non-native speaker oddities and no serious ones, but did fix a few. Pashley (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I know this article doesn't need more support to run, but I just want to congratulate everyone who helped make it so good! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for August 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

City of London

 * Support Wikimania 2014 organising team expressed that they would like to see this article more improved and I think it would be a good idea to nominate it for Dotm during the conference so it can be served as a guide for conference attendees. --Saqib (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - and given that we'll have to choose either this article or London/Hampstead in 2014, my vote goes with this one. Demonstrating to Wikimania participants how useful our site can be is something I'm behind 100% as long as it doesn't involve unnecessarily rerunning an article, as would have happened the previous year with Hong Kong. Especially because Wikivoyage seems to be seen by the wiki community as sort of the redheaded stepchild of the WMF family. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * London was featured for two months just two years ago, so this would be somewhat of a re-feature. Hong Kong would have been re-featured 8 1/2 years after it was first DotM. AHeneen (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I edited a few deviations from our current external links policy, and there may be others, but I didn't see them. The article looks very good. I don't have any strong opinion about whether to favo(u)r featuring this article over the Hampstead article, but since the Wikimania 2014 organising team would like work to be done on it, that's all to the good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, even with the London overlap. Only minor issue. I hoped that either June or July 2014 will be the cross WV place of Travemünde. I will talk to the German WV community. Regards, jan (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I like the idea of featuring the article to coincide with Wikimania. As noted above, though, this is a district of London, which was just DotM for two months in 2012 (for the Olympics). AHeneen (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for July 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Iqaluit

 * Comment: I am not completely sure this is yet ready to run. The obvious remaining tasks are to put prices in the restaurant listings and create a map. But Baffin Island is extraordinary beautiful (I haven't been there but have seen a lot of photos and I believe I remember overflying it, too), and this article is close to ready if not yet quite ready. What do you all think? By the way, part of the appeal of Iqaluit is to learn about Inuit culture, and the photo is of St. Jude's Anglican Cathedral, built to resemble an igloo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Further comment Though Iqaluit is a very considerable distance from Churchill, I could understand if a consensus develops to take a year or more between different Arctic Canadian featured articles. That said, how long are we going to take between Soltau and Travemünde, both small German towns? My feeling is, let's first see if we agree on putting this article in the pipeline, and then we could talk about scheduling, but I thought I'd preemptively address the issue of similarity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Soft support It lacks a banner (don't know if it is difficult to get pics) and prices would be good. Concerning distance, Soltau and Travemünde will be at least six month apart, same should go for these artic articles. jan (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Good point about the banner, Jan. I don't think we should feature the article until it has a customized pagebanner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Banner in. Jjtkk (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice banner. Thanks! I'll add some of the great photos from Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Danapit (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We definitely need prices in the listings, but given the fact that we now have an individualized pagebanner, I don't think the lack of prices alone would be enough to make me vote anything other than support. Per Ikan and Jan's comments regarding Churchill, as well as "Time to feature" and the information in the article itself, I think June or July 2014 would be an ideal timeframe. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for July 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Rail travel in the United States

 * Support. Let's try to schedule this as far away from Across Canada by Train as possible ;) --Peter Talk 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, and I echo Peter's caveat re: Across Canada by train. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with the above said. jan (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I also agree with the comments above. Good, informative article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support sats (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for July 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Manhattan

 * Support. Perry has done a wonderful job with this guide and various district guides, and other folks have helped out. I've edited the "time" tab. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. An absolutely essential travel destination for everyone, and more to the point, a first-rate article. Huzzah to Perry, Ikan and the rest. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The guides listing could gain more coordinates entries. On a side note I looked for the New Yorker cheesecake, but didn't find recommendations.--Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I take your point on coordinates, but on your other point: Specific listings are in district articles, and the overall guide to New York City covers New York cheesecake a bit in its "Eat" overview and mentions a few places where you can get it. Are you suggesting that each borough's guide needs to give an overview of where to get cheesecake, pizza, bagels, and other New York-style food in that borough? That seems too duplicative to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think I do take your point on coordinates. Coordinates should be in district articles, presumably not on the main page for Manhattan; isn't that right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Clearly if articles like Russia and Canada have coordinates, Manhattan should as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I misunderstanding what coordinates are? They're latitude and longitude coordinates, given for listings, correct? Or are they something else? So far, I'm not finding latitude and longitude coordinates on either of those articles. Am I confused? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Ikan Kekek, So the cheese cake thing is a side comment. I happened to have visited Manhattan 4 weeks ago and didn't check the New York page and was disappointed to find no reference of it in Manhattan. As the New York article mentions mostly places inside of Manhattan this direct hints could go into the Eat section of Manhattan, with the New York City mentioning that one finds good cheese cake in Manhattan?
 * Concerning the coordinates, which is the real comment is that in Manhattan mostly all listings of see, do, eat or sleep miss the long and lat coordinates indeed. The coordinates are very useful for a stranger with gps phone plus all listings with coordinates show up in the dynamic pages. See Frankfurt or Vienna's subpages. Best --Axisstroke (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Axisstroke. I think I understand now: The problem is that listings in Manhattan district articles lack coordinates. I guess the thing about food coverage is something worth discussing, and maybe I should be less concerned about duplicating things in the overviews of New York City and Manhattan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Axisstroke, I finally had the chance to take some time and revamp Manhattan. Some of it duplicates things in New York City, but I've changed the tone, and I hope the New York way of speaking comes through. Let me know what you think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Ikan Kekek, Great work indeed, I do think this is very helpful indeed. Can't wait to revisit. (: Best --Axisstroke (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this sufficient for you to support featuring the article, or not yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohh, hmm didn't know that I have a vote. Some district of Manhattan improved a lot in 2014 concerning the geo-tagging, so I'm happy to vote with Support. --Axisstroke (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to vote can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - One more thumb up needed? Coordinates for the POIs would be great, but otherwise I don't really have anything to complain about. Manhattan and its sub-articles have sights, activities, restaurants and other stuff to keep you entertained for at least a week. Finally, I believe that Ikan and other native English speakers have read through the articles a couple of times so there are probably no problems with language or grammar either. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for June 2014. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Travemünde

 * Support I know it is missing a map but OSM resulted in errors for the last two days. I will do this later. Drink is weak because most bars are not permanent and changing every season. jan (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This seems like an interesting place, but the lack of any listings at all in "Drink" prevents me from lending this nomination my unreserved support. I understand that the bar scene in Travemünde is flighty and changeable, but I can't believe there aren't at least a few relatively permanent establishments that can be listed individually. Other than that, it's a well-written article and a great candidate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some permanent bars but that are either the "seedy waterholes" or posh hotel bars. I can list them but i feel not really comfortable...jan (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Added listings and the map. jan (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support and I like the idea of cross WV nomination. Danapit (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments The tourism office should be listed under the heading "Tourist Information" at the end of the "Understand" section (unless this has changed). The lighthouse information should be placed in the "See" section and I would add a little information about the Maritime Museum inside the lighthouse. Also, more information about the "Old Town" would be nice. It seems to be the main tourist area aside from the beaches yet the article doesn't tell us much about it except that it is old. Articles like this that have only a few attractions should give more details about what makes the places interesting. The picture of the old town is beautiful, but the descriptions leaves me wanting to know more. (ex: Can I tour the buildings? Are any of them museums? Are they shops? Any interesting information about some specific buildings?) ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @CW: As this article is now a star nom, i check the mos requirements and other star articles and most list the tourism office in the intro section (if their is one). I'm open to move it but don't want to start an issue with different opinions. Concerning the maritime museum, it is small but i will add some info. Most buildings in the old town are private but the public buildings (aka shops, restaurants) can be usually visited without problem. I will try to improve. Thank you for the ffedback. jan (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Visitor information goes in Understand; see, e.g., Chicago. LtPowers (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed, our star Lausanne is different. I will change that then as well. jan (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lausanne doesn't look different to me; the travel bureau is under "Understand". LtPowers (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had used other articles that listed tourist information under "Understand" as a model when I created the Franklin (Venango County) page, so I just assumed that was the standard. Personally, I like these in the 'Understand' section instead of the lead, but I guess this isn't the place for that discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Seems like a pretty interesting small town. I'd love for there to be some more listings, but I figure the ones in the article are probably the only ones worth listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for June 2014. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Kimono buying guide

 * Support. A well-written guide by an author who obviously knows what he's talking about. I took the liberty of addressing what few issues the article had (namely, a complete lack of pictures and liberal use of first-person pronouns), and I now think it's clearly ready for featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to schedule this for April 2014; however, if Saqib manages to address the issues brought up by the community regarding World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka in time for the International Day For Monuments and Sites, I'd gladly put the kimono article off till later—we certainly have enough ?s in the FTT column. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, please feel free to schedule this for April 2014. I'm going to focus on improving Pakistan articles so no time for World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka anymore. --Saqib (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Andre, you did a great job whipping that article into shape. It's a fine article to feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support — Confirm it for April 2014. --Saqib (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support — Great cleanup, Andre! It would also be good to have a picture of those outer elements of the kimono like the belt and the special shoes . The ones I can find on Commons are only about the kimono itself. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for June 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hue

 * Comment My only real hesitation with this article is that it lacks a map. Otherwise, I think it's very much worth considering. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. As Ikan said, the lack of a map is the only real problem that sticks out to me in this otherwise magnificent article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I've never been to Hue, but the article seems fairly complete from and outsider's point of view. Indeed no map, and if it's "A place of beauty and tradition" I imagine there might be a more travel-inspiring banner to be found, and some even better pictures, but that shouldn't keep it from being featured. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I have not been to Hue myself, and composed the blurb based on some of the photos and other information in the article itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Danapit, the article has a beautiful new pagebanner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support — Okay, so this is a good detailed article but lacks a map. I'll do the map so can it be added to slot now? --Saqib (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I never followed up on this. Please add a map at your leisure. Thanks a lot! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This article has a pretty good map now. It could use a few more well-chosen photos, if possible, but it's ready to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for May 2014. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Vianden
Outcome - OtBP for May 2014. --Saqib (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing I haven't been able to fix yet is a proper map, with geo-locations for the listings. Frank did add a general overview map and this place is so tiny that a map is hardly necessary, but I'll see again if I can get it to work. Until now any coordinates I add seem to show up in the wrong places, so I'm doing something wrong (any help is appreciated, see the article's talk page). I do think it's a charming destination, not at all OtBP for Dutch or German visitors, but small and probably far less known to the rest of the world. I've changed the time to feature, and the general climate section in Luxembourg. Summer is in fact high season here. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, and I see the article now has a dynamic map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. For the record, Support from me too. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Pashley (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in case my remark in the nomination that the article is "ready for its closeup" wasn't sufficiently clear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

D-Day beaches

 * Strong support I think we should definitely put it on the frontpage in June. André is out of town but lets see what other people think. jan (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm actually not leaving until tomorrow. Anyway, I still think this would be best as a DotM, but however consensus ends up lining up, I would very much like to see this on the Main Page in June 2014, given the timeliness of the 70th anniversary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, see Talk:D-Day beaches. Pashley (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, D-Day beaches as DotM for June 2014 would touch off a scheduling nightmare, given how we're trying to avoid any two US destinations on the Main Page at any given time. Kimono buying guide can be rescheduled for any time with no problem (October 2014 to replace the controversial Electrical systems, for instance), so maybe it would be better off as FTT after all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Support — this is a good idea that might even get us some more visibility. Coordinates for everything would be good to have as this isn't a small town but a large area. Jan, you do mean FTT in May? The Featured Travel Topic changes the 21st of each month, so it has to be in May in order to be there on June 6th. Having it as DoTM for June would also work, but firstly the DotM section is already "congested" as everyone knows. More importantly, readers that might get inspired by our article to travel to France on June 6th might not have the opportunity to do so if they see the article just five days before. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ypsilon. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good Job AndreCarrotflower and good spot ϒpsilon, i forgot the 21st change schedule. jan (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. It looks like scheduling has been dealt with well. This also looks like an excellent article, and I'm glad it can be featured in conjunction with the 70th anniversary. It doesn't really matter to me whether it's handled as a DotM or a FTT. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As it is, Rail travel in the United States will coincide with Chicago/Far Northwest Side, but only August 10th-21st. Not an ideal solution, but IMO the best that can be done under the circumstances. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vava'u and Chicago/Far Northwest Side could be flipped if Vava'u gets enough support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...which would mean Chicago/Far Northwest Side and El Camino Real would coincide, and for twice as long as the scenario with Rail travel in the United States. (This is why I get so prickly when folks propose a change to the schedule.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I have to look at things more carefully when I make such suggestions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rereading that last comment of mine, I hope you didn't interpret it as a personal attack. I wanted to explain myself (perhaps as sort of a backdoor apology) vis-à-vis my general approach to DotM, not to denigrate your specific suggestion to flip Vava'u and Far Northwest Side, or anyone else's. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't interpret that as an attack at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for May 2014. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Xiamen

 * The most important tourist area of Xiamen is Gulangyu, which we cover in a separate article. The two articles need some sort of joint evaluation.


 * Perhaps more discussion is also needed at Talk:Xiamen, though I do not think so. Pashley (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost support . Nice article, but is there a reason why addresses are omitted? There are no directions in place of addresses for the sights too. Without some form of help finding main attractions, I wouldn't really agree that this is at guide status. --Peter Talk 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost support for basically the same reasons as Peter. The raw material is very nice indeed, but we need to add addresses to the listings in "See", "Do", "Eat", and "Sleep" and (perhaps just as importantly) place them into the usual listing format. Also, it's a more minor concern, but could we possibly make a better map for this article? There's next to no detail in the one it has currently. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I made some changes aimed at dealing with those objections. More comment is now solicited.
 * I don't do maps. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I gather that addresses are not helpful in Xiamen from the fact that you added directions instead. If you could confirm that, I'll switch to support. --Peter Talk 20:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I did add addresses when I could find them, but I am currently nowhere near X and the web was not always helpful. In general, giving or getting directions in China is difficult. Many Chinese do not seem to know addresses or to use N/S/E/W in directions; they just name a nearby building (whose name the poor foreigner often does not know & cannot pronounce!) or the nearest subway or BRT stop. Pashley (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I kind of figured as much. Support. --Peter Talk 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to look at districtifying Xiamen before we proceed? See Xiamen and Talk:Xiamen. I'd say the current structure is OK, but it is both unusual & somewhat ad hoc, so other opinions are needed.

Administratively, Xiamen is a city with six districts: Siming = S half of Xiamen Island + Gulangyu, Huli = N half of the Island, plus four mainland suburbs. We partly follow that structure, giving each mainland suburb its own article (though three out of four are only stubs) but we deviate from it too, giving Gulangyu its own article and treating most of Siming + Huli (all of Xiamen Island) together.

Related questions are article names & IsPartOf links. Should the current Xiamen article be mostly at "Xiamen/Xiamen Island" and the others at "Xiamen/Gulangyu", "Xiamen/Jimei" etc.? Currently the IsPartOf link for Gulangyu points to Xiamen but the mainland suburbs have links to Southern Coast (Fujian), Is that OK?

The current structure is mostly my work, but I was making it up as I went along. It needs review. Pashley (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Some suggestions on improvement; I think the "Get around" section should have the sublistings ("by bike", etc.). It's already mostly organized that way but the headings aren't there. There are an awful lot of food specialties but the article only tells us where we can try one of them. The panorama pictures are not that clear (I also think that panoramas on WV break up the text in an unattractive way in general). The "See" section has an awful lot of text at the beginning. Is there any way to Listingify?


 * As far as districting goes, as it is, this city does not have enough attractions to justify districting. It might work to subdivide the "See" section by the districts assuming the sites are not all clumped into one. That could also help solve the text issue. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree on the "get around" section. To me, adding subheadings would just clutter it; the current text with things like by taxi bolded is fine.
 * I have broken up both the See and Eat sections by adding headings for the main areas for sites and restaurants. Pashley (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted page banners for both Xiamen and Gulangyu using the only photos I found on Commons that were the right shape. The Xiamen photo is not great, and the Gulangyu one is downright awful. Would anyone who knows more of graphics than I (my skills here are barely above those of the average turnip) care to find something better? Commons has dozens of photos for both places; perhaps one of those could be edited to fit? Pashley (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Plus the Xiamen one is less than 1800 pixels wide, and one discussion Wikivoyage_talk:Banner_Expedition suggests 1800 is needed. Pashley (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks to User:Danapit Pashley (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The blurb says that "this tourist haven is little-known to those outside China." That is kind of a contradiction. Hop can it be a haven if no one knows about it? Nick1372 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Pashley, Xiamen sees lots of domestic tourists, but few from outside China. In any event, I wrote that blurb myself, and I will be the first to say that it's not my best work. If you'd like to edit or rewrite it, I would encourage it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I rewrote, but if someone else can do better, go ahead. Pashley (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for April 2014. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Biscayne National Park

 * Support. A well-written article all around. It coincides with Rail travel in the United States, but the latter article can be rescheduled for pretty much anytime. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good article about an interesting-sounding place. I made a few changes in keeping with current external links practices. Thanks for finding this article, Andre! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Pashley (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - One more support vote needed? You're welcome. However, the latter half of the article definitely needs some more color, so I'll have a look at Commons for some pretty photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for April 2014. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Swedish phrasebook

 * Support - Well, I proposed it for FTT. It's a guide article and I've looked through it, fixed some minor things and added some pictures to give it a bit more life. If there's anything that needs to be fixed, please tell me. Yeah, and the blurb is ripped off the article... ϒpsilon (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If native or other highly advanced speakers are satisfied with this phrasebook, then so am I. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support assuming the translations are accurate. It's extremely comprehensive and I especially like the abundance of photographs (unusual for a guidebook). However, I would oppose running it in July or August as I feel that would violate the spirit of our "one feature per country per month" agreement. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I just thought those two articles would be cool combination. Let's save this one for some later time then. BTW we have many other phrasebooks and other travel topics that are already guides and could be nominated for FTT after a brief check by someone familiar with the topic. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, Ypsi, I have no issue with putting it on the schedule, I just would prefer to stay away from those two months in particular. On the contrary, we're short on FTT candidates, and I'd frankly rather save myself or someone else the trouble of slogging through Category:Guide articles in search of a suitable replacement. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I also don't speak Swedish so I can't vouch for the translations, but if Ypsilon fixed it himself I'm confident they are good. Otherwise, seems a useful and comprehensive guide. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I spell terribly in Swedish and get confused by the pseudo pronunciation guide, but from skimming it everything seems to be correct. Though, one could argue about the necessity of phrasebook for the Scandinavian countries, as virtually everyone speaks English. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 02:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for April 2014. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park

 * Support, obviously, as nominator. One minor caveat is the "See" section, which could stand to be fleshed out, though it appears to mention all the essentials. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It should perhaps be mentioned that this article was slushed way back in 2004, but needless to say, the difference between the article now and a decade ago is night and day. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Very good article, it seems to me, as someone who has yet to visit Australia. I'd like to hear from Aussies and experienced travellers to Australia on whether this park in the interior is off the beaten path through the sheer effort of getting there - do many people fly in to Ayers Rock Airport, or is a trek across the bush the more common option? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @James A, @Sats - what say you: DotM or OtBP? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I also haven't visited, so can't give a completely sure response, but I'd say DotM. The 'bush' in Australia isn't that wild if you stick to the main highways, which Uluru goes near, so getting in by road can be simple in a luxury BMW if you so wish. Hardly anyone goes to Uluru airport, but Alice Springs Airport is the normal way in AFAIK. So, it's not that off the beaten path, especially considering its fame and the number of international tourists that visit during their trips to Australia. But it's certainly not a daytrip. I'd be interested to hear Sats' thoughts, considering he's in Perth (not that it's any closer!) James A ▪ talk 08:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, this one is surely DotM for me. This place is iconic for Australia, receives loads of visitors and is easy to reach, even on your own. For diversity, I kind of like the idea to feature a park as DotM, and there aren't that many that would qualify. However, if it's a problem in terms of scheduling, I will not object if we feature it as OtBP. It's not that much of a difference to me, in the end. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking back, this is unquestionably a DotM. In all honesty, if I remember correctly, I knew in my heart this belonged in DotM but really wanted to hear someone argue in favor of OtBP—the slot that I eventually put Mohenjo-daro into was empty for a long time. National parks as DotM's are not even really unprecedented—before it was slushed, Yellowstone was categorized uncontroversially as DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - still pending stronger consensus, huh? :) The article has all the information you'd need for a visit, it's quite well written and Uluru is also on my personal travel wishlist... so here's one more support vote. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for March 2014. --Saqib (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Paramaribo

 * Support I haven't been to Paramaribo, but it seems like an interesting place. It is the capital of a country and its population is a quarter of a million, and cities that size have been DotM, but I wonder whether this city, which is certainly not on the usual tourist trail, wouldn't work better as an OtBP. Your thoughts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have visited many countries in the world. Last month I visited Paramaribo and my first thought was: why not before? What struck me was that I mainly met Dutch tourists. Where are the other nationalities? It is a relaxed city, a hidden gem, with extremely friendly people of a very mixed composition. OtBP? Maybe? But as many Dutch can find it, why not others? A nomination for DotM is a good initiative. WiDi (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, with a bit of vamping. Either would work, I think. It's a country capital but indeed, few have heard of it. I've spent some time there and it sure is laid-back ;-) To be honest, I was less blown away, and I've always thought the Dutch silly to flock to sleepy Paramaribo with so many other great South-American destinations (I kind of figured that's where the other nationalities are haha..). Inland Suriname I loved, however, and Paramaribo is indeed a very pleasant and friendly base from where to explore further or to kick back and gather your breath. Paramaribo is a package deal, with almost all visitors heading on to a jungle resort, sea-turtle watching on the beach or hopping on a boat downriver. For it to shine as the destination it is, we should put some extra effort in the country article or at least give some more "go next" options. But there's plenty of time for that. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost. "Buy" and "Go next" are in dire need of expansion. If Paramaribo is featured, it should definitely be as OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a national capital can possibly be off the beaten path. LtPowers (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, LtPowers? How about Honiara, Saipan, or Malabo? The mere fact of being a nation's capital is not sufficient per se to make a place on the beaten path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm never quite sure about this distinction. If it helps at all to get an idea; a total of some 200.000 people visit the country each year, with almost half of them "staying with family". (Of 900.000 Surinam people only some 500.000 live in the country). German tourists: about 600, US visitors: about 4500. So yes it's a national capital, but is it beaten track? JuliasTravels (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds rather off the beaten track. If there's general agreement, we can move this to an OtBP nom. Andre, how do you feel about the article now that it's been greatly enlarged and just plain well edited? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's a judgement call, we might also want to keep in mind that we seem more in need of OTBT suggestions than DOTM's. So yes, I'd agree. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @JuliasTravels -


 * "I'm never quite sure about this distinction" - no one is. I've tried several times now to start a discussion on what the threshold between DotM and OtBP should be, to no avail. Sadly (given the increasingly contentious and intransigent nature of our debates lately), I imagine the argument playing itself out repeatedly over each individual gray-area nomination until we come up with an answer to that question.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Ikan - after seeing the changes, I'm changing my vote to Support. I'd still like to see some of the listings in "See" expanded, and though I realize it's a tall order, very few of the listings in "Eat" include prices. These are fairly minor quibbles, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've slotted Paramaribo for OtBP in March 2014 on a provisional basis, but I'm confused as to the "Time to feature" parameters. I'd love us to run it in February instead and keep Mitzpe Ramon in the March slot. Paramaribo posits the existence of "a short rainy season... from mid-December to mid-February", but the "Precipitation" row of the climate infobox does not bear out the notion that heavy rains extend past January. Given the fact that OtBPs are not put on the Main Page till the 11th of the month, I wonder if February would be an acceptable Time to Feature after all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried to make "time to feature" avoid rainy seasons, but it doesn't sound like it's in any way terrible to feature the page in February. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I have changed the schedule accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(reindent)I don't think anyone really objected to OtBP for Paramaribo, did they? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * LtPowers, 15:47, 9 October 2013: "I don't see how a national capital can possibly be off the beaten path." -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. I had forgotten about that because (forgive me, LtPowers) I found it such a ridiculous remark. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not ridiculous unless you think some countries have no DotM-worthy destinations. National capitals are, almost by definition, hubs of travel activity.  LtPowers (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should reply to my examples of Honiara, Saipan and Malabo in the DotM thread. Declaring all national capitals ipso facto DotMs, in my opinion, is logically unsupportable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do think that some countries have no DotM-worthy destinations. Example: I defy you to name somewhere in Nauru that's not off the beaten path. Its national capital (Yaren) is a redirect, for heaven's sake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * City-states and island nations are edge cases and a bit unfair to bring into a discussion about Suriname. But this is off-topic.  LtPowers (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The numbers don't lie. According to Google, all of Suriname receives 167,000 tourists per year, most of whom (according to Wikivoyage) are Dutch, and, inevitably, some of whom won't focus their vacation on (and may never even step foot in) Paramaribo. By comparison, New York City gets about 50 million a year, Paris about 44 million, and even previous DotM Rochester, which is by no means a blockbuster tourist destination, sees two million tourists per year. If we're looking for South American examples, Rio and Buenos Aires each see about five million per year.


 * Now I'm all for a more diverse Main Page, and I'd certainly not oppose someone nominating for DotM rather than OtBP a big and/or important city that doesn't see a lot of tourist traffic (possible example: Lagos). But to use the argument that "every country should be considered to have at least one DotM-worthy destination" in the service of opposing a pro-OtBP argument regarding a city with so many fewer tourists than a DotM probably should have, seems to be well outside the parameters provided by the words themselves. The people who are "beating" the proverbial "path" are tourists - there's no way around that, it's encoded in the terminology itself - and if there aren't many tourists visiting a particular place, it's "off the beaten path" by its very definition. Paramaribo seems to be marginally well-known among Dutch tourists - and if we were having this discussion on nl: rather than en:, I might be making a different argument - but, regardless of its political status, it's virtually unknown among those outside the Netherlands. Given that, the answer seems clear as crystal to me. Anyone who wants to make an argument based on diversity and fairness and stretch it so far as to have Paramaribo be DotM, would be better off arguing in favor of renaming our "second-tier destinations" feature to something other than "Off the Beaten Path".


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyway, with the sole exception of LtPowers, it seems to be unanimous that Paramaribo belongs in OtBP. Given that, absent any eleventh-hour objections from other parties, I'll move this nomination to the OtBP subcategory imminently. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Tourism is not the only purpose of travel, Andre; you know that. LtPowers (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem moving Paramaribo to OtBP, which fits, after a closer look, better for that city. WiDi (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment timestamped 16:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC), this nomination has been moved from the DotM category to OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - the table above says that Paramaribo :) still needs at least one more vote to make it official, so here's one more. WiDi & Julia worked hard on it as well as other Surinamese articles in October, adding up-to-date information. And we don't have South American destinations featured too often. (BTW it'd be really nice to have all Do's, Eat's etc. on the map, though). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Pashley (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for March 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Golan Trail

 * Support as nominator and main contributor of the article. If there's anything you think is missing, I'd be happy to know and fix. Tamuz (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. As its nominator said, this is an exceptionally well-written and comprehensive article. However, we should probably wait until 2015 to put it on the Main Page so it's not featured too close to Mitzpe Ramon.


 * Alternatively, given that Israel is a small country geographically and Mitzpe Ramon's "time to feature" includes Sep-Nov, might this article also be runnable in the Northern Hemisphere autumn of 2014? Simple solution that, of course, eluded me: hold Mitzpe Ramon off till at least September and run Golan Trail as FTT in its place.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks for making the changes in the schedule. Tamuz (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I've supported featuring this article for some time and planned on nominating it, then forgot. I think anyone who reads the article will be impressed by its high quality. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Very well-written. One issue I have though is that the red lines on the map (highways, right?) make themselves the focus of the map. I find when I try to look at the trail, my eyes are always wanting to look at the red instead. It's very hard to focus on the trail. Either a less distracting color for the highways or a more eye-catching color for the trail itself would be nice. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'd change that, hopefully next weekend. Tamuz (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for March 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Doha

 * Support User:StellarD has done a wonderful job on this article. It looks like an interesting destination, and it's certainly an important place in terms of world trade and international relations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support + comment: Thanks for the support! The best time is from November to March, with October and April as the shoulder season. I'd still like to replace the banner or opening photograph, as having the skyline feature in both seems redundant to me. StellarD (talk)
 * Musandam Peninsula and Mitzpe Ramon notwithstanding, the Middle East is one of those regions that doesn't see much representation on the Main Page. So I'm pleased to see an article up for nomination that's not only located there, but also impeccably well-written and deserving of my wholehearted support. I'd like to see this on the Main Page before the Northern Hemisphere winter ends. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Though some additional pictures would be good. jan (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Second thoughts. Having just stumbled upon this discussion, I wonder if perhaps OtBP might be more appropriate. Most people visit on business or on a layover, or because they have friends or family working here. Tourism contributes less than 1% to the economy, with most tourists being Saudi. That's not to say this will always be the case – with a few more years of development at this breakneck pace, Dubai will have some serious competion. StellarD (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that Doha is such a major city and has so many people coming through for work and business means that it is in no sense off the beaten path, even if very few visitors go there mainly for tourism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I made the blurb a bit more punchy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for February 2014 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mohenjo-daro

 * Support — This is the only Pakistani article at guide status right now so I think it should be featured as first Pakistani OtBP destination. --Saqib (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Good stuff.


 * Just a few minor things: might it be better to convert the information in "See" ("High western settlement", "Lower east settlement", "Museum") into listings? Obviously concepts like "address", "telephone number", "URL", "price" etc. wouldn't apply, but if we formatted them using the listing templates and just left those parameters blank, it would at least bring the section somewhat closer to our standard in terms of what it looks like. And, is there anything else that can be added to "Go next"?


 * Also, per the information in "Get around", I'm adding a "Time to feature" to your nomination.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like most of the "few minor things" I listed above were quickly attended to, hence the strike-through. But why does the pagebanner read "Archaeological Ruins at Mohenjo-daro" while the article is titled simply "Mohenjo-daro"? That is highly unorthodox. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for support Andre. Page banner title changed to article title. I was wondering if it can be featured in March next year? --Saqib (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that. I'll add it to the schedule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hurray! You made my day Andre. Many thanks. --Saqib (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, but would be best to choose one spelling of the name and use that throughout the article, for consistency. Would also be good to know if buses run back to Larkana in the evening as well: there's a restaurant at the site, but one needs to know if it's possible to get out of there after dinner. I would also just flesh out the Get Out section a bit more. The article is in no way too long yet and people are very unfamiliar with Pakistani destinations, so having a few more pointers wouldn't be bad. JuliasTravels (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, buses run until evening and one can get a motorcycle rickshaw even at mid-night. --Saqib (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Great job on this article, and it's an extremely important archeological site. A couple more photos, such as of relics on display in the museum, would be welcome, if available. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Images can be found here. Don't forget to check out both sub-categories as well. --Saqib (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I think all required copy editing has been done. It now has images of some famous relics, but the items shown are in the National Museum in Karachi, not the on-site museum. Anyone know if there are replicas on-site? Pashley (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for belated support. Yes, there're replicas in on-site museum but unfortunately, no images under free license available. I had plans to travel to Mohenjo-daro a few days back to grab some photos and some practical information for our article, but due to cold weather, I couldn't able to make it. --Saqib (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's strictly necessary that all pictures in a given article be taken at the destination itself, so long as the pictures pertain to what's contained in the text. Especially not in a case like this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower, Can I ask you for a favour please? A major festival will take place in Sindh from 1st Feb until 15th and the opening ceremony will be held in Mohenjo-daro. The festival is being organised to highlight the culture and heritage of Sindh. Just wondering if Mohenjo-daro could be featured in February instead of March? --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that actually works out great because Paramaribo is better featured in March than February, and that will also put more time between Mohenjo-daro and Karachi. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh great. Its so nice of you. Really! BTW, how much minimum gap is required between featuring two destination from same country? I'm planning to nominate (but not yet) Sindh to be feature early next year actually. Most probably for February for 2 reasons: pleasant weather and the Sindh Festival. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy actually says nothing about it, but there's a broad consensus (see Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates, #Schedule changes for Q4 2013, and #Clarence and Oakland) that we should, at the very least, not have any two destinations from the same country on the Main Page at the same time, and depending on what the slate of nominees looks like, that we should try to space them out as far as is feasible.


 * That being the case, there's plenty of flexibility built into the system. I certainly wouldn't have a problem featuring Sindh at that time—February is a long enough time after October to be justifiable, especially if there's a major festival going on (policy states specifically that the schedule can be altered if "an excellent guide for a timely event is found"). Where you might run into trouble is the fact that Sindh is a province, and there's no precedent for running a place so large as a featured article. I recall a long-ago discussion on some talk page about that topic; I don't think it was at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates, but I'll try to find it. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just saying it's uncharted territory and we'll probably need to run it through consensus.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All-right but its quite strange that we can't a province article (or a state in some countries) as DotM. After all, every place whether its a national park, a huge city, a small town, a country subdivision (province or state) or a country, all are called a "destination". In-fact, I'm waiting to see an article of a country featured as DotM someday which to me will be a very big milestone for WV. --Saqib (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but unfortunately it's not up to just you and me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it would be impossible to feature a province or even country, but only if it's a good guide (at a level we expect from cities). And we don't have a whole lot of those very well-covered regions, because it takes a lot of other developed articles :-) Although much better than before, I'm afraid Sindh is still a very long way from being a real guide region. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Julia, Sindh article itself is certainly ready to be featured but since the destination (city and town) articles of Sindh are not ready yet, it can't have the "Guide status template" right now. But I can be wrong, it would be great if you mention (on the talk page of Sindh article) about what is missing from the Sindh article. And btw, I'm planning to nominate it to be featured as DotM early next year so we've a very good time (a long one year) and possibility to make this possible. After all, I'm soon going to travel whole of Sindh so that I can gather the information for our articles. --Saqib (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure sure, that would be really great and I'd be happy to see it work :-) So go for it! What I meant was just that a region article on itself cannot be ready to feature when its subregions and important cities and other destinations are not properly covered, so we don't have a lot of eligible regions to feature. All the more reason to create them! JuliasTravels (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Btw, Andrew, I guess you don't know but the Northern Territory was actually featured as DotM back in 2009. This Australian state is giant and very big in area if compare to Sindh which is small. In-fact this state can be comparable in size to South Africa. --Saqib (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the Month candidates (which came about as a result of Northern Territory's nomination) was exactly the talk page discussion I referred to in my earlier comment. I thought I remembered the consensus being that country subdivisions shouldn't be run as features, but evidently I was wrong. Thank you, Saqib, for clarifying that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for February 2014 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Belarusian phrasebook

 * Support as nominator. For such an uncommon language, this article is astonishingly complete. Only one photo (added by me a few minutes ago), but how many pictures can a phrasebook really be expected to have? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support On the face of it, it looks good. I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if someone who knows the language would weigh in though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I kinda understand Belarusian, it's OK. Jjtkk (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I particularly love the sentence: "Я не зрабіў нічога дрэннага" haha :-) I don't speak Belarus but it seems a pretty good phrasebook and the idea of featuring one is nice. I wonder if it would make sense to add some more general Belarus pictures to make it a bit more visually attractive? We could think along the lines of many language course text books and e.g put a picture of the Minsk metro in the transport section, or something. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An obvious solution to the photo problem that, true to form, flew completely over my head. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for February 2014 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai

 * Support, obviously, as nominator. Normally this is where I'd praise certain sections of the article that I especially like, while pointing out areas that need minor improvement. But Mumbai is an article that's spectacular in a pretty uniform way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support That's quite a good article. There are a few MoS issues, in that many of the external links follow the previous standard of footnoting; I changed some and also put in some standard subheading names and moved some primary subsections to secondary ones. But any fixes should be pretty easy. A few more good, well-chosen photos would be welcome, but this article is pretty much ready to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Soft Support All districts don't have page banners and all are just usable. I like to see this featured but the pagebanners must be in place by the time of presentation. Otherwise this is one of our rare Indian articles that pass the test. jan (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may very well be wrong here, but I don't remember the lack of a pagebanner being an absolute disqualification for being featured. They're certainly nice for a page to have, but words like "must" aren't good to use in service of the enforcement of policies that don't yet exist. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andre: Must is maybe hard to i think we should strive to have banners for DotM/OtBP/FTT and is was rather a working list point i would have done by myself. Saqib took care of it and so its clear. Such points will never hold up a nomination because Ikan, you, me and others are pretty keen to make good showcases happen;) jan (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Soft support I love Mumbai and this is a really nice article. The districts are at a minimum and should have banners, and some more pictures would be good in general. However, the idea that Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here. doesn't work. It's a real pity there's no map or geo-coordinates for the dynamic maps, so it's hard to get a feeling for this huge city. I know it's not a requirement for guide status, but it'll be hard to use this one as a standalone guide. However, that shouldn't keep it from being featured, I guess. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To reference the ongoing discussion at this article's talk page and Talk:Main Page: the price of insisting on diverse Main Page feature candidates right here right now, despite our less-than-diverse pool of eligible articles, is that we'll often have to make do with "slightly irregular" nominees for the sake of that diversity. The solution is to improve our coverage of underrepresented areas of the world, so let's get crackin'. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, I've added page banner to district articles. --Saqib (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for January 2014 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Valle de Cocora

 * Support Another great article about Colombia! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Magnificently written - not that I'd have expected less from you, Peter - and perfectly timed for the emergence of the cold months on the far end of our schedule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support really a gem. jan (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support You have an entertaining style of writing, Peter, it's a really good article and it does look like an awesome destination. Even apart from any kind of discussions about articles living up to standards and so on when featuring, I think it's great to have this kind of places featured, just because it awakens travel spirits, at least in me :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for January 2014 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bargaining

 * Support generally, especially as something that can be used as filler at any time of the year. But I question the utility to the traveller of the "Bargaining as a problem in game theory" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support somewhat. I think I agree with you, Andre. The game theory is interesting but I would need to be convinced that reading it will or should have an effect on the behavior or thinking of travelers. Otherwise, I suppose the article is OK and would be fine with it being featured at some point. It somehow doesn't jump out at me as strikingly great or anything, but it's an important topic, and I think it's covered quite acceptably. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the topic is essential, regardless of issues raised by Andre and Ivan. sats (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Though a picture or two extra would be nice.Altaihunters (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for January 2014 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cairns

 * Support Needs some more pics and Get in needs a bit mosing but the rest is good. jan (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lukewarm support. In addition to the weak spots jan mentioned above, "See" is in desparate need of expansion, as well as "Get around" to a slightly lesser extent. But, provided those concerns are addressed, I'm of the opinion that this would be a great feature.
 * Climate-wise, this might also be a good article to feature in the Northern Hemisphere's early spring - March or April - given the usual trend of delaying fixes like the ones suggested above until the absolute last minute.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Andre, i took care of Get in. You might be surprised that See is so short but as you have not been to Cairns it is worthwile to note that the city serves as a gateway to the area and is more concentrated on doing things. Cairns is an outdoor park with not really much to see...jan (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a beautiful article. I accept Jc8136's explanation of why the "See" section is so short, and the rest strikes me as quite informative and I like the illustrative photos very much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept it as well, but I'd still like to see "Get around" fleshed out a bit more. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for December 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Musandam Peninsula

 * Support I know the Peninsula needs a map and some pics are missing but it will be done within the next weeks. I would be very grateful if someone helps with the map as sources are very limited. jan (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A map showing the position of the peninsula in the Gulf area would be very helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, with a few minor caveats. The article seems a bit too short. Could we possibly expand some of the sections, particularly "See"? (Alternatively, if the listings belong in city articles, could we make the links to those city articles more prominent, i.e. by adding "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, kudos on choosing a cover shot that's easily translatable into the banner format! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andre, going on a boat, hiking, trekking and the mountains are the main activities. There is no wide range of activities as the tourism industry has not really developped the area. The charme of Musandam is its silence and out of the civilised world touch... jan (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost . It would be great to have a Middle Eastern feature, and this is looking really great! Since it is a region article, its sub-destination articles should be usable. All that is needed for this is to add a couple Eat listings to Dibba (Musandam Peninsula) along with something in the See section (even if its just an explanation that there are no touristic sights). It would be nice to highlight these towns a little more in the Musandam Peninsula article too, if not creating a full "Cities" section. --Peter Talk 16:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that Dibba is my weak point so far. I will add some more infos but the border issue makes it hard and most non-GCC UAE residents avoid the hassle with the 48 hrs advance notice. I think i can reach an article with all section entries in a couple of weeks. jan (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Dibba looks usable now. --Peter Talk 14:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I support running this guide, even though both Dibba (Musandam) and Khasab need some work. I think the Dibba article is not quite usable yet, and one of the problems is that PO Boxes have been used in lieu of physical addresses for some entries (and I deleted those PO Box numbers as not useful for travelers to actually find the places in question). I haven't been to Dibba, so I don't know whether Dibba Ring Rd. is compact enough that no address numbers are needed for travelers to fairly easily find named businesses. The Khasab article is in pretty good shape right now and already a guide. The main problem with it is the red-linked photos, which may have to just be deleted. But the Musandam article itself has beautiful photos, clear text, and is about a place that seems like a real adventure, and which very few non-locals have ever heard of. I think that it would be an excellent Off the Beaten Path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to make as many photos as possible on my trip to Musandam but some sadly with quite a lot of people in it... I wrote to Joao on his travel blog if he could migrate his account to WV and upload his good pics again but so far he has not responded. I forgot to make some pics in Dibba without the Iphone and they are bad in quality (dusty). Dibba is so small that most people don't say 123 abc street but building 101 street cnr ring road or next to mosque etc. If it wasn't so hot/dusty then you could walk it in 30 minutes. jan (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as a good off the beaten path item - sats (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support — I've been to Dibba Al-Baya once, spent few hours there and today I just noticed Musandam is going to be on the main page in December but unfortunately still lacks a map. Anyway, I'll start working on the map now but I want to know what would be the foreground colour since the region is not districtified. --Saqib (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for December 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

O'Hare International Airport

 * Support best either Christmas or Thanksgiving. jan (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Jan is right in picking the worst times of the year for people to get stuck at O'Hare ;) Although any snowy, ruin-your-travel-plans time would be fine.  --Peter Talk 22:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. However, all listings for hotels outside of the airport need to be deleted or, better, moved to appropriate local guides (e.g. to Des Plaines, Mount Prospect, Schiller Park) before the article is featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Listings have been duly moved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for December 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oakland

 * Support Needless to say, as nominator, I support featuring this article at a suitable time. It is arguably one of our better non-star guides, and Oakland is an important Californian city which has gained in vibrancy as Art Murmur has become huge, with associated musical and dance performances, performance art, and other street life. Many people now come the other way across the Bay to have fun in Oakland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. On my trip to the West Coast in 2005, I distinctly remember finding Oakland more interesting than San Francisco, even. Also, Challenger's work has been exemplary and definitely deserves recognition on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Pashley (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support well done jan (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we find a better picture than this? The blurb touts the city's "distinctive skyline" which is nearly invisible in this night shot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support! To Andre's point, does it really matter, since we'll need to create a banner anyway (have I forgotten a piece of this puzzle)? --Peter Talk 05:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for November 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Churchill
Just a note, I used FeatureNom instead of the usual DotmNomination, as I created the template to deal with our new feature protocol, which calls for a banner image and a shorter blurb. --Peter Talk 20:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong, strong, strong support. It's an impeccably-written article that I've had my eye on for awhile, but I was beginning to despair that those pictures Peter was waiting for would never turn up! Churchill is the odds-on favorite for my own next travel adventure, and featuring it during polar bear season (Oct-Nov) or aurora season (Nov-Mar) would make for a nice change of pace during a time of year that's otherwise characterized by tropical and Southern Hemisphere destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One minor issue: I'd tweak the blurb to eliminate the adjectival use of "capital" (interesting choice of word, but it makes the sentence read funny) and the over-repetition of the word "Northern" toward the end. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The iteration of capital is an intentional pun to poke fun at the town for calling itself the capital of so many things. I put a similar joke in the lede to the article: "For a multi-purpose capital, though, it's rather small..." The iteration of Northern was very much intentional too, as an attempt at creativity ;) --Peter Talk 16:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I see I've already eliminated the "Northern" bit, since it didn't fit on two lines. I've updated the blurb here. --Peter Talk 16:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I absolutely support featuring this article - it's great! Why is it marked only as "Usable"? It looks like a star to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most definitely support. It would be a crime not to feature this article. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Outstanding and support Can't wait to see it on the front page. jan (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Pashley (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks great! Globe-trotter (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for November 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Teaching English

 * Support, we must find a nice page banner. Danapit (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Nice one. jan (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Super-informative! A few more photos, if relevant, would be nice, but this is ready to run any time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - good one. sats (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive for discussions relating to past featured Destination of the Month candidates, Off the Beaten Path candidates, & Featured Travel Topic candidates. Failed nominations are to be archived in the slush pile. Once an article is featured as the DotM, please move its discussion from the root page to this page, so that the root can focus on future DotMs rather than past ones. For the past featured pages, please see Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path, and Previous Featured travel topics.

Outcome - FTT for November 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Kunming

 * Comment It's got a lot of information but definitely needs more photographs. I think if we work on it, it will be ready to feature soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This was actually the next thing I'd hoped to attend to here at WV - finding worthy candidates for winter DotM's. I agree with Ikan regarding more photographs, and the article could use some minor cleanup (for example, the text "wine is 10-15% off during happy hour" randomly placed at the end of the "Drink" section; which listing does it refer to?)


 * Nonetheless, this article looks good enough for me to give my soft support to it now, and my full support when these minor issues are attended to. I'll provisionally slot it in to the schedule for January 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Eek. Regarding scheduling, I just realized placing Kunming in the January 2014 slot would mean two Chinese DotM's in a row. Please see this thread on the dotm talk page for some thoughts regarding this that I'd like to run by the community. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The edits Pashley and I have made today are sufficient for me to support featuring this article. I'll still look for some more good, pertinent photos, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Needs pagebanner That's probably the most important remaining task. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Danapit (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nice pagebanner, as usual from you. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you ;) This was a tough one for me. Danapit (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite. It's a good article, but there are certain omissions that keep it from feeling complete. For instance, in Get around it is mentioned that a metro system is now operational, but absolutely no details on it are given. The Do, Buy and Understand sections feel way too short, there are some statements in Stay safe that I think would benefit from some elaboration (e.g. "There were some bomb incidents in 2008 including one in bus No.54 and one inside Salvadors' Coffee House."), and even the Eat and Drink sections feel short for a city of this size (a city of 10 million ought to offer up more than six drink listings). There are some great elements to this article, such as solid See and Sleep sections and a nice long list of local food specialties. But it's not enough to get my support. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. This article gives some routes and says lines 1 and 2 are due to open "early 2013". Can anyone confirm that they are actually open now? Or add some text about where they go? Or even a Map? (I tried & failed to turn up one we could link to; maybe just did not try hard enough?)


 * Except for line 6 to the airport, which we already mention, no other lines are due to open soon, so it looks like we can ignore lines 3, 4 and 5 for now. Pashley (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I found a reasonable map but am not sure if a link to it would be within policy. The only full system map I find on commons (on right) is Chinese only. There is a line 6 map, which I'll put into the article. Pashley (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I just find some listings should be divided into subcategories, as they are too long. Otherwise it is a good guide. Danapit (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for October 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarence (New York)

 * Support -- Very nice. Only comment is that climate info should be added, not linked to another page (Buffalo). You should check out the Star criteria and nominate this page there as well. When scheduling, this should be separated from Buffalo by a few months, Buffalo is scheduled for May, then this could go in Sep-Oct then? Sound good? AHeneen (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the scheduling: I totally agree. I'd love to see it as OtBP around October, but I'm sensitive to the fact that the Northeastern U.S. is likely going to be featured on the front page quite a lot over the next few months (Buffalo as well as Pittsburgh and Childs), so if it doesn't end up being featured till 2014 I'd even be fine with that.


 * Regarding climate: when I wrote this article, I was very sensitive to the fact that much of the information in it, including the Climate section, would essentially be a duplication of the same sections in the Buffalo article. The way the article reads today is largely a product of a conversation between LtPowers and myself (and ) on how best to handle the issue. (Salient quote from LtPowers: "[I]t's not unreasonable to assume in prose that the traveler will also be interested in the Buffalo article; providing a summary in the Clarence article and linking to Buffalo for expanded information makes sense.") In short, I'm not married to the Climate section as it is now, but I'm also given to understand that simply cutting-and-pasting large swaths of text from one article to another is to be avoided. I'd love to hear any alternative ideas you may have for addressing this issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, with comments First, the article is really impressive, and seems ripe for a star nomination. But one thing I wonder about is that there are listings within Amherst, but Amherst (New York) is a red link. Wouldn't it be better for there to be an actual article for Amherst, New York, and for all Amherst listings to be moved there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the eventual plan. I included listings for businesses in Amherst on Transit Road only, which is the town line between Clarence and Amherst. I thought it didn't make much sense to include businesses on one side of the road and exclude the ones on the other side. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that, on balance, it will make sense when there is a separate article for Amherst, as the alternative would be to duplicate listings. I think the solution would be to separate out Transit Road listings in both articles and have links directing readers to the relevant sub-sections in the other article. Though if there's a more elegant solution that doesn't separate listings on one side of the street from listings on the other, I'm sure you'll find it.Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Amherst is an administrative division, not an individual community. But this nomination is about Clarence, not Amherst, so that's a bit of a tangent.  I feel that hewing slavishly to the lines created by the Holland Land Office 200 years ago isn't in the spirit of Wikivoyage, so I have no problem with including both sides of Transit in this article. LtPowers (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By way of updating a previous conversation about Amherst: LtPowers' point is an arguable one, but unless I have a major change of heart over the next few months, I think what would best serve the traveller is a single, districtified Amherst (New York) article.


 * The inherent problems with LtPowers' model are:


 * While established "sub-communities" within Amherst do exist, there are many locations within the town that don't fall within any of them, and no place name other than Amherst can be used to define their location. I think vague concepts such as North Amherst or West Amherst would make far more sense as district articles than as stand-alones.
 * All of these sub-communities are understood by locals to be parts of the larger community of Amherst, rather than independent entities. Buffalo neighborhoods such as the Elmwood Village and the West Side are set up as district articles, not separate city articles; the situation with Amherst's sub-communities is essentially the same and, IMO, should be dealt with accordingly.
 * Amherst would most likely be the only Buffalo suburb to be treated this way. The inconsistency would be frankly off-putting.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What's inconsistent is following administrative boundaries instead of grouping communities organically, which is what we do everywhere else. I'm not sure what suburbs of Buffalo you're referring to, since only Eden and Clarence have articles at the moment, but treating Amherst, an administrative division of a county, as a Huge City makes no sense to me.  I find the concept of someone targeting Amherst, NY, as a destination and making sure they visit all corners of the town from UB to Williamsville -- and needing multiple articles to do so -- to be bordering on the absurd.  But we really should have this discussion elsewhere.  LtPowers (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I made it clear above that a) Amherst is both an administrative division and an "organic community", and b) the other suburban articles I referred to have not been written yet (though, for the record, Grand Island (New York) also exists currently), and it would not make sense to structure them any other way as each of them, too, are both organic communities and administrative divisions.


 * I agree that on its face, treating Amherst as a Huge City despite the fact that it's not a major tourist draw may seem absurd at first glance. But in my view, keeping the article from being too long is the more important concern. For a suburb—especially for a suburb of a city that's not all that big—Amherst is uncommonly large in population and rich in attractions for visitors. And, frankly, if an author is too picky in determining which information to include or exclude, the article suffers.


 * I think that if it seems that an unusual amount of attention is being devoted to a place like Amherst relative to other places of similar perceived importance, the onus should be on contributors to those other articles to step it up, not on the more enthusiastic editor to exclude worthwhile listings for the sake of brevity. And yes, some of those other destinations will never get coverage that thorough, but that's the fundamental nature of a wiki.


 * By way of comparison, Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay is an article that caters to a fairly narrow niche of travellers, yet it's a Star Article, a former Featured Travel Topic, and one of the longest articles on the site—and it's "districted", so to speak, into no fewer than 61 sub-articles (Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Hout Bay harbour et al.), far more than any other destination. Yet, no one argues that that article should be shorter and/or should be contained in one single page—and rightly so. Peter (Southwood) did fantastic work on it.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for October 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Silk Road

 * Support, as I already mentioned at the talk page. Danapit (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: needs better images. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please specify (perhaps at the talk page) what changes you have in mind? Do you mean better quality images, or different kind of images, which ones should be replaced, etc. Thx. Danapit (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the five images on the article, two are maps and three are historical illustrations. Zero, aside from the image banner, are actual photos of the actual Silk Road as it actually looks today. That needs to be rectified. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And one more issue: parts of the Silk road are war zones and several destinations mentioned in the article (Damascus, Baghdad, Herat) have a warning template. This issue should be at least tackled in the "Stay safe" section. Danapit (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I added some images. Pashley (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and added some text in Silk_Road. OK now? Pashley (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, the article now has my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Looks interesting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting article and fabulous travel route. What I think would be useful is a bit more practical information about visas and border crossings: these countries typically require visas. Can you get all of them ahead of time, and how is it with border crossings? Is that typically easy? I don't think the article should include exact details of where and how and what it would cost, but some general remarks indicating if this stuff is fairly trivial or a real pain would be helpful. Nonetheless, fine article to feature and inspiring travel topic. JuliasTravels (talk)
 * I added a bit about visas. Enough? Pashley (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Better indeed :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for October 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Madison

 * This is a pretty good article. Barely a Guide, but it's clearly better than Usable.  Could use a map, and some of the listings are a bit sparse.  The Learn and Work sections need to be adjusted to conform to what we actually want to use them for.  But those are quibbles; I Support.  I don't think a state capital with a quarter million residents is really Off the Beaten Path, though.  LtPowers (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2012 (CEST)


 * The article seems fine to me. I disagree with LtPowers when he calls it "barely" a guide; the "Understand" section, while not the most detailed one I've ever seen, is sufficient, while the "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Sleep" etc. listings - the real meat and potatoes of any article - are as numerous, varied, and interesting as any of the best Guide articles I've seen. But I wholeheartedly agree with him about the DotM/OtBP issue. I would absolutely not describe Madison as OtBP; IMO it clearly belongs on the DotM list. Final summation: Support - but as DotM! AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2012 (CEST)


 * This is a relatively minor point and I'm happy for it to be a DotM as opposed to OtBP, but I think it deserves to be pressed a little: despite the fact that it's a state capital and a relatively large city, to those of us outside the US, Madison is off the beaten path when it comes to tourism in the US. If we were a website with an audience solely in the US, then maybe it could be considered a DotM; but we are not. Hence why I put it here under OtBP. But, as I said, I'm happy to let this one go DotM - just want you to hear a non-American viewpoint. Tsandell (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2012 (CEST)


 * As far as guide status goes: just for starters, there are very very few prices listed anywhere in the article, not even in the Get Around section (buses, taxis, parking...). LtPowers (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2012 (CEST)


 * Agreed. Also, easily fixed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2012 (CEST)


 * Support WP states 200' something and for the metro 568' something, so its quite of the track imho... I agree that for every non-US human Wisconsin is definitely a dairy state and its picture in Switzerland is influenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_%2770s_Show ;-) Jc8136 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Rochester (New York) (city population 210,000) was a DotM, and it's not even a state capital. LtPowers (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, LtPowers. It's definitely in the gray area, but I agree with you and stand by what I said earlier, that it ought to be DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is still a Not yet for me. There are very few prices in the Eat, Drink, and Sleep listings, and there is no prose in See, Do, Buy, or Sleep.  There is also no map and just one photograph.  I don't really consider this up to guide quality.  I also strongly feel this qualifies as a DotM, and placing as OtBP stretches the definition of same to the breaking point.  LtPowers (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as OtBP; I do not think it is a DoTM candidate. One nit to pick; Madison gives two different prices for the VanGalder bus and the higher one is "as of 2010". It needs one current price listing. Pashley (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it that Madison is Off the Beaten Path but Rochester, Ann Arbor, and for heaven's sake Figueres are not? LtPowers (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about Figueres. Ann Arbor and especially Rochester are on a more beaten path simply because of their location in better traveled parts of the country. Madison is a pretty small city, not usually considered a tourist destination, and kind of in the middle of nowhere. All of these though, including Madison, could go either way, but if any of them were to be OtBP, it would be Madison. I also tend to think that we get a little U.S./Europe-centric in our DotM vs. OtBP choices regarding cities and should restrain that impulse, but this is all just my subjective opinion. --Peter Talk 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Figueres is about 1000 years old, is Salvador Dali's hometown and has a large Dali museum that he designed; the article says it is the 2nd busiest museum in Spain. Pashley (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Once again I repeat that I agree with you, LtPowers, about the DotM/OtBP issue. But you and I are the only ones who hold that position as of now, and we've argued for it repeatedly without swaying anyone else to our side. So I've pretty much abandoned the idea that we'll ever reach a consensus to feature this as anything other than an OtBP.


 * I'd like to leave Madison in the schedule for now. Give me a month to whip this article into shape like I did to Guadalajara. (Alternatively, if someone else wants to take care of that while I continue devoting my energy to districting Buffalo, that'd be even better.)


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for good measure, I'll throw a pointer to this thread on the pub to see if we can scare up any supporters to switch Madison to DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Needs more photos. I think this article is excellent. The only thing that causes me to hold back from supporting it right now is that it has but one photo. A few more photos of some of the buildings described as beautiful, etc., would be welcome. However, after the photos are inserted, I would support running this as a DotM. A Midwestern city with direct flights from Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Newark, New York City, and Washington, D.C., that hosts a state capitol and one of the bigger universities in the country (in the tens of thousands) doesn't seem very far off the beaten path to me. What would be a European equivalent? Bologna, perhaps? Orleans? Are those off the beaten path? I don't think so. Am I missing something? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I should mention that I did add 4 more photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * After a bit of thought, I think the best thing to do is to take Madison off the schedule for the time being. Firstly, the momentum on the DotM vs. OtBP debate appears to be slowly shifting toward DotM. Secondly, and more importantly, Madison needs a lot of mos work to be truly ready for the Main Page. If it's to go up in only ten days, fixing these problems would require most of my attention; no one else has stepped in to do any cleanup work, and I've made some impressive headway the past week or two on the latest Buffalo district article, so I'm not sure I'd be eager to disrupt my rhythm. If we hold it off till, say, September as DotM, we'll buy ourselves some time to address these problems. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My main criterion for DotM vs. OtBP is whether you'd send imaginary friends there.
 * Consider someone who is flying into New York, has a couple of months and plenty of money, wants to see the US. They know they want to visit Niagara, the Grand Canyon and San Francisco, but they ask you where else to go. I cannot imagine that anyone would suggest a stop in Madison, given that they might suggest Chicago, New Orleans, Boston, Santa Fe, Yellowstone etc. instead.
 * Even for someone closer to the Madison demographic &mdash; say a group of students who are flying to Chicago, renting a car to see the midwest, and want to party in some college towns &mdash; you might not suggest Madison, given that you could send them to Ann Arbor or Champaign-Urbana or university districts in Minneapolis, St Louis or Indianapolis.
 * So, as I see it, Madison is not even close to being a DotM candidate. Pashley (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And how close is Rochester, New York, a previous DotM? I would be unlikely to send even real friends there, unless they had a specific reason to go or were in the area. That doesn't make the city off the beaten path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or current DotM candidate Buffalo, for that matter, especially with the far more touristed Niagara Falls a mere half-hour's drive away? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pashley's metric would result in only perhaps 20 DotM candidates in the entire United States, generously. I think that's way too strict.  As Ikan pointed out, Rochester was DotM without question, and no one is questioning Buffalo; what is it about Madison that makes it any different?  I remain of the opinion that OtbP is for small places, or places hard to get to.  In the U.S., most any mid-sized city should be DotM; OtBP selections would mostly be small cities, villages, and towns, and state parks.  LtPowers (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates, this nomination has been moved from OtBP to DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: The schedule currently has Madison listed "pending fixes." What still has to be fixed in the article? I don't love the pagebanner with threatening skies, but nothing else jumps out at me. The article seems fine to my cursory inspection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for September 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

La Macarena

 * Strong support. A well-written article, and as I mentioned in my nomination of Guadalajara for DotM, it's been a long time since we had a Latin American destination on our front page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * Support Great work Peter! Jc8136 (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (CET)
 * Support I love this article. It's got beautiful photos and really good information throughout! That's what I call an adventure! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice. AHeneen (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for September 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Northern Lights

 * Comment: I, personally, am extremely wary of the precedent set by having not one but two nominees on the featured article list that are technically ineligible. That being the case, this article is not far from Guide status. I imagine that given the recommended time to feature, there's plenty of time for one or more dedicated editors to bring this article up to the usual standards (the same is true of Kolyma Highway as well, come to think of it). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is certainly a problem, but on the other hand the Lights are cyclic and the upcoming autumn or winter would be the best time in a decade to feature them. Can we get the article into really good shape by then? Should we consider making this article the Collaboration of the Month sometime soon as a way of doing that? Would anyone here care to contribute? I've done a little, but it needs more. Pashley (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a beautiful article with great photos. A map will be useful, but I'm not really clear on why it isn't classed as a guide already. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. For this spring it is a little too late, but think this article should appear as featured in September - after all this should be a year of solar maximum. Until then there can be lots of work done on further improving it (I hope I could contribute, too). --Danapit (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * September will be a bit early to per "Time to feature", but a November appearance would be great. I repeat what I said earlier: this article doesn't need much work to be bumped up to Guide; in fact, as Ikan Kekek said, a strong argument could be made that it's already at that level. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I in part nominated this despite being at usable because I wasn't sure what else was needed to bump it to guide (I think this is now being addressed at Talk:Northern Lights), but will do whatever is needed to get it ready for a feature. Also, I know we like to plan features to coincide with the best time to visit, but I've never really understood the rationale that well. Wouldn't "best time to plan/book" be a better way of serving the needs of travelers. Late November will be a fantastic time to see the lights this year, but you'd better plan a little ahead of time for a difficult trip to the far north! --Peter Talk 14:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the best time for auroras is Sept/Oct, that's why I suggested September. But off course November is fine, too. --Danapit (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The advantage to waiting later (for watchers, not necessarily us) is that the nights grow very long starting in November. A spectacular geomagnetic event is wasted if the sun is shining! --Peter Talk 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Makes me want to see it. jan (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support It would be better with a map showing the prime areas (or two, North & South), but other than that it looks ready to me. Pashley (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a map, more photos and quite a bit of text, and I have not been the only active editor. I have bumped the status to Guide and think it is now quite close to Star. There is one open issue, though: see Talk:Northern_Lights.
 * It now has my unreserved support for featured travel topic. Pashley (talk)


 * Comment on date: The nomination suggests "November-March", which is indeed the best time to go. However, I think we should feature it earlier, perhaps in August or September; this is a trip that needs planning and preparation, so we should suggest it well before it is time to go. Pashley (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I 100% support Pashley's suggestion. I would be inclined to feature the article in September (or even August, because travel topics appear on 21st) also because late Sep/Oct is a good time for observation already, if one doesn't mind to stay up a bit longer. Danapit (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I saw the Northern Lights in Lenox, Massachusetts one summer, and they were amazing, though not as colorful as photos I've seen of them from further north. So they do occur any time, and you don't necessarily have to go into Arctic or Subarctic regions (or their southern equivalents) to see them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment if we are going to continue to ignore the "good time to visit" rule for featuring then can we change the policy/nomination rules first rather than picking and choosing which destinations need to follow the guidelines and which for whatever reason are exempt? There are good reasons for featuring a place prior to the best time to visit as well as during the best time to visit, but our rules as of now are DURING the best time, and just like the South Pole, this is not any different or more special than any city article that must follow the guidelines. Plus, "November to March" is already most of the year, so the window for featuring is not even constrictive. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, first, November to March is only five months. =)  I think you're overreading the strictness of the rule you cite.  It is prefixed with "Where applicable," and it only requests that the "good time to visit" be proposed, not adopted.  LtPowers (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I got the impression we have reached consensus regarding good time to watch Aurorae in the discussion above, so I entered "Northern Lights" it in the schedule. Our article says: "On a yearly basis, the Lights are at their peak in September and March." And the the article appears round about equinox, so the length of the night should not be a problem, either. And from my experience, November - December tend to be very cloudy months at least in great parts of Scandinavia. Danapit (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jan-March is often considered the "aurora season" because it's both very dark and very clear in the very northern latitudes. It's @#$%ing freezing, though ;) --Peter Talk 15:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Every other time in the past that I can remember someone suggesting to feature a destination during a time that was not a good travel time it was everyone else who reminded the suggester of our rule and we featured when it was appropriate to visit. The only reason that we feature them at a different time is when there are no other features available (and even then, we still usually discuss which of what is available is best for each slot) and occasionally for geographic diversity, but the rationale given above to feature it off-season in order to give people time to plan is not a reason that we've permitted in the past. Danapit has given good rationale for the September feature, but if everyone prefers to feature destinations when it's good to plan rather than go, that should be stated to help people properly fill in the 'time=' part of the nomination info or just get rid of it if we don't care at all, but unless/until we do that we should follow the current guidelines. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support sats (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for September 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nagoya

 * Support. There's a lot of great information here, presented in a really interesting way. You can't do much better than the "Understand" and "Get in" sections here. Photos are numerous but not overwhelmingly so. Many, many attractions listed in "See" and "Do". The "Drink" and "Sleep" sections are of impressive length. Listings contain phone numbers and, where applicable, websites, but rarely addresses—as with Xiamen, I'm given to understand that when trying to figure out the location of a place in Japan, addresses are much less useful than directions, and all listings include information such as the nearest Metro stop, etc. Minor weaknesses include "Get around", which is lacking (conspicuously so given Nagoya's dominance in the automotive industry) a description of the local road/highway network, and "Eat", which could use some filling out as far as the listings are concerned, though there's a nice overview of the local culinary peculiarities. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I haven't read through the entire article with a fine-toothed comb yet, but it certainly looks very informative. I doubt a strong case could be made for such a large and important city to be an OtBP. This is a DotM city, much as Detroit would be, and probably even more so, because its economy is a lot healthier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right about that. My logic was that if Johor Bahru is justifiable as OtBP despite its size, so is Nagoya. But on second thought, Nagoya would really be pushing the envelope. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Johor Bahru is the least bit justifiable as an OtBP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Good article, sleep section is a bit uneven in distribution but that shouldn't hold us back. jan (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Lukewarm Support Nagoya's sites are spread out, so a map would be really helpful. I also think the "See" section listings could be presented in a more interesting way. Most of them are dry one-liners. Tokugawa-en and Oasis 21 should be added. Although I think addressing these would make it a better feature, the article seems good enough to be featured however, I strongly oppose the current banner. It looks like a construction site/parking lot. It needs a picture that is both attractive and representative of the city's character. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the pagebanner, ChubbyWimbus, which was added to the article long after I nominated it for DotM.


 * I realize this probably isn't the place to formally bring this up, but for the record, I feel that one issue that badly needs to be addressed is that the 7:1 aspect ratio of the pagebanners places limits on the images that can be used that are so severe as to be borderline unrealistic from a practical standpoint, especially if we're limited to copyleft-compatible images and we're to err in favor of truly representative scenes, stay away from skyline shots, etc.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the pagebanner with something that I hope is a bit more satisfactory. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for August 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Soltau

 * Support. An all-round great article, with complete, listingified information in "See", "Do", "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep", with addresses, telephone numbers, and URLs. Nice long "Understand" section that provides great historical context - those who've read my work on Wikivoyage know I'm big on that. :)


 * Minor pet peeves: this article is short on pictures, but I suspect we'll be able to fix that easily through Commons. "Buy" could be expanded a bit too.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Good article, definitely OtBP and popular in Germany. Should be not later than September(better would be July or August). jan (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost. Some See listings (theme parks) should go to Do, and then maybe Heilig-Geist-Kirche and Soltau Museum could be added. Jjtkk (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I looked through everything up to and including "See" with a fine-toothed comb and skipped through the rest. It looks good - informative, clearly-written (I made some tweaks and more will probably be useful), and very well illustrated - though I hope the improvements suggested by Jjtkk are made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. From Jjtkk's comments I fixed the listings and added the church. Soltau Museum not yet. Danapit (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for August 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Chicago skyline guide

 * Support. How can I say no? If it's worthy of a star, it's worthy of being featured! And it's got an awesome banner image to boot! PerryPlanet (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside Peter, I hope you're prepared for the inevitable heartbreak of One World Trade Center taking the Sears Tower's title of North America's tallest building. ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ack, I didn't realize they were going to surpass even the antenna! Now it's even more sad that the Chicago Spire wasn't built :( --Peter Talk 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, speak of the devil! PerryPlanet (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Star > featured topic, so what Perry said. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I guess with star articles, the only question is when to feature the article, but while there are times of year with better or worse weather in Chicago, the skyline is always there and there are always reasons for people to travel to that great city. If we're going to feature it at a time of good weather, I'd suggest excepting the most miserable summer months as well as the most miserable winter months, but other than that, full steam ahead! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I must confess I've yet to experience any miserable summer months (maybe because my hometown has genuinely awful summer weather). It's the time of the year where you can go down to the beach, swim out and lie on your back, looking right up at the subject of this guide! --Peter Talk 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you can, and I don't have a very strong opinion about that, anyway. Chicago can be visited any time of year except when snow actually prevents people from arriving. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. For architecture buffs like myself, there are few more interesting articles on Wikivoyage. Well-written and comprehensive as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for August 2013 -- 24.218.110.195 13:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bilbao

 * Support. Well-written, lots of lovely photographs, long sections of "See", "Eat", "Drink", "Sleep" etc. listings that in almost all cases include addresses, phone numbers, opening hours, and prices. Introduction could do with some spicing up, hence the lack of a DotM blurb (I'll get on that). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'm uncertain about this one. I agree that we need to fast-track a non-U.S. destination for next month, but the Buy and Do sections on this page are rather dismally short, and many of the listings in the Pintxos section lack any descriptions whatsoever. I'd say it's on the verge of being a great article, but I'd be uncomfortable showcasing it in its current state. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I think it could use a city map (other than the Metro map) and an "Understand" section with a bit of history, but I otherwise like the article, and I feel sure it would be improved some before actually being featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Map would be good but article is fine. There are some mosing bits but that can be handled. jan (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Although map is missing - not that I could help with that one... Danapit (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for July 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Childs

 * At the risk of stacking the deck with too many Western New York destinations at a time, Support. An astoundingly comprehensive and well-written article for a place that is DEFINITELY "off the beaten path". --(WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 21:13, 3 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Support. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:16, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Let's wait a bit - too many OtBP in this part of the world at the moment... Tsandell (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Agreed. AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Comment -- So all there is to see & do is a museum? There are 5 inter-wiki links (Batavia is just a stub with a template & Orleans County is just an outline) and 6 red inter-wiki links (pages don't exist). I typed oppose, but then I realized these aren't valid criteria to oppose...this is a guide article. Will start a thread on the talk page about this issue soon. AHeneen (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure this hamlet is interesting enough to be featured. I might be persuaded if there could be more pretty pictures. I'll give an example: Sermoneta is a small hill village, and with quite a lot more information, I think it might eventually be possible to feature it as an OtBP some day, because though there isn't that much in the way of discrete sights, the entire village is just really pleasant to walk through, and there are great views of the surrounding countryside from viewpoints high on the hill. Is a single attraction with a photo sufficient for a feature? I really don't think so, when we could instead, for example, feature a small town like Brattleboro that has loads of pretty buildings. So to sum up: There are so many seemingly more interesting places to feature that I am having trouble seeing a good rationale to ever feature this one, unless a case can be made with more photos that it is just extremely pleasant to visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The points made by Ikan and AHeneen are arguable per se, but it bears repeating that there are only four factors that are supposed to be considered in evaluating a featured article:


 * 1) that it not have been featured previously,
 * 2) that it be at Guide status or better,
 * 2a) that it have at least one good picture, and
 * 2b) that it be listingified in conformity with mos.


 * According to all four of these criteria, Childs is perfectly eligible to be featured as OtBP. Furthermore, the guidelines listed on the top of this page explicitly say that rejecting articles for any other reason is invalid (to quote, "all objections have to be based on the guidelines above").


 * And for the record, I live about an hour's drive from Childs, and actually was inspired by this very article to make a trip up there to visit the cobblestone museum. I can personally vouch for the fact that it's a worthwhile OtBP by any definition.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Your personal experience carries a lot of weight with me, and probably with others. I think our criteria should be altered, so that not every guide-level article with one photo is equally eligible to be featured, but that aside, could at least a couple of more good photos be inserted into this guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't like the double-listing appearance of the content. Why is it written with a blurb followed by the name (again), address, hours, etc.? It looks redundant and disconnected. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with it either. I welcome any attempts to reformat it usefully.  LtPowers (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for July 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Leave-no-trace camping

 * Support. A well-written, short but fundamentally complete article on an interesting travel topic. I especially like it for the slight touch of cheeky irreverence that pops up in the prose from time to time (i.e. the "Excrete" section). Only one photo, but I can't imagine it would be a major issue to either a) reconcile that fact with the article's modest length or b) find additional photos on Commons. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support As you said, it's straightforward and good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It's fun to read. Danapit (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Fun and informative, though I do have a couple of suggestions: in the paragraph about brushing your teeth, one of the recommendations to avoid introducing that "minty-flavored, fluoride-enhanced toothpaste" into the environment is to "go hard core and swallow it." Strictly speaking, fluoride is mildly toxic, so I really don't think we should be advocating ingestion of it. My second suggestion is that we have a section about what to do in case of an emergency or if you need to be rescued (I'm sure a reference to 127 Hours could be worked in). PerryPlanet (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for July 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

 * Strong support from a big fan of the revitalizing Rust Belt. An exceptionally well-written article for an exceptionally worthwhile (and, as the blurb mentions, exceptionally underrated) destination. I would vote for it twice if I could. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Support. No question here, it's one of our best huge city guides. --Peter Talk 17:56, 2 November 2012 (CET)
 * Good call on replacing the image, too - this new one is magnificent! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Except, as I noted on the talk page, for the absence of the bright red incline car, which I feel really sold the old image. LtPowers (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – sumone10154 ( talk ) 03:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Can't wait to see on the main page. jan (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I had always held off on nominating this myself for two reasons. The first being that I really don't like the map. (can that be redone prior to feature?) The second was because I was hoping to add the art doors of the Oakland Art Project (or something like that). It's kind of fun to walk around and find them and of course it's free. I remember where some are but now that I'm no longer there, it might be too difficult to find them (and ideally a map of their locations would be good but I can't make maps either). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The map looks okay to me. I suppose it could be larger or in higher resolution, but I gather that's what the maps in the district articles are for. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The map is geographically fine, but it is the color scheme and non-wikifiedness of it that I dislike. I wish it were put in the wikified format using the pastel palate that is used on other maps. (my second point is just referencing a personal failure on the Pittsburgh project and nothing more). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The colors were clearly chosen to match the Wayfinder signs used around Pittsburgh itself. This, then, is a special case and I think changing the colors would be a mistake.  LtPowers (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Good work, very useful guide. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for June 2013 -- PerryPlanet (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ölgii

 * Support with comment Obviously, as the nominator, I support running this article. However, I am aware that the listings are not structured in standard templates. I will mention this to Altaihunters (Eaglehunter no longer seems to be active, and I suspect s/he and Altaihunters are the same user) when I inform him/her of this nomination. I mentioned this in Talk:Ölgii, but no action has been taken on this so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply We are the same user, I had to change names to consolidate accounts. I have added a map and fixed the listings. Altaihunters (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if the formatting is considered fixed now? It still says on the schedule the nomination is pending formatting fixes. Altaihunters (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. As a matter of fact, it seems to me the article is ripe for a star nomination, which I may get around to tomorrow or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Did you intend to nominate this for OtBP or FTT? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply It seems like more of an OtBP to me, but I guess that could be argued. I hope Altaihunters weighs in after s/he reads my message on his/her user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I misread your question. This isn't a travel topic, so I wouldn't think it could be an FTT - only OtBP or DoTM, and I think it's off the beaten path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply OtBP would probably be most appropriate (Western Mongolia lacks paved roads, so literally off the beaten path) Altaihunters (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Altaihunters - I assumed that was the case, but Ölgii's nomination was originally placed under Nominations for Featured Travel Topic. I had intended to (and eventually did) move it to the proper category, but I wanted to make doubly sure of the nominator's intentions before doing so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. An interesting destination, definitely off the beaten path. Those formatting issues should be an easy fix. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Good article and really OtBP. jan (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Great to have somewhere that people may not usually think to visit, and it has been well-written. Great job! JamesA  >talk 05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for June 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Across Canada by train

 * Support. I got some good use out of this one recently. It has a good base of content and really nice presentation. --Peter Talk 09:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Really good and helpful. jan (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - well done, and well presented sats (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful, very informative article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for June 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rotterdam

 * Support Great article and only some minor format issues. Should be reserved for sommer 2013! Jc8136 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Support Article is rich in detail, and the location is attractive too. Definite feature material. --SU FC 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support feature, but move to OtBP I'm stepping on some Rotterdam toes surely, but I have doubts. Not so much about the article itself, which could use a more inviting intro but is otherwise great, but about the destination. There are certainly target groups who will love Rotterdam, like fans of modern architecture or museum lovers. If you know your way around, there's good shopping opportunities and events to be enjoyed. But have any of you been to Rotterdam? In many ways it's quite like Eindhoven, which we featured as OtBP last year. It lacks the charm of the historic Dutch cities like Amsterdam, Utrecht, Maastricht, Leiden etc. The central station area (in the city centre) is one big construction site, as they are building a massive modern transport hub-station. In short: say you're a traveller wanting to visit the Netherlands, and you pick Rotterdam because it was the world-wide destination of the month on Wikivoyage... I think 90% of travellers would feel let down. Therefor I would suggest, in time, to feature this one as OtBP. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To directly quote the DotM discussion guidelines enumerated above: "All objections have to be based on... poor formatting, missing information, etc. Personal opinions, dislikes, etc. do not count." -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm aware of that "rule", and understand the underlining goal, but feel that it shouldn't be a reason not to express doubts or alternatives, when at least properly explained. I have no dislikes and I'm not against featuring. In fact, I personally really like Rotterdam, a city that I know fairly well. I just feel it would probably be better of in OTBT. But then, just my 2 cents ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but as far as I have been made to understand, a vote of "Oppose" indicates that the article itself is lacking in some way, not that it ought to be scheduled at a different time, that there are other nearby destinations with more to offer the tourist, nor that it ought to be OtBP rather than DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I always understood guidelines on wiki's are there primarily to smooth things along, not to quiet an honest attempt to make a point :-) In any case, I don't really mind the semantics and have changed the words of my vote, to better reflect my comment. I hope that settles your concerns. I still think it fits better in OtbT, though. As Queensday has been cancelled, I would also suggest to maybe feature in June, and postpone Yellowstone to August or (better yet) Johor Bahru, which can be featured any time of year and could actually use a bit of extra time. In June Rotterdam hosts its Summer Carnival, inspired on the Latin American carnivals. That is actually a better fit, as it a real Rotterdam thing and is of course related to the large Caribbean minorities living there, coming from former and present-day overseas territories. It's an unexpected sight for tourists, I guess, but it's a big celebration and rather famous event in the Netherlands. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand me, JuliasTravels. The last thing I would want to do is silence your comments; on the contrary, your suggestion to move Rotterdam to June is a good one (and your suggestion to postpone Johor Bahru is even better). But it is good to be as clear as possible in expressing one's suggestions. It's not a new thing on Wikivoyage for people to agree that a destination should be featured but disagree on whether it should be DotM or OtBP; see Madison, Wisconsin's nomination for OtBP for an example of this.


 * I still have to respectfully disagree about Rotterdam as OtBP. The usual litmus test for DotM vs. OtBP is the issue of whether the destination will have been heard of by the average reader from outside the country where it's located. Rotterdam is not by any means unknown to folks outside the Netherlands. If the litmus test were "is the destination popular with tourists", many of our current DotM nominees—definitely Buffalo and Guadalajara, and possibly also Pittsburgh and Canberra—ought to be OtBP's.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for May 2013 -- Nick (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevyansk

 * This article could use a bit of cleanup in terms of grammar and style issues, but generally Support. -- (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 11:36, 19 June 2012 (EDT).
 * Over the next few weeks I will be buffing this article up. I really think that the grammar and style issues are the only thing keeping this article from being my personal favorite choice for the next OTBP. --(WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 09:06, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Support. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:16, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
 * After making a number of grammatical and style fixes, I feel that I can now give an unqualified vote of Support. -- (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 12:30, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Support -- Sleep is really short, but if the town only has 25,000 people, then I guess that's ok. AHeneen (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for May 2013 -- Nick (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Driving in Australia

 * Though my support might be considered implicit given the fact that I'm the one who nominated this article, I think it's worth placing emphasis on the fact that it would be greatly preferable to fast-track this article's tenure on the front page rather than wait till the next Northern Hemisphere winter, i.e. when travel to Australia is most desirable. Given the fact that we have far more ?s on the schedule grid for FTT than for DotM and OtBP, and far fewer "travel topic" articles at Guide status or better than actual destination articles, I'd hate for us to have to scramble to find suitable FTTs for the interim. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Tentative support—could use some cleanup First, I don't think the timing is right. Wouldn't the summer (N. Hemisphere winter) be the worst least preferable time to visit or plan a driving trip around Australia? For starters, it's my understanding that most of the Outback will be quite hot during the summer (35-45°C and even higher). Plus, summer is the wet season in the tropics. Now, the Southeast and coastal Queensland might get the most visitors, but thinking of driving, the long distances of reaching the Red Center from Adelaide or Melbourne or traveling Perth-Darwin lend themselves better to self-driving. Winter, or especially late fall or early spring seem like the best times for a visit. My visit to Australia went from Port Douglas/Cairns down to Sydney in late June/early July and while some evenings/nights were chilly, it seemed like beautiful weather (if it was typical). Other images to use: File:Stuart Highway.jpg, File:Australia animal warning sign.jpg, File:Kangaroo Sign at Stuart Highway.jpg (the best in Category:Kangaroo warning signs).


 * Now as for the article itself, it first needs some good pictures. The process of buying a car needs to be explained...need more than just a few tips. Even if the process varies by state (and there's only 8 states/terr.), is much of the process similar? Maybe a brief description of 4x4/campervan/car pros/cons could be added. Info on renting a car should be added too! This information is already found on Australia. Also, a brief section on importing & how/restrictions to import a vehicle would be useful...but that's probably something to be improved for a star nomination, not necessarily FTT. Ironically the "Driving times" table doesn't provide times...only distances. Times in the Australia section, though, and can be moved. Other than that, there's a lot of just plain prose, which is nice, but it's a lot of solid blocks of text that somehow should be better organized or broken up. Some of the content overlaps, like legal issue & safety, city driving, rural driving, and outback driving all have safety & legal info that isn't replicated in other sections...like speed limits. Some content should be in a general driving section and moved out of city/rural/outback driving...like overtaking, parking, road markings, driving times, animals, and staying awake. Also, would it be possible to move some of the laws into lists (the subject of each law can be highlighted)? That said, the content as it exists is really good and FTT-worthy. AHeneen (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The method of thinking I've employed when making recommendations for this page is that between the months of November and March (or maybe even October and April, depending on latitude), the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere are unfeatureable on the front page—which necessarily limits the Featured Destinations for those months to the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere (or, perhaps, to winter destinations such as ski resorts).


 * Conversely, during the warmer months in the Northern Hemisphere, I've tried to push as hard as possible for tropical or Southern Hemisphere destinations not to be featured, so that we can accommodate worthy Northern Hemisphere destinations that otherwise might have had to wait till next year.


 * Of course, the foregoing is far less true for FTTs than for DotMs and OtBPs, so in the particular case of this article your point is fairly well taken. But it's my understanding that, as far as Australia goes, the Outback sees far less tourist traffic in general than the more climatically moderate areas. You mentioned driving through the Red Centre from the east coast to the west coast, but I wonder how many visitors to Australia don't confine themselves to one side of the country even with a car at their disposal, just for the sake of logistics. The article already discusses at considerable length the perils of driving through the Outback in the heat and rain of the summer. Given that, and the aforementioned fact that much of the rest of the world is off limits as Featured Destinations during these months, I don't know that I'd be in complete agreement with you that the "Northern Hemisphere winter [is] the least preferable time" to feature this article as FTT.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can sympathize with the lack of nominees, and this can be featured if there's no suitable candidates, but it's the "Time to feature" in the nomination template that's the issue. Summer isn't the best time to visit much of the country. Sydney is temperate year-round & Melbourne is warm in summer...most of the coastal plain around Victoria & NSW is nice to visit year-round, except higher elevations are cool-cold in winter. Elsewhere though, summer isn't pleasant. The tropics will be hot & very humid & wet, with the wet season ending around March. Queensland will be hot everywhere, wet in the north (Cairns), & humid along the coasts. For the Brisbane page: "Just about any outdoor activity you do at the height of a regular summer day in Brisbane will leave you bathed in sweat...Summer storms with hail and heavy rainfall are common in afternoons on hot humid days." Perth & Adelaide are hot. Plus, IMO, probably around half of travelers driving in Australia will be heading to/through some region that will be unpleasant (or even dangerously hot) in summer, whether it's a visit to a rural park Victoria/NSW to see kangaroos in the wild; driving long distances across the desert/Outback to Perth, Darwin, or Alice Springs; or to visit the tropics around Cairns. The best times to feature will probably be Mar-May or Sep-Oct, leaving out the winter when Tasmania & the Southeast will be cool (or cold in the mountains). There are a few Aussies around here, hopefully one of them can offer advice. AHeneen (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Would March be a suitable compromise, in your opinion? That's a month in which I would still be extremely hesitant to see a Northern Hemisphere destination featured—and, given what you said, it seems as if by then the worst of the summer heat will have been over in northern Australia, while winter will not yet have begun in the higher elevations and the far south. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Needs cleanup- this article has a serious repetition issue, and having driven a lot of what is mentioned, I find the blocks of text without separating into smaller sections distracting to say the least. As to the 'generalisations' about the outback, they are are somewhat problematic - In Australia the animals on the road, and road conditions are very varied, and there should be a clearer distinction between country roads in the respective regions, given the wikivoyage preference for conflating regions against geographic realities, the regions within states are worth considering in respect to their road conditions...


 * As to timing - hey, we have in Australia currently enough unseasonal climate variation to make most of the discussion potentially redundant - at the current range of climactic variability it is like the other generic one size fits all statements in the article, however AHeneen has hit on some of what might be statistically close in a probability sense - that given the current weather patterns, March - May, and September - October might just not be too uncomfortable, for most of Australia. Also the tempering an article like this for an assumed 'most comfortable time' is dangerous - times of discomfort are potentially times for certain of visitors - the News South Wales and Victorian snowfields for instance, Northern Territory at the break of the the buildup and the beginning of the wet season - are times that some visitors are actually interested in - and each of those require very specific driving skills in the conditions...  Perth - where I am currently living is having a heatwave of 40 degrees centigrade or close - however there are amazing conditions for water sports - on the coastline... I would thoroughly recommend wind boarders to get on here now... however the assumption of what sort of visitor you think we are describing things to is really far more complex than simply 'a traveller' - the range of potential variants as to visit time is not just an 'average' - there could be people wanting to check out parts of Tasmania at what are considered 'bad' conditions elsewhere... It might need some more thought in this area I think, and discussion. sats (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Given what you said above, I agree that it's likely pointless to talk about a "good" or "bad" time to feature this article, excepting perhaps times when roads are totally impassable. (After all, the one commonality among those interested in this article is that they will be travelling by car in Australia.) In that respect, would you agree that May seems like a fair time to feature the article?


 * Speaking to the other concerns you voiced, as a resident of Australia, there's perhaps no one on this thread more qualified than you, Sats, to plunge forward!


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for May 2013 -- Nick (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Guadalajara

 * Support Hopefully we get the pictures back but i think it would be good to have it in January or February. Jc8136 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead photo will eventually get moved to Commons, but that still makes for only two photos. We should add more. --Peter Talk 20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Cleanup? This is scheduled to be featured in January...less than 2 weeks & at the time of our official launch. Images need cleaned up and it has some format issues. No climate. Get in needs organized with sub-headings & expanded. Get around/By car needs added...rental cars & major roads. See, do, & stay safe are just long lists. Is is possible to add some prose about like listings, like markets, churches/cathedrals, festivals. There's a lot of content, but this is also a city of over 4 million (second largest in Mexico). With these issues, is this really the best page to feature as DotM at launch? AHeneen (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression (per this conversation) that we were going to feature the best DotMs, OtBPs and FTTs of the past during the launch month, and that the schedule grid would soon be reshuffled accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The conversation was about refeaturing star articles from the past to fill in holes in the schedule. There was one comment from Peter to feature Bangkok, Staraya Russa, and Loop Art Tour at launch. The FTT has already been changed to Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour and will be displayed from Dec 21 to Jan 21. Since it's in Bangkok, having Bangkok as the DotM at launch (Jan 1-Feb 1) isn't really an option now, unfortunately. AHeneen (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was talking about Peter's comment in particular. I thought it was a good idea, but at the same time why wouldn't it be possible to plug another one of the many destinations you suggested (Walt Disney World, for example) in place of Bangkok? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Update I added several photos and did some mosing. Imho it is a weak DotM but with good content. jan (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for feedback

On the eve of Guadalajara's ascent to DotM, I have been (and still am) hard at work whipping the article into shape—listingifying, mos-ing, expanding certain sections, deleting nonsense. I'd love to hear any suggestions you may have for further improvements. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andre you do great work and it know looks like a very strong guide. My only headache is, that football is now called soccer. I started with the cleanup a while a go,and then it was called the European way. That's the only thing in my mind, the rest is fine.jan (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I say it's a job well done. As for the football, I'd also be inclined to use "football" as Mexicans themselves will likely use that translation and call it fútbol themselves. However, I don't mind either way. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for the feedback. Though I proclaimed in one of my recent edit summaries that I was finished, I have instead decided to go back and expand the Drink section. Also, the point about soccer vs. football is well taken. I had read earlier that when dealing with destinations outside the Anglosphere, Wikivoyage prefers American English to other varieties. However, since (as JuliasTravels pointed out) the Spanish word is futbol, on second thought it does make sense to deprecate "soccer" in favor of "football". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for April 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

South Pole

 * Support. It's certainly off the beaten path.


 * However, regarding the "good time to feature" issue, you may want to take into account the conversation I had with the esteemed Ryan Holliday on the same topic, springing from his "Support" vote for Canyonlands National Park as OtBP last July. Salient quote from Ryan: "As to 'good time to feature', the tradition with OTBP and DOTM has been less 'here's a place you should start planning a trip for now' and more 'this is a place that would be great to be in now.'"


 * I am loath to speak for Ryan individually, or for this project as a whole—as big a wheel as Ryan is around here, as I understand it, no one user can speak for the whole Wikivoyage community. But it's something to take into account. I hope other Wikivoyagers will chime in on this thread so we can clarify the policy.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The nomination criteria at the top of the page notes that "you should propose a good time to visit the destination as a month to be featured." Thus, London was featured during the Olympics, rather than a few months before.  That said, any guideline/tradition is subject to change, and there is at least one discussion proposing changing the timing of when articles are featured.  In the particular case of the South Pole, it's a place that's so extraordinarily hard to visit that "best time to visit" may be mostly irrelevant in any case since very, very few people will ever visit, so this article will be mainly read by those who think it's an interesting subject but not a potential trip destination. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a good read. I made some very small edits to the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Should be posted in summer when we all sweat to cool us down. jan (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you see any wildlife? I'm sure many people would be interested in the penguins, but any animals could be of interest. Also, should mention be given regarding views of some that tourism only exacerbate the problem of the ice caps melting? I know the destination is limited in what you can see/do/eat/buy but it just looks so bare in so many sections I feel like there must be something to say or some way to make it look better. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia, the penguins' habitat is the coast of Antarctica, not the interior, and the South Pole is completely devoid of any significant wildlife. To address your other point, examining the debate on the ethics of Antarctic tourism vis-à-vis climate change seems to me to be out of scope, a potential source of controversy, and in any case, of dubious relevance to the traveler.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no wildlife except for humans, microbes/bacteria, and the occasional stray bird. Regarding climate change, the major issue is carbon emissions world-wide, not locally. The amount of fuel burnt by the 50 or so odd cruises and the small amount of flights to Antarctica each season is probably equivalent to what a Western city of 1 million people releases in a day or two! With regards to the natural environment, Antarctic tour operators work within strict environmental guidelines and a common opinion in favor of tourism is that it raises awareness of environmental issues (such as the melting ice caps/glaciers). At any rate, the South Pole is not noticeably affected by climate change (it's still far too cold for any ice to melt) and there's no wildlife being negatively impacted. AHeneen (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Ignore my comments. For some reason, in my mind I had equated 'South Pole' with 'Antarctica'. Although I don't personally care, it should actually be featured during one of the months that you can go there rather than when you book it per our guides of featuring destinations during prime season not prime booking. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See Ryan's comments above regarding the timing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Noted, but the fact that we don't expect anyone to use the guide is not a valid reason for disobeying our laws (And we should always view our guides as useful for travelers. Otherwise, they shouldn't be featured or created in the first place). Surely its current slot wouldn't be hard to fill with someplace else anyway. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comments, ChubbyWimbus, speak to a matter that's been coming up more and more often on the featured article nominations and elsewhere in policy discussions. Are we dealing with hard-and-fast "rules", as you said, or more flexible "guidelines/traditions", as Ryan said? I think it would be good for us to delineate the parameters of that—establish guidelines about the guidelines, in a manner of speaking—so it's easier for us to be on the same page going forward. I hope to hear from other Wikivoyagers on this question.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The reasons given for featuring this in April are that cold places are appealing in the summer, but we've featured plenty of cold places and they've been featured when they are best to visit (in the winter). Since this particular destination only has 2 months when it can be visited, the decision of when to feature should be pretty much decided. Choose one of those months. I don't see why we would treat the South Pole any different than a town famous for its ski resorts. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A reason for featuring this was that cold places are appealing in the summer. It was AHeneen and Jan who said that, not me. In point of fact, there were several reasons given. Mine is much simpler: all other current OtBP candidates either


 * can't be featured in April per the "good time to visit" rule and, in reference to Ryan's earlier comment, are realistically accessible travel destinations (Nevyansk, Udupi, La Macarena),
 * aren't ready for prime time (Johor Bahru), or
 * are U.S. destinations and therefore would violate the consensus that, given the overabundance of them currently, no more than one U.S. destination should be featured simultaneously (Clarence, Madison, Childs).


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Another important fact is that it takes months of planning/preparation to reach the South Pole. There are only 10-15 flights each season (for tourists, not counting support flights for scientists/station staff) and they will be booked full a couple months in advance. Between that and the above reasons, it is reasonable to make an exception here. AHeneen (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we always feature destinations when it's too late for most people to go, I still don't see that as a valid reason, but I suppose the "we have to work with what we have" reason is true, since there are so few nominations. I'm surprised that we don't have any good April features though. There are still a lot of Southeast Asian and Japanese destinations at guide status that may make good nominations. Johor Bahru is listed as an 'anytime' destination, so it could be moved up to April if it gets the improvement it needs. I personally think this would make a nice December feature. Although Santa doesn't live in the South Pole, it still feels like a Christmas-y place. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for April 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico Pueblos

 * It looks good, but I think the article needs to have a definition of the word "pueblo" in there somewhere. LtPowers (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2012 (CET)
 * Added. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2012 (CET)


 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2012 (CET)
 * Strong support Outstanding article. I think it could be OtBP as well. Jc8136 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (CT)
 * Support. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. -- That's a really detailed, necessarily long article. I corrected a few typos, but it is certainly ready to go. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support --Very nice. It should be OtBP, but with the lack of FTT nominees, this can work. AHeneen (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Pashley (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for April 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Canberra

 * Support. Pretty easy decision on this one. The only fault that springs to mind is that the article is short on price info, but I'm not that picky. --Peter Talk 02:26, 16 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Support – sumone10154 ( talk ) 21:21, 16 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Support Really like the article! Jc8136 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Support Great article and destination. - Cardboardbird (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2012 (CET)
 * Support Eat, Drink, & Sleep sections need to be put into the listings template. Otherwise, very nice. AHeneen (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support having been a transient here a few times, I think the article is a good one, and deserves DotM - but would be just that closer to a higher standard if at least a map of any quality was added. It also could be part of an itinerary for the adjacent region as well. sats (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for March 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Udupi

 * Weak support: It lacks especially a map and the listingfication is a major topic... Jc8136 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Can you explain the second objection a little please? What's wrong with the listingification? &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Rav, i meant Listingify which was a topic during my last nomination of Frankfurt as DotM. I see you did a lot of changes, so i guess you started with that. My only major issue would be a map as India articles sadly have a real shortage of maps. I think all otbp/dotm should have one and Buffalo must have slipped my attention. Jc8136 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Looking over the DotMs and OtBPs of the past months, a large minority if not a majority of them do not include maps. Perhaps something for us Wikivoyagers to get cracking on in the coming months is to add more maps to our articles, but for the moment I must respectfully disagree with you, Jc8136. I just don't see that the lack of a map has been, or should be, a major stumbling block to a prospective DotM/OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Some feedback from other Wikivoyagers on this issue would be valuable; I can't presume to speak for the whole community. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2012 (CEST)
 * There might be some confusion on the listingify front. Every listing in the Udupi article already uses the listing template. There may be some details that are not filled out - for example price ranges and opening and closing times are not mentioned for any restaurant, though the descriptions do speak of how affordable they are. Is that going to be a stumbling block? As to maps, I do agree that the article needs a map and I do plan to get to it, but currently, the requirements for DotM/OtBP don't ask for a map. &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Rav, Wikipedia says that Udupi has 125'000 inhabitants, so it is not really small ;) I very much appreciate you intend to add a map, then you have my unconditional support.
 * @Andre: In the past during most nominations a map was discussed and agreed (at least the one which i participated in). I think it would be super to have a map for Buffalo. Regards, Jc8136 (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Over the last year of DotMs and OtBPs (since October 2011), only two out of eleven DotMs (Borobudur and London; the "Map showing the hotel districts in Ann Arbor" doesn't qualify IMO because it's not detailed enough) and six out of eleven OtBPs (current OtBP Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park as well as Bandarban, Cape Le Grand National Park, Staraya Russa, Sydfynske Øhav, and Canyonlands National Park) contain maps. That's eight out of twenty-two, or 36%, that have maps.


 * As for the current candidates for DotM and OtBP: even if we eliminate the ones with no votes or primarily nonsupportive votes, the exact same percentage—36%; four out of eleven—have maps (Yellowstone National Park, Pittsburgh, Nevyansk, and Childs have maps; Yangon, Buffalo, Canberra, Dar es Salaam, Rotterdam, Madison, and Udupi do not).


 * The guidelines at the beginning of this page as to what makes a good DotM/OtBP nominee mention that articles should have "at least one good picture", but are silent on the subject of maps. Furthermore, in rereading the discussions that have taken place on this page over the past year regarding nominees, on the relatively few occasions when the subject of an article's map or lack thereof has come up it has invariably been treated as an issue of secondary importance.


 * Jc8136, you said that "in the past during most nominations a map was discussed and agreed (at least the one which I participated in)". I can only guess that those discussions took place before my participation in Wikitravel/Wikivoyage began (December 2011). Would it be fair to say, then, that the consensus has shifted to maps not being as indispensable as before? (I might also note that of the four DotMs/OtBPs whose nomination you have supported—Canberra, Rotterdam, Johor Bahru, and Madison—NONE of them have maps!)


 * Please understand, Jc8136, that I'm not pressing this issue in order to antagonize you. I want to know this for my own information: there are two articles on Wikivoyage for which I am the docent, and of which I am, for all practical purposes, the only contributing author. I want to know how high on my priorities list the creation of maps for the Buffalo and Clarence articles ought to be. Especially given that Buffalo is on the DoTM nominations list and that I intend to nominate Clarence for OtBP once I am substantially finished writing it.


 * Again, I would really love if other Wikivoyagers would chime in here. Even if Jc8136 and myself come to an agreement on this matter, two opinions do not a consensus make!


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Maps are very important for our travel guides, but for DOTMs the only requirement is that the article must be at guide status. So maps are not required.--Globe-trotter (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Andre, I think Jan personally believes that maps ought to be required for DoTM/OtBP, and he's using those criteria for his support. Of course, currently, as written, the criteria for inclusion don't require a map, which means that your articles won't get disqualified right away. But if we have two equally good articles, one with a map and the other without, I totally expect the one with the map to win out. Also, if more people start agreeing with Jan, then a map becomes the de facto standard, and then it will get written into the guidelines as a de jure standard. But yeah, right now, maps aren't required. &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Rav, you got my perfectly right! I wrote weak support because i'm in favour of this nomination in general. For a full and unconditional support i would like to see i map. I know its not hard coded policy so far but others (i remember) supported my view. I added a map for Frankfurt with my last year nomination and got strong support. I understand that especially OtBP articles sometimes don't need a map but a city of 125'000 would profit tremendously. I'm fine with an instant map of [|open street map].
 * @Andre: No worries, i'm not antagonized by the points you raised. If you look in the history of JB, you will see that i did a lot of changes and a map is on my list before this gets remotely close to going live. I hope to have g-t convinced to draw a map before Rotterdam gets live and Inas for Canberra. Madison is a bit weird to me, so i don't know if a single map will help but i hope that someone thinks about it, too. Jc8136 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2012 (CEST)
 * I share the sentiment that maps are really desirable, though until we are overflowing with good candidates we do have to sometimes settle for ones without. But really, any printed guidebook wouldn't send you even into a village without some sort of map, so the fact that we call articles "guide" status is a bit of a letdown without – cacahuate   talk 05:01, 26 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Support. I, too, am not sure what Jc8136 is talking about when he refers to "listingification". The article seems fine to me and, what's more, given its "Time to Feature", Ravikiran's nomination is fortuitously timed. It's true that the article lacks a map, but so does Buffalo which received strong and unanimous support nonetheless. I see no major problems with this article at all. I'd love to see it as OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Support. --Peter Talk 22:22, 28 October 2012 (CET)
 * Support I think maps are great, and if someone can be encouraged to create one for this article it would be splendid, but even without it is well worth featuring. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for March 2013 -- Ravikiran (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Baseball in the United States

 * Weak support. As it is now, this article appears to be more about baseball itself than about baseball-related travel. Before this article is featured, I for one would like to see substantial changes to bring it more within the scope of a travel guide. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Do you have any specific recommendations as to the changes you would like to see? Reading it over, I'm not picking up on any info that seems irrelevant to travelers. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the article more closely, the problem doesn't seem as major as it did in the beginning. In particular, I liked the brief descriptions of attractions near each stadium.


 * Still, there are a few things I would like to see. Off the top of my head, how about:
 * Suggested itineraries for travelers who want to see several different teams (i.e. Boston/New York/Philadelphia/Baltimore/D.C.; Toronto/Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Detroit; San Diego/Los Angeles/Anaheim/San Francisco)
 * What to expect in terms of ballpark traffic, special-event parking rates, etc.
 * Increased emphasis on other attractions in each city, especially those that might be of interest to sports fans (i.e. Chelsea Piers in NYC, Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, etc.), to tie baseball in with travel in general


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first two I will try to incorporate to some degree (I'm not sure how detailed the info can get when we're talking at the national level here, but I'll see what I can do), but the third suggestion I really can't get behind. There's something rather repellant to me about putting in general sports attractions in an article that's supposed to deal with seeing baseball games. Broadening the scope to all sports just seems utterly unnecessary and counter-productive. But if there are baseball-related attractions in each city, I will certainly incorporate those. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. What I meant by the third topic was not broadening the article's scope to general sports attractions, but just briefly name-dropping a few more attractions that may or may not have to do with sports that are located near the stadiums. A few of the listings already make mention of nearby attractions (the CN Tower in Toronto; the Babe Ruth Museum in Baltimore) and I thought maybe there ought to be a few more. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean like things to do in the neighborhood around the stadium! Okay, that makes sense to me (sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant by your Hockey Hall of Fame example). PerryPlanet (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I also think it could be expanded somewhat. Stadiums are quite obvious but an article about baseball tourism, to me, should give me information about all the other attractions that are relevant. In Pittsburgh, for example, the Heinz Museum includes the Sports Museum, which covers all of Pittsburgh's sports including baseball. Probably there are some interesting sports sites/museums in cities that don't have stadiums if a famous athlete/coach came from a certain town. More focus on the wider scope of baseball travel would add a lot to this article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just realized I forgot to include the Field of Dreams. Clearly, this is a travesty that must be corrected! PerryPlanet (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just looked over the changes that have been made since my original "weak support" vote. The article looks great now and it has my full support as FTT. (Go Jays!)


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly support. I hadn't looked at this article for a while. It's in excellent shape! Great work! I think we should run this in April, in time for Opening Day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia, the 2013 Major League Baseball season is slated to begin on March 31st, hence the scheduling of this article which will go on the Main Page on March 21st. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there are always a couple of teams that start early. I think it's kind of ridiculous that the season is so extended now, but that's irrelevant. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for March 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bali
Outcome - DotM for February 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Niamey
Outcome - OtBP for February 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentals of flying
Might look better with a picture of an aircraft exterior like this one. AHeneen (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I kinda like the interior. It really gets to the heart of what the article is about.  LtPowers (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with LtPowers. Aside from the fact that it "gets to the heart of what the article is about", visually speaking it's a very unusual and striking photo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Aside from the fact that this article is extremely well-written, I work at a job that brings me into direct contact with airline passengers on a daily basis, and I can say from personal experience that there are a LOT of people who really ought to read an article like this one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice article, and I also like the interior photo. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Should this get featured in Dec? My thinking is that this would be a really great guide to feature when WV leaves beta and (hopefully!) gets a lot of attention. I didn't want to make the change in the upcoming table, but if anyone else agrees & no one disagrees, please go ahead and switch Fundamentals of flying (Jan->Dec) and Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour (Dec->Jan). AHeneen (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Interesting article subject, and presented very well.--SUFCboy (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Very strong support. I agree that the article is a very thorough guide for air travel. I travel internationally (both in the premium cabin and in coach) several times a month at my present job, and I can say from personal experience that there are thousands of inept and ignorant travelers who need a comprehensive guide like this one. I absolutely love the section Helping the Cabin Crew under the On Board subheading. I would personally recommend providing more photos in the various sub-headings. Maybe an image of a baggage carousel, ticket counter, departing/arriving flight information board, etc. would provide some needed visual texture to an otherwise well-written, albeit lengthy, article. -- Chad595 (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Article currently takes more than an hour to read, and should be abbreviated. Materials could be moved to sub-articles. /Yvwv (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * At 115K in length, this article is somewhat longer than average, but not (by any means!) unusually or unacceptably long. By way of comparison: Walt Disney World, Wikivoyage's first two-time Destination of the Month and a Star article, is 138K long; London, whose stint as Destination of the Month lasted two full months, is 223K in length, and the upcoming Featured Travel Topic Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay, another Star article whose nomination received unanimous support, is 205K. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - excellent article well done - there a very few minor points that might need tweaking in part at times for regional or minor variations, however it is well presented, and deserves retention at its size. Any reduction would lessen its value, which is high sats (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for February 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney World
Outcome - DotM for January 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Staraya Russa
Outcome - OtBP for January 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay
Outcome - FTT for January 2013 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yangon

 * Not Yet The article is pretty good, but the See section could use an overhaul. The Shwedagon section is way too long and not organized very well and it would be much better to organize the other sites according to location rather than headings like "Other". Also, I don't like stating that it is factually "the most exotic of all Southeast Asian cities". I would bet there are those who would disagree. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:15, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Support. I think the see section does a pretty good job, and looks to have been kept up-to-date. There would be some serious work to be done before a starnom, but I definitely think it merits "guide" status, and a feature. --Peter Talk 02:34, 16 September 2012 (CEST)


 * Support. I cleaned up the Eat section somewhat, and feel it can be featured now. --Globe-trotter (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2012 (CEST)


 * Support. It's not only the article. Been there twice and Myanmar ist one of the most beautiful countries I've ever been to. Yangon should be featured at the main page. -- DerFussi (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

Outcome - DOTM for December 2012 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tennant Creek

 * Close. The "Contact" heading is empty and should either be filled out or populated, and the "Drink" section only has one listing, despite mentioning that there are "several" bars/pubs in town.  Also, two images seems a bit thin for a OTBP.  Aside from those minor quibbles this article seems like it has potential. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:52, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
 * I noticed that the Wikipedia article on Tennant Creek has some nice photographs that would be useful for our purposes, so I'll most likely insert them into the article at some point. I imagine that it would also be easy to fill out the Contact section with simple information about calling codes, local newspapers, etc. As I have no personal familiarity with Tennant Creek, I doubt I'd be much help regarding the "Drink" section, but I imagine that addressing two out of the three minor issues you brought up would suffice to bring this article up to DotM/OTBP eligibility.
 * -- (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 19:36, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
 * I took care of the above-mentioned tweaks, albeit after far more procrastination than I'd expected of myself. Looking forward to Tennant Creek's stint as OtBP! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Outcome - OTBP for December 2012 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour

 * Support. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Support Really liked it and great you nominated it! Jc8136 (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2012 (CEST)

Outcome - FTT for December 2012 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dar es Salaam

 * Support. A minor quibble, though: the listings in the "See" section ought to be expanded. AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Also, Dar Es Salaam is no longer Tanzania's national capital. :) AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

Outcome - DotM for November 2012 &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Cuc Phuong National Park
Outcome - OTBP for November 2012 &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Retiring abroad

 * Support. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Support. -- Excellent guide, interesting subject. Very good choice for Dotm. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Support Jc8136 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2012 (CEST)

Outcome - FTT for November 2012 -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Reykjavík

 * Support – sumone10154 ( talk ) 21:21, 16 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Support. --Globe-trotter (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park
I saw disappointment that there were only 3 things to see and there were no pictures in this section, so I added a short description of the Paw Paw Tunnel. It is a very impressive structure for a canal and a must see if you truly want to experience the towpath. I also have a picture but I am new and have I have little knowledge regarding uploading pictures. It has been uploaded to wiki-shared, but if someone else could add that or tell me how I would really appreciate it. The photo is labeled: Pawpawtunnel.JPG  http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Image:Pawpawtunnel.JPG  (WT-en) Berner.mj 19:52 April 2012 (EST)


 * Hmm... I imagine the article is complete, but it seems very short and I definitely feel like the maps have muscled out the pictures and overall appeal of the article, although I'm sure they would be very useful for someone actually using this trail. There are only 3 things listed to see along the whole trail (typical of an American trail) but no pictures of any of them. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:34, 9 January 2011 (EST)


 * Are those maps ok? They follow the usual WT style and look suspiciously like copyrighted images. The image info says it's sourced from the U.S. National Park Service, uploaded by the the esteemed [User:Peterfitzgerald] so perhaps they are kosher. I feel the writing is quite good but the See section would be sharper with actual listings for the places of interest. Also agree there needs to be more listings. Are there any particularly interesting sections, big rocks or old buildings of note? The Get In section should have By bus/car headings. It could be a good feature with a bit of input from someone who knows the area - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 09:17, 17 March 2011 (EDT)


 * I'll see what I can do with that see section. And all NPS maps are created by U.S. federal government employees in an official work capacity, which under U.S. laws happily makes them Public Domain. I like to spruce them up and convert them to more of a WT style (example), but man is that a painstaking conversion job! At least in Inkscape, maybe someone with Illustrator could find an easier way.


 * I might try splitting that map and putting a southern section and northern section side by side in the middle of the article, forcing text either above it or below. That would probably make the formatting a lot easier to read (for people with narrow displays or who have not disabled the right ad column), and would allow for more pics of a beautiful place. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:49, 3 June 2011 (EDT)


 * Support. However, the article is missing a "Get around" section. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:16, 13 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Not quite. My hesitation does not stem from any specific concerns, but I tend to agree with (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus when he says the article seems too short and lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. -- (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 04:28, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Russian phrasebook

 * Support. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Support. Language is my field of study, so I expect that my first inclination will be bias in favor of phrasebook articles as FTTs. I'll try to stay objective. Even so, this one is a standout. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Just a quick question regarding "time to feature": should we try to schedule this for a "good time to visit" Russian-speaking countries (i.e. Russia itself and Northern and Eastern Europe, where it gets extremely cold in winter)? Obviously with some of the other nominees on the FTT slate (Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour, for example) we can treat this question similar to a DoTM or an OtBP, but I'm wondering how to treat topics like this that don't necessarily relate to a single physical location. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Support. This was actually a near-miss of a star nomination a while back. --Peter Talk 02:03, 14 October 2012 (CEST)

Canyonlands National Park

 * I'll need to take a longer look over the article to judge the completeness, but it's very OtBP. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:47, 11 January 2011 (EST)
 * Needs work - The article is quite comprehensive but it would really benefit from maps, though showing all those trails will get messy. Even if the map only showed the major access roads with the look outs and hiking trail heads marked. Obviously the See/Do listings don't have addresses, but without maps it makes it difficult for a traveller to find them, therefore making this a very incomplete guide (and I'd question if it then qualifies for guide status). The OSM map seems to have the main dirt roads and some of the trails, but it would take someone with a good knowledge of the area to put the maps together. Unfortunately, that's not me. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 04:16, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
 * It's a national park; there ought to be government (meaning public domain) maps available we could scan or import. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:44, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Yep, several PD maps here. Even with no knowledge of the park, we ought to be able to knock together a decent enough WT style map from those. I might give it a go myself. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:38, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
 * In addition to a map the air tours and 4x4 tour look somewhat questionable to me - they should probably all be moved to the Moab article and a note added that flight tours or 4x4 tours can be arranged in Moab. Otherwise this seems pretty solid, although as the article history will show I might be a bit biased. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 12:35, 10 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Support. We're running short on candidates, and aside from the already-mentioned lack of a map this article seems fairly complete to me.  I've done some cleanup, although I'm still not convinced the flight tours are appropriate, but there doesn't seem to be anything that would prevent this article from being featured. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:30, 4 February 2012 (EST)
 * Note that while I support this article as an OTBP, the park in July has been featured in wilderness survival programs due to extreme heat danger, so it might make sense to feature another destination for July/August and reconsider Canyonlands for September or later. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:16, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Broadly speaking, I agree. However, I wonder how realistic it would be to expect that anyone who read about Canyonlands National Park as Wikivoyage's OTBP destination on July 15 or later, would actually go about planning a trip there on such short notice that they'd arrive before September. Perhaps it would be good to make a passing mention of oppressive summer heat in the "Understand" section in addition to the more extensive information in the "Stay Safe" section - but given the dearth of other qualified OTBP candidates, is this issue really a deal-breaker? (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 23:40, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
 * It wouldn't be the worst thing to feature it during a bad time to go, but the tradition with DOTM and OTBP is to feature the destination during a time that is good to visit. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
 * I did read that at the beginning of this page at some point after we began this exchange. But, if only for my own enlightenment on the matter, (WT-en) Ryan, I wonder if you could define "good/bad time to visit" for me. If this were April or May, and the hot season had not begun yet but was around the corner, I would be in full agreement with you; however, between July 15 and August 15 the hot season will be halfway or more over. As I mentioned in my previous comment, there's usually a lag of at least a few months between the time when travellers (presumably including Wikivoyagers) conceive of a destination to visit and when they actually go. I'm unconvinced that that lag period is less than two months in the majority of cases. Additionally, I should point out again the dearth of other appropriate nominees. The C&O Canal NHP article is well-written yet seems incomplete to me, lacking among other things a "Get Around" section, as you mentioned. The Nevyansk article has good information in it, yet IMO it's not quite ready for prime time due to grammatical and style errors (granted, this is easily fixed, hence my vote of a qualified "Support" rather than a "Not Yet"). Childs is a well-written article too but as I mentioned previously, I don't know how appropriate it would be, given Buffalo as DOTM in September, to feature two articles about two geographically close places, so close together chronologically. But most of all, what I feel I need is to be brought up to speed on the finer points of Wikivoyage protocol. Hence I'm not trying to be an annoying Devil's Advocate with this exchange, but rather I'd like to glean some information. (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 11:22, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Given the lack of "support" votes for other options, you're right that Canyonlands is probably the best option to feature for July/August. As to "good time to feature", the tradition with OTBP and DOTM has been less "here's a place you should start planning a trip for now" and more "this is a place that would be great to be in now". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:53, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
 * I still say that the best criterion would be "here's a place that's in the news now," since that's what people will be thinking about/searching for, regardless of whether it's a good time to visit! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:56, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Support for the same reasons (WT-en) Ryan cited. --(WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 11:33, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

London

 * Support. The fact that a guide with such an enormous list of district articles is at guide status is impressive. Given the upcoming event, I would strongly support featuring it for both July and August, to attract the maximum contributors/re-users. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:23, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I agree; July is best if we restrict it to one month, but July and August would be fine too. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:31, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Support - A lot of work has been put into this one. Featuring it in July is a logical move, and will also make Wikivoyage seem somewhat up-to-date with current events in the eyes of viewers. (WT-en)  J ames A    >talk 05:12, 3 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Support - I don't often vote for DotM, but when I do, it's gonna be London. ;) Plus, having London as an upcoming DotM would probably inspire me to get off my arse and do a little work on it, which I've been meaning to get around to for a while. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 10:24, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

Ann Arbor

 * Support. Maybe Eat list is too long. (WT-en) Jjtk 03:40, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Almost. The map is quite bad! (WT-en) Jjtk 03:43, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Support. While the map isn't up to our current standards of readability, maps are not required for guide status (and hence DotM nominations)! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:23, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Sydfynske Øhav

 * Support. I think the walking tours need to be removed, but otherwise this looks like a nice article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Support. I love this article, and wish I had had time to visit when I was in Denmark. Great feature. A little off topic, but the regions map for Funen and Surrounding Islands is a little confusing, though, as the light purple doesn't correspond to any item in the regionlist, and it almost looks like Sydfynske Øhav is a grayed out section, and not part of the region at all. Shouldn't it be in the regions section?   --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:22, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Borobudur

 * Support I'd like to go there someday. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:38, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I have been doing a lot of work on this article, with the aim of getting it to a Star nomination (a Star monument would be cool!). All of that should only help with getting it up as a DoTM. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:06, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
 * Support, great article. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:40, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Support. Very nicely organized and illustrated article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Support - Well worth featuring - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 21:03, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Staraya Russa

 * Support: the description is complete and — as usual — superior to the Russian version. (WT-en) Atsirlin 18:24, 12 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Strong support. Superb little article - exactly what we should be showcasing. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:31, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Support - Very interesting destination and a really well written and presented article. I concur fully with Burmesedays' sentiments. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 11:33, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
 * Support, obviously. In which months could this best be featured? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:57, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
 * That's a good question. There is no climate information in the two region articles of which this town is a part.--(WT-en) burmesedays 10:56, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
 * In Russia the best time of the year is pretty much always summer–fall, and in some ways winter, but this is best known as a summer retreat. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:40, 10 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Support. Nicely done, very complete article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Hull

 * Support. We do have to remove some photos, as there are too many, and enlarge the ones left. I also think some of the listings could be alphabetized. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:45, 4 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Have done a lot of copy editing and removed some pictures. Would be great if someone else could weigh-in. This is a really, really good article which just needs some final polishing. --(WT-en) burmesedays 09:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Have now listingfied all of the Eat, Drink and Sleep listings. I think the article looks great and is ready for featuring. --(WT-en) burmesedays 09:47, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Support. - Very thorough article and some beautiful photos. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 18:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Eindhoven

 * Support, with a few comments. The Get out section is a bit odd. The directions to Schipol should really be in Get in, and I don't like all those red links. Get around needed sub-sections and I have just added those. Also, I think even Eindhoven's biggest fan would not call it an especially interesting city? But I guess that should not stop us featuring it.--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:23, 4 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Comment. I moved the Schiphol info to the Get in section, so that's fixed. I'm not sure I'm against red links, red links stimulate article creation. And about your statement that Eindhoven is not interesting, people from Eindhoven would definitely disagree with that ( to say the least :D ). But while I agree Eindhoven is not for everyone, and its modernist outlook makes it hard to love, I think the article makes a good case why and for who Eindhoven is an interesting visit (mostly for those into industrial heritage and design). There's more to the Netherlands than windmills and historic town centers :-) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:02, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Indeed, there's also clogs and tulips :=).--(WT-en) burmesedays 12:05, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Hanoi

 * This one would benefit a lot with a map, but it does look good. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:49, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
 * I delayed it until September for September because its a better travel time and maybe some further improvement takes place. (WT-en) jan 15:10, 23 February 2011 (EST)
 * Tentative support - The get in by plane section seems excessive. It has great potential as most of the listings are complete. Needs a map and some tidying up. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:33, 31 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Don't yet support. Here are some things that I think should be considered: (1) The list of hotels is very long and may be unreliable, as there have been problems with touts in this article. The entries also need to be thoroughly edited for unnecessary location information, etc. (2) As a very large city, perhaps Hanoi should be districtified, though I have never been there and don't volunteer to do this, myself. (3) A map would be great, as Cardboardbird mentioned.


 * This is a good guide article and has nice photos, but I'd like to see some more polishing before it gets featured on the front page. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 03:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Support. The big list of airlines need tidying up, and we might need to fill out some of those embassies, but for the rest it looks good. I don't know about districtification though. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 23:45, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Support. Lead photo was uninspiring, so I have added one which will look better when the article is featured. Airlines need tidying up a bit, and the whole article probably needs districting, but none of that should hold up featuring it here.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:37, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Nanao (Japan)

 * Support. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:24, 8 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Support I love the dekayama image. If we can make it with these features until then, perhaps slot this in for next May? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:31, 11 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Support, lovely article. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 00:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Support, Nice article. Pictures could be bigger. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:18, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Celle

 * Support. I've seen this one being developed over the last months, and it looks really good. The pictures alone make me want to go there :) I think it better fits as an OtBP though. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 01:19, 4 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Support, if I'm allowed to vote as a "bit part" contributor. The article has really improved in leaps and bounds and has become a model for others. Not sure what the criteria are for OtBP - I wouldn't say Celle is off the beaten path. It's close to Hanover and a big destination for international tourists. --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 02:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Support. A really well done article from one of Wikivoyage's newer contributors. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Support. Very nice article and an interesting destination. (WT-en) Cardboardbird 18:36, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Cape Le Grand National Park

 * Comment: This one is scheduled to be featured in week or so yet the nomination has not been any discussion. Surely it would be against the spirit if not the policy to have it go through without consensus. Anyone care to comment? - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 09:19, 5 February 2012 (EST)
 * Support. It's missing a "Buy" section but otherwise looks reasonable to me. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:14, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Luang Prabang

 * Support. Could use a map, and the listings bullets could be fixed in the Eat section, but for the rest it's a great article. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:19, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Support. I have given the article a bit of a clean-up and I think it is ready.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:25, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
 * Support. Though I would have expected the See section to have more. I remember plenty of interesting temples. Unfortunately I don't recall any details. A map would be nice but the article still stands on its own. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 22:16, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Kuta (Lombok)

 * Support. This article could potentially use some minor formatting tweaks - the "Eat" section would benefit from some splitting up, the callout for the new airport might work better as an infobox, and the pictures might be better at 300px - but overall a complete article about what appears to be an interesting destination. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Support. Also agree with the above, plus the formatting for Gerupuk in the surfing section looks clumsy. Shouldn't the surf shops listings in Do be in Buy? - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 09:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Comment. Interesting question. Often, the main business of a surf shop is arranging surf trips. It is a similar case to dive shops which we always put in Do and not Buy. I think I would come down on the side on leaving them in Do, but it is not a black and white situation.--(WT-en) burmesedays 20:41, 28 September 2011 (EDT)