Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile

The following pages were proposed on Project:Destination of the Month candidates, but the consensus was generally against them. Beneath each proposed article are the objections that need to be addressed. Once this has been done, feel free to nominate them again.

Carrollton (Virginia)

 * Achtung.svg Needs work – for me, this article is barely a guide (but still one nonetheless per the criteria). It is complete, but that does not necessarily equate to being featurable. For one, more should be added to the "See", "Do", "Buy" and "Sleep" sections with it clearly mentioning that they are the only place to see, do, buy or sleep. The Understand section could do with a lot more content as it is rather dull and monotonous as things stand. More could also be done to explain how to visit the town for those who don't drive and other car-free alternatives, including getting in from the airport + railway station. I might add a bit more to this list, but they are a few things to add. Don't let my comment discourage you – please keep up the good work you do – but things need to be near-perfect for it to be on the Main Page and I hope you can understand my remarks. Best, -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just did some more research, I added in the get around section the only bus route that goes through Carrollton being Hampton Roads Transit Route 964, You will still need a car but it does provide the alternative to public transit (although it only stops in Carrollton twice a day as mentioned in the article.) Someonehere12345 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's a 2bpd service doesn't sound very usable to me – it should be mentioned in the article. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 13:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As there is only one stop in Carrollton, I moved the bus info to Get in. It could be used to connect with a train at Newport News. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alasdair :-). -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Needs some work. I think this is stretching the meaning of guide. We have a list of two supermarkets, one of which is "The only supermarket in Carrollton". None of the eat or drink listings have detailed descriptions, or give the impression that the writer has actually walked through the door. The Do listings are also lacking in detail. Is one historic building to look at from the outside all there is to see? AlasdairW (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed the listing for Food Lion, to say the main supermarket, which it is, since the other is really more of a meat market. I didnt give too detailed of a descritpion, because I didnt want to be touting. And the Carroll home listing is the only thing I know of, that would qualify for a "see" listing. (Carrollton is not that big.) Someonehere12345 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I later added a See listing for St Luke's Church, but I won't object if it is moved to Smithfield (Virginia) or elsewhere. So there are now two things to see. AlasdairW (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Someonehere12345, why do you equate detailed description with touting? Information != touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The way I look at it, Is that its better to have a very dry objective description (like italian food), then a detailed descripton which some people (not me but potentially some people) might view as touting or advertising Someonehere12345 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because touting risks being removed. Someonehere12345 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stating that x, y and z dishes are particularly good is not touting. There are lots of Italian restaurants. Why is this one in particular listed? I suggest you look at listings in star-rated articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I updated all of the eat and drink listing descriptions (with the exception of the supermarkets which were moved to the buy section). Are the descriptions detailed enough now? Someonehere12345 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also updated the do listings. Please let me know if the eat/do listings fix your objections. Someonehere12345 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Meh. This article fills me with soulless flatulence. The place lacks notoriety or anything remarkable. Aside from being an okay place to raise 2.5 kids in a suburban cape cod near schools and shopping, I don't really get the feeling this is a place that's even worth the gas it takes to pull off the interstate for a quick rest break. We have far better articles. Besides, there's far too many featured U.S. destinations as it is. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mama Mia Pizzeria, Shang Hai restaurant and Food Lion supermarket all have the same address. Is it because they are all in the same strip mall? And why is Mama Mia Pizzeria's address being "13478 Carrollton Blvd M"? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They are all in the same strip mall. I added M because thats where I saw the address listing, But thanks for pointing that out the mama mia address, when i was pulling addresses thats what I got. I deleted the M now for consistency sakes, since they are all the same strip mall. Someonehere12345 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not Yet In articles about places that lack attractions, it's important to give a spotlight to the things that do exist and you can give more information about each attracton without worrying about overpowering the article. As it is written, it does not make the town appealing. Ask yourself why should anyone go here? Why would anyone ever want to visit this city? What would interest or intrigue someone about this city? Add the answers to the article. In an article that is so dry, I'd suggest trying your hand at touting. The "no touting" rule is meant to prevent flowery promotional language. It is not intended to discourage telling visitors what is appealing, interesting, or special about a city or listing. It also needs more pictures. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Slush? There is next-to-zero consensus for featuring this article and very little has been done since. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 23:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, slush it. Pashley (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - If everything of interest in the town is listed, then it is a complete article. And we've featured some towns with very few listings as OtBP. That said, unlike e.g. Hyden and Crawford (Nebraska), Carrollton seems to be close to some more populous cities so maybe it would make sense to merge the article into either of them. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those two are nicely written and there are a few more or less unique sights, which somebody might go there for. For Carrington we learn that it has experienced growth as a bedroom community, and the background to its name. Nothing in the lead or the Understand tells why I would want to go there. A guide article (and especially a feature) should tell why I would want to or why I'd end up there anyway.
 * I'd imagine that you might want to stop in Carrington for a pizza, a specialty flavor icecream or the fish tacos (and that might be enough for us wanting the article), or for the oldest church in Virginia, but if so, why don't tell it up front?
 * –LPfi (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Slush. I have to agree with OhanaUnited here: "Carrollton has experienced growth as a bedroom community" is the least exciting tagline ever.  The Carroll family history is mildly interesting but it sounds like you can't actually enter any of those "truly historic Carrollton homes", meaning the only actual attraction of any kind is a church?  Jpatokal (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Outcome: slushed. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Cycling in the United States

 * Before I voice my support, I do question this:
 * "Racism — Sadly, the United States can be a racist place, and BIPOC cyclists should do additional research into their route. Cycling tends to be seen as a 'white space', which will impact the amount of discrimination you experience. There are unfortunately no high-quality national resources for 'biking while Black'."
 * I interpret the second sentence as only Blacks being targeted, but what if you're of any other race? I haven't cycled in the US before, so I don't know the answer to this, but would I as someone who is not white nor black be victimised by racism? FWIW, I frequently take my bike out and ride for around from where I live and have never been a target for racism in my home city whilst cycling. --  SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the cyclist community in general a more racist one than the one for motorists, public transit riders, taxi drivers, or any other sector of American society? Are specific ethnic groups targeted? United States of America has a very different point of view, mentioning East Asians and Russians as particularly vulnerable. Without dismissing any of them, or anyone's personal experience of racism, the section should be more contextual. /Yvwv (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think there should be an Understand section, summarising the availability of cycling infrastructure, attitudes of drivers etc. The intro gives the impression that USA is a biking heaven – that's OK for the intro, but you should get readers down to earth before going into details, as I've understood that's not quite the complete picture. –LPfi (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is some jargon adding to the lively style but making it hard for people like me (second language speaker). What is "a quick RSVP", what is "Hang back and let them do whatever"? I also think some things should be explained more thoroughly; e.g. the article says you should keep away from the door zone of parked cars, but I'd be afraid of getting under the next bus or truck from behind. Can you trust other traffic to keep clear? What happens if you use your right to take a lane, will the drivers behind you be happy to slow down?
 * The urban cycling images (Black Canyon Trail, Old Colony Nature Pathway, Colchester Causeway) do not look urban to me. I assume the point is that there are nice trails near cities, but urban cycling to me is getting around the cities themselves. Can you reach your hostel by safe routes? Should the trails go to Trails, perhaps split up into long distance trails and day trip trails in or close to cities.
 * The quoted fee of $220 for taking your bike across the country is quite hefty. I would rather hire locally, or buy one at the destination. How widely are those options available? What about cheap used bikes?
 * –LPfi (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My experience of the U.S. is that suburban or rural cycling is the best, while due to the prevalence of cars and jam-packed interstate routes, urban cycling is a nightmare. Of all the American cities I've known, I'm not aware of one that would be an enjoyable place to cycle. In Europe, where cycle lanes often take priority over automobile lanes, urban cycling is probably more enjoyable.
 * Your second paragraph is why I wouldn't cycle in urban areas: most roads have cycling routes because the law mandates it or for PR, but they're virtually unusable in fact. Instead, upscale suburban areas have bike trails in their exurbs, which are perfect cycling destinations. So this should be clarified in the article, in my opinion.
 * As mentioned above, obviously minorities should take caution. Suburbs should be safe for everyone, but urban areas and rural areas would be of more concern. Common sense should be able to guide this, though.
 * Additionally many roads in my local area don't have enough crosswalks, and people without cars (most of whom are minorities) run a high risk of not being spotted crossing a street at night, whether they're pedestrians or cyclists. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs work. Except issues already mentioned, selection of destinations is far too narrow, and the article does not say a lot about cycling in the country as a whole. There is potential to create elaborate articles on states and regions, such as cycling in Colorado or cycling in California. /Yvwv (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time reviewing and commenting everyone! I know you've got other things you'd rather be working on, so it means a lot to me. I've made a few quick updates to the article based on your feedback. It was especially helpful to hear from ESL readers, I forget that English is not everyone's native tongue. Sounds like I should add an understand section, with more realistic descriptions of what cycling in various American situations is like as a whole. Fair point. Maybe there's something to having sections for both long and short distance trails. Or maybe making the idea that "these are the good trails near this city" more clear that somehow. Not sure I agree that the "selection of destinations is far too narrow", it almost feels like there are too many options as is. I think there is enough content to create additional Cycling in California type articles, but I'm not going to do it lol. ButteBag (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * There are plenty of suggested destinations, but they don't cover all the country, and a biker going to an area not covered should get the general advice they need, or enough for them to choose whether to forget about going by bike this time, try to find more information elsewhere or plan for biking anyway. I assume there may be variations even on local level, so you cannot cover all of it, but you probably have some touch on what to expect from places where you haven't been and heard nothing about. So, yes, I think an Understand would be good.
 * –LPfi (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. One other thing I've noticed is the lack of detail about helmet laws. For someone like me who comes from a place where helmets are mandatory by law, whether it's mandatory or not doesn't really bother me (I always wore one in Oslo, even though I knew I might have been judged), but for some others who may be used to cycling in a country with no legal restrictions, we should elaborate more. Looking at Bicycle helmet laws by country, it seems some states mandate the use of helmets for children while there are few to no restrictions in others. I realise that having a table for all 50 states + 5 organized territories is going to be very long, but surely we can do better than what currently stands. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bicycle helmets in the United States has a good table, though we probably shouldn't copy the table as is. Would it be okay to make an exception to the Links to Wikipedia policy in this regard? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The table is collapsed, so not obvious, and the rest of the article is quite thin. Perhaps it suffices to say that helmets are mandatory for children (up to 12–18) in many states or counties (is that the relevant level?), mostly voluntary for adults. Readers should then check for themselves. Articles about individual states could have the info in their By bike sections, where a paragraph should be enough even in complicated cases. –LPfi (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Nominated 10 months ago with zero support votes and only minor improvements. /Yvwv (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe best to wait a couple of weeks for some input from ButteBag. And if it's slushed it can be renominated later if the issues have been fixed. Ypsilon (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

In the footsteps of explorers

 * Support as nominator. Pashley (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The scope of the topic is too generalized, and it mainly serves as a list of itineraries. The selection of described individual explorers and journeys is very arbitrary. /Yvwv (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? No positive feedback for a month. /Yvwv (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm unsure about this. It's definitely a valid article and as such featurable, but like Yvwv said it has a huge scope, somewhat like visual arts. Basically it would be a good idea to create new articles for the sections/explorers that have a couple of POIs but I'm afraid those might become quite short unless someone volunteers to write more about those explorers... --Ypsilon (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Antarctic Peninsula

 * Needs work – one, an article can never fully be ineligible for a feature (unless the destination is really unsafe), so Churches in Antarctica won't ever be pushed back solely due to it being an armchair traveller article; two, Antarctic Peninsula is an absolute mess, but if it is going to stay that way, many markers needs coordinates; three, this one's minor, but this is still too off the beaten path to be considered a DotM. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that this won't be our first Antarctic feature (as per your comment), as South Pole has already been featured. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs work. Antarctica has been reorganised several times in the last years, and I think many of the articles, including this, still show that some of the content has been broken out from somewhere and just slightly reworded to fit. The list replacing Cities and Other destinations should be broken up, separating destinations that are covered in other articles and destinations covered here. That would get rid of the 22-bullet list, which includes an archipelago with a region article as well as an individual wreck. –LPfi (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely not DotM, but maybe OtBP. Pashley (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * About time to recategorise as an OtBP? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, or slush it since several people above say it needs work. Pashley (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't slush the article atm given it's only been 2 days since the article was nominated, but I have recategorised it as an OtBP. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be possible to get the article up to guide with some hours' work. Region articles don't need to be complete to get to guide, but their listings and layout should closely match the manual of style, and all the standard sections should have well-developed prose. All or most needed info might be there, just in need of reorganising and rewriting. –LPfi (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a rural area article, though, so the requirements are less lax. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it? The template calls it a region article, and there are city and region articles breadcrumbed to it. –LPfi (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it was written like one, with a structure similar to Streymoy – I've recategorised it. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 21:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Slush? no support for almost a month; I think this can be SNOW closed. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Tezpur

 * Needs work surely there's more than one place to drink in Tezpur. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 20:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? no improvements since. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Outcome: slushed. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Trabzon

 * Comment. This is one of the greatest articles of Turkish locations, thanks to the hard work by many of our contributors, first and foremost User:NeoRetro. However, it needs some tidying up: some of the information pertains to the region as a whole, not only to the city, and as for the listed attractions, the article currently works as a semi-rural area, with many sites in the surrounding area lumped in together with those in the city itself, including some which should be moved to the places we have articles for. However, most are visited as day-trips from Trabzon, so I'm not sure how big a problem this presents. Vidimian (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d lean DOTM on this Tai123.123 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs work per Vidimian. For dotm/otbp, I'd generally say dotm, but as we have a lot more otbp slots available, I wouldn't mind it being an otbp. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has been improved a lot since nomination and the first votes, and should be re-evaluated. /Yvwv (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: generally looks good, but for me (who doesn't know anything about the area) it's a little overwhelming. Still seems like some of this info should be lifted up to region level pages. See section PoI could use some trimming and better descriptions. Thanks! ButteBag (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: zero support !votes for over 10 months – slush? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 00:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a fairly long article that will take me a while to read through. Should Trabzon be districted? I will say that it strikes me as absurd to consider a city of 1 million for OtBP, and that this nomination should be moved to the DotM section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? as of tomorrow, this nomination would have been sitting here for a year with zero support !votes. Unless it's significantly improved, I guess it'll just be sitting here, crying for it to be slushed. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Slush - The Eat, Drink and Sleep listings look so thin, and there are rather few of them if we're talking about a city of several hundred thousand inhabitants, that one may wonder if the article even should have guide status. On the other hand See is very long, also with many listings with little information, and unusually formatted with green listings for park and "around" for a great number of the attractions. Ypsilon (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Minneapolis

 * Needs some work per comment. Ypsilon (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to get an article up to guide status before nominating it. No-one should support featuring a usable article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, speedy slush as we did with Cycling in the United States. Articles must be guide or star. --12:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. The right way to do it is to re-categorize the article first, and then nominate. That said, the article looks good. /Yvwv (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Iquitos

 * Close-ish: Top half of the article is excellent! See needs some coords and a subhead or two. I don't understand the "Travelling by yourself" section. Maybe delete or move to a new "nearby" section. "Jungle tours and ecolodges" imho should be split into "Do" and "Sleep" sections? Or merged into the "Jungle lodges" under sleep. "Party and nightlife" should go in Drink. "Renting a vehicle" should go in Get around? The stuff about eating endangered animals, drinking Ayahuasca, etc should probably go in a respect/stay safe/stay healthy section. Sleep needs a few coords. This is a really good one that could be great with a little love. ButteBag (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've schueduled this for June 2023, though if a lack of consensus emerges, we may have to feature Longyearbyen instead. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready, and is it even properly a guide? I think it isn't, considering the lack of addresses in "Eat" and the lack of any listing in "Drink." Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * had a full read through (and not just a skim read) and agree that this does not fulfill the criteria for guide per the City article status. Should this be speedily slushed? Longyearbyen can replace its slot. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate articles of higher quality. We have several months until June, in any case. /Yvwv (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be slushed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Liepāja

 * Needs work. Few eat, drink, and sleep listings have descriptions that is not to mention the lede and understand is rather short. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Close: Needs a real lede, and the eat and drink listings should be blown out. Three maps is maybe too many for me, but that's subjective. I would like to see a few more good images. But overall this is extremely good! ButteBag (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Oia (Greece)

 * Needs work. Many listings are devoid of coordinates. As I mentioned in the nomination above, this article is not otbp-standard; I will make it once I get some time, though – before the slot that's taken up by Navarre (Florida). -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 05:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy slush? I was planning to work on Oia this weekend, until I saw the edit history – large parts of the article were written by various IPs, all likely the same person as 193.86.240.59 – and 193.86.240.59 is believed to be ArticCynda block-evading (see Talk:Monolithos)., a penny for your thoughts? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We were getting short on candidates, but as we got an inflow of them, Oia is not necessary to keep. /Yvwv (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Salzburg

 * Needs work. Many listings don't have coordinates. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 06:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Most also lack lastedit, and those that have it are mostly from 2018–2019. I assume listings without coords are from before when we started adding coords systematically. Thus, this article haven't been updated since COVID-19 hit and needs a thorough check. If many listings were lost because of it, there is quite some work to replace them. Most listings now seem to have good descriptions, but after owner changes they may not apply. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? No improvements since. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless somebody steps forward. –LPfi (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Outcome: slushed. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Kent (Ohio)

 * Needs a little bit of work, though hopefully not much. A few points:
 * The "By plane" section violates wv:airports. While it isn't the blatant kind of violation like what we encountered in the Nigeria Expedition where there'd be seven unrelated airports, there is still no information on how to get from the airports to Kent
 * Some eat and drink listings need more contact details, if it can be found.
 * Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites seems to be outside Kent. If it's covered in another article, should it be removed?
 * Otherwise, it is mostly looking good, but the "By plane" section needs to be fixed before a feature. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Well formatted, a few subheads even have some supporting copy before the POIs! Just a few are missing coords. I would move any pois outside the dynamic map to whatever article they belong in. I would also remove the airport section, but probably no one agrees with me. Lose the "local" subhead under go next, doesn't add anything. ButteBag (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Slush? Still no progress since July 4. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 02:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Madrid

 * Comment There really shouldn't be any see listings in Madrid. Will do a detailed analysis of the article soon. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so ignoring the listings issue, I'm going to say this needs work. First of all, I find the map problematic. It doesn't have a static map, but I'm okay with that, but the dynamic district map relies on Wikidata IDs, and I think we all know that these can become victims of disappearing mapshapes; in this case, Madrid/Salamanca has already become one. I don't have much time in the near future to make such a detailed map for a city like Madrid (I can make a cheap one, but the dynamic map that relies on Wikidata IDs would be better in that case). Secondly, I noticed many listings were not in their respective districts, at least per the mapshapes. I haven't been to Madrid yet (though I plan to visit Madrid in 2025), so I don't really have much to comment on the content, but until this is fixed, this needs work. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? No improvements have been made since the nomination. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yellowstone National Park

 * Oppose for the same reason why this star nom was slushed. It's ridiculously long and violates Avoid long lists. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 00:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? No improvements have been made since the star nomination was slushed (and since this was nominated). -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Kingston (Jamaica)

 * Comment From eat onwards, the article tends to become a little bit drab. May support if someone takes the initiative of making the eat section a bit more colourful. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs more work. If the blurb is going to call it the birthplace of reggae and a great place to party, we need at least one reggae club in there! The Stay Safe section is also a bit odd, with "ensure a pleasant experience" and "signing their death warrant" back to back. Johannesburg is a good example of actually useful advice for a dangerous city. Jpatokal (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Negative reviews and issues unresolved for a month. Are there any other worthy Caribbean articles? /Yvwv (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Not yet In several places paragraphs appear to have unconnected sentences: Stay Safe has already been mentionned above, but I found this elsewhere, eg: in Understand - the second para links two completely different ideas. Route Taxis needs more explanation. Go Next is missing details for the places that don't have blue links. There have not been enough post-2020 edits to have confidence that it reflects all the changes as a result of Covid. AlasdairW (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Gaborone

 * Support, whenever it's halfway reasonable to travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * per Ikan. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not take the time to fully look at the article earlier, but now I have so I'm going to say it needs work. Some issues:
 * Understand is way too short.
 * The "Modern architecture" section has no description nor addresses
 * The same with the other "See" listings
 * The same goes with the other sections
 * That's just a start. So until this is fixed, I'm going to oppose a feature. However, in saying that, I'd like to see this being featured one day, perhaps maybe after these have been fixed. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Scheduled for September, for good safari weather and Botswana Day on 30 September. Scheduling was made before the comment above, and can always be reconsidered. /Yvwv (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On hold due to remaining issues. /Yvwv (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? The article has unaddressed issues some months past nomination. /Yvwv (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know to be fair. I'd love to see an article from Botswana be featured (as outside ZA, Southern Africa has had relatively few features), but at the same time, it needs some work. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - the current page banner is dreadful and should be replaced. Was just looking at the page and noticed it was nominated.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? This article has quietly been sitting here since Jan with all issues unimproved so far. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 06:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Australian cuisine

 * Comment: I think it needs a lot of work. Most sections don't look complete. The Meat section should mention that nearly all beef (and meat in general) is grass fed, not grain fed like it is in so many other countries of the world. Australia is also renowned internationally for its Black Angus beef and its marbled texture. There should also be a point on how experimental Australians are with meat. To what extent is game and offal eaten, for instance. The Fruit and Vegetable section briefly talks about one type of apple, no other kind of fruit and nothing about veggies. There should at least be a mention of Pink Lady apples and Calypso mangoes. The dietary requirements only touches on kosher, halal, vegetarianism and veganism. I think gluten free and nut allergies also need to be covered as a minimum. Iconic Australia ice creams like Paddle Pop, Golden Gaytime and Drumstick are all missing as are Twisties. Regarding seafood, Australia is known for its southern bluefin tuna and salmon (particularly Tasmania). There is no information on burgers which are more popular than e.g. Mexican-American, and no information on unique Australian twists on burgers like adding beetroot. It will come as a surprise to many foreign visitors the first time they order a burger in Australia. The takeaway section should have a sentence on Chinese takeaway plastic containers/boxes, which is different to the cardboard cartons you may find overseas. There's no mention of the great Australian barbecue nor anything on what kind of food is eaten on Christmas, the most important cultural event and festival of the year. Also missing Australian specific chains like Oporto and Red Rooster (see Chinese cuisine for comparison) and types of food establishments like the milk bar. I'll stop rambling now but I believe there is still a lot to do. Gizza ( roam ) 13:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet As the Australian drawbridge has only just been lowered, I think we should wait a year to allow edits as a result of readers using the guide. I agree with DaGizza that there is much to do. Snacks are well covered, but I think there is work to do on meals. Is kangaroo meat farmed, or are wild kangaroo's hunted or culled? Are there standards for the welfare of farm animals? Do Australian hotels serve breakfast? What times do Austrialians usually eat meals - will the restauarant be full of locals or empty at 6:30pm? What kind of food can be found in supermarkets - ready meals, hot food or just raw ingredients? AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd realised I as the nominator forgot to give my vote, but my vote is also needs work. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment as nominator still remains needs work, but I feel skeptical of the "fruit and veg" section or an ingredients section itself. I'm making this judgment based on American_cuisine which is pretty much a blob of super long user unfriendly text and it's mostly not travel related. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue with the American cuisine section is that it lists nearly everything that's eaten by Americans. My suggestions were more towards mentioning varieties of fruit and veg which are unique or originated in Australia. Gizza ( roam ) 06:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense and it is more doable, user friendly and travel related. We could also list some important food festivals too. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Scheduled provisionally for February/March 2023. The article has improved, and can probably get good enough for next year. / 10:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs work. The blurb, the intro and the article itself all need work: not a single mention of Mod Oz food (!), and the characterizations as "sweetest" (what?) and "not be the greatest culinary destination" are offputting.  Also, I'm sorry to say, but Indigeous ingredients are basically non-existent. Jpatokal (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On hold due to remaining issues. /Yvwv (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Slush? I don't think I have the knowledge or capability to make this FTT-worthy (namely, I honestly don't know how to fill the "Fruit and vegetables" section) so I won't be able to fix some of the remaining issues raised. What do you think? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 06:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've given it a once-over, but I still think it needs more work. Jpatokal (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On hold until ready to feature. /Yvwv (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Indianapolis

 * Agreed that the best time to be on the main page is around the Indy 500, i.e. May 2023. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Scheduled for May 2023. Please evaluate the article. /Yvwv (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There's too much information in this article, which makes me think this city is probably large enough to be divided into districts. In that case, there's probably work to be done that would precede a DOTM nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Much of this article violates Avoid long lists. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. +1 for slushing. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 04:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Cycling in the United States

 * I have upgraded it to usable, but maybe you could use the article talk page and a link on Requests for comment to see if it has reached Guide, before it is discussed here in detail. AlasdairW (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's the way to do it. Thanks @AlasdairW! ButteBag (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, speedy slush. Articles must be guide or star. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Who wants to slush it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Freetown

 * Close – I'd love to see this featured, and I agree that outside South Africa, Africa is severely underrepresented. Some issues tho:
 * There are two national parks on the static map, but there is no mention about them in the article. Maybe I'm nitpicky about this as someone who's into the concepts of metro national parks
 * Many listings are missing contact info.
 * There are no buy listings.
 * Many of the beach listings have just the beach name and coords with nothing else
 * Otherwise, it looks good to go. Once they're fixed, I'll support. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Slush? this article has been quietly sitting here since March. Should we slush this for now and renominate this once we feel the quality has improved? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 06:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Planning your flight

 * Close Some brushups needed, but otherwise looks good. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? This nomination has quietly been sitting here since November and hasn't received a lot of support since. I would slush this for now and then renominate this if the article has improved. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Las Vegas

 * Comment: Sorry for the lack of geographic diversity, with a fourth DoTM candidate from the American Sun Belt. They all have international appeal to be featured, though. IMO we should run the best and most relevant US article in March 2022, and the next one for fall 2022. /Yvwv (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * we do have around three Australian destinations featured next year + this December, so don't think it's a huge problem. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? No supports or opposes, but this nomination has just been sitting here for months now. I would have normally given my opinion my now, but I'm very undecided on this – on one hand, most of the districts are in good-shape, but none of the districts have mapmasks which IMO, is key for a good city article (as the outer borders are now undefined). SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the maps are a problem. The mess of literal points of interest crowded in the maps on the page in several districts makes the maps nearly indecipherable without zooming in. And then there's the probably more serious problem of the "Las Vegas districts" map in Las Vegas, which does not show the boundaries of 3 districts. The age-old solution when there's a need to focus in on a city's downtown is to put it in an inset. So there should really be two district maps - the one that's already there and a zoomed-out one that shows the boundaries of the larger outlying districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I'd be happy to support if someone's willing to make an interactive dynamic map using geojson.io, which also gives the benefit of the district articles having mapmasks (using 's convenient tool), but I've only visited Las Vegas twice and both times, I only visited the city en route to either Arizona or Utah. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've created a quick & dirty dynamic map and added it to the article. Maybe you have some ideas on how to improve it? "Wikivoyage Districtifier" does not work here because the official administrative boundaries are quite different from what we use so far.--Renek78 (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That map is an improvement, but I still think two maps, one an inset, are the best solution, considering that we want the page to be usable and printable as is, not only for people who have Internet access while they are using the map and are therefore able to look at it on a full page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's certainly an improvement so thank you for making the map :-).
 * But do we have anyone who can make an inset? If there is no guidance on how to make one (one that's in Wikivoyage-style), or if nobody can make them, then basically we're asking to do something that's impossible. I could do one IRL, but the way I would do it is completely against Wikivoyage style and I don't want to be unilaterally tampering our MoS. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about other people but I use Wikivoyage within OsmAnd - a navigation app - while travelling. Printable maps wouldn't be a concern for me personally, but there are different user types of course.--Renek78 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since dynamic maps are being used in that article, the way to make an inset would seem to be to simply increase the zoom level for the inset and make sure its positioning is such that it shows the full extent of the smallest districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Nothing has changed since July 30, and I doubt it will. For the most part, this nomination has quietly been sitting here for 10 months now. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wengen

 * Close, but needs some work:


 * Why is there only one listing in "Drink"? There are others mentioned, but they should be in a listing format.
 * Do the churches pass wv:worship? If so, they should be in a listing or markered at the bare minimum
 * The buy section is missing contact details, coordinates and addresses
 * That's all from me right now. Will do the smaller fixes myself. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No personal experience re: the other bars mentioned, alas. The Lutheran Church is picturesque and has great views, so it's worth a mention, but I'd drop the rest.  I've cleaned up the Buy section.  Jpatokal (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Needs work. A ski resort should have a description of the lift system and spectator events. Could use a climate chart. /Yvwv (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wengen is not a standalone ski resort, but just a node in the rather vast Grindelwald-Wengen-Murren-First-Schilthorn ski area: you can ski down to Wengen, but getting up the slopes requires taking the train or gondola. This is mentioned in passing but I'll try to make this clearer. Jpatokal (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the region should have an article on its own, whether it is called Jungfrau Region or something else. /Yvwv (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Zero support votes, and issues have not been addressed for four months. /Yvwv (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yangshuo

 * Comment: I wonder if this qualifies as OtBP given that this is a heavily touristed area. Anyway, I'll support this nomination if others do. It looks like the article hasn't been updated much recently, so I will try to do some work on it early next year. STW932 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I also think this fits as a DOTM Tai123.123 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Close some brushups needed + coordinates and dead links. I'm neutral on dotm or otbp. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment just want to say it was slushed in 2015, it seems it’s improved since then though. Tai123.123 (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out. See /Slush pile. /Yvwv (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? Still no progress on coordinates and dead links for six months now (and I don't feel comfortable adding coordinates myself because of China's strange coordinate system). SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Suwon

 * There's a red-linked image of Suwon districts until I delete it. "Traffic" is usually not in "Understand". A walled city deserves a bit of historical background in that section. A lot of restaurant names are oddly given with initial lowercase letters. I don't have time to look through the rest with a fine-toothed comb, but this article clearly needs more editing and a more meaningful "Understand" section to be featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed the Traffic section, which I think didn't add anything to what is in Get in. Much of Get in is confusing, possibly because of language issues. –LPfi (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I remember once mentioned that motels in South Korea was a place to have sex (I can't remember where though). Would the motels listed in Suwon pass the Sex tourism policy? -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where, but yes, in South Korea and Taiwan, motels are a place to have sex, just like the love hotels in Japan. But that said, if you stay a night and decide not to have sex, nobody will say you can't. The dog2 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Found it; here it is. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But would it pass our sex tourism policy though? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sex tourism policy is about paying for sex, not going to a love motel with the person who is already your partner and having a discreet experience you choose to have as a couple. Houses of prostitution can't be listed, and we've discussed issues relating to gay spas (saunas?), I think they are, which are apparently really a euphemism for places where people pay to have sex with strangers of the same sex. That's not what love motels are, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It that case, I don't think it will be a problem. Many people do engage a prostitute from outside and bring her to the love motel to have sex, but these love motels generally do not provide prostitution services. They are just providing a place for people to have sex. The dog2 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If these motels are seedy and patrons are likely to run into prostitutes and their johns, we should warn people and could consider whether to list them or not, but if they're well-taken-care-of, clean and discreet and used by couples who are married or in relationships as well as people hiring sex workers, it's fine to list them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Not yet. Several sections need serious copy editing. The language issues often make the text hard to understand or even incomprehensible for somebody unfamiliar with the context. –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs a lot of work Apart from the motels issue, there are a hell lot of issues with this article


 * Its understand section is ridiculously short
 * There is no information on how to get in to Suwon by car.
 * The tone and language used is a serious problem. It's dull, for the most part, incomprehensible, and has a hell lot of grammar issues.
 * Suwon (though the SH should be Supermarkets) is very bland
 * The drink section needs a cleanup.
 * Therefore, I oppose a feature of Suwon. However, if we do want a feature from SK, then maybe we should pick one of the Seoul districts at guide status. namely Seoul/Jongno and Seoul/Jung (the other two are missing coords). Yvwv, what do you think of that? -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea. /Yvwv (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sopron
Otherwise it looks promising. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Close, but not yet. On a quick read it looks a good article, but I did see a few things that need to be worked on:
 * There are about a dozen see listings with the marker 99 - maybe some of these should be moved to Go next and become a different type of listing.
 * Interesting knowing what the bus fares were in 2014, but today?
 * Several dead links.
 * Following the recent changes, there are now more supermarket listings than we normally allow.
 * Very few listings have edit dates, which implies that they are old and need to be checked.
 * You have a point that the article has entries for too many historic buildings. Those that are not normally open to the public, and do not have any extraordinary importance (palace of a ruler, etc) do not need to be listed individually. /Yvwv (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - excessive detail, and out of date. Do we want to feature an article that lists every supermarket and the services it offers? Do we want to feature an article that lists all of the restaurants available in 2014 and their prices? (Hungary has had 30% inflation in the 78 years since these were posted.) I think this article need a major overhaul and update before it is featured. I cleaned up a lot of formatting, spelling and punctuation errors, but this still needs more work. Ground Zero (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very close I don't have a problem with too many historic buildings, and as long as the churches listed pass wv:worship, it is fine. However, the we have the 99 problem, but that can be solved by creating a travel topic (such as Historic sites in Sopron), which also doesn't make this article long and unwieldy. However, the buy section does need a bit of work to reflect the recent wv:grocery addition and some of the eat/drink listings need descriptions, but otherwise the article has all the essentials for a feature. It seems a majority of the content here was added by  in 2015, so it's reasonably up-to-date, but the dead links need a check but that can be done soon. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Slush? no major improvements apart from GZ's formatting fixes. I was unaware that Hungary has had a 30 per cent inflation in the last 7-8 years, hence my "very close", but the 99 issue will remain unless someone who knows the city well enough will be able to fix the historic sites issue. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Shall we find another worthy guide-level Hungarian town? Hévíz? /Yvwv (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Blanes

 * Getting there, but not yet – some comments from me:
 * Many listings, particularly in &sect; Buy are missing contact info and have nothing but directions and coords.
 * Many of the eat listings are missing addresses
 * The drink section is missing many coordinates
 * The sleep section has many listings, but with no description.
 * Why is there an empty splurge section?
 * That's all from me. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Unaddressed issues for three months. /Yvwv (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagbilaran

 * close, but needs work. some feedback from me:
 * none of the eat, drink and sleep listing have coordinates
 * surely there's more than one place to drink in Tagbilaran.
 * many listings are missing descriptions
 * once that is resolved, i'll support. --shb2000 (talk) 05:51 1 april 2022 (utc)


 * Granted T is more a transit point than a destination in its own right. Still, I find it hard to consider it "off the beaten path"; the article says the port handled 4000 passengers a day pre-COVID.
 * Should another destination in Bohol province be featured instead? The main tourist area is Alona Beach on Panglao island. I'd say an effort to bring one of those up to Guide would be a better use of time than fixing T. Pashley (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not yet per SHB2000. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? No work done for nearly three months. /Yvwv (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it. If we'd like a feature from the Philippines, I'd say we should follow 's suggestion. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Saas-Fee

 * Close but needs some work haven't fully looked at the article, but here's a few comments from me:
 * The tourist offices need a description
 * The capitalization needs a check
 * From the #Drink section, Nightlife choices in the Saas valley are plenty but mostly limited to pubs and après-ski bars. If that's the case, then why is only one bar listed?
 * -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? No improvement since nomination, and we have another Swiss mountain town nominated for DoTM. /Yvwv (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to. I guess we don't need two Swiss towns. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 01:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ta'if

 * Support as nominator. If the article needs more work, we can nominate it at another time. Roovinn (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Very close, the guide looks good to me, but the few things that can be improved are- all phone numbers must be uniformly written in +966 XXX XXXX... also in the budget part of the eat section, there is no need to make two listings for the same place, an exception can be made if there is significant difference between the two which must be clearly specified in the content of the listings. Some sections can be expanded like the buy section by adding listings for local markets etc. Optionally, a route box at the end of the guide can also be added. Apart from these, everything looks good to me. These are some minor glitches and can be fixed easily. 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Roovinn, if this destination is an 'Underrated destination' and it 'is not exactly a household word' then it could be featured as OtBP 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also consider adding a 'Connect' section specifying telecom operators in the city and other ways to connect with the world. 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @2006nishan178713 Done and implemented, to the best of my abilities. Thank you for your suggestions! Phone numbers I'll tweak later. Roovinn (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work, lets see what others think. I'll put my support once the phone number issue is fixed and no other issue catches my eyes. :) 2006nishan178713t@lk 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't there a rule stating that there needs to be at least two years between features from the same general region, as both mecca and taif are in Hejaz we can only have one go up this year. No longer an issue due to slushing of Mecca. Tai123.123 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tai123.123, that's true. We can keep the Ta'if nomination open for a certain period of time and then we can choose any one of it which is more accurately written. 2006nishan178713t@lk 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not voting for now Have the same concern as Tai123.123. Anyway, my thoughts:
 * The visa requirement section is not necessary as duplication can cause confusion
 * What happened to the addresses? Nearly all of them are missing
 * Some of the listings need a description
 * So excluding Tai123's concern which I also have, I'm going to say close. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Close. Needs a more inspiring intro, a climate graph, and a general description for the Do, Buy and Eat sections. /Yvwv (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? The article has unaddressed issues some months past nomination. If they are fixed, we can run the article soon again to feature for mid-2023. /Yvwv (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support slushing – unfortunately not a single edit since the nomination (excluding a spelling and a lint fix). SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I made an editing pass & I think improved some things. However I have not been there in about 40 years, so I'm not the right person to ensure it is up-to-date. I do not object to slushing it for now, but Roovin is correct; this is an underrated destination & well worth featuring at some point. Pashley (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Arusha
Wasn't Arusha slushed a couple of times? (Having checked) Yes, in 2013 and 2010. And a quick glance shows that some safari operators are still listed under P.O. boxes or lack an address at all, so it's not ready for a feature yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs (alot of) work The lead is short and should be improved. There is a lack of coords for most eat and sleep listing. Two see listings is too little for a city of the size, a quick google search makes me think that the "Arusha Declaration Monument" and the "Arusha National Natural History Museum" should be added. Also lack of addresses like Ikan Kekek pointed out above. —The preceding comment was added by Tai123.123 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not yet. In addition to what has been stated above, the Drink section has information but lacks listings and the destinations in "Go next" lack descriptions. Many of the listings may also be closed since they lack URL links so the article could be very out-of-date. Even Do and Buy have the potential to be expanded. A city of 400,000 likely has more than two non-safari activities and two markets (excluding malls). Gizza ( roam ) 05:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, and this would fit more into the new "informative" status – when I first saw this nomination in its current status, it was an absolute joke to me. Many of the listings are in a state of despair on top of the issues that Gizza, Ikan and Tai brought up. To Yvwv, I understand you want to feature more destinations from underrepresented parts of the world, but at the same time, but if it doesn't fulfill the criteria, it can't be featured. Also, I disagree that Arusha is "off the beaten path". It is far more significant than Arches NP which we decided would be a dotm. So no, I oppose featuring this, and I'm not going to spend my time on working on an article that is in a state of despair just so we can get more features from underrepresented parts of the world. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Due to negative feedback, we could slush this nomination early. /Yvwv (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead as you wish. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Mecca

 * It's a nice article. A little bit of work needs to be done, such as a description for some of the do and sleep listings, some addresses. But I wouldn't want to feature it because has anyone from voy actually visited Mecca to confirm everything? If that's a yes, I would be happy to see it go on the main page, but thanks for improving that article :-) -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the drink section needs some work per Tai123.123 as well. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 01:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Needs Work I agree with SHB that someone who's visited Mecca should review it before a feature. There could be more sleep and eat listings for one of the most visited cities in the world, also there is only drink listing but the descrirption says there are numerous cafes. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it be an alternative to make Hajj a featured travel topic? That article is currently rated Usable, but looks to me like it could be promoted to Guide. Pashley (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Provided that a majority of the world's population is prohibited from visiting Mecca, should it be OtbP? /Yvwv (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know to be fair. It's a well known destination, but similar to, it's not easy to get to, and with Mecca, impossible. Since that's the case, I'm leaning towards OtBP. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's more appropriate for Off the Beaten Path, that would be fine as well. Roovinn (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support for OtBP. My only concern would be that none of the most recent contributors have been there, so we're relying on internet info.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you imagine a path more beaten than the one leading here? You can dream about Paris without ever being able to go there, but that doesn't mean it's a hidden gem. For those able to visit Mecca it is certainly in the category of well-known and well-visited, and for those not, well. I don't think easiness of visiting has ever been a criterion for DoTM. –LPfi (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Off the Beaten Path for Mecca is absurd to the nth degree. I would like to reserve judgment until a Haji/Hajjah has the chance to pass judgment on the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree this has to DOTM. Tai123.123 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Paris is quite a different story because anyone can visit there unless they have visa problems which applies worldwide. In Mecca's case, only Muslims can enter the city, so for most of the world's population, it's off the beaten track. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 02:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd say the suggestion of OtBP is absurd; I'm not sure of current numbers, but before COVID something over two million foreigners a year came for Hajj plus Saudis doing Hajj & people visiting at other times. This is an extremely well-beaten path & has been for well over a thousand years.
 * Either Mecca as DotM or Hajj as FTT would make sense. Pashley (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think featuring somewhere that most of the world can't visit as destination of the month on an international, secular website is absurd. Haven't we had Hajj as FTT before? If not, that would be an alternative. However, it's probably a moot point, because none of us have visited Mecca, because we're not allowed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, "mecca" literally means a place that's a huge draw for x-type of people. This discussion is IMO silly. You can't go somewhere, so therefore it's not off the beaten path but off-limits for you, but that doesn't mean there's no beaten path, just that you aren't on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with TT on this one. If it's off-limits to most of the world's population, then it's not on the beaten track – it probably might be well known, but if no-one here has been there, then how can we check if everything is accurate? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be sensible. Which track is more beaten than the one to Mecca? Do you want to make this site a laughingstock? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with others. Rather than thinking about Mecca in terms of who cannot visit, think of it in these terms: 1.9 billion people in the world are REQUIRED to visit this destination. Sure, not all of them will, but they should all be trying. That's nearly 1/4 of the entire population of planet earth. If 1 out of every 4 people have visited or are planning to visit a destination, there is no way it is off the beaten path. Almost all of our past DotMs have had less visitors. Everything will be "OtBP" if the DotM threshold is that over 25% of the world must have been there or be planning to visit said destination. Places like Tokyo, Sydney, Los Angeles, etc. would all be "OtBP" candidates. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * DOTM is just defied as a "Major Travel Destination", if one of the most visited cities in the world is not a major destination then I don't what it is. (This is per the definition at Previous Destinations of the month).
 * OTBP is defined as a "lesser-known or unusual travel destination", you cannot argue that Mecca is lesser known as many non muslims have heard of it even id though don't plan on visiting, if we make Mecca OTBP under the second definition provided (unusual travel destination) I feel this could even be taken as offensive by some Muslims. (Again definition provided by Previously Off the beaten path)  Tai123.123 (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you think I'm not being sensible. As TT says, "featuring somewhere that most of the world can't visit as destination of the month on an international, secular website is absurd". Simple as that, how is that not being sensible? Hypothetically, if someone does ever manage to create a guide article for Area 51, would you call that a dotm or an otbp? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We've made very clear why we think your argument is senseless. Where's the beaten path to Area 51? Gimme a break! I will say unmistakeably that if Mecca were to be nominated for "Off the Beaten Path", I will strongly oppose! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but none of us here have visited Mecca. We could get someone from Wikipedia who might've been to Mecca to check everything is accurate though. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a different issue. However, Muslims have edited here; they just don't look at this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if any of us have visited, the definition listed at Previous Destinations of the month says it must be a major travel destination, not a place that Wikivoyage editors have been. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we get a similar situation as to the the slushed Pyongyang – purely based on online research. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 01:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again that's a different issue, if we were to feature it would have to be DOTM (though again I still think it needs work per my earlier messages) Tai123.123 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, as the drink section needs work, I guess it can't be featured until that's sorted out anyway. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's the current vote count if anyone's curious,
 * Dotm: 6 (Me, Ikan, Roovin, LPFI, Pashley, ChubbyWimbus)
 * OTBP: 3 (SHB, Ywwv, ThunderingTyphoons) Tai123.123 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not a vote; we are trying to work by consensus.
 * The notion of Mecca as OtBP strikes me as patently absurd. If you look at List of cities by international visitors, Mecca is 21st on the list, ahead of places like Prague (23), Amsterdam (26) or Miami (28). Las Vegas, Shanghai, Barcelona, LA, Milan & Vienna are in the 30s. San Francisco is ranked 72nd and Rio 98th. We would never for second consider any of those OtBP & should not consider it for Mecca.
 * It would take far stronger arguments than any above to make me even consider OtBP here.
 * Hajj as FTT would be an alternative. Pashley (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Also Mecca estimates population at over two million. Pashley (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Mecca should be a DOTM, not OTBP. It's a very frequently visited city during non-pandemic times and well known among people who haven't been or can't go there. I don't think the fact that the city is exclusive to travellers following a particular religion can change a destination from DOTM to OTBP. Gizza ( roam ) 00:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know we work by consensus I just wanted to see which proposal had more support behind, also if no consenus can be be reached I feel the feature should be DOTM not OTBP (I feel this about all articles not just Mecca) Tai123.123 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Even if we would settle on whether to run the article as DoTM or OtBP, the article has some issues pointed out, which have yet to be resolved, two months after nomination. In any case, if we feature Mecca and neighboring Ta'if, there should be some cooldown time between them. /Yvwv (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yvwv Featuring neighbouring Ta'if seems like a better alternative to me on top of the fact that we cannot decide whether to feature Mecca as dotm or otbp. And as Tai123.123 mentioned, we can only feature one of them during the next two years, so feel free to go ahead. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Havana

 * Comment The lead can be improved Tai123.123 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs work on top of what Tai123.123 mentioned, a lot of the casas particulares don't have coordinates. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 12 with coordinates, 16 without. You could choose between the 12 if you want to use your GPS. The others can still be found by address, directions or by asking. Good of course if somebody knows how to find the coordinates of places over there. As we don't like long lists, should it be split up in some way (or pruned, but I suppose these get fully booked more easily than hotels). –LPfi (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that for a guide article, you wouldn't need to consult another guide because it's already there – but if you say "by asking", that is very similar to consulting another guide. Plus, many listings in this article also lack addresses – it's useless having coords but no addresses when printing it out unless it's a case like Port Campbell National Park where it's pointless because all the POIs have the same address. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should do something general about using our guides offline. You can download the guides, but if you get neither the map tiles nor the coordinates, and we rely on them, we turn those travellers down. –LPfi (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Zero support votes and severe unaddressed issues nearly three months into nomination. /Yvwv (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to. By the time the next time this gets nominated, Cuba will have developed even further. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ingolstadt

 * Support once information is added about the theatre. For me, this is borderline DOTM/OTBP. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as well. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 20:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a relook at it, but I'm going to say some urgent work is needed – are there really only five places to eat? Until that is resolved, I don't support a feature for the time being. --04:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Scheduled provisionally. Avoiding to feature at the same time as German cuisine. /Yvwv (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Put on hold? The article has unaddressed issues. Should we run Deventer instead? /Yvwv (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Or possibly Gavle? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very close to Archipelago Trail, so they should not be featured the same month. We could run Gävle for August, or delay the Archipelago Trail to June/July. /Yvwv (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Another possibility would be to feature Perce to May replacing Ingolstadt, move Budderoo NP one month forward so we feature both in a more favourable season and then feature Savaii during October which works for all three destinations. We could feature Gavle during December as it has more support than Punta Arenas. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 02:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd very much like to have the Archipelago Trail featured in May as planned, as that gives it all the season, while a feature in July would mean that places are closing down by the end of the feature. –LPfi (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's likely that the Archipelago Trail won't change. Looks like this might only be featured next year. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? Has been nominated for months with remaining issues. /Yvwv (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and feel free to. We have many destinations from Deutschland that are in better shape. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ohio state parks

 * Conditional support If the red links are eventually created, I'll support. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm changing from support to not yet per Ikan. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Scheduled provisionally for June/July. /Yvwv (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as a well-formatted article with extensive travel and activities information, and a model for any articles providing lists of parks. I'm not concerned about the redlinks, which are to county articles that don't fit into our region structure. These redlinks can be removed or redirected to those counties' regions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: But the red links do have to be dealt with in some way. My feeling is that this is a very practical guide to what facilities are available in each park, but what it doesn't have enough of for my taste is overviews of why you would want to go to Park A, Park B, Park C, etc. I would like to see every entry have a statement of what's special about that particular park, especially considering that none of these parks appear to have their own articles. If they had their own articles, such a statement and indeed some of the practical details could be farmed out to those articles, but that isn't the setup. So ultimately, my vote is not yet, but I consider this a very useful and promising article and believe that with some work by people who know these parks, this could be not just a feature but a particularly good feature. (I made a small change to the blurb: Sceneries -> scenery. I don't think I've ever seen that word in the plural except on this site.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On hold due to lack of support. /Yvwv (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? The article has many identified issues that have not been addresed since the nomination three months ago. We could re-nominate when the article has improved. /Yvwv (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you as the nominator feel it should be slushed, then go ahead. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Keszthely

 * Close some fixes needed and a lot of the listings don't have descriptions. I also have a somewhat concern, that there's far too many European destinations squished together, although mostly Western Europe, so not a issue for this article. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? – it's almost three months and no improvements have been made. We have many fine destinations from Europe, so geographic diversity is not a problem. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, many Hungarian towns have guide-level articles. Would any of them be more ready to feature? /Yvwv (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Helsinki/West

 * Not yet why is there no understand nor a get around section? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See Quick district article template, they aren't required in city districts. I should really go through the Helsinki articles again some day and have a look what needs to be updated... --Ypsilon (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Always thought they were meant to have them, but that's probably because a lot of district articles just have those sections anyway. In that case, I kannattaa (google translated) this article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the banner isn’t that nice, I have no idea what it’s a photo of. Tai123.123 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a closeup of the dome of the Church in the Rock from the outside. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s difficult to tell it’s a photo of a church and the Colors are bland Tai123.123 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The church doesn't look like a traditional church (see c:Category:Temppeliaukio Church) but it's actually one of the most popular tourist attractions in Helsinki (TBH I can't understand why, I've always found it ugly). Perhaps the photo could be better, but otherwise the church is a good banner topic for Western Helsinki. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Banners aren't considered a reason for opposition to a DOTM feature. We ought to consider changing the banner if image quality is poor. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not opposing it I just thing the banner is subpar Tai123.123 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand now. I would agree, as I don't think the current banner is informative about the city. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I'd tend to go with Ypsilon's local knowledge though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On hold with zero support votes, and Archipelago Trail featuring just before. /Yvwv (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is one support vote, by me :D It's just that I used the Finnish word for support (kannattaa according to google translate)... SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Scheduled provisionally for September, not too close to the previous Finnish article. It can however get a bit cold, and there are no major events, except the Finland-Sweden Athletics International. /Yvwv (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On hold again as some issues remain, and we have an overlapping feature from another Nordic country, and an excess of European articles. Replacing with Gaborone. /Yvwv (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slush? We have many great articles from Finland and other Nordic countries, both destinations and travel topics, some recently featured or upcoming. This article is not bad, but could see some improvement, and is not the strongest candidate for its country. /Yvwv (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Del Valle Regional Park

 * Comment: I wrote this some time ago and will need to review this if we’re going to feature the article. However, this is a part of the Diablo Range, a place which was just featured, and it may be better to feature somewhere from a locality we haven’t featured previously. However I’d leave that judgment to others and by no means oppose this nomination. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Late reply, but if that's the case, then would it make sense to feature this in 2023, 2 years after Diablo? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m OK with this. However, we’ll have to keep an eye on the fires this and next summer, as I don’t think this park has experienced a fire in a few years and with its woodland vegetation is a likely target for one. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (this is probably the millionth time I've accidentally thought June and around that time was winter :- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would late 2022 also work? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 02:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. Sorry I didn’t see this earlier. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Very close. Has most of the essentials but needs a more inspiring lead section, and more on climate and safety. /Yvwv (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? It is customary to slush a nomination which has been up for for three months, if there are zero support votes and unaddressed issues. This is still a decently good article, and deserves more evaluation. /Yvwv (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yvwv I'd say slush it, and I think we can renominate it two years after the Diablo Range has been featured. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Deventer

 * Oppose and speedy slush. Must be guide or above. Nominate when it's a guide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in /Slush pile#Doetinchem, the article meets the formal criteria for guide level. Status brought up in Talk:Deventer. /Yvwv (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then promote it, but don't nominate any article when it's not yet a guide or star article. Promote it first, if that's warranted. That's a fundamental requirement for nomination, as you know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Doetinchem

 * Needs work Many of the listings need a description, and others need coordinates. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Speaking as a citizen of Doetinchem, I don't think my city has that much to offer, and even less now that Covid is a thing we deal with. There's one large event planned this year that I know of, The Passion, which is performed in the Dutch language only, and will be held without spectators because of the pandemic. Also, focussing on European history is a bit unfortunate for this city. It got bombed thrice in March 1945 and very little of its historical character remains to be seen. It really doesn't have much to offer when it comes to history. Nearby Doesburg is a better pick on that front. It already sees a lot of German tourists every year, and does actually have a more quaint historical feel to it, with a history within the Hanseatic League to back it up.
 * That said, I think there's a potential for a good OtBP, but as a candidate, it might be better to 'steal' some nearby locations from their respective articles. Connection to them isn't an issue, since Doetinchem functions as a hub for most of the region. It could definitely benefit from being merged with Hoog-Keppel, Laag-Keppel and Hummelo (currently Bronckhorst) or alternatively 's-Heerenberg and Zeddam (currently Liemers, but an independent municipality within that region (Montferland)). Honestly though, if we want a Benelux article to be featured somewhat soon, it'd be better to look elsewhere, and I'm more than happy to help find that candidate. -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Would you recommend any other Benelux article which we could feature as is, or with some simple updates? /Yvwv (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course. Here's a little list with some of my thoughts:
 * Deventer (Overijssel, usable) - I see little wrong here. Deventer might be a guide article in disguise?
 * Drenthse Veenkoloniën (Drenthe, guide and Unesco-site) - I am the sole author of this article, so it could benefit from revision.
 * Arnhem (Gelderland, usable) - Needs work to fit MoS closer, can use some leading texts.
 * Nijmegen (Gelderland, usable) - Coords mostly, it seems.
 * Liège (Wallonia, usable) - Seems to need mostly coords and some more leading text.
 * Oostende/Ostend (Flanders, usable) - Might actually be a possible DotM instead, if so Nieuwpoort might be a good alternative?
 * Echternach (Luxembourg, usable) - Hasn't seen major edits since 2016.
 * Belgium hasn't had a OtBP yet, the Netherlands has had two (Groningen, July '17 and Simpelveld, April '21), Luxembourg one (Vianden, May '14), so I think Belgium would be most deserving of one. In which case I would push forward any of the above. I'm not the most familiar with Belgium though, so it might be handy to involve someone that is so we feature worthwhile articles.
 * In general though, Deventer is my favourite. It is perhaps best featured in December for the Dickens Festival and Christmas market, assuming those happen this year. Nijmegen is a strong second. Oostende would be third, but it seems to require more work. Veenkoloniën, I would rank high, but I am not willing to grade it since it's mostly my own work, and I might be blind to whatever it might lack. -- Wauteurz (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Bandung/Central

 * Close some fixes needed, but looks good. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Close. Looks good in general, but should have a header for each section. For "Buy", what budget brackets for shopping can be found? For "Drink", during which hours are the bars most crowded? For "Stay safe", what kind of crime would a visitor need to prepare for? /Yvwv (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? With little improvements and another alternate Indonesian destination, any objections before I slush my own nomination? -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indonesia is one of the countries with many guide-level article. This article is certainly not bad, but not the best of its country. /Yvwv (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok sure. Slushing this. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Amsterdam

 * Support - Great minds think alike etc., namely this is one of the articles I've been looking at for next summer's DotMs. A few small things; some sections of the article could use more photos, outdated information should be updated or deleted (a month or two before it's featured rather than now) and while the district articles look informative enough (and all at usable status, of course), it would be "nice but not mandatory" to find something to fill into their empty sections. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support . want anything to comment anything about this? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to everyone, but I strongly oppose featuring this now. I've just removed a bunch of copyvio text (which looks like someone copied theirs) and so this needs a lot of work to bring it back. Due to this, I will be removing it off the list unless someone brings it back to a somewhat decent quality. (cc ). If anything, I'd slush this now. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. As Ypsilon said, it needs a bit of work, but is a great candidate nonetheless. Especially the "Understand" paragraphs are completely blank for some districts, most notably the Canal District. Something to consider would be the districts of Amsterdam, since per March 2022, nearby Weesp will become a part of the municipality of Amsterdam. Logically, it would be included in our hierarchy as such as well. Additionally, it feels weird to me that Duivendrecht and Diemen aren't districts either. They may be different municipalities, but we don't have to be limited by that. That's an entirely different discussion though, but I am not sure whether to have that discussion before or after featuring this as DOTM. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per comments of those with local knowledge. As usual, some minor fixes would be appreciated. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Scheduled just before Pride 2022. /Yvwv (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Slush? Until the copyvio thing is fully sorted out, should we slush this? We can renominate this later if improvements have been made. For its slot, I think Havana or Queensland are two viable options. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * cc . -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slushing makes sense. When it comes to scheduling, we should keep common practice only to schedule articles with at least one vote. Leave the slot empty until we have a candidate with some support. /Yvwv (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: slushed due to copyvio. I'll try and work on it, but sometime soon. It can hopefully get renominated for 2023. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sochi

 * Slush? While no one has evaluated the article, Sochi is near the border to Ukraine. An escalated conflict might make Sochi an unsafe international destination. /Yvwv (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is some distance from the border and is in Russia, and surely wouldn’t be harmed by the conflict. I’m not sure we need to slush at this point, although if outright war takes place in Donetsk, we might consider it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It also needs a lot of work (such as coords). Ima slush this as the nominator is fine with it. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood

 * Close. The article needs a more substantial lead section, more on public transit within the district, and a stay safe section. Summers can be hot with great crowds at many venues, and we have many upcoming destinations in the US and elsewhere. Spring and autumn have the most comfortable weather. /Yvwv (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Close per Yvwv. I also don't have too big of an issue with featuring three US destinations at once. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On hold due to zero support votes and unfavourable weather. /Yvwv (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'll try to look over this article later, but I think the blurb is a little hyperbolic. To me, the strip in Hollywood is worth visiting once, kind of like Times Square (unless you're going to Broadway shows repeatedly), whereas L.A. is worth visiting over and over again. Much of the rest of the neighborhood is actually kind of rough, or has been the previous times I was in L.A. (the last time was a few years ago). Would you all consider changing the blurb to "Every year, loads of movie fans visit the center of America's entertainment industry, Hollywood" or some other alternative phrasing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I would also agree with you there. I went there in 2017 and it was certainly a nice place, but I wouldn't want to go there again and again. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 00:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? While this is a decent article, it has zero support votes, and a couple of unresolved issues two months into nomination. We have four scheduled features from the United States, and do not need this article for geographic diversity. /Yvwv (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Bingara

 * Close. Needs a general description, climate information, and more material on Do. Cope and Go next sections could be trimmed down. /Yvwv (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: An article should preferrably be nominated with the intention to feature within 12 months. Even in a cases where we have the schedule set for 6-12 months, a newly nominated article can make it into the schedule if it has very high quality, if it is very appropriate for a specific month, or if another article is slushed. Looking at the climate, the southern winter seems a bit cold (and we usually have plenty of northern hemisphere candidates for May to August). Shall we consider November to April? /Yvwv (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The only issue with featuring it between Nov-April is that the massacre happened on June 10 1838, so hence why I proposed it to be either featured on May or June, exactly 185 years after the massacre. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Will there be any organized events for commemoration? /Yvwv (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure. You'd have to ask KevRobbSCO although he retired from Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did find a website, but to see whether there may be any organized events would have to be a wait for 2023. The AWE also doesn't have much, at least not yet. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a look into Bingara's official site . The main info "<font face="Georgia" color="green">An annual Friends of Myall Creek Memorial Service attracts people from all over the country and is held every June long weekend at the Myall Creek Memorial monument ". So yep, there is an organised event happening. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? Zero support votes and many unaddressed issues. We have many other Australian articles which make the cut. If this article has improved by mid-2022, we can nominate it again for 2023. /Yvwv (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ok sure. feel free to. If anything, waiting till 2038 for the 200th anniversary would seem a much better alternative to me. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 20:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * New England National Park could be another alternative that we could feature during that time which is up-to-date as well. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Dakar

 * Not yet' eat section and sleep section needs coords. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 19:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I remember the issue that came up in 2013 is that no-one who had actually lived in or visited the city had edited or judged the article. Is that still the case? I'd like to hear from some people who know the city. If we don't hear from any such people, we should presumably slush the nomination again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could get someone from fr.voy to expand it? But that's of course, if they know English although it's still possible to expand an article without knowing a language. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but what's more important isn't so much that they speak French (several regulars here can get their way around written French, including me) but that they've at least visited the city and can judge the quality and accuracy of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The language thing isn't so important, but the main point is that for them to judge the quality of the article, they need to know some English to judge the quality and accuracy. There's quite a fair amount of users on fr that can only speak French there, or have a very basic knowledge of anglais. But I suppose I could cross check this article to the one on fr (another French speaker here, although it's not great). SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget that, because the fr article is only an outline article, although it looks usable to me. Maybe the pt article might be better, but I'm a pt-0 and would defer to someone who can read Portuguese. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? Seems as if no-one here has the first-hand experience to give this world city the detailed description it deserves. /Yvwv (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Slush. Lack of co-ords as mentioned above, several places have broken links, & intro to sleep says "Many first time visitors stay at the expensive Meridien." but there's no listing for it. Pashley (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Pyongyang

 * Question: are there any Wikivoyagers who've been here? I'm wary of featuring an article that's based purely on online research, especially for a quirky and difficult-to-visit destination like Pyongyang. I'd like to get confirmation that there are no severe gaps in coverage and that the information presented is coherent and useful for a traveller to Pyongyang. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Granger said, there's a lot of work needed for a dotm. The sleep section is one example, where it says "This will be arranged by your tour company". Ok, but where do you arrange your tour company. In addition, does Pyongyang not have street addresses? Because only a handful of listings have street addresses. But overall, this seems more a usable article to me rather than a guide. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On another note, would Pyongyang be a dotm or an otbp? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think otbp is right. For an international traveller, Pyongyang is off the beaten path by any sensible definition. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This reminded me of the Otto Warmbier incident. I'm not sure we should be advocating travel to North Korea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Not at the moment According to North Korea, "North Korea has shut down its border to foreign tourists." due to Covid-19, which is confirmed by a tour operator. Until multiple operators are running trips to Pyongyang, we can't check the information in the article (unless an editor has been there). One detail point: Both the North Korea and the Pyongyang articles refer to a "Youth Hotel" without giving an address. AlasdairW (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the above information, I vote to slush. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Venice

 * Close though the article is in a better shape than the last time it was nominated. Issues with the article are: listings without descriptions (for example churches in See, (provided they're all notable enough to be included)), listings without coordinates, and there are some parts of the article that could use more photos. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, if the Carnival defines when Venice will be featured, then we should run it in February only if the Carnival actually takes place. Otherwise later in the year, or perhaps Feb 2023. --Ypsilon (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Venice's tourist website, the Carnival will be held without restrictions. /Yvwv (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Supporto LGTM. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I change my vote from supporto to on hold as well, until the districtification things are sorted out. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hold it. User:Jonte-- started a Venice/Santa Croce article on September 1. There is also a Venice/San Polo article that Jonte-- stated in the Talk:Venice thread that they started on August 31. We can't feature this article until there is agreement about whether or how the city should be districtified on Wikivoyage, and then if it is, for the moves of listings and some other content to the district articles to be completed. Right now, there isn't even a discussion of districts, just a user who is unilaterally starting some district articles with the encouragement of one other user, without there being a Venice section where they are listed and linked or even a proposal that covers the entire city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, maybe we need to continue or discussion a bit more before. I don't think the main article is very good at the moment, it's cluttered and features too many listings per section. I'll write down a proposal of districts and we can start a more thorough work. Jonte-- (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose we slush this nomination and only nominate it when we feel the article is good enough to be nominated for DOTM. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree Tai123.123 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Until we get the districts sorted out. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we slush Venice, do we have a candidate for February? Melbourne/City Centre should not run so close to Sydney, Amsterdam is too cold, and Orlando still has some issues. Shall we schedule Addis Ababa? /Yvwv (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Orlando is much better now than when it was nominated. Articles such as this one from AP News concern me as they indicate the war is spreading. Otherwise, I would consider Addis Ababa to be the best candidate. I'll look for another nomination. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was looking at other Italian cities and Turin looks good but it’s is only usable but I feel it could be updated to Guide as it looks good. If we were to feature Turin may would be better though as it’s hosting Eurovision 2022. Tai123.123 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't see this, and I've nominated San Antonio. Turin looks good as well. We can nominate Turin now and add San Antonio at a later time. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The page name issue with Melbourne/City Centre also needs to get sorted out (see Talk:Melbourne/City Centre, given that the term "city centre" or "city center" does not have the same meaning as it does in other Commonwealth countries in Australia. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a candidate for February. If we can reasonably get Venice districtified for October 2022, the nomination should remain. Otherwise we should slush. /Yvwv (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? There has not been much improvement lately, and the first suitable slot for this article would be in early 2023. If the article is in better shape by mid-2022, we can nominate again. /Yvwv (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since it has zero support votes, and you as the nominator are ok with it, then sure. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Orlando

 * Support as nominator. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I question "Any time of the year". I think it shouldn't be featured during hurricane season or summertime. Winter is probably the best time to feature, followed by early spring and late fall. Hurricane season is getting worse and longer, but here's some basic information]: June 1-November 30, but especially August-October. So I think we should probably recommend a feature between December and April or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed. Maybe I'm quite biased since I've been here only in July all the times I've been here. I suppose is a better person to comment. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Needs work. Many of the listings are not in Orlando, but suburbs of Orlando. This is an important distinction similar to suburbs of Atlanta, as suburbs have an identity of their own, particularly (in Orlando’s case) on the northeastern side of the city. As for time of year, I’d lean toward a spring or fall feature, which is the best time of year: November and April-May are probably the best times of year. I can do some work on the article, of course, but I can’t be sure how moving the listings to nearby suburbs would affect the region. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So winter isn't a very good time to visit? I would have guessed it was, but I've actually never been to Orlando. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not a bad time to visit, but particularly the north can get cold spells, though nothing like NY. People visiting Florida expect warm weather, and you don’t get that about half of the time in winter, particularly inland. The weather stabilizes in spring and becomes warm but not hot until late May or June, so it seems to be the optimal time to feature. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, how cold are we talking? Also, "time" extends till July above. Can we cut that back to early May? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hurricanes are serious in Florida, but I’d say the summer heat and humidity is a stronger reason not to feature Orlando then. As an inland, more northern location, Orlando rarely gets them, while the Keys and the southern parts of each coast that are the most vulnerable. However, the humidity and heat makes summer unpleasant and there’s no coastal of Gulf Stream effect to moderate the temperature. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work - still at usable status, meaning it's not eligible for nomination but it probably could qualify for guide status. Some listings lack coordinates and/or contact information. A few more photos here and there wouldn't hurt, and are there just 8 things in Orlando worth listing in See? Time-wise, as others have pointed out, not during the hurricane season, and I believe summer can be pretty hot, so winter or spring would probably be optimal. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say summer is hot in Orlando. But that's just me. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

[undent]: According to the climate chart, average high temperatures are at 90 or above from June-September. I think that's pretty hot, though you might be used to hotter temperatures in Australia and the average lows are OK every month. By the way, all the winter months look quite comfortable to me. The lowest average low is 49 in January, and unless there's more than a light breeze, that's probably just long sleeves and a cordoroy jacket for me, though I know the Floridians are likely to turn on their electric blankets and wear sweaters indoors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can do some work on this article and I can probably get it up to guide and therefore DOTM-ready status, especially with help. However, I’ve been focused on getting outline city articles to usable status lately, and I’ve substantially improved at least fifty articles. If I manage to get the vast majority to usable status, which is my goal, I’ll think about whether to proceed with finer adjustments, such as getting some city articles to guide status, improving region articles and improving the articles of major cities such as Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami. Florida’s articles were in bad shape when I started this work about a year ago, and their status has a come a long way, but Florida is a big place, with a population probably not far off that of Australia, and rising fast, so it’s a huge task. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some work on this article and is significantly closer to where it should be. Hopefully within the next few months it can be ready. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Most issues mentioned above have been addressed, and this article is clearly superior to Recife, which still has zero support votes and is not worked on. We should however avoid two back-to-back DoTMs from the same country. See talk page for suggestion. /Yvwv (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How can the nomination of a usable article be supported? Unless or until this is classed as a guide, it's per se ineligible for consideration. Is it properly a guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As DoTM got more competitive, we can afford to be strict with the criteria. We will not feature Orlando before northern autumn 2022 in any case. /Yvwv (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? This article has not improved much for a few months. We have plenty of good candidates, some of them from the United States. If the article is better in mid-2022, we can nominate it for early 2023. /Yvwv (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Buenos Aires

 * Close some minor brushups needed, but otherwise LGTM. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- quite good article, though it could use a few more pics here and there. Will probably sit around until Norhtern Winter 2022-23 so improvements and updates that are done now may need to be redone closer to when its featured. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? No support votes, some defined issues, and no significant improvement. Common practice is to slush three months past nomination. /Yvwv (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Guadalupe Island

 * Very very close. A climate section would be nice, even if its a one liner but it's not a big issue. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, it was slushed in 2018 as some content was speculation based, is it better now Tai123.123 (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet and probably not at all. It was slushed in 2018 - at the time I had doubts about the accuracy of the article, and the major issue was that there was no information on how to apply for a permit to land, which other sources suggested was required. To quote from my earlier review:" I don't think that we should feature somewhere that no contributor has visited unless there are reliable published sources of visitor information." AlasdairW (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We once featured Nauru, and I'm also pretty sure no contributor has ever visited Nauru before (it gets around a few hundred visitors a year). <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 22:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there is a Nauru government webpage about visting the island - a "reliable published source". In 2018, I looked for information on visiting Guadalupe Island and the best I could find were academic journals in Spanish. A diving operator says that a permit is required to visit the island, but gives no details. I think that the article should be downgraded, or a warning box added encouraging readers to check the information. AlasdairW (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I wrote much of this article. However, I've never been there; I wrote it purely as an effort to improve our coverage about difficult-to-access destinations. I thought it was at usable status. However, despite it being at guide status now, I don't support featuring it, as much of the information ought to be improved and put into perspective by a local or visitor, and likely the latter given the low level of development on this island. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? With the addressed problems and very little improvement since nomination, we can consider the nomination to fail for this time. /Yvwv (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, slush. I think the problems discussed in the previous nomination are significant enough that this article should not be featured until it has at least been checked by someone who's been to the island. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Recife

 * Very close per comment. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost Support just some minor brush ups needed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost per others. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With zero support votes, no work done for the last few months and a bad pandemic situation in Brazil, we might consider to put Recife on hold. We could do Mui Ne or Orlando in January. /Yvwv (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The pandemic shouldn't be a good reason to put things on hold. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with SHB and the article doesn't have that many issues. As I said above, Ibaman and Lazarus made many edits to the article in 2020, and I deleted places that were out of business in January this year. It probably just needs a similar inspection before its featured, to be scheduled a month or two before that. --Ypsilon (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we need some consensus to support before we can feature. It is concerning how many nominations do not receive four support votes before being featured. Let's definitely review this article before it goes on the main page. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

On hold. Could possibly be featured in late 2022, so IMO there is no need to slush. /Yvwv (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? No one seems to care for the article anymore. We have many fine candidates lined up now, though it would be nice to see more South American articles. /Yvwv (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if is ok with that. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inactive at Wikivoyage at the moment, do as you like. Ypsilon (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, then, go ahead SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ștefănești

 * Needs work - Nice to see articles nominated from countries we haven't ever featured on the Main Page before! Though there are at least two issues with Ștefănești - the banner size (it should have a 7:1 proportion, now it's too tall) and many listings don't have a description or contact information including street address. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work per Ypsilon Some work on the sections "Eat" and "Drink" would get us much closer to nomination status. This work needs to be done to maintain guide status, also. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work per above. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work I have fixed the banner. However listings are lacking in details. Do includes this: "DJ741. Try to drive on this spectacular road modernized in 2016 between Mioveni and Stefanesti, project financed by Argeș County Council." - it might be a good rural road to drive on for the views, but you don't just drive on because the council paid for it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On hold due to zero support votes and several unaddressed issues. /Yvwv (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? The article has been up for nomination for more than three months, with zero support votes and several unaddressed issues. /Yvwv (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it would be unfair towards the nominator who nominated this article as they've been working on this for over a year, but otherwise, I'm ok with slushing. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Brunswick (Maine)

 * Almost. Well-written article, and it seems to cover the destination well. A bunch of listings still need coordinates, but other than that it looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Close - Overall this is a good article for a small town but listings from Do onward need coordinates, there are places in Drink that are just mentioned but should be listingfied and finally a few Sleep listings lack descriptions. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost per others. ButteBag, if you know the area, which I assume you do, perhaps you could make the changes we've suggested. If so, I'm sure this would make a good featured article! --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not yet coords needed for the Do section, and drink section could be properly formatted. Some other cleanups needed but I'll try and fix that. Also, what does "Yes it's Maine, but you're still in civilization." mean? (I'm not that familiar with NE US) <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero support votes and almost no improvement for 18 months. Another New England destination is up for nomination now. Time to slush? /Yvwv (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the other NE destination to be featured than Brunswick. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that'd be unfair towards the article's main contributor User:ButteBag who has also nominated it. Years before the article will be featured and comparatively little to fix in the article is a combination that doesn't motivate people to improve the article. To make sure the articles are up to date, improvements are better done closer to the time its featured (June 2022 or thereabouts) than now, let alone a year and a half ago. If anything, articles that are seemingly in a mint condition but haven't been touched in, say, half a year before they're supposed to be featured should be postponed or slushed. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! I added a bunch of co-ords some time ago. I wasn't under the impression everything needed to be listing-ified to be nominated. Probably most listings are different now, as I had visited in pre-covid times. Slush away. ButteBag (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Space

 * Almost. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work per Ypsilon, to make sure the science/technology information is accurate. If and when, I'd be able to support featuring this article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 *  Not yet Oppose this article is far too western centred. The number of listings that related to the countries of former Soviet Union has only four listings, and there's only one listing related to China. Why is there none in Africa? A FTT can't be western centred, because after all, we are an international travel guide. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * China and Soviet should obviously be handled better, but Africa hasn't exactly been the prime actor in the Space Race, so it not featuring prominently does not mean much. Of course, African sites should be added when they pop into mind. –LPfi (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of Sansa sites in South Africa. Don't know any in mind, but there'd certainly be some. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, do add African sites if you can come to think of some, I wasn't aware of such places in Africa other than some NASA's space shuttle launch abort landing sites, and those may not be much to look at, particularly now as the space shuttle program is discontinued. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm wondering if space as a travel topic (for visiting launch sites, museums, observatories etc) would be better treated as a separate article to space as a destination? Yes, a literal interpretation of the latter is only available for a few disgustingly wealthy and selfish shits at the moment, but there are other "almost space" attractions out there for people with more normal incomes, from zero gravity experiences both at ground level and in aircraft, to tourist-oriented astronaut training programmes with NASA and simulated space missions, not to mention astronomy, scientifically-realistic video games etc. An article that summarises the ways you can actually get to space (or to the next best thing) would probably have enough content to exist separate from an article about space-themed sites on Earth.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is categorized with Other destinations. Should we nominate it as Off the beaten path instead? /Yvwv (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good question. But I think the answer hinges on whether my above point about splitting is a valid one. Space-themed attractions are usually very much on the beaten path for millions as long as their location is accessible, and collectively form a strong travel topic. Space itself is obviously as far off the beaten path as you can get (though perhaps the ocean floor is less visited).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is too much of a difference between visiting sites with "zero gravity experiences" and visiting museums and launch sites. Both are places not in space, but scattered around the globe, in the usual fashion handled by our travel topic articles. If we treat Space as a real destination article, then it is for those "few disgustingly wealthy and selfish shits" and coach travellers dreaming of being one of them (to be rude – in your coach you can of course disregard the monetary and environmental aspects, with no harm done). –LPfi (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It used to be an "Other destination" article, in 2017 I suggested it to be moved to a travel topic for the reason that for virtually everyone "Space travel" means looking at the sky or visiting related places on Earth. Can't remember if it was me who moved it to travel topic, but apparently it's an Other destination again. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I could see the merits of a “space museums and sites” article distinct from space itself. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I created Space flight sites from the relevant sections of the space article. /Yvwv (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, good. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * With zero support votes, a couple of issues pointed out, and very little work done since nomination, we should consider slushing. /Yvwv (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support slushing per Yvwv. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't. There's more than half a year before the article will be featured. Ypsilon (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shall we have a rule of thumb to slush an article if it goes for 3 months with zero support votes? Then we have until mid-November to improve the article. There can of course be exceptions. If a nomination is clearly unsuitable it can be slushed faster, if it is near completion it can get more time. /Yvwv (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if we need a rule for this, but the principle is a good one and I would support slushing this article unless we see some willingness from someone to improve the article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a rule of thumb, we should slush when there are zero support votes, serious deficiencies in the article, and no great improvements for 3 months since nomination. Time to slush on 14 November, in other words. /Yvwv (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the 14th now. Slush? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Addis Ababa

 * Support as nominator. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: it looks like a good article, and while normally we don't like to make comments on status based on current events, the war in Ethiopia is a major concern if we're considering a destination of the month feature. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But isn't the war in Tigray, which is about 1000km north of Addis Ababa? <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Article quote (linked above): “The deadly fighting has now spread beyond Tigray into neighboring regions, and fracturing in Africa’s second most populous country could destabilize the entire Horn of Africa region.” Not to mention that a military draft indicates those across the country will be impacted. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is something we can figure out later. Should there actually be a war going on (or a risk for such) in or near the city itself anytime before its time to feature we should slush or postpone it. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Close - One of the articles I updated using Internet sources a year ago or so, because we usually have a shortage of articles featurable during the colder half of the year in the Northern Hemisphere winter and African articles. I planned to nominate this sometime later on myself. The article may need some minor updates before going live and some listings need a description. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * although it might be better to wait until we have the time issue fixed. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Next Northern winter is full so there will be more than a year before we run the article. Whatever work is made on the article today may need to be redone closer to the time it's featured. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Scheduled for February. If not safe, we can run Lisbon, as we have few European articles in this season. /Yvwv (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Security update: The United States has issued a "Do not travel" warning for the entire Ethiopia due to the uncontrolled civil war, and other countries have leveled their travel warnings (Australia: Reconsider need to travel, Canada: Avoid non-essential travel, UK: Against all or all but essential travel, consider leave).
 * While it may be too subjective, I have a feeling of Addis Ababa becoming Kabul No. 2 (or Saigon No. 3). Unless we see some Warsaw miracle, perhaps for some time we should consider Lisbon with priority for the coming DotM.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On hold due to emergency. /Yvwv (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? The emergency is not likely to be resolved within 12 months, or long time enough to put the nomination on hold. /Yvwv (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Grand-Bassam

 * Comment - it was slushed in 2015 apparentl because it was hard to verify the listings. Perhaps Internet coverage has become better since? --Ypsilon (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Needs history, climate and vicinity information at the very least. /Yvwv (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? For nearly 3 months the article had zero support votes, and almost no improvement. Unless there is a specific reason to keep voting, that is a reasonable threshold for slushing. /Yvwv (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree as nominator. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 20:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Seville

 * Some work needed per my comment above. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Looks good overall, but lacks climate and safety information (pickpockets should be mentioned). More information about flamenco would be appreciated. With these additions, Seville would be good to go in spring 2022. /Yvwv (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs work per Yvwv and Ypsilon. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush? For four months, we had zero support votes, and very little work done. We have a bunch of strong candidates from Latin Europe. /Yvwv (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with slushing. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 19:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Mamallapuram

 * Support as nominator, though a couple of listings could use a longer description (possibly it could be a good time to do that if the article per above is updated closer to when it's featured). Ypsilon (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but it could use a bit of polishing. Pashley (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost per Pashley. The fact there are no "Do" listings doesn't seem good enough, in my opinion, for a featured article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done a copy-editing pass, got rid of many oddities probably introduced by Indian editors with good but not perfect English. It needs to have someone else take a look, find what I missed.
 * I'd have this as DotM, not OtBP. It is one of the region's main tourist draws & a World Heritage site. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not yet Descriptions needed for some of the see, and the do bit needs a lot of work for it to be featured on the main page. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

since quite a lot of work is needed to be on the main page, slushing? I personally think this needs a lot of work to be featured on the main page <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shall we run San Ignacio in January instead? That is the only unscheduled OTBP candidate with at least one support vote and favorable season. /Yvwv (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it, especially when it's got two support votes now. Much better candidate to go on the main page. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Banteay Chhmar

 * Very close per comment. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Close. The lengthy “get in” section is a bonus for a somewhat remote destination. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet The lack of coordinates is a no no. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * With zero support votes and very little work done, should we run Gävle in November instead? /Yvwv (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, not everything need to have coordinates. I planned to make some edits to the article later on, but I guess I shouldn't be deciding each and every article on the Main Page and if you'd really like to see Gävle up in November then feel free to slush this one. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Tourist Drive 33

 * I moved the nomination back here, because DotM and OtBP features are for destinations whereas FTT are for all other kinds of articles. Overall this seems like an informative article, but there are some things that make me say just almost support now. Some points need a description, a few also need a marker/coordinates (eg the galleries next to the fire trucks). Left-alignment of photos and maps are, per Image_policy, a thing we try to avoid unlike at Wikipedia, and it would be nice to have some photos in the last third of the article. As we try to keep some distance between articles from the same part of the world, and Sydney goes on the Main Page in December 2021 (Melbourne/City Centre probably in March 2022), a slot during Sep-Nov 2022 could probably be the time showcase this article. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also I choose to withdraw this nomination since it's not the best article for an FTT. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Outcome: Nomination withdrawn. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Um, is that how it works? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Dunno, because we can't have Sydney, then Melbourne and then another Australian one within 12 months. There's also the fact that some areas are still recovering from the 2019-20 bushfires and one of the side trips mentioned was claimed as closed, with no sign of reopening. So not until 2023. <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I vote to slush per SHB, if that helps. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, now there's actually an explanation, slushing is fine with me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, worse-quality articles have been nominated, improved and featured. Per se, I don't think it's impossible having three Australian articles within a year, though this one and Sydney are from the same state... But if the nominator feels the nomination should be slushed and the article is better featured sometime later in the future, then I think we should respect him and slush it. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ypsilon. I think at this point, we do have consensus to slush this article, so if SHB you'd like to go ahead and do that, I think the individuals involved appear to be in agreement. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Presidents of the United States

 * We should be aware that this article was started by a user who is now banned; however, users in good standing have done lots of work on it. I'll look it over later and see whether I think it should be featured, but based on my feelings about it the last time I read it, I would think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not yet - the article should have guide status and if there are still any controversies related to the article's content they need to be resolved first. Ps. When I first saw the article I was thinking that this could be suitable to feature during the United States Semiquincentennial in 2026 or otherwise around the 4th of July (ie. in June's FTT slot). --Ypsilon (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One month later, there's a debate on the talk page about the rules concerning how to edit the article... Let's throw the nomination on the slush pile and perhaps reconsider nominating it after a year or two at earliest. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No - it needs to be nuked, per Ikan. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; I don't work on this article as much as most do, but I'm a little confused as to why it's not ready for guide status. Three years of focused collaboration have taken place, and there's already a talk page archive and likely one or two more in order. As for the article itself, a few listings don't have descriptions, but most do. Is it ready for guide status? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — This seems to be a mess of properties which are only listed because Donald Trump's "Trump Organization" has its branding on them. That's hardly fair, unless there's some historical reason (other than "Trump owns them") for them to be on this list. We don't tout one innkeeper over another, unless it serves the traveler.
 * If we go for three months with zero support votes, we could slush. /Yvwv (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Groningen

 * Oppose articles can't be featured twice (OtBP July 2017). --Ypsilon (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops. Didn't check that. Can I instant slush this? <font face="BlinkMacSystemFont">SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Plus, we do already have a nominated article from the Netherlands for next summer right above this one. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Clausthal-Zellerfeld

 * Very close - per my comment. --Ypsilon (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Some listings have short descriptions or no description at all. For example under "Learn" no explanation is provided regarding the placement of the university as part of the travel guide. However there is certainly potential to make it a featured destination, so if someone would like to continue translating and improving it, it could be a good choice for next year. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ It has now had "a cursory review by a native speaker". I saw no major language problems. There were some minor ones which I did not take time to fix. Pashley (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet Per The edit history this article is largely in a state of pre-Covid and there is danger of a lot of stuff being outdated. As we do not have someone "on the ground" we would have to rely on internet research a lot... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I actually went through the article top to bottom the day I nominated it. Yes, that was six months ago but we haven't beforehand had any problems with the article having been checked up a few months before - unlike articles that have been checked up several years ago. As this isn't a resort or other destination for which tourism is a "matter of life and death" but a normal town, I do believe most businesses are still there but it can of course be checked up closer to the time when the article is featured. Ypsilon (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Not yet - the language may be mostly free of mistakes, but it's not very good quality (in that it's obviously translated) and the intended meaning isn't always clear. For example, the stuff about the cycle routes (which I removed) was almost incomprehensible and could do with rewriting by someone who knows about cycling and can translate whatever information is available from the official site. The mint now turned glass-blowing centre is mentioned in Understand, but doesn't have a listing. There's no detail on how to get to the town from the airports. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I actually don't have much motivation to work on this article further (as the edits in October apparently went unnoticed). But last weekend I went through Bergen (Germany) which was also at guide status (& looked better), and deleted places that have closed down and I've just added some places to drink that are still open. Therefore I will slush this nomination within an hour or so and nominate Bergen as August's OtBP instead. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Heathrow Airport

 * Needs some work - updating and general pruning and probably some more photos. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support More pictures would be nice, but this is a good article and has been a Guide for a long time. I have full confidence that whatever work is needed will be well in hand by the time the article is run. Good nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost. I'd like to see more coordinates, so that people can find amenities on the dynamic map. At the very least, we should indicate the terminals and concourses. (I know they're on the Mapnik layer, but the casual user might not know how to switch to it, and I understand there may be privacy/cookie concerns.) --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment - postpone to 2023 People read airport articles for up-to-date practical advice, rather than to dream about where they might go next year or the year after. This article bears little resemblance to what you would find today. For example, since 1 June flights from "red list" countries arrive at terminal 3 - and contractors will take passengers to a quarantine hotels. The article has only one mention of Covid. We should only feature this article if there is the interest available to make the regular updates which are required at the moment. (Dublin Airport might be an alternative as it has had a lot of updates this year and is probably close to being a guide article.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would suggest to try to update the LHR article first. If that's not possible, we shouldn't replace it with an airport article because it would require those same updates. Plus, given that Cork is DotM in July, another Irish article in August would be a bit too close. There's been a year since we last featured a railway article, so Rail travel in Great Britain could maybe be an alternative (it does have an updated warning box)? --Ypsilon (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No - as AlasdairW mentioned above, this should only be added once the pandemic is over. Only include Airports like Auckland, which still are well running. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If airport articles should be valid for the travels right now, I think there wouldn't be much point in running AKL as entry to New Zealand at the moment, due to COVID, seems to be more restricted than most other countries (well, apart from Australia where the borders are entirely closed). So if LHR can't be updated we shouldn't replace it with another airport article but with some other kind of article. For instance Rail travel in Great Britain that I mentioned above, or Archipelago Trail, or something else. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rail travel in GB has the same issues as Heathrow; the practical information is very different now than it will be in two or three years' time: the timetables are still reduced due to Covid, but more importantly the entire system is getting renationalised to a greater (Scotland and Wales) or lesser degree (England and cross-border services). Details of these, particularly of the changes in England, are still rather sketchy, so it's better to wait until more information is known and we have a clearer timescale.
 * While I'm here: not yet for LHR or other airport articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So consensus seems to be to slush the nomination as of now, and I will do so shortly. Luckily it won't be hard to find a replacement for August's FTT. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Horse racing

 * Support as nominator. Ypsilon (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The list of destinations, however, should be in bullets, I believe. We ought to get a support vote from someone who is very familiar with this topic. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to see what thinks. Personally, as so long as we can address any concerns other wikivoyagers might have, than I would give my support of the nomination. It's nice to get the mind off of COVID for a while, and see how far this article has came. :) Zanygenius2 (WV-en) (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's the small matter of addresses for listings being in the wrong format, with city, state abbreviation and zip code. I think that such specific addresses are an error in a worldwide topic, anyway, and that each listing should include only the name of the venue, the description and a Wikivoyage link to the article for the city it's in. Otherwise, the article looks quite extensive, and I'd be happy to support a feature after the listing format is cleaned up, if others who know more about horseracing approve. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The listings need a bit of work. There is a lack of consistency in the formatting details. In some of the "Destinations", there is a link to the city in the title, in others it is in the text. Almost none of the museums link to a city. It may not be policy, but I think that Travel Topics should only list places which are listed in a city article, and should link to the city article for opening times etc. If it is not worth seeing when a general visitor is walking past, then it is not worth a specialist visitor flying around the world to see. There also appear to be errors in the museum listings, I have fixed a couple, but ideally all listings should be checked. AlasdairW (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not yet per AlasdairW, and on a similar note, most of those external links should be internal links instead, with the websites only listed from the city page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Response The gist of what I'm reading so far is (1) Use inline links on listings, and make them bulleted, and (2) Adjust the listing criteria for each track. Is that correct? By the way, although I'm not on WV often anymore, I am willing to adjust this as needed. Thanks, Zanygenius2 (WV-en) (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As Thundering says above, inline links to the "Do" section for each relevant city (or, when relevant, district) article, not a link to the racetrack's website, which should be in the full listing in the linked Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There will probably be as much or more work to do to the city articles to provide the details of the stadiums, museums etc. For example I failed to find the "People's Stadium" in Belize in the article for San Ignacio (Belize) which is where it is shown on the map, although I wonder if it should be in Orange Walk Town based on Orange Walk People's Stadium, but there is little information online. AlasdairW (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can probably delete it if we can't find enough information. In any case, there are probably other better known horse racing venues in the region (eg. in Jamaica) that we can list. The dog2 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sorry, I just now noticed the article was nominated for FTT. I think the lead and Understand need to be rewritten. Not knowing these sports I have a feeling it is biased towards USA and the former British Empire, and perhaps towards some kinds of races. What about cross country equestrian jumping or whatever it is called (part of "eventing", according to en-wp), isn't that a race? And what about the trot monté? I would also like the article to explain some basics. The lead tells horse racing is an equine sport with an international following. But it does not say what kind of equine sport it is. It goes on telling about thoroughbred racing, referring to the thoroughbred breed, but again not telling what the difference is between this and other races – the used breed? And when introducing harness races the article hasn't said that jockeys ride on the horse, and doesn't say they don't in harness racing. –LPfi (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to slush
From all of the above comments the article is similar to European classical music – extensive but incomplete despite being rated guide (and should probably be demoted to usable status). There has been some improvments to the article since its nomination, but two of its major contributors (Zanygenius2 (WV-en) and Dale_Arnett) haven't been active as of lately. SC asked for someone familiar with the topic to support the nomination but I can't see any such support. So I suggest we should slush it. As replacement we could run the Stockholm itinerary already in May and the current oldest FTT nomination Wire tour in June (the weather in Baltimore can't be that unbearable in the summer) to avoid overlap with Crawford. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Any comments? --Ypsilon (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there's been so much going on in Recent changes, I overlooked this. I agree with the plan to slush, as there doesn't appear to be anyone who will fix it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Anybody else? The Featured Travel Topic will change in a few hours. I'm going to upload banners for Stockholm history tour and The Wire Tour soon, so it will be possible to go forward with the plan. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This one is going on the slush pile; I think the banner can be moved to the article's talk page so as not to clog up the featured banner nomination because the article is not going on the Main Page anytime soon. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

European classical music

 * Support but the Events list needs to be up to date when the article is featured. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet. It's grossly incomplete, IMO. Here is a very non-exhaustive list of cities that deserve coverage and have as yet no listing: British Isles: Birmingham and either Glasgow, Edinburgh or both plus probably Dublin. Central Europe: Geneva, Zurich. France: Lyon and probably Strasbourg and some other places (Marseille?). Iberia: Madrid. Nordic countries: Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm. Outside Europe: Atlanta, Cleveland, Houston, Montreal, Tel Aviv and maybe Jerusalem and/or Haifa, Toronto, Washington, D.C., and strong arguments can be made for Pittsburgh, St. Louis and possibly Baltimore in spite of the really sad cut in their orchestra's season (they still have Peabody, a famous conservatory). Perhaps Seattle, too, Phoenix, and the Utah Symphony has a good tradition, having been conducted for years by Maurice Abramavel. Come to think of it, Minneapolis/St. Paul, with the Minnesota Symphony and St. Paul Chamber Orchestra should be covered, too. And in Japan, Osaka probably should be listed. Other places in Asia would probably include Seoul, Taipei and Shanghai, and possibly other Chinese cities with large conservatories (Beijing, Chengdu, nor sure which others). All of this will take a lot of work. I think we can take care of that in the time before it would be featured, but I'd like to see a good head start on it before I vote to feature. I can do some of the work, but it would be great if some other folks who personally know the classical music scenes in those cities take the lead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet for the same reasons of completeness. Plus, the blurbs of cities are either overlong or too short, and there are too many missing cities. A much quicker issue to fix is the use of continental regions, rather than countries, which leads to a very long 'Central Europe' on the one hand versus 'France' (or, more accurately, Paris) on the other. I would suggest splitting by country.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There are also some Latin American cities that should have listings, including Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo and Mexico City. And I'm not an expert on the classical music scene in South Africa, but I'm guessing Cape Town should be listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of colonial opera houses, there are several ones in Asia too. There are ones built by the French in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, and one built by the British in Mumbai, and these still occasionally host classical music performances, though they are primarily used for other purposes. I'm not sure if that merits a listing for these. There is also an opera house in Haiphong built by the French, but I'm not sure if it still hosts any classical music performances. The dog2 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article is really more about hearing the music than anything else, but at worst, if the information is added and we decide it doesn't belong, it could probably be merged to the articles about those cities (if there isn't sufficient content about the opera houses in those articles). But I should say, there are also American cities and towns with opera houses that wouldn't merit a listing because they're rarely if ever used for operas, nowadays, though I guess a few are sometimes, even in tiny towns like Cambridge, New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet. I don't find the city listings very travel related, and they don't connect with the city articles. For instance, I could find nothing in Aranjuez that related to the listing in the article. Composers should only be mentionned if the city article has something (museum, statue etc) related to them. There are loads of places to hear classical music - almost any mid-sized European city has a performance once a week, so maybe we should only list a few special venues. Music museums are much rarer and so are more deserving of space. I have updated the dates of some of the events, but many did not have 2020 dates on their websites. AlasdairW (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Aranjuez is said to have been made famous by a concerto. I suppose it is interesting mainly for those who know it through the concerto, and those need not be told about it (and perhaps for other visitors in the city, so might be worth mentioning in the city's Understand). Most listings are there because they have venues worth visiting, and those worth listing in this article should be worth listing in the city articles. In rare cases, where the specifics of a city (or park or whatever) have influenced an important composer, one might want to wander down the same streets even when there is nothing devoted to them, but that may be too marginal for this article. --LPfi (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we slush this nomination? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should continue work on the article for more than 1 day before broaching that idea? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree with that, if there is more work that people feel is possible. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of discussion right here in this thread about work that's possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - if, as many have said, the article doesn't by far cover all the listings it should cover, then there's no point in having the article collecting dust here on the nominations page. But in that case the article shouldn't for sure be at guide status either. Plus, the article does now have 70 listings, and if it will be expanded by many more I think it eventually needs to be split up in a couple of regions. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Question What do you mean by "split up in a couple of regions"? The listings are already split by continent and country. What else do you have in mind?
 * Subarticles for different parts of the world, maybe "Classical music in Central Europe", "Classical music in Southern Europe", "Classical music in the rest of Europe" (???), "European Classical music outside Europe" (???). --Ypsilon (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that kind of split is necessary, we should discuss it on the article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not necessary yet, but if there will be many more listings (more than 100?), at some point the article would be more reader-friendly if the listings would be distributed on a few subarticles. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 99 of a single type of listing is the maximum before the markers stop working, so either subarticles or becoming more picky over listings would at that point be a necessity.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's technically possible to add as many listings as we like. In Roman Empire an additional "counter" parameter was added to the listings (e.g. counter=f for France), and for each counter name 99 listings can be added. But that would make the article longer and longer, just like the Roman Empire one. I mean, we districtify big city articles too, to make them easier to grasp. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's another major issue, which is that none of us has any idea what the classical music scene will look like after this pandemic is over. I think that while there will be a strong pent-up desire to go to concerts, many people may be slow in coming out of lingering fear of infection, and many arts organizations may cease to exist, especially in countries with weak governmental support for the arts like the U.S. (I'd expect much less of this in countries with very robust arts support like Germany and The Netherlands.) Thinking about this clearly, I believe we should continue working on this article but probably shouldn't feature it until the pandemic is over and the dust has settled. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to slush the nomination shortly, no point in keeping it here. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hopefully it will eventually be good enough to be a featured travel topic. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Quebec City

 * Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. #By boat needs more information, like where the cruise begins, or at least a website about it. Otherwise, this is a good article to feature. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've travelled extensively in Quebec City, and I have to admit I was ruing the day when this article was nominated. I can't in good conscience vote "Support", just because of how incredibly much the article is missing. It's not just a matter of an attraction here or an activity there. It's a matter of, if a friend were to ask me for advice about travelling to Quebec City, the one item of overarching importance that I would say right at the start before getting into anything else is something that this article barely mentions. Which is that Old Quebec is a conundrum. On the one hand, its historical importance is genuine and immense; pound for pound it's almost inarguably the densest cluster of historic sites and buildings in Canada. But on the other hand, it's touristed to the hilt; those old cobblestone streets are always clogged with tour buses herding selfie-snapping day-trippers around like human cattle, the buildings are full of overpriced restaurants and knickknack shops, and generally it's a place that locals avoid like the plague and does not in any way depict the true face of the city. The fact that the Quebec City article focuses on Old Quebec to an almost exclusive degree, I look at the same way as if our New York City article focused almost exclusively on Times Square. You have to get outside the walls of the old city, to places like Saint-Roch and Saint-Sauveur and Limoilou, to experience the real Quebec City, yet these places barely rate a passing mention in our article. To do the place justice it would almost have to be districtified, yet the reason I also can't in good conscience vote "Oppose" is that I know I won't be getting around to that before summer 2020. I wish I had a better answer for you guys, but that's where I stand on this nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my support in light of Andre's knowledge of the city and the shortcomings of this article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By that, I don't mean to say that Old Quebec is unworthy of being discussed in the article, just the same as I wouldn't advise a visitor to New York City to never set foot in Times Square. What's important is placing them in their proper context. New Yorkers themselves may not spend much time at Times Square, but it's a place with a lot to offer visitors of a certain bent, and our job is to make sure our readers are not under the mistaken impression that Times Square is what all of New York is like. Similarly, our job is also to make sure our readers know Quebec City residents don't live in a 17th-century time warp; they live in a modern-day city like anywhere else in North America, except they have a Disneyland castle full of tourists in their backyard that just so happens to also be an actual, bona fide 17th-century castle. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. So one solution would be to replace Quebec City in July 2020's DotM slot with another Canadian article, for example Hamilton (Ontario) is at guide status and just needs some photos and a Google checkup of listings. Then you (or someone else familiar with Quebec City?) could add attractions from outside the old city when you have time, because everything useful from other language versions is already translated. In the case we will have many more listings, especially in See, I think the article needs to be districtified. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon - Hamilton is a good choice for replacement DotM. Also, it's only an hour's drive from Buffalo, so assuming the U.S./Canada border has reopened by July, I can help out with adding photos and verifying whatever listings aren't verifiable through Google. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, we probably should slush this nomination? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with slushing; this page is already too long with nominations that have got the go-ahead but not the time slot (e.g. until recently Rail travel in the NL).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. I don't think the nominations list per se is too long, 9-12 nominations in each section is optimal IMO, but I agree there are some nominations that probably will sit around until summer 2021 and we shouldn't nominate more of those. On the other hand if there's a good article for a place that's visited in the Northern Hemisphere winter (ie. in less than a year) you'd like to see to the Main Page, then by all means go ahead and add it. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In particular, we need OtBPs that are suitable for the Northern Hemisphere winter. Nkhata Bay will be going in the October 2020 slot in a few days and Iriomote will follow in November, but after that, it's ?s all down the line until the spring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a town in Florida that I know called New Smyrna Beach. The article is already good, but I could definitely work on that article and perhaps make it an OtBP candidate. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Another possible winter otbp is Quy Nhon (which could be our first feature starting with Q if Quebec City is slushed). It's at guide status but needs coordinates and maybe some updates. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

When QC is slushed, I suggest these last few comments are siphoned off, and placed in the talk page of this page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Taipei

 * Oppose - not eligible, because only usable. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and because it already was DotM (back in 2007). Ypsilon (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Soest

 * Not yet - User:Wms-soest, I thank you sincerely for your interest in Wikivoyage, and for your good work thus far on this article. If you continue expanding it as you have done, Soest is going to be a wonderful article in no time at all. But it's not there yet. All nominations to this page must at least have guide status; Soest currently is officially an outline (though I suspect a closer look would reveal it should be usable). There are many things which need to be done before the article is suitable for featuring; I haven't got time to go into detail right now, but possibly someone else will have the time, and even so when I have more time I'll check back and go through some things. Let me emphasise that I think this article has great potential, and that if your hard work today translates into a more long-term commitment, and some of our team gets involved in helping you understand our manual of style and other policies, you'll be a fantastic Wikivoyage contributor. Best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How to put this in a nice way... as TT said the article isn't an outline any longer but at usable status. But the article will need some more content for guide status, and the biggest problem is its current formatting starting from the banner which has wrong proportions, continuing with the wrong formatting of the listings and ending huge number of photos per lines of text. I would suggest to take a look at some other articles, or better still, articles that have already been featured on the Main Page to see how our best articles should look like. Nevertheless, as you've showed enthusiasm and interest in Wikivoyage adding a load of content to the article so it shouldn't be a problem I guess. Plus, the article could also use some copyediting.  --Ypsilon (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet per ThunderingTyphoons. The issues seem to largely be formatting, at least at the obvious level. I think this article could be featured in not too long. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please look at Talk:Soest. Putting an unbroken stream of images along the right side of an article - and one that went well beyond the end of the article on my browser until I removed several thumbnails - is not Wikivoyage style. Maybe there should be 7 or so photos in the article. Having a great gallery of photos that overwhelms the viewer is for Wikimedia Commons. Just as Wikivoyage doesn't duplicate the function of Wikipedia, we also don't duplicate the function of Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have notified Wms-soest. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet for the reasons above, but it has a lot of potential. I have formatted the first couple of see listings as examples. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

E11 hiking trail

 * Support as the nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The number of redlinks is rather off-putting. Is it better to delink them, at least during the featuring? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another problem is that quite a lot of the destinations get no coverage, just: Place X - Place Y - Place X - etc. That doesn't seem like featured quality to me. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have worries about that too. They may just be points on the map with a name, but if that is the case, then the article should make it clear they're just there for navigation purposes. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Especially for the Poland part, the article is written in the form of a paragraph or two of text describing the route from larger place A to larger town Z, and then another paragraph with a list of minor places B, C, D etc. between (where I put the coordinates). So many of the places that don't seem to be described in the article actually are.
 * Nevertheless, according to the map, the route passes through many tiny towns made up of a dozen homes and perhaps a convenience store, that is, places that couldn't get articles here on Wikivoyage. Many of these indeed aren't described in the article, and it's of course possible that there is something worth seeing in these places, but I'm not holding my breath. We must remember that article has been brought over from Wikipedia, and a town, village or hamlet probably does only need to exist in order to merit an article there.
 * So I would say the best solution would be just to delink the redlinks. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with delinking them, but if research finds that there's something to write about them, that could be added to the article as well. They don't necessarily need to qualify for WIAA in order to merit a line or two. If there's a campsite, a decent inn, or a single sight worth seeing, including that would improve the article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the lack of information is an important issue, so my vote is not yet. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do understand that it's necessary to have some information about places along the route. The problem is the huge amount of work that would be needed, even for one or two listings for each of the almost 400 points on the map, or some letters or symbols added after the marker (e.g. C for campsite, H for hotel, S for See, E for place to eat). Also, the article would then need to be divided into 5-10 subarticles to be graspable.
 * Maybe it'd be best to slush the article, and demote it to usable or even outline. The effort needed to add all that information would be better spent on other articles. Ypsilon (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's not good enough to be featured, and nobody is able to devote the time it needs for the foreseeable, then I agree with slushing.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's say there was someone who could pick out the villages and remove the ones of no importance from the list and add information for the more important ones. I would be in support of that &mdash; we can't expect information about every tiny little place along the way; but on the other hand, this article still isn't good enough and should be demoted to usable or outline, as Ypsilon says, if this necessary work is not going to be done. I would say it should be slushed for the moment. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm giving this article another look and I fear that the whole structure of it is wrong and that it needs to be completely redesigned to reach guide status and a DOTM feature. I will go ahead and slush this nomination shortly. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The points really need to be listed, though, even if many of them aren't worth writing about. 2560 km/379 points=approximately between them, which means 1.5-2 hours of walking in terrain. Ypsilon (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jazz

 * Support as nominator, especially if these changes are made. Selfie City (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost what SC just said. There must for sure be other famous jazz venues in the US than just the four that are mentioned? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As an avid fan of bossa nova and Brazilian jazz, I'm flabbergasted that the only mention of those genres in the whole article is a brief aside about Stan Getz and "The Girl from Ipanema". No Antônio Carlos Jobim, no João Gilberto, no Herb Alpert, no Sérgio Mendes, no Nara Leão, no Walter Wanderley, etc. etc. ad nauseam? In the '60s, this was one of, if not the most popular and commercially impactful styles of jazz, and I think there definitely must be some more information and/or listings that can be added. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll add some more about bossa nova. Sorry that I overlooked this. --Comment by <font color="#808000">Selfie City  (<font color="#ac6600">talk about my <font color="#ac6600">contributions ) 22:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Slush? (or push back)
As of right now, this article consists of 1) a lengthy discussion of jazz history that borders on the encyclopedic, 2) lists of cities and countries significant to jazz, individual jazz clubs, and jazz festivals that seem almost chosen at random, and 3) a "Learn" section that, despite that fact that it's the "most well-developed without being overdeveloped" section of the article, is only of secondary importance to travellers. It lacks 1) any discussion of POIs that aren't live music venues - museums, historic sites, etc.; 2) many relevant entries in the "Destinations", "Venues" and "Events" section, 3) quite a few other sections that a good travel topic article should have, and 4) any unqualified Support votes save for SelfieCity's. We've now got two months before the article is currently scheduled to be featured, which is quite a short time to address these numerous issues that heretofore no one has seemed terribly interested in correcting, and we've also got a decent selection of FTT candidates that could fill the April 2019 slot on the schedule if need be. I think we need to have a frank discussion about the possibility of slushing this article or at least moving its timeslot further into the future to allow more time for these issues to be addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's set it to a later date, like winter, perhaps, or autumn? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 04:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Andre has some good points, though I don't see the long history section as that much of a problem (though it probably doesn't need to be expanded...). In particular, I think there could be some more venues (also from outside the U.S.), and the article could use some more photos. I also wouldn't slush the article quite yet, it's better to move it forward in the schedule. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've actually cut down a little on the history section, but there's still plenty there. I'm doing some work on the idea of places to visit, like the Coltrane church, etc., which hopefully can be expanded. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would indeed suggest slushing, and I also don't think this is properly a Guide, so by rights, I should oppose a feature, for now. There are way too few listings in at least several sections - too few clubs and none outside the U.S., too few festivals, way too few "See" listings, listing only Berklee among universities/conservatories is a joke for an article that's supposed to be reasonably close to complete, "Buy" is not travel-related (I don't see the point in spending much space mentioning CDs, fakebooks and Play-a-long CDs that can be bought online, though listing actual record stores that can be visited is relevant). Japan is particularly under-covered. I don't mean to get anyone down; a lot of good work has been done on this article, and I've participated in some of it, but this is all preliminary work, with the probable exception of the history section, which could be copy-edited but otherwise is OK to leave about as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Plus, over the 10 months this nomination has been active, we've seen a repeated pattern of promises that substantial additions to this article are imminent, followed by radio silence. Given the fact that the editor who's done the most to spearhead this article has announced his retirement from mainspace contributions, I don't see any reason to believe such improvements will ever be realized. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've downgraded the article to Usable per my comments above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess we should slush now, then? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Igls

 * Support as the nominator. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. According to TT the article in question was written by AC using an IP address. Better to deny recognition to problem users in cases like this. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, noticed the discussion at ARR8's talk page a few days ago.
 * Regardless, there's nothing controversial or vandalistic in the Igls article (and I think neither in the other Austrian articles) and as such one couldn't tell it was written by AC if it wasn't pointed out, so I'm not going to oppose the article. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with SelfieCity here. TT made some very good points about how feasible it really is to continue our policy of reverting all edits made by block evaders, and I'm still formulating my response to those points, but spoiler alert: I mostly agree with him. But I see all of that as a separate issue from honoring that illicit work with Main Page recognition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 19:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel that way. By featuring the work of a banned user, it's almost as if we're rewarding the user for the problems s/he caused. It's unfortunate that we must choose here to not feature a work because a problem user posted some of the content, but unfortunately, problem users, like problematic people in the world in general, not only wreck their own lives, but also damage that of others. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case, according to the article history, the article is almost entirely written by AC not just some of it. I don't know if AC (and similar long term abusers who also occasionally make edits that are useful) genuinely cares about the articles they contribute to and feel they are rewarded by their articles getting featured, or if keeping contributing is to them a means to an end e.g. it enables them to at some point put in pieces of unwished content, like they did with the Brussels articles.
 * That said, if you are uncomfortable running this article, I accept that, we do have dozens of good articles suitable for summer slots to replace this one. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 14:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since, yes, I looked and wrote nearly the whole article, I think it would be best not to feature it. In this past, we've all been very suspicious of any contributions AC has made and that stopped even a star article (Kraainem) from being nominated. If this issue is going to stop us from nominating a star article, it seems rather unusual then to post such an article on the main page. I'd say, since we have plenty of options, let's slush this one. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * New nomination for August's slot, see below! -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 18:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like Igls is going to get slushed, will do that later tonight. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 14:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! Sorry for this happening to your nomination like this, since of course it's not your fault. I, too, assumed the recent edits to articles in Austria were in good faith. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

LGBT travel

 * Needs work, as stated above. My blurb and choice of image are just placeholders which I'd be happy to see changed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's more work needed here than you think. In my estimation, there are some really fundamental problems with the structure of the article as it currently is. I'm talking specifically about the "Queer-friendly destinations" section, which sticks us between a rock and a hard place: it's a series of lists that are already way too long, yet still far from complete. If we were to add every LGBT-friendly destination of the level of prominence of the ones already listed, with blurbs scrupulously added next to each entry, we'd run the risk of overwhelming the reader with too much information. However, if we go the opposite route and restrict the section to only the most prominent destinations, we cheat the reader out of comprehensive coverage of the topic. I think that to really do justice to this topic, we have to either break it up by region (LGBT travel in Europe, etc.) or else come up with some other way to talk about good destinations for LGBT folks to visit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think an article is quite simply not ready, it may be best to plunge forward and try to fix it before nominating it for FTT. The topic is valid and I'd like to see it featured in 2019 – which may be well within the realm of possibility – but what's your path to get there? K7L (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * K7L: You're not wrong (and it's what I'm doing with York because I am comfortable handling that article by myself if necessary, but not so for this which has such a broad subject matter and covers so many different people under one umbrella term it needs as many perspectives as possible). But the idea in nominating now is to draw eyes on the article and, as stated above, spur people on - including myself - to write to a deadline. That it's not ready now doesn't mean it can't be ready in 6 months' time.
 * Andre: Another alternative to splitting by region is to do so by topic. One article could focus on dangers and concerns for LGBT travellers, while another could group the places people can travel to in order to experience the local LGBT culture. The latter needn't be split geographically, but can be as and when the volume of information on specific regions grows. But I agree with both of you that the article's scope is a little ill-defined, and this is something we need to work out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet — The 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots can be a good time to feature this article, but there's definitely work to do. Good to hear that the article has been updated, but LGBT_travel in particular still needs to be expanded. Understand and See (maybe the "LGBT laws" should be moved up to Understand) are also very short.
 * I'm also not sure if we need to have a list of each and every individual "queer-friendly destination" in the world, right now we list 122 of them if I counted correctly. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet and maybe not at all - There is a lot of work to do. The article has to cover topics from "how to have fun when you are gay" through to "how to stay alive when you are gay". I don't think the topic is covered in the right order, as staying alive is far more important than having fun and so needs to come first. I think that we should also consider whether featuring this article is likely to make WV unattractive to readers in the less liberal half of the world. AlasdairW (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I must say catering to homophobes is not and should never be what we are about. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's not right to get accuse User:AlasdairW of "homophobia" simply for not supporting a nomination for DOTM. We have before decided against a pagebanner because it was too political and I think that was done for good reason. Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not RealClearPolitics. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had just looked at the map in the article File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg, and seen that there are a lot of countries where being gay is illegal, and others with "Laws restricting freedom of expression and association". Maybe I am making a false assumption that the populations of these countries are in agreement with these laws. AlasdairW (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally am not making any political statements, and not intending to, I just think it's best to stay off politics when we can. Really, there's enough in the outside world. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any other example of a decision on DotM being made based on whether someone might be upset with the selection, though. I would oppose making decisions on that basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse anybody of homophobia. But withholding featuring for the sole reason that it might "upset" people is catering to homophobia. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Slush?
Nearly six months after this article's nomination, there's been little effort to address the fundamental structural problems with this article that have been enumerated by commenters above, nor has this nominee earned a single Support vote based on its current merits. Barring someone stepping up to the plate to address this formidable task, I think it would be prudent to slush this nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With regret, I agree. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To reply to comments further up, I don't see a problem with the article being both about "how to have fun when you are gay" and "how to stay alive when you are gay". The one big problem with the article is the long list of gay-friendly destinations, some of which are just listed without any description, just as I said around when it was nominated. Maybe it's best to create separate articles for LGBT travel on different continents or then we could cut down the list to e.g. the world's 30 most notable destinations for gay travelers to make the article easier to read. Other than vandalism around new year, there hasn't been any substantial edits to the article during the last 5 months. We can nominate the article anytime later when it's in a better shape, so let's slush it for now. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 11:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Judaism

 * Despite being the nominator, I can't in good conscience vote "support" for the article as is. However, we have a goodly amount of time to attend to its needs, which as I see them comprise adding geo coordinates for all the listings in "Cities" and "See" that don't yet have them, as well as lengthening descriptive blurbs in most cases, and perhaps expanding the "Eat", "Drink", and "Buy" sections (in descending order of how much additional detail IMO should be added). This may not be an exhaustive list of the article's issues (again, I hereby solicit Ikan's opinion on the matter) but again, the March '18 slot is vacant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is in much better shape than before, due to a lot of hard, smart work. I think there are still some more cities that should be added, and we also may want to think about what should be in "Cities" and what should be in "See". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Conditional support As I said on the talk page some coords are still missing, but on the other hand I don't know much about Judaism so I can't myself tell if everything important is in the article. But I'm ready to support the article when Ikan and other central contributors think it looks good for the main page. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So... is this still "work in progress"? There are two months before it's scheduled to be featured and it doesn't have even one full support vote. Sure, like with most travel topics, we can feature them anytime of the year but still... ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would solicit the opinion and comments of Ar2332, whose great work is most responsible for the great improvements in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is still work to be done. The "See" section is generally missing sites in Israel. The "Cities" section still needs work, in terms of content and focus. The relationship between the "Cities" and "See" sections needs to be clarified. Ar2332 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ar2332. The "city" and "See" sections seem like they should be merged. The distinction is really unclear. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * March/April would be suitable, as it coincides with Passover/Easter. /Yvwv (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the March 2018 FTT slot is vacant, and I intended to fill it with this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is indeed still a work in progress, as the relationship between "Cities" and "See" still needs to be clarified. I think this is a "Not yet" for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest places with several Jewish sites should go in Cities, and these sites would be described in the listing of the city. "Standalone" attractions, ie. those that are in cities that aren't otherwise notable for their Jewish heritage can be listed in See. I can help with adding coordinates for sites and cities but not really much more.
 * Andre, looks like we need a plan B for March's FTT. Should we move Ottoman Empire, Advice for nervous flyers or something else to March (making room for Vikings and the Old Norse in the summer) or run Hostels? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Vikings and the Old Norse still needs quite a bit of work before it goes on the Main Page, IMO, and with Ottoman Empire the question would be what to replace it with in the May 2018 slot. I'd say the least disruptive course of action would be to run Hostels in March. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. As for this article, it's come a long way and will make a fine feature when the "Cities"/"See" issue is sorted out, so I'm going to refrain from slushing it and instead say that it would make a good feature for next year's Passover. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A little less than three months before this one goes on the Main Page, and I just added some coordinates for cities. As I said before, the article does look good, but I'd prefer to hear voyagers who know more about Judaism to say the article is sufficiently complete. It could also use a few additional photos here and there. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 19:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Less than two months until Judaism is scheduled for the Main Page — any comments or support votes? <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 16:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's slush. I think it's unrealistic to expect the major issues in the structure of this article, which have not been meaningfully addressed in the entire year and a half this nominee has been up for consideration, to be solved in two months. We also have Seinfeld Tour, which I plan on completing to Guide status in the coming weeks and would be a fine replacement in the FTT column. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Guadalupe Island

 * Support as nominator. Selfie City (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Classic off-the-beaten-path destination! How confident are you that all the facts are correct? I just corrected one:
 * Guadalupe has been the last refuge for the northern elephant seal and the Guadalupe fur seal in the 1890s -> Guadalupe has been the last refuge for the northern elephant seal and the Guadalupe fur seal since the 1890s. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of the article (particularly the "Understand" section) is based on the Wikipedia Guadalupe Island article. We have to hope that all the information on here is right, because it's hard to find much else about the island, or not nominate it, of course. Selfie City (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. It'll be really hard to find a good banner for this one - just a warning. Selfie City (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to mention that, since none of us have been to this Island, a lot of the writing is either Wikipedia or speculation-based (of course, it came before the speculation debate). I really don't want this issue to get in the way of its potential upcoming feature, since I wrote the article with attention to minor details and possibilities, and I wrote it so it aligned with the island's satellite coverage. I just think this is another thing that should be considered. Selfie City (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Using Wikipedia as a source is no problem so long as it's cited as a source in edit summaries or on the talk page. Content based on speculation might be a different story. Can you identify which content that applies to? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say, things start to get more speculatory from "Fees and permits" through "Sleep". These parts are not straightforward speculation, but at the same time there's not based on someone's reports of visiting the place. The way the article handles this is actually better than I remember it being, but for example I can see a couple "probablies" where when I was writing it I lacked a little confidence. Selfie City (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know how I feel about speculation, but for the others' benefit, I think it's really unnecessary and potentially worse than having no information. It's not always easy to find out stuff just from internet searches, but remember it's not your personal responsibility to fill all sections at any cost. Wikivoyage being what it is, either someone who knows the location will eventually come along, or new online information will become available. And if that takes years to happen, well just remember There's no deadline. There are vast parts of the world about which you can find everything you need to know just by googling, so if that's what you like doing you can, just not for somewhere like Guadalupe.


 * It's a good article, there's no doubt about that, and partly well-researched (the use of satellite pics to establish the presence of a fresh water source is genius!), but I vote not yet until the unfounded speculation is taken out. This means basically anything you have no evidence for, "It's unlikely that..." "Probably", "make preparations in case this assumption turns out incorrect." etc, etc. These front page articles are supposed to be among the best WV has to offer, and non-factual, unverified content is not up to that standard, IMHO. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just did some quick speculation-removing &mdash; what do you think of this? Selfie City (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a good start, and I thank you for the prompt action.
 * However, removing speculation isn't just about taking out the parts where you let people know you're not sure, it's about removing content that may not be true. For instance, with "Hiking is probably the main activity" --> "Hiking is the main thing to do", what new information has come to light to assure you that is the case? Are there even any hiking trails, or do walkers have to go through the wilderness and navigate using a compass? Are there maps available? Do hikers need to bring machetes to cut through vegetation like Indiana Jones? (No, not just because it's in Mexico. I've been to parts of Derbyshire where this would be advisable!) Do members of the public even have a right to walk wherever they want, or are there landowners they need to get permission from? What about dangerous animals or sensitive environments? These are all vital questions I have, as an active hiker with no knowledge of the island, but there is nothing in the article to help me out, and probably no way of finding out the answer without paying a visit or speaking to someone who has.
 * But before we go further, it might be better to know what others think of this issue. Am I being overly strict or demanding here? Should we be relaxed about including information that isn't necessarily true or even verifiable? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ThunderingTyphoons!, while it's not easy to say hiking is the main thing to do, there is also no evidence that it isn't. This is a next-to-impossible destination; there aren't many things you can do on the island, the two being hiking and fishing, which I mentioned. Selfie City (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!. SelfieCity says "while it's not easy to say hiking is the main thing to do, there is also no evidence that it isn't." I gather that this is the justification for including the first part of the sentence "Hiking is the main thing to do on the island, along with fishing." If that kind of guesswork was used to build this article, I oppose featuring.
 * In particular, I strongly agree with ThunderingTyphoons! that "removing speculation isn't just about taking out the parts where you let people know you're not sure, it's about removing content that may not be true". If the information about hiking is just speculation, then saying "Hiking is the main thing to do" is much worse than saying "Hiking is probably the main activity". At least in the second sentence you're sort of signaling to the reader that you're not sure, whereas in the first sentence the reader is likely to assume that you actually know. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet I don't think that there should be speculation about major activities, if we don't have enough solid information then wait until we do. Saying "Hiking is probably the main activity" suggests that we know that hiking is popular and definitely is regularly done, but we are not sure whether it is the most popular activity or the third most popular activity. Get in has no car ferries, but Get around has a large By car section with no mention of car rental. Fees and Permits must have definite information - if necessary ask a Mexican embassy. AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Having looked a little more into this, I am now going to Oppose. The WP article has "Because Guadalupe Island is located within a biosphere reserve, anyone visiting the island must obtain a permit from the Mexican government; this means the communities on the island are closed towns." The only reports of visits I could find online were of scientists, publishing reports on he natural history. I don't think that we should feature somewhere that no contributor has visited unless there are reliable published sources of visitor information. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the research, AlasdairW, since your research clarifies that this article is too off the beaten path to go on the front page. Probably should go to the slush pile. Selfie City (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "too off the beaten path to go on the front page". Wake Island, open only to the U.S. military and civilian contractors, was OtBP in February 2009. Of course it's more difficult for an article for place like that to achieve Guide status, but there appears to be enough in this article (even if we subtract out speculative information) to justify putting it on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My main reason for opposing is that I don't think the article is reliable. I would reconsider if some published guide was identified, or the article was reviewed by somebody that had been there. The information about permits in the WP article is somewhat different to "Considering how hard it is to get to the island, it is unlikely that the Mexican government will worry about restricting anyone from getting there" which we have. A lesser point: we are a site for real travellers, not armchair explorers, and I think that we should only feature places that almost nobody is permitted to visit on 1 April - but this may be resolved if full details of getting a permit are added to the article. AlasdairW (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately it's really difficult to know how much of the article is true without having much online info or people with experience on the island,to turn to. There really is no reason to run this article when there are so many others without such doubts hanging over them. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably never should have nominated this article in the first place. I'm really beginning to think that this nomination belongs in the slush pile. There is simply not enough information about the place (from other sources, that is) for it to be on the front page of this website. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to slush this article, that's fine, but let the record show that the slushing did not happen on the basis of Guadalupe Island being "too OtBP for the Main Page". Every article, no matter for which destination, has an equal shot at the Main Page provided it's at Guide level or better. Suggestions otherwise fly in the face of longstanding precedent (Childs is another example). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I meant by saying "too OTBP" is that it is such an obscure place that creating a main-page quality article about it has proved impossible. Sorry if I was misunderstood. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with AndreCarrotflower that there's nothing wrong with featuring places very far off the beaten path. I also agree with slushing this article, as too unreliable and difficult to fix. (As a side note, though, I'm not sure I agree that every guide-status article has an equal shot at the main page. I don't think I'd support featuring ultra-dangerous places like Mogadishu, even if guide status.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment — so how should we proceed? I was looking forward to see an article of a really offbeat destination on the Main Page and therefore I'd hate see this article go on the slush pile, but people opposing it on the basis that it's too speculative do have a point. The January OtBP slot could maybe house one of our many US OtBP candidates. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article is realistically fixable in time for featuring. I think the way to proceed is to slush it and look for a replacement. A US destination would be good by me, assuming the schedule isn't too crowded with US destinations already. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Andre? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I thought this had already been taken care of. I personally still think it's salvageable, but most others don't, and it shouldn't be too difficult to find another candidate for January. Go ahead and slush, I'd say. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Shanghai/Pudong

 * Support as nominator, though Downtown Shanghai (nominated above) is more important for most travellers and should be featured first if possible. Pashley (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Downtown is featured in May, and we usually want to have two years between places in or involving the same city, which means it will take at least until 2020 before this could hit the Main Page. Perchance we could aim for Shanghai itself on the Main Page for then. --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shanghai as a whole would have a really hard time reaching Guide status; see Talk:Shanghai. It might be easier to get Downtown to Star. Pashley (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet. I notice this article is only at usable status; guide status is required for featuring. From a quick glance, there are also some listings that need coordinates and some dead links that need to be addressed, and the "Eat" and "Drink" sections strike me as skimpy for a bustling district in a major city. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree but thought it worth listing as a future possibility. It seems to me it is quite close to Guide & it would not be featured for at least a year, likely more, so there is time to fix it. Pashley (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can even consider a nominee until it's a Guide. And I would certainly oppose featuring an article that's not a Guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ikan; this nomination was very premature, especially since it couldn't be featured till 2020 anyway. Barring any last-minute objections (which would have to be extremely convincing indeed), I'm going to throw this on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Madrid
Oppose; not at Guide status. Two of the district articles are redlinks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Madrid/Northern Suburbs and Madrid/Southern suburbs are listed in the district hierarchy but redlink. This must be fixed before featuring or promotion to guide. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More specifically, those articles must not only exist but also be at Usable status. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is one way to "fix" it, the other is to get rid of the districts on the map, merge them, the likes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Despite this article being divided into districts, it has a lot of eat listings, but then lacks sleep listings. Selfie City (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Venice

 * Not yet. There are the bones of a good article here, but there are also a lot of issues that need to be addressed before Venice is ready for prime time:
 * The "By boat" and "Porters" subsections of "Get in", and the "By water taxi" subsection of "Get around", need to be at least converted into bullet-point lists, if not listingified. All those price quotes (how old are those, by the way?) and phone numbers are ugly when presented as a big block of prose.
 * There are quite a few listings that lack geo coordinates and/or need descriptions.
 * The list of churches in "See" is too long, as are most of the "Sleep" subsections. Pick the best and ditch the rest.
 * Some of the material in "Do" is questionable, for instance there are a few apparently non-value-added tours (Il Burchiello, Secret Itineraries in Doge's Palace).
 * In the "Buy" section, for such a major tourist city as Venice, I totally understand the urge to avoid listing every shop that might be of interest to our readers, but in that case the article should present generalized information of where you can find shopping areas, any types of specialty items that are unique to the area or for which you can find unusually good bargains, etc. without any listings at all. But having five listings of apparently randomly-selected shops looks too much like unreverted touting for my tastes. (Also, why is one of them an "Eat" listing?)
 * "Eat", "Sleep", and "Drink" need to be alphabetized.
 * The whole article needs to be copyedited by someone who speaks English natively.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not yet — this article does need quite a bit of streamlining and pruning, and listings need coords and expansion and perhaps a couple more photos, though the article is much less of a mess than I remembered. --ϒpsilon (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is quickly developing thanks to User:Xsobev et al. I guess it can make autumn 2018. /Yvwv (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost. I almost would support this; however, it could probably do with some more coordinates for reference and definitely needs an expansion of the buy section. The general article looks good, though. Selfie City (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This article yet to receive a single support vote. I would suggest running Sarajevo in September instead. Not only was Sarajevo added to the nominations before Venice but it also has more than enough support votes and the article is otherwise in mint condition compared to Venice. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone? I mean the article is still fairly messy and we as I said have a candidate freshly written up to guide status that shouldn't have to wait almost another year. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Question/Comment. There's a style tag in Sleep, saying "too many hotels"; only a few of them are georeferenced. Shouldn't this be worked out? Should this be a reson for demoting the article from Guide? Ibaman (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I advocate slushing - among other things the maps (yes, plural, and yes, more than two) are confusing and there seems to be a half-measure districtification thing going on... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was hoping that pointing out some of the article's issues above would serve as an inspiration to get cracking on it. But no one has risen to the occasion, and my plate is full as usual. We have enough DotM nominees that this one can go on the slush pile, though I'd say hold off for another couple of days to give folks a last chance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Gaspé Peninsula

 * Right now I'm in the midst of what has proven to be a very, very long and protracted update of the Buffalo district articles. I should be finished with that in a week or two, at which point I plan to start again on my long-dormant Gaspé Peninsula project. Despite what it may look like, the majority of the work has already been finished - Gaspé Peninsula itself has all the content it needs; the only thing keeping it from being bumped up to Guide status right now is the state of the articles below it in the breadcrumb hierarchy. Region guide status states that for a Region article to be evaluated at Guide level, all subregions must be at Usable status or better; in turn, for each subregion to be at Usable status, the most important of their respective "Cities" and "Other destinations" must be at Usable status or better. My course of action has been to go our readers one better and ensure that all of the bottom-level articles are at least Usable, and the most important ones are at Guide.


 * So, by way of a breakdown of the work that remains to be done to get this article up to Guide status, there are three main components:


 * Writing Guide articles for the most important bottom-level destinations. Thus far I've written and/or improved Percé, Chandler, and Forillon National Park to Guide standards; each of those took about two or three weeks apiece. Looking forward, I'd like to have Bonaventure, Gaspé, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Gaspésie National Park, and maybe Amqui at Guide status too.
 * Bringing all other bottom-level destinations to Usable status. Given that Usable articles only require a "Get in" section plus one listing each in "See", "Eat", and "Sleep", a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation.
 * Bringing subregion articles Gaspesian Coast, Upper Gaspé, Land's End, Chaleur Bay, and Matapédia Valley up to Usable status. Aside from the status of the bottom-level destinations, the only thing a Region article requires to be Usable is a "Get in" section and a "See" section where the most prominent attractions are listed. Again, a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation, though I'll likely end up including a bit more content than that.


 * Again, maybe it would be better to have delayed this nomination until I was further along in the process, but I wanted to make sure this article got up on the page before all the summer 2017 OtBP slots were gone - Nauru and Groningen have already taken two of them. (For those who think it's audacious to have jumped the gun like this, it might be germane to note that Buffalo was technically at Outline status for most of the time it was on this page; it still had two redlinked district articles when it was nominated, the last of which didn't "go blue" until three days before it went on the Main Page.) If by some slim chance Gaspé Peninsula isn't ready for the Main Page by then, we can easily put it off till 2018. But I highly doubt that will happen.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I haven't looked at the articles that carefully (some like Percé are in great shape, on the other hand there are others like Matapédia Valley which obviously need more content) but I trust you'll get all of them to usable or better until next summer. Concerning Nauru, I imagined that one was scheduled for March. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * While we could probably get away with featuring Nauru in March, it's less than ideal - per w:Nauru it's still a fairly rainy time of year there. Climatically speaking, the best time to run Nauru would be either between mid-spring and early summer or in the early autumn (Northern Hemisphere in both cases), but I'd caution against slotting it in May or June because it would likely be competing with nominees from temperate latitudes that can't really be featured any other time of year. I had imagined April 2017 to be a fair compromise, but there's certainly some wiggle room there if necessary (especially if the deficiencies ChubbyWimbus mentioned aren't fixed in time). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in the summer there's a ton of brilliant articles but only so many months, in the winter it's exactly other way around :(.
 * As the one who translated/googled up much of the content currently in the Nauru article, I will probably help out with Nauru at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Andre, a little friendly reminder in the case you've forgotten about this nomination... ϒpsilon (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ypsilon - I had thought that my work on Buffalo was essentially done once I finished the district articles. But sadly, keeping them all up to date has proven to be way more of a time suck than I realized, slowing progress on other Wikivoyage work including the Gaspé project. I do intend to get around to this at some point, but I can no longer guarantee they'll be ready by summer 2018. Let's wait until the end of the year and see how things progress, and then we can either commit to featuring it next summer or else throw it on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. I trust your judgment in assuring everyone of what you will do, and therefore give a supporting vote based on your superb track record of producing articles of exceptional quality. That said, please inform us of when you think the articles in question are ready, so that we can judge for ourselves at that time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I of course fully understand the conditional nature of your support, Ikan. But, to be clear, I see the Gaspé Peninsula article itself as essentially complete, and don't foresee any particular changes to it between now and when it goes on the Main Page, other than the redlinks in the "Regions" section being upgraded to live articles. So you can feel free to base your judgment on the content of the article rather than just my track record. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't reread anything close to the entire article yet, but of course it looks great. I think "Get in/By car" may require an update, though: Did the extension of A-20 as far as Trois-Pistoles that was supposed to open by 2015 open yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ikan - Latest reports are that they've extended A-20 about 14 kilometers eastward to the outskirts of Trois-Pistoles, but according to Wikipedia the interchange serving Trois-Pistoles itself isn't expected to be in service until later this year. I've updated the article to reflect that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is Gaspe actually off the beaten path, or should it be DotM? I'd say the latter because the one time I visited, mid-summer in the 1970s, it was absolutely flooded with tourists. Pashley (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When I was there in 2012, it was indeed crowded with tourists, but they were mostly other Québécois. Gaspé seems relatively less well-known among English-Canadians and almost completely unknown among non-Canadians. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Along the Magnificent Mile

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. One question: With the exception of illumination and perhaps drinks at night, couldn't the itinerary be done in reverse? Should that be noted in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, though if we're going to take a candidate that by next summer will have waited over a year to be featured and make it wait two more years in favor of a different nominee from the same city that's not of significantly higher quality, I'd prefer it to be for more compelling reasons than the above. Especially since we do still have an open OtBP slot next summer for the likes of Apia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so then it's probably best to impound this one in the Slush pile like we did with London Hampstead once. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Rome/Vatican

 * Weak support for the article as it is now, but it wouldn't take much to upgrade that to strong support:


 * There are no places to sleep in the Vatican itself, though in the "Sleep" section there are plenty of hotel listings for properties located in the adjacent Vaticano neighborhood of Rome which is also covered in this article. However, none of these properties are indicated on the article's static map (though some of them do have geo coordinates). We need to either update the static map or else replace it with a dynamic one, also finding and adding geo coordinates for all listings that don't already have them.
 * "Go next" is empty. There's plenty to do and see in Rome, so this should be an easy field to populate.
 * The "Drink" section is empty for obvious reasons. Captain Obvious though it may be, perhaps this section could do with a sentence or two explaining that there's not much of a nightlife scene in the Holy See.
 * The "Stay safe", "Connect" and "Respect" sections are all pretty short. Would it be worthwhile to elaborate a bit on the dangers of pickpocketing in St. Peter's Square and the Sistine Chapel? Is there absolutely nowhere to connect to the Internet within the walls of the Vatican? What about telephone calling codes - does the Vatican have the same country code as Italy, the same city code as Rome? Any more dos and don'ts we can think of with regard to being respectful?


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Needs an hour of work per Andre's comments. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Some remarks:


 * "Understand" should mention some things about Borgo and Prati, since they're also covered by this article.


 * "Get around" also completely ignores these neighborhoods.


 * Under "Do", I think we might mention something about taking confession, as one thing that really struck me (and I'm not a Catholic) is that there were numerous confession booths in St. Peter's, with signs stating the languages the priest taking confession in each booth spoke. I believe there are certain hours each day when priests are available for confession.


 * Under "Buy", what about Catholic figurines and so on?


 * "Eat" is pretty skimpy and, as Andre says, "Drink" is empty. I definitely don't think it should be, because this article is not just about the Holy See. There are undoubtedly bars in Borgo and Prati.


 * I think AndreCarrotflower covered the rest. This article is not ready for a feature at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, the more I mull this over, the less comfortable I feel about this article in an overall sense. I realize that the purview of Wikivoyage articles doesn't always correspond with arbitrary political boundaries, and I know that Vatican City is a "country" only in the very most technical of senses, but all the same, I am not at all comfortable with the setup of Vatican City being lumped together in this article with various adjacent neighborhoods of Rome proper. I think the Vatican is a distinct enough entity in itself that it deserves its own article. Obviously the place to bring up these concerns is at Talk:Rome, but when you add this to the preexisting concerns about the article which are pretty wide in scope (Ikan's comment above was an eye-opener for me, and I also foresee trouble ahead with addressing the map issue given that there have been objections raised in the past when static maps, however outdated, have been replaced with dynamic ones), as well as my comments below about Mérida (which would fit very comfortably into the April 2017 slot), I've concluded that we ought to slush this candidate. If anyone has any objections, let's hear them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that the Vatican merits an article by itself. The Vatican Museums alone could easily take a week or two of a determined traveler's time, and rewardingly so. And to give an analogy: If we can have a good article that focuses only on the Forbidden City, surely, there's enough in the Vatican for a good free-standing guide to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Vikings and the Old Norse

 * Oppose. You simply can't nominate an article with Outline status for a feature. Please turn it into a Guide before you nominate again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How is article status reviewed? /Yvwv (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Travel topic status, and often also a discussion on the article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote most of the article, it would seem unfair of me to grade the article higher. /Yvwv (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd call it usable (but I dislike the topic status criteria: remove empty sections and you get from outline to usable). It looks quite complete, but there could be sections on Vikings in the British isles, on the Russian rivers, etc., on normal life at home, on Norse shipbuilding etc. --LPfi (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is clearly better than Outline, but there's enough missing info that it's also clearly not yet ready for the Main Page. LPfi's assessment of Usable sounds about right. However, given that we never have seem to have enough FTT candidates, by all means I would encourage Yvwv (and others) to further develop the article and re-nominate it: it would certainly make for an interesting travel topic. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Zurich

 * Very close, IMO probably the closest-to-perfect geographically and seasonally appropriate article that can be found with such a time crunch. Some of the listings need geo coordinates, and "Go next" could do with a nice pruning, but otherwise Zurich looks just about ready to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost — Coordinates. The latter half of the article is as of now entirely void of photos. There are some old-style links and as usual it'd be good to check if everything listed in the article is still in business. Probably Go next could be cut down a little bit. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Still needs work, but it's worth it, as the article improved markedly over the last two years or so. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I have just taken a closer look. A LOT needs to be done to brush up the key "See" and "Do" sections. It is no less of a challenge than Riga to me, I am obviously all for us striving to improve both, but let us bear that in mind. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not yet there is still a lot of "copied" content and we arguably have "too many" German language features as is. Also, the "understand" section needs serious beefing up. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As per my comments at Talk:Zurich, I would not be opposed to slushing this nominee. Last year, when we were sniping back and forth about whether Riga should be districtified before being put on the Main Page I hastily nominated Zurich as a possible replacement candidate that IMO needed less work than Riga did to bring it up to snuff. However, the summer 2016 slot at issue ended up being filled by Paris/1st arrondissement instead, while Riga was improved and featured in 2017, and meanwhile Zurich seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle as none of the necessary fixes have yet been executed. If someone wants to give this article a relatively major overhaul over the next six weeks, have at it, but if not, the Northern Hemisphere summer is not a difficult time for which to find suitable DotM candidates, and there are plenty of worthier ones out there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I must say I am not entirely opposed to slushing, given that the current "understand" section is what I came up with in a few minutes and there are issues with the see section as well. We might get it up to snuff in time for featuring, but surely there are other places in the northern hemisphere summer harking for their spot that would be less work? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We've got to make a decision one way or the other soon, because we need banners by the end of the month for whatever our September DotM ends up being. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Should we raise the issue in the pub, then? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have been trying to update this article, but there is indeed a lot wrong with it. I think it would make more sense to slush it, as this has been sitting here for a while without much improvement and it would be very ambitious to bring it up to standard in the time remaining. Drat70 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just slush Zurich, it's in a worse condition than Riga was. May I suggest Milan for September instead? Me and Prince districtified the city and beautified and updated the article pretty far in 2015 planning to make it a DotM, but it wasn't nominated as Iseo next door was featured as OtBP the same year. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ypsi, that's precisely the candidate I had my eye on as well. I'll officially nominate Milan some time in the next day or two if you don't get to it before I do, and we can throw Zurich on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well this morning my laptop didn't wake up any longer after a system update, and editing with this @$&#& clumsy tablet takes ages, so I won't likely be doing much here for the next few days. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

American Industry Tour

 * This article is very well-written - it's definitely Usable (and I've upgraded it as such), with the only barriers to Guide status being the lack of one-liner descriptions on the entries in the "See also" section, and a few bare listings in the itinerary itself. However, I cannot support this article until the problem with the article name (described on the talk page) is resolved.


 * The problem as I see it is twofold:


 * First of all, "Manufacturing Belt" is not a recognized term in the United States. That is to say, if a tourist with no knowledge of the U.S. were to arrive and ask the natives about the "Manufacturing Belt", they would probably be able to suss out what the tourist was referring to, but no one in the U.S. uses that term themselves. The region at issue is understood to be called the Rust Belt.


 * Secondly, the article's title should reflect the fact that it's an itinerary. Even if we were to rename the article to "Rust Belt", the title would still sound more like an extrahierarchical region. In fact, at Requested articles I myself proposed the creation of such an extraregion article (Rust Belt currently exists as a redirect to Manufacturing Belt). It's arguable that the term "Rust Belt" may have a slightly negative connotation in the U.S., so on the talk page earlier I suggested the title Industrial American Tour (currently another redirect to Manufacturing Belt).


 * I will be happy to support this article when it's renamed with a title that reflects common usage and clarifies the article's status as an itinerary rather than a destination. Additionally, down the line, what I'd ideally like to see happen is the creation of a Rust Belt extraregion article, with Manufacturing Belt redirected there.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles need to have Guide status to be featured on the Main Page. Nevertheless it looks like the article is in a good shape and it could probably be promoted to Guide with comparatively little work :). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Name changed. /Yvwv (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But that only solves one half of the problem. When I click on an article called Rust Belt, I expect it to be a destination article - just the same as I'd be surprised if I clicked on Wales or Sumatra or Upper Peninsula only to discover that they were itineraries. There's got to be something in the title to reflect what kind of article it is. Rust Belt Tour or Industrial America Tour, or something like that, is a much more acceptable title. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rust Belt Tour it is, then. /Yvwv (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since that was the only issue standing in the way of my support, I suppose I'll cast my vote then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not yet. I like the idea of this guide, but I think it has a ways to go before it can properly be considered at "Guide" status. A lot of the listings have no descriptions, and even many that do give you no real sense of why you should visit this place. I see the framework for a good itinerary here, but I think it needs to be fleshed out much more. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm having trouble with the inclusion of areas such as Boston, NYC, and Jersey in the "Rust Belt". While they did have strong manufacturing bases that are now weakened or gone, the term "Rust Belt" further implies the lack of replacement of those industries with new ones -- that is, all the old buildings are rusting and disused. From that perspective, it seems bizarre to include healthy post-industrial cities while excluding Erie, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Binghamton. Powers (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The two comments above this one are convincing. I'm quite sure that we have plenty of hands on deck (self included) who can help bring the article up to speed by next summer, though, and I'd love to see this article featured, so I will be monitoring the progress on this nominee with interest. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yet another name change; the article is now named American Industry Tour. Concerning industrial towns in western New York State, they get mentioned in the Erie Canal articles. We could however consider an alternative route westward from Albany, through Ontario, connecting to Detroit. /Yvwv (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from with your concerns about Erie Canal, Yvwv, especially since the canal was what spurred the first phase of industrialization in Upstate New York. But if you look at that article, Powers only occasionally hits on the topic of industrial history (mainly in the "Understand" section) while focusing mostly on the canal's present-day role as an amenity for pleasure boaters - the itinerary itself is given over mostly to general tourist information for the towns the canal passes through, as well as practical information for boaters (lift bridges, locks, public docks, etc). While there are undoubtedly many ways the two articles could interface with each other, I don't think it would be in any way redundant for them to coexist in the same geographical space, with different focuses and therefore different information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also: IMO it would be a bad idea to route the itinerary between Buffalo and Detroit via Ontario. With the exception of a few outliers such as Windsor and maybe the Welland Canal corridor, the economy of that part of Canada historically had much more to do with agriculture than heavy industry. I'm actually in favor of retaining the portion of the itinerary in Western Massachusetts - while not part of the Rust Belt proper, manufacturing did play an important role in that region's economy, with the same pattern of decline post-WWII - and from there I'd have the route cross Upstate New York via I-90 (i.e. the Erie Canal corridor), bypassing New Jersey and the New York City vicinity entirely, and continuing through Ohio and Michigan as it does currently. Pennsylvania obviously needs to be worked in somewhere too, but how to do so in a practical way is a tougher question than I can answer by cell phone on my break at work.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am struggling to understand that this is a one week trip - three weeks sounds more likely. Day 5 has 13 stopping points listed! There is no text linking the places, to give an idea of times between places ("15 minutes west on I123 you will come to..."). It is also missing any suggestions of places to sleep (not hotel listings, but suggest which cities - last one of current day, first of one of next day etc) - or is it good to do the trip in a camper van. AlasdairW (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * AlasdairW has a good point. This reads like a travel topic. Even though it says "Day 1, 2, 3, etc", looking at it, each "day" is actually just a different state. I also agree that it's fine to have the same sites listed in multiple itineraries/travel topics, as long as the topics themselves are different. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with ChubbyWimbus that this would work better as a travel topic, especially since there's no obvious route to follow (see my comments above timestamped 19:42, 22 December). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So, what to do with this one? I was almost ready to support it, but voyagers more knowledgable about the northeastern US have pointed out that the article still has a lot of issues. Plus, it's likely it won't get on the Main Page before the summer of 2017 anyway. Finally, it's still at Usable status which in itself means that the article is not eligible for nomination in the first place. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Slush it. It's not a Guide and we aren't desperate for features yet. Powers (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I say leave it up for now, with the understanding that the changes that need to be made before a consensus in its favor is likely are major: adding the Erie Canal corridor to its purview and removing non-Rust Belt Eastern Seaboard areas such as Boston, NYC, and New Jersey; expanding the descriptions in the listings and linking them to each other thematically; perhaps converting the whole shebang from an itinerary to a travel topic. It's a tall order, but we have north of a year in which to accomplish it all (and I don't see it as a problem in and of itself to have it waiting on this page for that long). We can revisit the question of whether to slush this feature if no significant progress has been made in, let's say, three months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... on the other hand, there have been a lot of U.S. cities that are ripe for being featured but we've put off nominating because of how long they'd have to wait: in the past year there has been talk about Baltimore, Albany, Seattle, Nashville, and perhaps more that I'm not recalling, and of course Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side has already been nominated. Slushing American Industry Tour would make room on the summer 2017 schedule for another U.S. destination. I still say let's hold off on slushing it, but let's keep that in mind when it comes time to make a decision on it in a few months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As it's not a Guide article, it shouldn't even be here in the first place. If it was close to being a Guide, just needing a few tweaks, that'd be one thing, but it was Usable when it was nominated, it's still Usable now, and there's no quick fix to get it to Guide. What outcome is better served by leaving it here than by putting it on the slush pile? Powers (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Powers - I don't think all the issues outlined in this discussion necessarily have to be fixed before it's at Guide status. To be honest, I don't hold out much more hope than you do for this nominee, but I think the collegial thing to do would be to at least give Yvwv the chance to prove us wrong. If you're correct about the amount that can be realistically accomplished within the three-month window that I suggested, then the result will be precisely the same as what you're arguing for: the nominee will be slushed. On the other hand, is Yvwv is inspired to make the required fixes, then it will be a boon not only to DotM but to the site as a whole. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit that the article itself was experimental, and the nomination was a long shot. Appreciate the comments, though. /Yvwv (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong/Kowloon

 * Almost. Most but not all of the listings have coordinates; the remainder need to be filled in. Also, "Connect" and "Go next" need to be expanded. Beyond those easy fixes, though, there's quite a weath of information here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm I (and some others) actually had my eyes on next-door Macau for some month next winter... For this article, I agree with you — it's a quite good article but many listings, especially in Sleep, lack coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ϒpsilon - after briefly looking over Macau, I will happily slush this article if you'd like to nominate that one. It looks like less work needs to be done with Macau, and obviously, from a geographic diversity perspective, we can't feature both of these destinations in the same year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll nominate it. Actually it was Pashley's idea first. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Indianapolis

 * Weak support as nominator. Here's what needs to be done for my unqualified support:
 * There's a dynamic map, but no listings outside the "See" section have coordinates.
 * Some listings in "Do" need to be moved or reformatted: for example, "Get creeped out at the Indiana Medical History Museum" should be simply "Indiana Medical History Museum", and belongs in "See". (In other words, there's a time and a place to use lively tone.)
 * "Go next" should list cities or other destinations, not individual attractions.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support and comment I would be happy to do any tiding up that anyone thinks is necessary and an eight-month time frame is definitely doable. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost support — mostly due to the lack of coordinates. Also, I'm a little curious about the plan to divide the Indianapolis article into districts. I don't think it has to be done but I don't oppose the idea either (the article is long but not unwieldy). Nevertheless if Justin or others would like to do this, the distrification should also be completed by the time the article goes live. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost — I like the article, but there is some scope for improvement, as featured articles are more likely to be read by people who haven't been to the US.


 * The term "Indy" is widely used but not explained - does everybody in the US understand Indy to mean Indianapolis, not Indiana? A couple more photos of See listings would be good. There are some Do listings (Other fun) that should be in Eat. "Wander the galleries on First Fridays" - it is not clear whether these galleries are open on any other day of the month.


 * Get in could be improved: 3 of the airports have broken links, and we should probably be clearer which have regular commercial flights; Indianapolis International Airport should be expanded to list the main cities served and also to give ground transport details - 8 bus, price of a taxi to town etc. By bus could be expanded e.g. Greyhound have 7 buses per day from Chicago taking around 4 hours.


 * All the listings need to be checked as I have found a few broken links: Fountain Diner, MCL Cafeteria, The Bosphorus Istanbul Cafe, Red Eye Cafe, Serendipity Haus. AlasdairW (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost, mainly for the ongoing lack of coordinates in most listings, as mentioned above. Also, there are many external links that are still in the old number format (e.g., [26]) that need to get re-formatted. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Other than See, the article's listings completely lack coordinates and the article is scheduled to be up on the Main Page in two months. Justin? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This article currently has only 2 support votes, so our other alternative would be to postpone featuring it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The fixes that Indianapolis needs - coordinates, several listings migrated from "Do" to "See", "Go next" reformatted, etc. - consist of work that is somewhat tedious, but ultimately simple and doable by anyone with access to Google. Two months should be more than enough time to take care of them. I'm in the middle of the first major round of updates to the Buffalo district articles since its DotM feature, but I'll see if I can find time to pitch in. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I notified Justin as he in a comment above said he is happy to help out (and he's also a local and to my understanding a major contributor to the article). However I can help out if no one else has time. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I took a closer look at this article, and I have to admit I was wrong about the amount of work that needs to be done. The main problem with this article as I see it is there's just too many listings and too much information to sift through. What Indianapolis really needs is to be districtified, which of course is a task that would take far more than two months. Given the fact that there are plenty of other U.S. destinations ready and waiting to be featured, I'd be fine with throwing this nominee on the slush pile for now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody? Okay, I'm going to give this another day or two, then slush the article and replace it with another nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we decide to swap Indianapolis for some other US city, then Baltimore with many guide and even one Star district are or Seattle which Othello95 has worked extensively on are good alternatives. If the problem would only be the missing coordinates I and my friend Google maps could possibly fix it even if noone else would have time. Districtifying the city, including map drawing and whatnot would however be a much more challenging (and time consuming) project even if there'd be many voyagers working on it. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with slushing this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon: I'd be hesitant to feature Baltimore given that we'll be running Washington, D.C./Anacostia as OtBP just a few months later. From what I remember of Seattle, it needs some pretty extensive copyedits for grammar but is otherwise fine. I'll look it over again; worst-case scenario, we have a plethora of other potential U.S. DotMs to choose from (Nashville is another one). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Montreal/Downtown

 * I realise that the article should first be brought up to guide standard before nominating, but in this case I would like to get some initial feedback first. We had a late request to feature Esino Lario during Wikimania 2016 (see Travellers'_pub), and it would be good to feature somewhere relevant to next years event. An alternative suggestion would be the neighbouring district of Old Montreal which has guide status. AlasdairW (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We've been featuring an awful lot of Huge City districts lately (Paris/1st arrondissement, Washington, D.C./Anacostia, Edinburgh/New Town, London/Hampstead). If we have a whole year of hangtime before Wikimania 2017, why not try to get Montreal itself up to Guide status? If you look at City guide status, it's not exactly a huge undertaking to create a Usable district article — and also, if you'll pardon the opportunism, a Montreal DotM push would also entail some attention to the issue of the districts breakdown, for which I proposed a solution that garnered little meaningful feedback. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with a lot of huge city districts having been featured recently, with regard to this it would be preferable to feature the whole of Montreal if we decide to do so in August 2017. Moreover, given that Gaspé is in Quebec too, it would be good if there'd be at least a month or two between these article's stints on the Main Page.
 * As of now there are some very good district articles and many outlines only lack a hotel to be eligible for usable status. Also, per André's proposed district scheme (which I supported on Montreal's talk page a few months back, though it would be great to hear comments from people who've actually been to the city) many shorter outlines will be fusioned into bigger usable entities so I guess the districts aren't that much of a problem. The main Montreal article does still need some work, though, there are listings that need to be moved to the (new) districts, also, there are a lot of bulleted points in the article that could perhaps be reformatted into prose. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I completely forgot about Gaspé Peninsula. I hate to say it, but I think we're going to have to pick one or the other. The "Time to feature" for any Québécois destination would be very short - Jun-Sep, probably, and even the first and last months of that range are fairly iffy. I personally would have a hard time justifying two destinations from the same country, never mind the same province, within that short space of time. Of the two: maybe I'm biased, but I prefer the Gaspé to be the one that's featured next year, and Montreal to wait till 2018. First of all, the Gaspé was nominated first; second of all, we featured City of London for Wikimania 2014 and, frankly, Wikimania isn't an important enough event for people outside the wiki community to run a "timely feature" DotM for it so frequently. Remember the intended audience of our site is the general travelling public, not just WMF insiders. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While you are right about the comment concerning our target audience, there is a good reason to feature Wikimania sites. First of all the thing that happened last time with Esino Lario and second we need more editors. Wikimania participants are more likely to become (frequent) editors than any random member of our audience who reads our featured article. And once we attract a critical number of editors and raise our search engine ranking enough, we can feature pretty much anything. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if Montreal was featured instead, but I do think that the August 2017 date is important. Our target audience will not be aware that Wikimania is happening (it needn't be mentioned in the blurb or in the article), but it may help to raise awareness of Wikivoyage amongst those attending (who are potential editors from around the world). My experience at Wikimedia Meetups is that many WP and Commons contributors are unaware of our site. We did receive a request to feature Esino Lario, but this was made only a few days before Wikimania 2016 started, and so was far too late. AlasdairW (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Noble though the goal of expanding our editing community or raising search engine visibility may be, I think we do the site a disservice when we prioritize anything higher than benefit to the traveller in our decision-making process - but, even if hypothetically we were to factor that consideration in, I think you're wildly overestimating the degree to which a Montreal DotM feature that coincides with Wikimania would benefit us. First of all, think about the kind of people who attend Wikimania. They are the most avid wiki aficionados on the planet, up to date with almost everything that's going on in the world of the WMF, way more so than a rank-and-file attendee at your average meetup. I find it extremely hard to believe that such people would be unaware of Wikivoyage. If they had any interest in becoming regular editors of our site, they would already be here (and a lot of them are; ever since we were accepted into the WMF fold we've had a slow but steady influx of editors from other projects). As a case in point, let's look at Wikimania 2014, which coincided with City of London as July's DotM. Was there a noticeable increase in new editors in the aftermath of that? No, not at all - and 2014 had the highest attendance in the history of Wikimania, to boot.


 * And what, by the way, was that lofty attendance figure? A little bit more than 1,700 people. Chump change in the grand scheme of things. Even if we're to accept the shaky premise that these people are balls-to-the-wall wiki fanatics yet have somehow never heard of Wikivoyage, the sheer extent to which Wikimania's attendance figures are dwarfed by those of other "timely events" we've coincided DotMs with - Munich Oktoberfest; Eurovision 2015 in Vienna - more than eliminates any advantage in catering to a niche audience that may (or, again, may not) be more interested than average folks in getting involved in our site.


 * Another thing I remember about City of London is that in order to have it on the Main Page simultaneously to Wikimania, we had to strongarm London/Hampstead off the schedule, a perfectly worthy OtBP candidate just like Gaspé Peninsula is, that had already been waiting almost a year at that point to be featured. We ended up having to throw Hampstead on the Slush Pile, and it was only featured this year, two full years after we'd originally intended to feature it and almost three years after it had first been nominated. This leads into my next point: I'd like to take up the issue of policy as it relates to how, in the present day, we decide which articles to run as DotMs and when. Our policy as it is today, which emphasizes that the schedule is "not cast in stone... and... can be changed if, for example, an excellent guide for a timely event is found", was designed to handle a dearth, not an abundance, of DotM candidates. When I first started contributing to Wikivoyage, the schedule grid was never planned out more than three months in advance - four at most, but that was the exception rather than the rule - and a majority of the slots at any given time were filled with ?s. In fact, I remember more than one instance when a DotM or an OtBP was almost due to expire from the Main Page and we still had no idea what we were going to replace it with. We had to find a candidate and solicit votes all in the space of a day or two, and God help us if anyone voted Oppose. Nowadays it’s a whole different world. I can't remember the last time there was a ? on the schedule grid. The schedule is planned out six months in advance per policy, but we always have enough nominees at any given time that there are two or three more months' worth of candidates just waiting in the wings. In fact, I have articles in mind up through 2019 that I haven't yet nominated on this page because it would be patently ridiculous to do so that far in advance. A situation like we have today at DotM calls for us to be a lot less willy-nilly when it comes to rearranging the schedule, lest we run up against the problem of articles languishing on the nominations page for too long. I realize this isn't the place to propose it, but all the same I would like to see our policy changed to reflect what we have been doing informally all along to manage the backload of candidates: we should (as much as Time to Feature allows) prioritize those candidates that have been waiting the longest, and when "timely event" features are nominated with little advance notice in ways that force preexisting nominees to be delayed, we should take a very long and critical look at whether the scale and importance of the event justifies the disruption. And I apologize for my bluntness, but on that scale Wikimania doesn't even rate. I admit that in the discussion over whether to feature Hampstead or City of London in 2014, I came down on the side of the latter, but that's only because we had never featured a Wikimania host city as DotM before. I think that to suggest we feature the Wikimania host city literally every subsequent year - first with Esino Lario and now with Montreal - is excessive to the point of absurdity. There is simply too much competition between too many candidates for too few slots on the schedule - especially ones in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the most competitive time of year - for us to repeatedly bend over backwards to accommodate an event that is so minor in scale and of such paltry significance to the average reader.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I oppose featuring an article that's not at least a Guide, per policy, so I think this nomination is premature. Second, Gaspe is a very interesting destination and probably a much more important one than Hampstead, which is a single neighborhood in London, so I'm very sympathetic to the argument that it shouldn't be bumped after Andrew has worked on it and articles linked from it for years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * One way to "solve" the abundance of feature candidates is to feature more articles. Either by reducing the amount of time between features (e.g. on DotM every two weeks) or by introducing a new category, whatever that category may be. On the other hand as Wikimania seems to be a single weekend, maybe we can "feature" something for that weekend alone? Either as part of the normal rotation or in an optional "fourth spot" for "topical" destinations that are only relevant for a rather short window of time? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As there is objection to the idea of scheduling this during Wikimania, I will withdraw the nomination. I am glad that we had this discussion before wasting time bringing the article up to guide. AlasdairW (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In what way is improving an article to Guide status ever a waste of time? You think that only a feature in a month of your choosing makes such work worth a damn? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Since Downtown Montreal isn't at Guide status yet and won't be featured on the Main Page until 2018 at the earliest, I agree that the slush pile is the way to go with this nomination. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sighișoara

 * Oppose. Romanichthys, please take another look at the procedure for nominating DotMs. For one thing, this article is only at Usable level and thus does not qualify for DotM; for another, you need to come up with something original for the "comment" argument rather than copying the example one about luvvy-jubbly speingtimes we have at the top of this page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy slush. As Andre says, we never feature Usable articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Percé

 * Support by nominator. I'd be happy with a few more photos, if possible, but otherwise, with the caveat that I don't know the town myself, I think all of you will agree that this is a beautiful article that's well worth our featuring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's of course a fantastic article and as such I've no problems supporting it. But... I thought Andre planned to make the whole of Gaspé Peninsula OtBP at some point (summer 2016?). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ϒpsilon is correct - and as all our OtBP slots for summer 2015 are filled, my Plan A was to ramp up work on Gaspé Peninsula's linked cities and subregions in order to get it to Guide status, and thus featureable for summer 2016. However, there are of course no guarantees about that (when I began districtfying Buffalo in November 2012 I never imagined I would still be working on it in 2015!), so I will give this nominee my tentative support in case things don't pan out with Gaspé Peninsula. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Grand-Bassam

 * Almost. Grand-Bassam is not quite ready for prime time yet, but not much work is needed to get it there: expand the blurbs in "See" and "Do" a little bit, add another restaurant or two to "Eat" and another bar or two to "Drink", and pick a few prominent nearby cities to add to "Go next". There's already a nice static map. This article has a ton of potential and I'd really love to see it whipped into shape. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you know the town? We need people who know the town to check on the accuracy of the content. I recall when we considered featuring Dakar and finally realized that not a single person passing judgment on the article had ever been there, whereupon the article was slushed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost — This has been one of the African articles on my list of potential OtBP candidates, but I've been hesitant of nominating Grand-Bassam as the Ebola epidemic is just a few hundred kilometers away. The article itself looks OK to me, though — given the town's size, I don't think there's much in the town that isn't already in the article. It would be very good to have someone who knows Grand Bassam to check it (otherwise it would suffice to use Google to check that the businesses are still operating but I've noticed that's not as easy in Africa as elsewhere). User:JamesA has made the map and according to the article history written some of the content so he might be the person to ask. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding worries about the article's content: I think that's an unrealistically high standard to hold our feature articles to, and to be perfectly honest I wonder why we are so concerned with confirming the accuracy of African articles yet are willing to have faith that all the listed destinations in, let's say, Dumaguete or Ushuaia still exist with the same opening hours, telephone number, etc. My suggestion was that we add additional listings to "Eat" and "Drink" that we find on Google or other such sources. No, that's not foolproof, but it's no less foolproof to blindly assume that information in any given article which may have been written months or years ago remains accurate. That's a risk that's inherent in using any travel guide. If we were to limit all our features to places that one of our current regulars is able to personally visit to check on the accuracy of the content - or even to places that any of us current regulars have ever been before - we would no doubt have to slush most of our current nominees. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about Ushuaia, but we currently have a regular in Dumaguete. I think part of the issue was that even in a city as big and important as Dakar, a lot of information wasn't reliably confirmable online. What's the situation with Grand Bassam? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that reliable online confirmability of an article's contents should not be a prerequisite for it to be featured on the Main Page. If it were, then we'd have to slush the vast majority of our current nominees. If we slushed Dakar on that basis, we were wrong to do so. On a regular basis, in Africa equally as the rest of the world, businesses close and the situation on the ground changes, and therefore no travel guide is in a position to guarantee the accuracy of its contents. Particularly not this one, which has probably the most ambitious goals of any travel guide yet a scant population of a few dozen regular contributors.


 * That being the case, the double standard we're applying now to Grand-Bassam, and that we previously applied to Dakar, is troublesome as it effectively negates our efforts for geographical diversity among Main Page featured articles. It seems like on the one hand, we want more Main Page coverage for regions like Africa, yet on the other hand we seem to be extra suspicious of nominees from those regions and subject them to scrutiny above and beyond what we would for, say, a European or North American destination. I say if there's a double standard, it should be in favor of articles from underrepresented regions.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with Andre. If articles would have to be absolutely perfect we would probably not have any candidates here (hey, this isn't the starnom after all). I would like to see at least one DotM and one OtBP from each of the six inhabited continents every year.
 * Also, there's really nothing wrong with finding and verifying information by using Google if first hand information (which we of course prefer) is not available. When translating articles from other language versions I usually google the establishment, to find the coordinates if for no other reason. But the problem is when you for half of the places actually don't find any information at all online (or they're just mentioned in some travel forum thread from 2007). I don't know if this is the case with Grand Bassam. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AndreCarrotflower, if you really think Dakar was incorrectly slushed, renominate the article for the city, but have a look at the discussion in Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile first. I think valid questions were brought up; note my analogy with Berne, which I had previously nominated for a feature, as the article looked good to me because I didn't know enough to judge it properly, having never been there (discussion at Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Inasmuch as similar issues are at play in the Dakar article as with Grand-Bassam, Dakar strikes me as a much more extreme example. As near as I can figure out from reading the slushed nomination discussion, ChubbyWimbus added the vast majority of the listings in Dakar's "See" and "Do" section using information gleaned from secondary sources, without ever having set foot in the city. I would say that I might have some reservations about supporting a nominee under those circumstances (though I wouldn't rule it out, either) unless we were able to ascertain the accuracy of any information gleaned from secondary sources with a pretty sturdy degree of certainty.


 * On the other hand, the Grand-Bassam article already has most of the information necessary to be feature-worthy; the only thing we need to do is pad it a little. If we add one or two restaurants and bars to an "Eat" and "Drink" section that already has several entries, and if we expand the blurbs for some of the listings in "See" and "Do" (with no more than a few additional facts for each one, or maybe just the same content that's already there reworded in a more in-depth way), we're already most of the way there. And as opposed to Dakar, the majority of the content in the souped-up version of Grand-Bassam would still be the presumed-accurate preexisting material.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good. Please note that I haven't stated any words of opposition to featuring this article; I just asked what I considered an important question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(indent reset) Support, because the article ain't going to get better than this. I've added some listings and info about the sights but it really isn't easy finding information about the town online as home pages are as common among businesses as it was in western countries 20 years ago. That additional nightclub in drink, for example, is one of three drinking establishments I found using the Mapnik layer of our dynamic map and tried to see if they still existed using Google. The others weren't really mentioned anywhere (only on sites with no indication of which year they were added!). Épilogue was mentioned in a travel blog post from April 2014... --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll support this, too, though I do have one question: There is a photo of Maison des Artistes, but there is no listing for it. Should there be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now there is! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I did draw up the map and write up a lot of the content. Although I must admit, I've never visited the place and am no expert. I just saw what was a very bare article and wanted to improve it to something respectable. All the content I added was based off available mapping data and info online. <font color="#046380">James A ▪ talk 10:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thank you Ypsilon, once again, for helping out. Before I'm ready to say I'm satisfied with the article as a potential feature, I'm going to see if I can't find more information about the listings in the "See" section. It seems like the blurbs should be longer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not Yet I think AndreCarrotflower has a point. The listings are lacking meaty content. Most of them don't have any information beyond a description and many of the descriptions do not actually say anything which I'm sure is the result of it coming from secondary sources rather than from a traveler.
 * On the above discussion that we are holding Africa to a higher standard, I don't think that's true at all. We have lots of users with personal experiences in Europe, North America, and East Asia who have or can access multiple resources about locations to verify information about them, but with most African destinations, we don't. We take that verification for granted so when the question comes up about African destinations, get no answer, and feel hesitant about featuring (or oppose featuring), it may seem like we are being too strict, but I actually think it is being fair to the destination and preventing what would otherwise be a LOWER standard for African destinations. Take a look at our embarrassing former feature Dar es Salaam; an African capital that was featured with a contentless bulleted list as its "See" section and I believe most of those were added by myself to boot. But we've featured it and our rule is to not feature anything again, so if someone comes along with real experience and knowledge and makes it a proper article, we cannot showcase it. It was held to a super LOW standard as it probably shouldn't even be considered a Guide article. I haven't seen evidence of a higher standard being used to prevent African destinations from feature, but this is clear evidence that lower standards have been used. Had Dar been a European or American city, there's no way it would have been featured looking like that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I added pretty much everything I could find online about the POIs to the article, so as I said half a year ago, it's not going to get any better than it is now unless someone actually visits Grand Bassam. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Andre, before you start making Main Page banners for Grand Bassam, be aware that a user is unhappy about featuring this article. What should we do? ϒpsilon (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good work, Ypsilon. I agree that the article has probably been fleshed out to its full extent based on the info available. When I expanded the article originally, I did use an old Africa Lonely Planet book from the library for guidance, in addition to online resources. If I recall the amount of content in the book, I'd say our article is even more comprehensive than LP's now, despite the author of that guide having visited Bassam themselves! <font color="#046380">James A ▪ talk 10:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ϒpsilon - I've been pulling 50-hour weeks at work and swamped with stuff to deal with in my offwiki life, so I've not been able to devote the same level of attention to Wikivoyage as usual. I took a quick look at Grand-Bassam just now, and frankly I've changed my mind - regardless of the contention that our coverage is better than Lonely Planet's and is unlikely to get better, I just can't agree that this article is good enough for the Main Page. I wouldn't be offended if it were slushed - in Swakopmund we have a worthy African OtBP candidate suitable for featuring in November, and in any event it's going to be at least a few days before I have time to make banners again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand, that happens to everyone every now and then :). Just wanted to warn you not to spend time looking for photos and making some fine banners that possibly would be thrown in the shredder together with the article.
 * As for November's OtBP, if Grand Bassam is slushed we could feature Swakopmund then, I guess. But we could also have two African articles this winter as originally planned. I'd like to seize the opportunity to advertise some other African articles I've translated from other language versions: Nkhata Bay, Praia, Mount Sinai. If people like either one of these, I can nominate it. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (Side point: Mount Sinai is in Asia, not Africa.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's actually true. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Without having had a chance to look over any of the articles, my early vote goes with Praia given its location in West Africa, like Grand-Bassam. If we do nominate it, though, the $64,000 question will be DotM or OtBP - it's a national capital, but of an exceedingly small country. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It also has a population of only 130,000. I'd say OtBP, but we should consider tourism and overall travel figures before deciding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Diving in South Africa/HMS Birkenhead wreck

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure yet, but I expect to support. I'm not really sure how to evaluate this type of article, but I have a few remarks, nevertheless: (1) On my laptop and browser, there's one too many photographs, with the last one, which is uncaptioned, anyway, going past the status template. (2) Under "Understand/Conditions", I actually don't understand this sentence: "More information is needed on what weather conditions are best for diving this site." The rest of the subsection seems to assume that readers understand what "good" and "bad" conditions are, so should this sentence be deleted?


 * Otherwise, if everyone is happy with the article's format, I have no objection whatsoever to featuring it. Do most comparable dive guides use the same format, as used, for example, in "Understand/Name/Specifications"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The article looks good at first blush, but the more closely you examine it the more problems crop up. The main problem as I see it dovetails with what Ikan mentioned above in his second item of concern: I noticed that there was excess white space between some of the subsections, so I went in to edit mode to investigate and I saw lots and lots of "notes to self" that Southwood wrote as hidden text, e.g. at the end of "Get in":


 * I suppose there's already plenty of information included in the article, but then again I don't know from diving, and these hidden notes make me second-guess whether the article is truly complete. So I guess my vote is that I'm not sure either.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems easy enough to have Peter comment on that. I have every confidence however that, while he may still have plenty of ideas to improve this article, he made it a "guide" because the information present is plenty to go there with this article as an only guide. If he's happy to feature it (with perhaps some small tweaks where needed), I'm happy to support. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Otherwise we'd have to pick one of the other ~70 South African diving guide or star articles which may be in better shape. I picked this one because it stood out as the only featurable one not being part of the Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay area (with the hidden agenda of being able to nominating one of the fine diving articles from there just a year after this one ;)). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I haven't worked on this site for a while, as it is currently only accessible with a special permit as it is in a reserve. I will take a look to see if I can clean it up a bit, but I don't think its is a particularly useful travel topic at this point due to the access difficulty. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's slush this nominee then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have to. And then pick a new dive guide candidate. Peter, do you have any favorite that you would like to see on the main page? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

nl:Wikivoyage:Kandidaten voor bestemming van de maand sv:Wikivoyage:Rekommenderat resmål

Olango Island
I am almost the only contributor so far. Both the promotion to Guide & this nomination need other opinions. Also, the article could use contributions. Pashley (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I realize this is a small place, but I think it's extremely premature to slap the Guidecity template on any article with no listings at all in "Buy", "Eat", or "Drink". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would too prefer that the article would be a bit longer. Though it may be difficult if there isn't very much on the island. Also, Olango is apparently geographically quite close to Dumaguete so maybe we'd like to wait until sometime later in 2016 with this one. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I like featuring small places, but as they're typically short in nature, but I do feel they should at least be rather complete. I appreciate the amount of work that has already gone into this article, and I figure this might be one of those place where our coverage is better than in any of the commercial guides. That said, it still reads as an incomplete article to me. I'll add my content suggestions to Talk:Olango Island to not clutter this page. In short, I think this is a perfectly usable article, but it doesn't seem like a great feature just yet. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on comments here & at Talk:Olango_Island, I've demoted it back to usable. I suggest it be slushed. Pashley (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Bayreuth

 * Oppose. Bayreuth was already DotM in July 2009 and thus cannot be featured again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. Thats why this is not valid candidate anymore.''' --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hs likely didn't know this rule (ps. the green tick in the upper right corner of the article's banner means that the article has been featured; for travel topics this is marked by an orange pen). As a side note, we have featured some articles twice but this has been in times of acute lack of candidates, I believe. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've ever had so few DotM candidates that we've been forced to rerun articles. The only time we've ever featured articles a second time was just after our relaunch as a WMF project, in January and February 2013. If I remember correctly, it was not due to a lack of candidates but to a desire on our part to take advantage of the burst of attention we'd be receiving from other WMF users by featuring the absolute best-of-the-best of our material. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, at least Niamey, Bali and San Francisco have each been featured on the Main Page twice. I wasn't active on featured articles back then. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This nomination should be slushed, don't you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It should. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikan, Ypsi: I chose not to immediately slush the nomination after I made my original comment in the hopes that Hobbitschuster would see the message and not have to wonder why his nomination suddenly disappeared. But I suppose it's just as well to Wikilink his name in this comment so it triggers the red Notification box at the top of his screen. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

On the trail of Marco Polo

 * Support. That article is really fun and well-researched, with great quotes! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure — The article itself is interesting reading. While the winter might not be the best time to travel along this route, I guess one would need a couple of months of preparation for such a journey. So it could well be featured in the winter months. That brings me to the main problem: there's really no practical information on how to travel along this route in the present day. I'm not sure how much we would have to add to this article — the Silk Road article does give some ideas about what trips along this route would be like. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet — Agreed with Ypsi: this article works well as a recounting of Marco Polo's voyage, not so much for modern-day travellers who want to retrace his steps. An itinerary as formidable as this requires careful planning and preparation, and the article provides no information on the practical aspects of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, now it's one month since the nomination... how shall we proceed? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd hesitate to take such measures after only a month, but if there's no progress by, say, the first of June then I'd say slush it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with YPSI. Guide lack practical information. And with due respect to Pashley who put great amount of time and efforts to write On the trail of Marco Polo and On the trail of Kipling's Kim but I can agree featuring guide in current state is not suitable due to reason stated above. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yangshuo

 * Not yet. Most of the content appears to date back to 2011 and 2012. I don't think I'd be comfortable supporting this article until it's updated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also edited the Time to Feature. Per chinahighlights.com, Yangshuo has a rainy season from Apr-Aug, and Jan-Feb is out due to the Spring Festival (besides, it's too cold). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not yet — Yangshou needs POI coordinates, maybe more pics, descriptions of some of the listings and Eat should probably be arranged into price categories. Plus, someone should check if content is still up to date. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I nominated this because it is rated Guide, the scenery is sensational, the town has lots of tourist facilities, and it is one of my favorite destinations. However, the criticisms above are valid. Checking the history I see I've been nearly the only editor in the last six months and I cannot bring it up to date because I have not been there in several years. While copy-editing, I also found other problems; see the talk page. Unless other contributors want to jump in, I think we'll have to slush it. Pashley (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One can usually use the Internet to see whether the places are still in business — for instance I've patched and cleaned up many articles where I've never been. This of course requires that the places have home page or are listed somewhere else (and preferably in English). The other problem is with determining the addresses and locations; there doesn't seem to be any map service with street names in Latin script so it'd be good to have someone who can read Chinese to help with that... ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone want to take care of this, or should it be slushed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Amritsar

 * Close. There's only a few minor and easily fixable issues that preclude my support: the article needs a dynamic map and about half of the (numerous) listings lack coordinates; also, the article needs a customized lede, a better-developed "Understand" section, and a few minor copyedits. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but this is one of our better Indian Guide articles. In addition to what you just said, Buy and Drink would benefit of expansion. And Eat is not pricified here either. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Lead one-liner. Understand section needs to be expaded because history of the city matters, especially Operation Blue Star. Get around seems incomplete for such a city with soo many "see" listings. While so many hotels, but only few "Eat" and "Drink" listings are provided. --Saqib (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, it's frustrating that we've been searching for an October 2015 DotM candidate for many months, and not a single one that's been put forth (Edmonton, Fortaleza, Yangshuo, Cartagena and this one) has earned any Support votes. Either we need to lower our standards a little bit or we need to get off our duffs and actually make the edits these articles require - it's not enough to just vote "not yet" and then forget all about it. Let's get to it because October is going to be here sooner than you think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew: Sure, we need many more guide articles that we can use as featured guides, but I'm astonished to read your comment that you want us to compromise on the quality which is such a bad idea. Instead of lowering our standards, why not we put some efforts and look for ways so we can bring more people to edit Wikivoyage. But thats an another debate. And while certainly I agree with you that we shouldn't merely make complains and reject things and instead engage in improving the thigs, but I guess we are doing it already. Now as I said I'm not satisfied with EAT section so I think that section can only be fixed who have local knowledge. How I can I expect you to add EAT listings to Karachi when you never been to Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying at all, Saqib. What I'm saying is two things. One, if you read the beginning of this page you will see that the only requirement for an article to be featured is that it be at Guide status and that it have at least one picture. Anything else – such as a well-developed History section, a balance between the number of "Eat", "Sleep", and "Drink" listings, etc. – are not requirements. They're merely add-on bonuses that make an article even better than it has to be. That brings me to my second point, which is that if somebody would like an article to go above and beyond what's required for it to be featured, that's fine. That's better than fine, in fact. But the onus is on those users to add that content themselves and to not stand in the way of us finding something to fill those empty slots with. In fact, technically speaking, none of the oppose votes ("not yet" votes, etc.) for this article or for any of the other articles that have been rejected lately are valid because the reasons for those votes are not based in policy. Remember these are DotM nominees, not starnoms. They don't have to be perfect. They just have to be Guide or better.


 * Now you're asking me how I am supposed to add Eat listings for a city I've never been to. It's very simple, in fact. All I would have to do is go to Google, search for "restaurants in (insert city here)", and I would pull in all the information I needed for any number of different places: address, phone number, website address, menu, price range, what type of food is served, even reviews from other people who've been there. There's no policy against that, and if there were I bet we'd have a lot less content in all our articles, including previous DotMs.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Applogies for any misunderstanding. You know well my English is superb. Anyways. Frankly speaking, the line "The nominated article should have an article status of guide or star. This includes having at least one good picture" is funny. I don't think we ever featured a guide with just one photo so that line is definately need to change. Because on contrary, the guide template says "The article has a variety of good, quality information including hotels, restaurants, attractions and travel details." So yes, they're talking about good and quality information which means understand section should be adequate at at the least if not perfect. Amritsar missing that good quality information, in my opinion. I don't mind people who simply put "Guide" templates into articles but here, we have to evaluate them and pass them if they really are guide or not yet. They are going to feature on our main page for entire one month. Why feature something that missing adequate information. Why anyone would go to Amritsar? Because Amritsar is important center for the Sikh religion and anyone planning to go there will surely need to read about that. As for EAT listings, you're right. We can get information online about anything but if a city have hundreds of best restaurants, I think its become bit tough to get idea of which restaurants we suggest in our guides. With that being said, my vote is not "Oppose" vote, so it will not matter much if this entry manage to get some support votes. --Saqib (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the amount of work needed to get Amritsar into a "nice" shape is not gargantuan and it could likely be done even by one person over a weekend. See what Mombasa looked like less than a year ago ;). IMO it's enough for a featured article to be at (1)guide status, (2) clean and ordered and (3) have a decent selection of points of interest. In short: something I would like to take with me if I'd be visiting the place. Fixing the issues I and Andre mentioned above would make it such an article.
 * I too, think Google is a good tool for adding content to articles; though "original research" or content from other language versions of WV is always preferable! Actually Google has helped me save several articles from being slushed during the year I've been active on featured articles.ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't support. Did any of you read my comments at India Expedition/Punjab?


 * This may be a Guide, but it needs a lot of work before it could be reasonably nominated for DotM, as it should be when ready. First, it needs a thorough copy edit, especially in hotel listings, Many Of Which Are Full Of Gratuitous Initial Caps and other signs of touting. The "Sleep" section is arguably too long to be user-friendly, too, so perhaps hotels with touty descriptions or none should be unceremoniously deleted. "Buy" could use a little work, too, again for readability. (Should each type of item to buy be bolded, for example? And where should the shopping centre listing be put? Its current placement is without explanation.) Under "Do," what is "Amritsar Heritage Walk"? There is no explanation. If this is an itinerary, its route should be explained. If it's a paid tour, it should be deleted. "Old City Shopping" seems like a "Buy," not a "Do." What activities do people do in Amritsar, other than walking, studying (covered under "Learn") and praying?


 * I'll add kudos to User:Saqib for adding some needed content to the article, but though rated a Guide, it is a problematic Guide and currently unsuitable for a front-page feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To User:AndreCarrotflower's comments above, I believe that my objections are entirely reasonable, inasmuch as we want to feature quality Guides, not weak Guides, as User:Saqib mentioned. I've gotten off my duff big-time to almost single-handedly create the India Expedition article and the sub-articles for almost every state and one Union Territory, which focus on remarks about guides for the cities featured in the "Cities" section of each of those states (and Union Territory). In the meantime, I've done quite a lot of copy editing. But my work here is recreational, and frankly, it might be in my self-interest to do less and not more of it and focus more on things that might enable me to earn a bit of money. In any case, if anyone wants to do more work to improve the articles for India, regions of India, states and territories of India, regions of those states, or cities linked from the city and territorial guides, I've given plenty of guidance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikan - I'm sorry if my comments cut a little too deep, but I stand by them. I put in a lot of work on this site too. As everyone knows, I've been working on Buffalo for >3 years now. I just finished what basically amounts to a complete rewrite of Ad's Path so that it's in a featureable state, and recently made similar improvements to Davenport when called on to do so. My revamp of the Gaspé Peninsula is dormant for the time being but still in progress. I sweep the pub every single day without fail. And, most germane to this conversation, I handle DotM pretty much singlehandedly - not because I feel like I have some sort of ownership over it or because I want all for myself the power to determine what gets featured, but because no one else ever does. Because, before I got into the habit of updating the Main Page three times a month, oftentimes no one bothered to switch out the banners until a day, or even several days, after it was supposed to be done.


 * And don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about it. Like Ikan and everyone else here, I could use the time I spend on Wikivoyage for something more lucrative, but instead I choose to stay here and continue my work because I enjoy it. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. All I'm asking is, please, if I'm trying like hell to find an article to fill the October 2015 slot with and folks don't like what I'm coming up with, then instead of being an obstructionist let's find a way forward together. Help out in sprucing up the article, come up with a different nominee, make some other suggestions, whatever - but it's not in any way constructive to just shoot all the nominees down and walk away.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I applaud your hard work (though in your case, fortunately, it did help you get a good job), and I understand your frustration, but I certainly stand by my remarks on Amritsar. I'll try to find another good candidate for DotM, though I probably can't actually post the nomination at least until I have my own functional computer (I'm typing on my girlfriend's notebook computer at the moment). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But if a nomination is not viewed as being up to standard, it is actually still quite constructive to "shoot it down" if the user is taking fair shots. I understand your frustrations and I have certainly not been as involved in things recently, but most nominations will be given comment with no attempt to improve the article. An article can be reviewed to a fair extent without knowing the location, but trying to make an article featurable when you don't know the city/country well is very difficult and not even necessarily a good idea. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] A Northern Indian destination that seems to me to be closer to being ready for a feature is Jaipur. Have a look at Talk:Jaipur for some discussion of what to do now. Mainly, it needs a more alluring lede, some listings need to have location info added and/or be templated, and everything should be checked as usual for possible updating. I will state as a caveat that I've been to Amritsar once and have yet to visit Jaipur, but my brief visit to Amritsar was in 1977 and concentrated on the Golden Temple, so it only barely counts, anyway. I'm not ready to nominate Jaipur yet, but I think the work it needs seems less drastic, and I'd love to see a Rajasthani city featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Would anyone like to come out of the woodwork and argue against slushing this nominee? If not, that's probably what I'll do in the next few days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If Jaipur is in a better shape, let's nominate and feature it instead!
 * If most of the information is already in the article (or a WV article in another languge) but it's perhaps just presented in a clumsy way, I wouldn't agree that you'd have to had visited the destination in order to make it featurable. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jaipur is close but still needs a bit more work. All the listings need to be checked for accuracy, with prices updated as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Edmonton

 * Support. The only issue I foresee is timing, given that we've recently had a DotM from Alberta (Calgary, September 2014) and there's another one (Banff) on the schedule, slated for no earlier than next winter to avoid coming too close on Calgary's heels. Still, Edmonton has been waiting for a long time to be featured (having been slushed in 2009 for reasons I'd be hard-pressed to call valid, as described above), while Banff has some major deficiencies that can only really be solved by someone familiar with the area, and a principal author that hasn't touched the article since April of last year. If the community feels it's better to run Edmonton first, we could feature it as early as October 2015. Let's hear what you folks think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nearly. Heh, I remember Edmontonenthusiast. While he was a bit of a handful, I have no trouble believing he could make a great travel guide for his hometown. Anyway, the Edmonton pages look pretty solid, although I'm bothered by the "Coffee" section on the main page being nothing more than a list of coffee shops; that should be sorted out and replaced with a more general overview of the coffee situation in Edmonton. Frankly, the same might be true of the Sleep section. The other main thing I would recommend is getting some dynamic maps into the district pages, because those old static maps of mine are really showing their age. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs work the listings in the districts need some serious checking and updating, ownership of hotels and restaurants changed since they were added. Also Edmonton Mall entry in West End deserves to be expanded considerably seeing as it is one of the main reasons people travel to the town. Also I would prefer to see the more tourist destinations of Jasper National Park or Banff as a feature article in the near future and concerned, as we have already had Calgary, that there would be objections to another Alberta article too soon. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding questionable listings and outdated static maps in the district articles, let's please keep in mind that it's the parent article that's been nominated, not the districts. If folks would like to update the district articles, that would certainly be helpful, but when featuring a Huge City the only thing that's required of the district articles is that they be Usable status or better. Also, to address Traveler100's comment: Destination of the Month is a showcase for well-written articles, not a popularity contest for the most famous tourist destinations (also, Jasper National Park is only at Usable status). As to timing, I would be firmly against featuring Calgary, Banff, and Edmonton all within a ~15 month period, but I think it would be fine to feature two of those destinations during that period if the third one is slushed or put off until later. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the district pages are a crucial component of a good city guide, and I believe they should be taken into account in these nominations. Yes, the only thing we require of district pages for Huge City DotM features is that they be usable, but I see that as a base requirement rather than what we would ideally look for in a featured city guide. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost — The article looks OK. I'm, too, a little worried about the coffee section, and shouldn't the skyline views be in the Edmonton article if they are spread around different parts of the city. Someone checking through the listings in the districts plus adding dynamic maps with POIs would certainly not hurt. I agree we should avoid having three destinations from Alberta within a little more than a year (especially as all are nominated as DotM). Now as Calgary and Edmonton both are cities plain and simple but Banff is more of a resort (isn't it?), I would pick Banff because of its different character — this is probably what Traveler100 tried to say above. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with ϒpsilon on the "Coffee" section. I also feel like too many bars are named in the "Alcohol" section, too many restaurants are named in the "Eat" section and too many hotels are named in the "Sleep" section. How many featured districted cities had so many hotels named in their "Sleep" sections? Any? Other than that, though, I don't notice any obvious problems with what's otherwise seemingly (as I've never been to Edmnonton) a very good article, so if someone wrote a good overview with fewer individual establishments mentioned in all of those sections, I think I would support running the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand how a page can be nominated just because it has a lot of old content that has not been check if still valid. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a lot of information that hasn't been checked since 2009, that's bad and does have to be remedied before the article should be run. 6-year-old restaurant and bar information is unlikely to still be valid, and for that matter, lots of admission fees are likely to have increased. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like the opposition to this article being featured is pretty formidable. Would anyone like to belatedly come to its defense, or should it be slushed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's slush it. It can always be nominated again when someone actually has updated the article and solved those other issues — and at least I have enough work with both other articles and off wiki. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wales Coast Path

 * Comment — The descriptions of each section in Walk could perhaps be longer and more descriptive instead of just "Around the Isle of Anglesey." Overall, expanding the descriptions of each of the destinations on the path wouldn't hurt. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet by a long shot. The article needs a lot of work before I'd even be prepared to say that it's truly at Guide status. Pretty much every section needs to be expanded, especially the bullet points of the main itinerary section, and the entries in "Go next", many of which lack the standard one-liner descriptions. As well, there are several subsections of "Understand" that are empty or contain only a sentence or two. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet - The walk section is somewhat lacking in detail. If this is really to be a good guide it needs to be a "huge itinerary", broken down into maybe a dozen pages, as I think that about 100km of walk is probably enough for one page. The walk section is not much more than a list of places, with nothing about the track etc. The track is also broken on the dynamic map, as open street map doesn't appear to show the whole route. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two months on, it looks as if very little progress has been made in addressing the concerns expressed above by Ypsi, AlasdairW and myself. Is it time to slush? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is. An article walk of 1400km needs more information about the environment and the destinations you pass through. Something like this (though that one article suffers from a lack of coordinates and a good map!) ϒpsilon (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Taxila

 * Almost - I would like some more places to eat and drink, coordinates for everything, a few more photos further down plus an embedded dynamic (or a static map). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Close - One of the main sights in the country and one of the best of its kind in Asia, so the topic sure has my support, although not as a replacement for Kirthar but as a next Pakistani destination on feature. Here are my thoughts on what should be expanded. It needs more listings to really be a good guide, and the listings are still incomplete (contact details, prices). The thing is that Taxila is in fact also a modern day town, with the ruins as a main draw - but that is hardly clear from the article. It's not remote, like Mohenjodaro, with hardly any places to eat. I imagine many might visit as a day-trip from nearby Islamabad, but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore our normal standards for Taxila as a destination, I guess? "There are plenty of places to eat" is okay for a usable article, but a featured guide should ideally have a better selection of places (now there are only two, with one being a double listing for a hotel-restaurant) or at least better pointers as to in which streets to search and descriptions of available foods and prices. If it's indeed common to visit as a day trip from Islamabad, some more detailed information on transport there and back seems useful. Getting around is not fully helpful yet: the article suggests trying to find a bike but is vague about if they can reasonably be found. Same with the scooters: are you saying most visitors are just locals from Islamabad and other nearby towns? Is it possible then to rent a bike or scooter there? Get out can easily be expanded. It's great that we have our own (not copied) version of a description of the heritage site, but it's actually the practicalities that can set our Taxila guide apart from other sources about the ruins, as several have detailed information about the historic sites. Some work to do, but this could become a really great article :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Very promising, but needs more work So far, I agree with the others. There's a large amount of information in this guide, but it looks like it will all need copy editing. I've worked through the sections preceding "See" and the text box in "See," but it will take me a while to work through the rest of the article. I also agree that while the archeological sites are covered admirably, the sections below "See" seem very sparse in comparison. I think this will be a great article, but right now, it's a diamond in the rough. There's now enough support to run Kirthar National Park as is, but this article will take more work, so that may influence the order in which these articles are featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsi, Julias and Ikan: in your opinion, what's the state of this article now? It looks like there have been some substantial changes made since nomination, but it also appears that Saqib is inactive for the time being, so the prospects for any further edits that may be needed (beyond copyediting and other tweaks that can be done by anyone regardless of local knowledge) are uncertain. Would any of you like to amend your votes, or should Taxila be slushed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record: Yes, I haven't touched the article since it was discussed it cannot be replace by Kirthar but if it can be, I can resume working on it. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Saqib but if "eateries are plentiful and basic Pakistani food can be found anywhere in town." I would expect there to be more than just two of them listed. After all, Eat is one of our four most important sections — the sections that must have some content for the article to be even usable.
 * Taking into consideration that the article is chiefly about a large archeological site rather than a town itself, the rest of the article is in a reasonable shape (but things like Get around could likely still be expanded) . Some coordinates are also still missing. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel rather the same. There's indeed no consensus for replacing Kirthar, but Taxila seems like a great next Pakistani destination, so I do hope you'll continue to work on it, Saqib :-) My earlier remarks have not yet been addressed. The article is nicely improved as far as the archaeological site is concerned, but the rest of the (modern) city description remains undeveloped. That said, if Saqib still has an interest to do it later, I'm fine with leaving it up and not slushing. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Julia, ϒpsi, IK, and Andrew: Okay guys, I'm sorry for being so selfish and self-serving. I think lately I lacked consideration for others so lets feature Kirthar as planned. I was reading my comments above in Kirthar nomination and it was kind of funny and babyishness comments made by me. Anyways I will resume working on Kirthat article to improve it further as I can so lets slush this nomination. --Saqib (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad, Saqib. You do so much work for this site and Commons! I hope you come back to this article before too long, as it seems like a great place to visit, and I'd very much like to see it featured in due time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at it from the bright side. Here we have a possible OtBP candidate for the 2015-16 winter season! ϒpsilon (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In early November, the community was asked if the progress made on this article since nomination was enough to make them overturn their Oppose votes; the response was that more work needed to be done. Six weeks have passed since then, and while Saqib has returned to activity, he seems to be focusing his attention elsewhere and there has been no further progress on Taxila. I'd say it's time to slush Taxila; would the rest of you agree? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless User:Saqib has plans to get back to working on the article within the next few weeks. Let's see what he says. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The Eat section is still sparse and coordinates are missing. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My friends, I have said above that "slush this nomination" timestamp 11:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC) so Andrew, please feel free to do it. Yes I have become bit busy on Wikipedia lately but soon you will be seeing me active here. In next couple of days, I will hopefully work on Kirthar as featuring time is approaching. --Saqib (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Delhi

 * Don't support at this time. Royroydeb has been doing splendid work enlarging this article; however, that very work underlines even more clearly the need to districtify the city. The boundaries of the districts need to be discussed and agreed upon on the Talk:Delhi page, and then all the listings will need to be moved to the appropriate district article, with more general information and illustrative examples in prose remaining in the Delhi article. In addition, the article needs more copy editing, but that's really a side point right now. Once the city is districtified and all the district articles are at least Usable, with the Delhi article properly edited to reflect its new status as a "Huge City" with districts, I will be happy to support featuring the article on the front page, but that is some way off. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Delhi is one of the world's great cities and the article is certainly comprehensive, but I repeat all of Ikan's criticisms - particularly that it needs to be districted; there's really no excuse for a city of 11 million not to be. I'd like to add that in many sections, the article is longwinded to the point of absurdity - case in point, there's no need to devote north of 3,200 bytes of text (including 655 bytes in the directions argument alone!) to the New Delhi train station, nor to list seventeen different taxi-booking services in #By taxi. Sometimes less is more. And yes, I know I'm one to talk. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would anyone else like to opine, or should this go on the Slush pile? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not yet - Delhi absolutely has to be districtified. Not only is it a huge city, the article is "huge" as well — e.g. 91 numbered POIs in the See section and almost 30 more lacking coordinates. I certainly don't doubt there are 120 places worth seeing in the Indian capital but it would be useful to have them organized into district articles. Moreover, many of the restaurants towards the end of Eat have to be listingfied and more info added about each establishment/the rest of the entries may have to be deleted as we're not the yellow pages. Overall, in the latter half of the article there are many many POIs needing coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Diving in South Africa

 * Support - as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks like a very comprehensive article. I made "scuba" lowercase in the blurb, because I think that we decided to do so at some point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The article is comprehensive, as Ikan said, but the tone is off. Much of the information in "Understand" borders on the encyclopedic, and the "Read" section should be eliminated or at least drastically reformatted - as it is currently, it's dry and looks almost like a bibliography. Also, the lists of individual dive sites are overly long, and each entry should be accompanied by a one-line descriptor as is already the case in the "inland diving sites" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Would like to invite User:Pbsouthwood to comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like the editors who have commented on this nomination, and others, to take a close look at this article in light of the concerns I raised about it above, and carefully reconsider whether we really want it on the Main Page in its current state.


 * Pruning the information in "Understand" and "Read" that's of limited relevance to travelers should be easy enough, but the issue that I'm most concerned about by far – the Telstra vandal-style bullet point lists of individual dive sites; long, monotonous, and free of descriptions or context of any kind – is something that can't be fixed except by someone who has familiarity with the subject. To sum up, despite the wealth of information contained in the article, these glaring faults give it the appearance of being incomplete. I reiterate in strong terms what I said above, that Diving in South Africa is currently in no state to be put on the Main Page, and it's arguably not even truly at Guide status.


 * I placed this article on the schedule for the February 2015 FTT slot with the hope that Peter Southwood would weigh in and/or make the necessary fixes as Ypsilon had suggested. However, no substantial edits have been made to the article since its nomination, nor has its main contributor even commented on this thread. That being the case, I'm afraid that, absent some substantial work on it, I'm going to strongly suggest this article be slushed.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I might have a look at the article tomorrow night if there's anything I can do, but the problem is that I don't know anything about diving. I'm a little disappointed that Peter hasn't even had the time to write a comment. We do have other travel topics thart could potentially be featured. But let's keep up the nomination for a couple  more days. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Would anyone else like to comment? (Ikan?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just came back from a trip to California so I won't be able to consider this tonight and I'm not sure when I can (perhaps tomorrow), but I have no expertise in diving. It wouldn't bother me for this article to be slushed, and it sounds like you have good reasons for doing so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay then. I'm going to leave this nomination in place for another two or three days in case Peter Southwood's attention can still be caught, or anyone else who hasn't spoken up yet in this article's defense would like to do so. Otherwise I'll slush it and adjust the schedule accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I expected to find more information about each site in the linked articles. But I now see that there are many many cases like Wild Coast, Diving in Hermanus and Diving Aliwal Shoal where there is at best the same list of dive sites. Let's slush this nomination. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lijiang

 * Almost - Firstly, Lijang looks like an exciting and pretty town. My pet complaint are of course the missing geo coordinates :). A few more pictures towards the end of the article wouldn't hurt and there are style issues here and there. There is plenty of time to improve the article, as there are no free time slots before the cold winter. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks close, but although this might not be the only problem, it's clear that at least some of the listings and transportation info needs updating. Some examples: "From Dali, minibus/bus at 55/60¥ about every 30/60min, ~4h (highway in construction, oct 2011)." "Walking is the only option in the old town, while taxis are often the easiest way around the rest of town for ¥7 (June 2008)." "Entry fee is ¥60 (Oct 2011)" "Note: Black Dragon Pool is virtually empty as of June 11, 2012." Until we can be confident that the article is reasonably up-to-date, we shouldn't feature it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like Lijiang is headed for Slushville. Anyone care to prevent that from happening, either with a belated support vote or fixes to the issues cited by ϒpsi and Ikan? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if we keep the nomination here Lijiang won't be featured before October 2015 at the very earliest. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bangkok/Yaowarat and Phahurat

 * Support as nominator. It's conceivable that certain information should be updated in this article, and perhaps there might be more good photos to add, but this is a Star article, and all things being equal, it's an obvious one to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well...Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour was featured in December 2012, so in a way Yaowarat and Phahurat has already been featured. How about either of Bangkok's two other Star districts Khao San Road or Pratunam (the latter seems to be more of OtBP)? Or some of Bangkok's many Guide district articles? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it was. I agree with you: It would make more sense to slush this nomination and feature another neighborhood. Please go ahead and nominate any of the other neighborhoods you mention, instead. You can copy the time to feature, which I'm basing on which months have less rain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's move this nomination to the slush pile. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Eindhoven

 * [Previous remark deleted]Do you see that green check mark on the upper right of the article? It was previously an Otbp. This nomination should be slushed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh bollocks, I didn't. I thought it was nowhere near guide status before a few other users and myself started editing it this or last year. Please slush at will, I will look for some other appropriate article :) PrinceGloria (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, check out Category:Guide articles. Personally I've been looking at Cannes (April or May for the film festival?), Valletta (needs some polishing) and Turku, plus a few of those more hidden places. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yongding County

 * Not yet. Looks like an interesting enough destination, but there are many sections which very much need to be expanded - "Eat", "Sleep", also arguably "Buy" and "Get around". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I also took the liberty of amending the "Time to feature" - per Yongding County, spring and summer are fairly nasty times to visit due to monsoon rains. I'd say that if we run this article at the next opportunity, it should be toward the end of that range (i.e. Jan-Feb 2015) because we've had a glut of featured articles from this region over the past year (Xiamen, Kunming). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone about who could improve it? Most of it was written by user User:(WT-en) Pinkfluffybrick who has not joined us here. I have done some editing but I've only lived nearby, not actually visited, so there is much I cannot do. It really needs someone on the ground to expand sections like Eat & Sleep, and it is far enough OtBP that we may not have anyone. Pashley (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Flying (Planning your flight, At the airport, On the plane, Arriving by plane)

 * Almost - All four of them plus Flying itself are Guides. There is probably a thing or another to add to the articles, but as this is a topic I believe almost all of us are familiar with and (at least slightly?) interested in, I'm confident the articles will be in a superb shape in February. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: We previously featured Fundamentals of flying (now a redirect to Flying, since the reorganization of the topic) in February, 2013. How would this be fundamentally different, and should the previous feature be an issue in whether to feature this topic again or not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment:I'm not sure that four months of topics on flying would be so stupid, considering how often people use air as their means of transportation. Four straight months wouldn't trouble me, but alternating them with other, unrelated topics would be OK, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't notice it had already been featured as it didn't have the "already featured" logo in the banner (why?). Let's hear what Andre others think. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fundamentals of Flying is a unique case: it was one of our first FTTs, but the article doesn't exist anymore, having been split off (if I'm not mistaken) into the four articles nominated here plus Flying. On that basis, I'm going to have to oppose this nomination as a de facto rerun of a previously featured article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's slush the nomination. But shouldn't we put the "previously featured" orange pen on Flying or even all of them, otherwise someone might nominate them again next year? ϒpsilon (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For all intents and purposes, Flying should inherit Fundamentals of flying's history. Powers (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bucharest

 * Oppose. Please read dotm. This article is at Usable status and, as such, is ineligible to be featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not yet - The Bucharest article is Usable, as you can see at the bottom of the article. Yes, the article has a decent amount of information but in order to be graded as a Guide, there are a couple of things that has to be done. The restaurants need to be grouped into price classes and I do think there should be more of them in an article about such a large city. Here and there in the article there are small things that don't follow WV's manual of style and more photos definitely would be good to have. WV does not use any External links section, etc. I noticed that you've started some kind of translation competition for articles about Romanian destinations similar to the one we had about Wales, so if it gets enough participants, I think there's a good possibility that Bucharest can be bettered to Guide status and be nominated here. As of now I sadly have to say no. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Stockholm

 * Maybe. I'm going to take a closer look at this article later, but right off the bat there are a number of listings in the "See", "Buy" and other sections that need to be moved to the district articles. The article certainly has potential, though - there's tons of information here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The main article has been made slightly shorter. /Yvwv (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment—User:Blist did lots of excellent work on the Stockholm articles on WT after we had already migrated. It might be nice to see what new content he added there can be integrated into our articles here before featuring. --Peter Talk 05:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The map is non-standard and some links are not mos but in general a very good and districted article. jan (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The listings that Andre said needed to be moved must have been moved. The article is extremely informative (even rather long, but not in a bad way) and beautifully illustrated with photographs. I just did a bit of copy editing. More is needed, but I think it's actually good enough to feature now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Update: I am not currently supporting featuring this article, per discussion below, but would support featuring it if the problems identified by ChubbyWimbus are addressed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: Why is this article getting so little attention here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, per "Time to feature", Stockholm won't be on the Main Page till next year, so there's perhaps no real sense of urgency. Secondly, I wonder if it has something to do with my "maybe" vote above. I distinctly remember that at the time I made those remarks, there were stray listings in the main article that needed to be moved to the district article; those now appear to have been moved. I see no reason why I wouldn't change my vote to "support" now; once I look over the article to make sure everything else is in order, I will likely do that. But in the meantime, perhaps my reticence has influenced others. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Soft support. As my earlier, retracted vote stated, this is one of the most detailed articles on Wikivoyage not written by myself. :) My pet peeve, though, is the "See" section, which has a very troublesome format given the fact that Stockholm is districted. Those bullet points look deceptively like listings, and all those subsections probably should be converted to prose. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose This article is riddled with issues. None of the districts are particularly well-covered, and many of them are barely more than lists. I don't think Stockholm warrants this many districts anyway. The content that does exist is improperly formatted from the listings to the district names themselves (Ex: Norrmalm, Stockholm should be Stockholm/Norrmalm). There are strange random subdistricts of the districts that make navigation difficult, as well. Two of the districts have the same grey color on the map... There is a lot of work that needs to be done to get this article up to standard. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Per policy, the content of the district articles has nothing to do with anything. They're not the ones being featured on the Main Page. That leaves the color issue on the map, which is easily fixable, and the issues I brought up in my comment in August, unless they've already been addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My opposition is entirely valid. The content of the districts are part of the feature, and most of them are rather bare outlines. These 'mega-cities' are treated as regions and regions with subsections must have a reasonable number of districts that are at least usable. In fact, I don't believe this city even qualifies for 'guide status' and therefore should not even be eligible for nomination since part of achieving guide status requires a significant number of the districts to be at least usable.


 * Beyond that, though, why on earth would we want to feature such a mess even if policy allowed it? The features are supposed to show off what great articles can and should look like. This article is what our articles can look like but a far cry from what they should look like. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be regarding the district articles as part and parcel of the main Stockholm article. I don't think they are - any more than Buffalo should be regarded as an integral part of the outline-grade Northtowns article, the only marginally more substantive Niagara Frontier article, and on up the hierarchy - and as far as it seems to me, policy doesn't take that view either. Regardless of what may or may not be in the district articles, the information in the parent article is comprehensive and presented well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your analogies are incomparable. You're talking about different cities; I'm talking about Stockholm's own districts, such as Södertörn, Ekerö, Stockholm/Kungsholmen, Stockholm/Vasastan, Sigtuna, etc. These are all listed as part of Stockholm City's districts and along with others, they're outlines. Mostly just lists or lacking content completely. The parent article is useless without its districts. It says directly to "refer to the district articles" for details, but if the details aren't there, only there as a list with no information, or presented with strange formatting then the parent article is also rather useless. They cannot be looked at independently. If you delete Manhattan, Queens etc. how useful would our New York City article be? Mostly useless. That is what I'm talking about here. We have a parent article (with an improperly formatted See section) and then a lot of hollow content beneath it. That's not acceptable, and this article should only be at "usable" status. Discussion on the article's talk page also suggest what look like much more reasonable district breakdowns than the current district overload that I believe is contributing to the great lack of content in many of the articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You said my "analogies are incomparable", but you also said "'mega-cities' are treated as regions". I think we're getting into uncharted territory here in that I've never heard this particular issue brought up regarding a nominee. Let me ask you this: if we were to feature an actual region article as a DotM - say, New York (state) - or even a country article, would you make the same argument if the article's subregions on the next lowest rung of the hierarchy weren't up to snuff? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never visited Stockholm, so I'm not sure why some of the district articles that are classed as Outlines are Outlines, rather than Usable, but that aside, I think ChubbyWimbus' points about district articles are valid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that regional articles cannot even be classed as Usable unless all the cities linked from them are at Usable status? Perhaps that should be true of city articles, too (or at least that they can't be Guides unless all their district articles are at least Usable), but even while it isn't, it seems to me that his arguments - especially inasmuch as readers are referred to district articles for specific listings - are pretty unimpeachable. I know that several of us spent a lot of time getting all the district articles in Manhattan to at least Usable status. Still, the point has been made below that there aren't enough geographic coordinates in the district articles for Manhattan. Cities and their district articles are to some degree a package. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a Huge City article should not be at Guide status unless all of its districts are at least Usable. Powers (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should hold a front-page feature of this article in abeyance until the problems that ChubbyWimbus identified are rectified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed Andrew put up Manchester for DoTM but reverted it later, because that would make two UK articles in a row which is something I think we do not want. CW is right, the requirements for a city article to be a guide requires all districts to be usable or better in the case that the city is districtified. Now this is not the case, so we need to find some other article to feature or fix the problems with Stockholm, which I think is a fairly easy task. Currently there are a whole lot of districts each of which contains relatively little content. It wouldn't be too hard to combine some of them and get fewer but more comprehensive district articles. I guess I could do this to some extent, but it would be better if Yvwv who I believe is a local and suggested Stockholm for DoTM would at least comment on this.  ϒpsilon (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the preferred length of a district article? As I see it, each Stockholm districts has a sufficient number of notable venues for an independent article; please provide a counter-example, if you disagree. /Yvwv (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (indent) It's not completely about them being long enough. Less districts are preferred when possible for usability, and I think this article has way too many. Districts that don't have much content: Eskero, Vasterort, Sigtuna, Skeppsholmen, Kungsholmer, the Northern suburbs, all of the southern suburbs.
 * The hierarchy is also messy. Stockholm isn't a mega-city, so the districts shouldn't have districts, yet Sodertorn, the Stockholm archipelago, Norrort, and Normalm all have one or two districts that make navigation confusing. Some places are described as 'cities' as well, so I honestly don't even know exactly what is Stockholm from reading the article or districts. The articles also don't use proper district naming conventions, which contributes a lot to this confusion. Are all of these places actually Stockholm or are some of them actually independent towns?
 * I do not know the city, so I'm not comfortable trying to district it however, it looks like all of the Southern Suburbs could be combined into a single Stockholm/Southern Suburbs or Stockholm/Southern article. The northern suburbs look the same. Could Skeppsholmen just join Norrmalm? Kungsholmen doesn't have a lot of content, but looking at the map, it may still make sense to remain its own article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've started a thread about this at Talk:Stockholm ϒpsilon (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A timeframe
I continue to think that this article has potential, but recognize that consensus says major changes need to be made before Stockholm can be featured. I'm noticing that the talk page discussion initiated by Ypsilon is off to somewhat of a slow start. I'm going to say let's slush this nomination if substantial progress hasn't been made by July. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * André, i agree with your position. The districts don't work out at the moment and more needs to be done to make on the mainpage. jan (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stockholm is really a place to visit in the summer and this is also stated in the nomination. This summer there is not going to be any free time slot for Stockholm, so in practice I cannot imagine it being featured before earliest in May 2015. I do know (central) Stockholm, but for me other articles and projects have priority right now. Unless someone else is signing up for the job, I'd say we could slush this nomination and put up a new one towards the end of the year. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon, i agree with you. I think it is best to slush Stockholm and get a fresh start. There are so many issues with the article at the moment that i would strike my support from above otherwise. jan (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Three days in Singapore

 * Support — as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Pashley (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not too keen on it, as it's a prime example of how good itineraries can be and yet how personalised and outdated they become. It's something like five years out of date without mentions of some major new Marina Bay, Orchard Road and Sentosa developments, and the last huge update to it has probably been even longer ago, but still pretty useful as Ypsilon pointed out. -- torty3 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the reasons outlined by Torty3 as well as the fact that Wikivoyage now discourages the creation of itineraries of this type, and many articles similar to this one have been deleted on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's getting dangerously close to "I don't like it", which is not a valid reason to oppose. If there is information missing, that's a different story.  Powers (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that "I don't like it" is not per se a justification for opposing a feature. But it would be a bit hypocritical if we delete One day in Hong Kong, which is currently in Vfd, for being merely Usable and then feature this "personal itinerary" for being a Guide, wouldn't it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Auckland

 * Support. Listings in "Eat" and "Sleep" could use prices, but that's an easy fix as far as I can tell. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't have time to look through this with a fine-toothed comb right now, but it looks good, and I've been following its progress some. It seems to me like several people have done a fine editing job. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A map is missing. Sleep section is without mid-range subsection. I also realised descriptions of some listings in the "see", "eat" and "drink" sections are quite short while some listings are without descriptions. To me, the guide status of this article is questionable because most of the tourist attractions are missing. See this for comparison. I've also checked LP article on Auckland and some attractions are missing. --Saqib (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think I agree with you, Saqib. Luckily, we have another DotM nominee, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, that would work well as a March feature. I'll leave Auckland on the nominees list without slushing it, and hopefully by November 2014 it will be fit for featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I know Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was nominated earlier than Karachi, but Karachi is first Pakistani DotM and so far got 4 support votes within 2 days. And btw March is not that hot weather either. Can't you compromise please? Its a humble request deep from my heart. If Karachi will be feature in March, I'll be able to start working on other Pakistani articles earlier to get them at guide status otherwise my focus will be remain on Karachi article until its not featured. --Saqib (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this article's talk page, we're supposed to keep destinations in the same country as far away from each other on the schedule as possible, but you're asking us to schedule Karachi for the very same month as Mohenjo-daro, which is also located in Pakistan. Both of these articles are spectacular and definitely deserve to go on the Main Page, but if we move Karachi into the March 2013 slot, Mohenjo-daro would need to be put off till at least the fall. It's your call. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've spent really a lot of time lately working on both Mohenjo-daro and Karachi article almost alone, and got them both at the guide status within the short period of time with the hope that they would be featured on the main page as soon as possible but now since the DotM slot is almost full, I'm very disappointed. If you really want to sort out the issue, you can replace Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park article with either Xiamen or Georgetown on the slot and put Karachi somewhere to feature in either April or May. Frankly speaking, I lives here and April is still not that hot weather. And btw, Madison was featured as DotM this September and Clarence as OtbP in October and then Pittsburgh was featured as DotM in June and Childs in July. Please consider. --Saqib (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Saqib. You make a good point about work that still needs to be done in the Auckland guide, so I've struck my support for featuring this, for now. I'd suggest that you not be so disappointed that both Pakistan articles you nominated won't be featured so soon, though. The fact that articles about the US have been featured at the same time doesn't mean we should compound the error by featuring two Pakistan articles at the same time. Instead, we're trying to avoid featuring articles about the same country at the same time. That's also why the time to feature Mitzpe Ramon and Golan Trail has been separated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I might add that even though we were overloaded with U.S. nominees last summer (which was a major bone of contention with some editors, and which led to a lot of discussion on the need for more diverse features), we still managed to not feature any two American destinations together in the same month, as you propose to do in March. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Blanes

 * Support as nominator, and the article will just continue to improve. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * One issue: User:Eloi.sanmartin says this town gets about 1 million visitors a year, though he also says most of them are from Europe, mainly Spain. Should it be a Destination of the Month, rather than OtBP? Or is this a case in which this should be a DotM in es:Wikivoyage but an OtBP in en:Wikivoyage? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Soft support. The information in here is good, but the article badly needs copyediting—not to put too fine a point on it, but it's obvious its main author is not a native speaker of English. It's an easy fix, but it really stands out (and experience tells us that just because it's an easy fix doesn't necessarily mean it will get done quickly!) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding OtBP vs. DotM, an extensive and time-consuming series of Google searches for "where visitors to Blanes originate from" turned up very little. The only information I was able to find mentions domestic tourists above all, followed by those from the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The fact that the only Anglophone country mentioned in that source placed last in a field of four and seemed tacked on almost as an afterthought, combined with the description of Blanes in the same source as a quieter alternative to the "hustle and bustle" and "tourist excesses" of Lloret de Mar, and of course, User:Eloi.sanmartin's firsthand experience, lead me to conclude that Blanes does indeed belong in the OtBP column, at least on en:. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't support — Sorry but I've concerns because the listenings have no or very short descriptions and because of this, to me, the article look like at usable status not guide. --Saqib (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strike through after I found it was actually Ikan who promoted it to guide status. No offence, but I thought our guide articles are the ones that are at least as good as a comparable article in any printed guidebook like LP, rough guide but this one is not. --Saqib (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Saqib, I believe the passage you're referring to, in Guide articles, is: "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here." Leaving aside the problems I have with that text, the fact remains that it simply calls for a Guide article to be good enough that a visitor to the destination could conceivably use it as his sole source of information. The question of how our coverage compares with coverage in other guidebooks is not only never mentioned in policy, but it's also inherently subjective and likely varies depending on what each individual reader is looking for.


 * Looking at the number and variety of different attractions listed in the article, I am quite positive that if I were travelling to Blanes with a printout of its Wikivoyage article and no other tourist information, I'd get on just fine. It's true that some of the descriptions are short, but they give the basics of what each destination is—and while it's the polar opposite of my usual approach, I think there's something to be said for letting the visitor uncover the appeal of the various attractions him- or herself rather than "spoiling the surprise" by giving them all the relevant information beforehand.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is still in progress. User:Eloi.sanmartin has said that he's still improving the article, and as he has added more content to it, I have been copy editing it. I may not be able to do that much in the teeth of final grading and then again when I'm in Germany for most of the month of January, but I thought the guide was already good enough to nominate. It's OK if people would rather wait for it to be improved further before supporting featuring it. As for the length of descriptions, I really don't use printed guidebooks much anymore, but when I did, I found that in guidebooks for entire countries or regions, some destinations were covered briefly and some (like Paris, London, Rome, Florence, and in some guidebooks even Siena, because of its great historical, artistic, architectural, and cultural importance) were covered at length. It hasn't struck me that the lengths of descriptions were insufficient in this article. If there are additional types of information you'd like in the article, maybe it's best to specify those in the article's talk page and see if User:Eloi.sanmartin or someone else who's familiar with the town can add them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was not only referring to attractions but listings in the "Buy", "Eat" "Drink" and "Sleep" sections. Don't you think it looks like a directory and there should be some descriptions? --Saqib (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Quite a few listings lack descriptions. We can hold off on this nomination for the time being. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially because we've really got more DotM and OtBP nominees than we know what to do with. If we'd supported Blanes to be featured, it wouldn't have gone on the Main Page till 2015 at the earliest. I'd go so far as to say that, other than FTT, we hold off on any new nominees for a while. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Point very well taken. We should be looking for more FTT. I was hoping maybe the Chinese phrasebook would be ready, but I don't think it is yet (you can see my remarks in its talk page, but I digress). Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like progress on this article has been at a standstill since three days after the nomination. Is it time to put this on the slush pile? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't object. I haven't been making copy-editing that article a priority. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka

 * Support I think this is a good enough itinerary and as nominator and the main contributor of the article. If there's anything you think is missing, I'd be happy to know and fix. --Saqib (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not yet. What's in the article so far is good, but more information is needed and the article needs to be organized better. Try fleshing out the "Prepare" section by giving the reader an idea how much time will be required for the whole trip and at each site (I realize much of this information is listed under "Go", but IMO that section should be reserved for describing the sites themselves and should be organized in a day-by-day manner: Day 1, visit Site A; reserve Days 2 and 3 for travel; Day 4, visit Site B and maybe check out Attraction C that's in the same town, etc.)


 * I'd also add a "Get in" section giving at least a brief summary of how people from outside Sri Lanka can get to the country: where should they fly in to? How expensive are tickets? Which nationalities need a visa, and which ones only need a passport? For how long are visas valid? How difficult are they to get?


 * "Eat" and "Sleep" sections with brief overviews about the kind, quality, and prices of food and lodging available along the route would be nice too.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Text that should be inside the "Prepare" section can be moved from "Go" section and Sri Lanka and Colombo articles already mention how to get in. For "Eat" and "Sleep" sections, I think they're not necessary since all the sites in my itinerary have their own articles and contains the "Eat" and "Sleep" listings. --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Get in", "Eat", and "Sleep", you probably don't need to go into quite as much detail as there is in Sri Lanka and Colombo. A general summary should be fine. But generally speaking, we prefer not to force readers to search over multiple articles for information that's essential for one destination, itinerary, topic etc. in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Good work so far, and sounds like an impressive itinerary. I agree with Andre about the general information for eat and sleep. The destinations have articles, but most of them are outlines and some have no information about eating or sleeping at all - so basic info is needed. I also think it would be good to mention whether it's usually easy to just find a hotel when you're there, or if you should book ahead (or maybe only in high-season?). Also, there should be at least a little bit of information about what's to see for each place, or what it is exactly. Of course for details you can use the link to Unesco, but a few lines would be good for the article, I think. Lastly, I think the article should either be labelled as a bus tour, or it should say whether there are alternative ways for transport. For example, is it easy to rent a car and drive around yourself, in Sri Lanka? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What can someone who does not like spicy food eat in Sri Lanka, once they get away from major cities? Pashley (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with the others, for now, but I think this is very close to being a good feature article. As Andre says above, we wouldn't want individual "Eat," "Buy," or "Sleep" listings in this article, but a summary of the types of food, accommodations, and medicines (just in case) that are available, plus a mention of any regional specialities of the areas covered in the article would be nice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I think a World Heritage Site tour should definitely give information about the sites themselves. What will be seen and why is it special/important? Why is it a World Heritage Site? Maybe that information could be added in a similar format to the "Regional Highlights" in the Japan's Top 100 Cherry Blossom Spots article. It's hard to get pulled into a tour that is almost completely logistical. Information about the sites is important I think. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to throw this in the slush pile. --Saqib (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Berne

 * Support This article lacks a map and a "climate" subsection, but it is a good article, per my "comment" above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet Informative and I love Bern as a destination, but for me this article has a few too many holes to feature it like this. Sure, it meets the basic city guide requirements, but it would be too much to say that Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here.. For me, a historic city guide like Bern should at least list the most obvious historic buildings you'll encounter when strolling through the city centre. Several major sights like the Cathedral (the biggest one in the country), the french church, the Prison Tower and the House of Parliament (granted, not in the centre itself, but still), aren't listed. Hardly a word about the characteristic rooftops and the many pretty fountains that are considered so characteristic. Also, the information about getting in is very general, I would say, with for rail just a link to the (German only) external site and no information on regional bus services, no information on prices and transfer times for e.g. the park and ride options etc. No practical cope or connect information (internet, post office, tourist information office). All in all, I think this article could use some extra attention to make it a really good guide. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is not ready for prime time. However, I'd remind JuliasTravels that while the "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, etc." clause is policy, this really isn't the place to dispute whether it applies to a particular guide-or-better article. In cases like this, you should go to Talk:Berne and argue for demoting it from Guide to Usable. On top of all that, the wording of that clause is entirely subjective and open to interpretation (and I'd describe JuliasTravels' interpretation as far too strict). It should really be replaced with something a little more concrete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let me remind AndreCarrotflower ( pffft tone... ) that he is just interpreting my comments, and incorrectly at that :-) I have no wish to demote this guide, haven't suggested it, and the policy isn't clear at all. But I do think when we actually feature destinations, they should be fairly good guides, ideally good enough to go there for a couple of days with our guide and not need to buy another one. In general, our guide articles pretty much allow for that. For featured articles I think it's a nice and practical rule of thumb. Is that subjective? Sure. This whole voting procedure is. If you have other and better reasons to find this article "not ready for prime time", you're invited to add those. This was just my two cents. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, simply being at guide status is usually considered sufficient for featuring. In fact, that's kind of the meta-definition of "guide status": suitable for being featured on the main page. LtPowers (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that JuliasTravels felt that I was "invalidating her opinion", as she wrote on her edit summary. She and I feel the same way about the article; I only wanted to point out that the clause she quoted - "not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here" - is part of our policy on what constitutes Guide articles, not our policy on Destination of the Month candidates. It's true that an article needs to be at least at Guide status to be eligible for DotM, but in invoking the "not only would you" clause as an argument against featuring the article, Julias is skipping a step. Even without being so unnecessarily nitpicky as to say that without demoting the article it still technically qualifies for DotM, the fact still remains that an article's status ought to reflect its content as accurately as possible. If we really feel that Berne, or any article, doesn't fit the parameters of Guide status, why would we vote it down for DotM but not demote the article itself?


 * Better still: what we really need, as LtPowers and I myself hinted at earlier in this thread, is to conform the de jure guidelines for what makes an article Guide-status to the guidelines we use de facto. LtPowers' "meta-definition" is not written anywhere in policy, but it makes perfect sense. And if that's the definition we actually use, policy ought to be revised to reflect that.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's probably inevitable that there will be some articles classified as "Guide" that, when looked at with a fine-toothed comb after being nominated for a front-page feature, will be found to have MoS problems are even substantive problems. It may be good to be more stingy in awarding articles Guide status, but the fact is that we often approve articles for a feature and then spend time improving them greatly before they actually run. I'm not sure where the best place would be to continue this policy discussion, the talk page for DotM or the talk page for Guide articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understood it, this is just a discussion about featuring articles or not. I don't care enough about all the vague WV policies to start discussions about demoting any particular article to fit policy. If someone else does, they should go ahead and take the discussion further on the article talk page, I don't want to and don't feel I have to at all. My point was simply that this article doesn't seem ready to be featured. I don't think it's nitpicking, we're talking basic stuff like information on the main sights and how to get in. I don't think you can expect editors to be exactly aware of which parts of which policies others here use and don't use, de facto. If you don't like me quoting policy, you should indeed try to change that policy, rather than reproach me for using it. I'll strike the quote, if you prefer, but it really doesn't change anything about the issues or conclusions. I'd recommend anyone to go to Berne though, it's a delightful city :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem, if it's even fair to say there is one, is that any guide article should be considered "good enough" to feature on the main page. Period.  If it's not good enough to feature, then it's not good enough to be a guide.  If it's legitimately guide-quality, then there's no valid quality-based reason to avoid featuring it.  LtPowers (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and demote the article to Usable status if you think that's justified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Blackpool

 * Support, with reservations. I'd like to see the "See" and "Eat" sections expanded substantially.


 * Provided this article receives sufficient support, I envision making the executive decision to place Madison in the OtBP column rather than DotM (despite the vigorous debate I tried several times to spark, few opinions have been forthcoming on that question), move Nagoya to September (August is a bit hot in that part of the world), and slot Blackpool in for August.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On another subject entirely, is there any particular reason why this article uses the old style of external links? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Withholding support for now, pending enlargement of "Eat" and perhaps "Buy." When there are a few more listings, I will support. I continue to strongly dissent on Madison as OtBP.Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nearly, I would like to see Blackpool at the front page and I like the article visually (with the tower as a recurring theme). I find there must be some work done on Listings, using the listings template. Also some lists are too long (like there are for example much more than 7+2 bars), so they need categories. Danapit (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Soft support Sleep needs mosing but beside that its a good article. jan (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dakar

 * Support I know usable is below our requirement but good work is done and I think we are very close to Guide. Dakar is a vibrant city and especially the World Music scene is growing fast. Would be perfect for late spring/early summer 2014. jan (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Per one of the very few hard-and-fast, non-negotiable rules we have for DotM, I'm going to withhold support for this article until it's promoted to Guide status. That being the case, I'm unsure why this isn't already a Guide. It's well-written and, in my estimation, given the underrepresentation of Africa on the Main Page as mentioned by its nominator, it's ripe for featuring as soon as it's officially promoted to Guide status. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment My main hesitation to upgrade imediately is the Eat/Drink section. As stated on the talk page, most places don't have homepage and only the bigger ones are on Google+ or Facebook. Also adress is a nightmare because there are no real one, rather descriptions. jan (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm supporting this article, though it still needs some more work, as Jan outlines above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As this article has apparently been promoted to Guide status, I'll now lend it my support per my earlier, struck-through comments above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not Sure I hestitate to support this mainly because nearly all of the "See" and "Do" listings were added by myself (with some descriptions updated) and I've never been to Senegal. I'm not sure that I trust I was able to find all that there is to do here never having been there myself and knowing how terrible coverage of African destinations is online. Some of the locations still need descriptions, also. It looks like the updates have come from someone who has been there. Can it be verified that the city has no other museums, galleries, gardens, historic sites, places of architectural interest, etc.? —The preceding comment was added by ChubbyWimbus (talk • contribs)
 * Hmmm...Well, based on this remark, I'm not sure whether I should continue to support featuring this guide anymore. We need someone who knows the city to look over the guide and pass judgment on it. Take Berne by analogy: I thought the guide to that city was very good, but that's because I've never been to Berne; those who know the city consider the article to be only questionably of guide status because of what it's missing. So I think I'm going to conditionally (and, I hope, temporarily) retract my support for featuring this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Arusha

 * Support. An amazingly comprehensive article especially for an African destination, and a not terribly well-known one at that. "Eat" and "Sleep" are very long, and the majority of listings have addresses and/or phone numbers. On the negative side, "See and Do" could use some minor tweaks to bring them in line with convention—I suppose they could stand to be expanded a bit too, but I'm given to understand that Arusha is best known as a jumping-off point for safaris, many of which are listed here (and in a surprisingly non-touty way). "Drink" also needs to be listingified. As I see it, these are all minor fixes—and assuming we're going to put this on the schedule sometime during the Northern Hemisphere winter, we have plenty of time to make those changes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also: photos, while plentiful, aren't terribly good. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I look forward to supporting this article in the future, but right now, there are several problems that need to be addressed, in addition to those you mention: (1) A banner is needed; (2) Safari company offices need to be listed as street addresses, not PO Boxes. (3) The hotel pic should probably be deleted, or if not, justified in the talk page. Once these problems are addressed, I'll be happy to support, but not yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "a banner is needed", are you talking about a pagebanner, or the fact that it will be difficult to find a photo to use as the DotM banner? If the latter, that's a valid point but not the kind of thing that ought to hold up a nomination; if the former, I don't remember there being a consensus that featured articles require a pagebanner (and if there is, it ought to say so at the top of this article). The other two points you made are valid, and also easy fixes. In fact, I'd be surprised if many of the current nominees aren't guilty of the same or worse. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually did mean a pagebanner, and while obviously that hasn't been something that's held up nominations in the past, when there weren't any pagebanners, it's an obvious thing to notice now, when many pages have customized pagebanners, so I mentioned it. And if it's easy to find street addresses for the safari company offices, great, but someone has to do it and edit the entries. As I said, I'll be glad to support the article when it's in slightly better shape. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Requiring featured article nominees to have pagebanners may well be a good policy, but it bears repeating that as yet, we've neither come to a consensus on that issue nor even discussed it. I'm sure you agree that enforcing policies that don't exist yet is not something we want to do. Incidentally, several of our other nominees (Nagoya, Madison, Childs, and Clarence), many of whose nominations have unanimous support, would be disqualified by such a rule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I Support this, just as I did before! But given that it was slushed, it's probably worth taking the time to assess concerns that were then brought up. --Peter Talk 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't support See & Do are still not split, there are quite some non-standard listings (tour policy!) and it need someone with local knowledge to get updates on most sections. Its for the long run but someone needs to adopt it. I'm busy with Musandam, Travemünde and Cairns, so i don't have time for this beauty. jan (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Buffalo

 * Support. Even if we were to district this, it would quickly be at guide status. Andre did awesome work. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:35, 3 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Support. Thanks for the votes of confidence. It's true that I was thinking of breaking this article up into districts, but I feel this article is already substantially complete and, in my admittedly biased opinion, would work spectacularly as a DotM for all the reasons listed above. Given all the other things that are taking up my time at the moment, I would have absolutely no issue (quite the contrary!) with putting off the districting of the article until after its DotM month is over. --(WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 19:05, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
 * One minor quibble, though, is that I feel the article would be better served with a different photo on the front page. To sum Buffalo up with a photo of chicken wings seems to me to be hackneyed and an inaccurate depiction of this multifaceted city. I think the photo of the Commercial Slip would be a much better "introductory photo" to the Buffalo article. (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 22:08, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I was wondering if anyone would object. We don't often use images of cuisine on the front page, and I thought it would make for a nice change in that respect.  It's a really good picture and I think it would look very iconic and eye-catching on the front page.  Lots of cities have harbors and majestic buildings, but only Buffalo has real Buffalo wings.  (That and there aren't a lot of options to choose from in the article at the moment.)  (WT-en) LtPowers 12:08, 16 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I'm not at all averse to breaking convention, but I think it should be kept in mind that in writing the article, one of my intentions was to present Buffalo as a place that is not necessarily consistent with the average reader's preconceived ideas. I think that given its reputation, if we want Wikivoyagers to take an interest in Buffalo as a destination it's important that we move beyond the clichés like snow, lousy sports teams, and chicken wings (hence some of the things I wrote in the intro blurb). I agree that the range of photos on the page was not extensive enough to really allow this—and I agree that while Canalside is hugely important historically, any reader who might not be versed in Buffalo history could be forgiven for thinking it looks like something that could be found in any city. I think it bears mentioning, though, that Buffalo has become quite well-known among architecture buffs—and this is something we're beginning to take advantage of in terms of niche tourism—so perhaps it would be appropriate to focus on that aspect despite the fact that "[l]ots of cities have... majestic buildings". With that in mind, I've taken the liberty of uploading several new photos, many of which I feel are good candidates for new front-page photos. (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 01:14, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Support. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:16, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Support -- Very nice. However, I think it might be best to district the city before featuring. Eat, Drink, & Sleep are just way too long. There have been two discussions about the Learn section on Wikivoyage talk:Big city article template. The general consensus seems to be that Learn should only be used for short-courses that travelers can partake in, but without a clear consensus on guideline & how to handle the section. Buffalo's Learn section is just a listing of colleges & universities and doesn't seem like something that belongs in a travel guide, especially one we're featuring. The third/last paragraph has useful info that could be moved to Do(?). Stay healthy is similar. Just mentioning facilities (with no address/contact) seems pointless. Per Big city article template: This is a section for general health tips. Hospitals belong in Cope and should probably have useful info...website, address, phone. Radio, Television, & Places of Worship are ok with WV guidelines, but these sections really seem encyclopedic. Radio & TV are useful, but the listings add to an already long page...maybe they'd be better in a table? The pics of Sweetness 7 Cafe, Swannie House, & Hotel Lafayette don't really seem notable enough to be an exception to the policy of no photos of just a business. Does the wings photo to go with the nomination really do this city justice? I was about to suggest a nice photo with lots of snow...iconic? yes...but this is going to be featured in summer and since it's not a winter destination, probably not the best image of the city for tourism. AHeneen (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding districting Buffalo: I've already begun that process and aim to have it complete before Buffalo's stint as DotM. The first of the district articles is already complete, and the second one is well on its way also. Per the outcome of a conversation (, first two entries) with the esteemed Peter Fitzgerald, it was decided that the district articles would be left on my user page until all seven were completed, so on the off chance that May comes and all the districts aren't finished yet, we can at least feature the Buffalo article more or less as it is now, rather than with dead links to not-yet-complete districts.


 * Regarding "Learn" and "Stay Healthy": after reviewing past DotMs and OtBPs as well as current nominees, I can't say that I agree at all that a consensus of the type you cited has been established. For example, though there are a few past DotMs whose Learn sections have confined themselves to "short-courses that travelers can partake in", the vast majority of them—especially in the more recent past—have Learn sections that look much the same as Buffalo's. Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Medellín, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Kanazawa, as well as current nominees Pittsburgh and Madison, are only a few of the many examples. Meanwhile, of the relatively few past DotMs that include a "Stay Healthy" section, they generally all seem to follow the same ground rules as the Buffalo article—see London and Bristol—and I was unable to find any instances at all of hospitals being listed under "Cope", though I admit I didn't look all the way back to 2004. In any event, these two sections (especially "Learn") are among the few parts of the Buffalo article that are essentially unchanged from the time I began editing it.


 * Regarding radio and TV listings: your point is well taken. I'd love to see these long sections of prose converted into tables; if something like that conforms to Wikivoyage convention, I'd love to get started on that process.


 * Regarding the photos: I am aware of Wikivoyage's policy that encourages authors to be wary of using photos to tout individual businesses. However, I feel the photos of Sweetness 7, the Swannie House, and the Hotel Lafayette are notable enough to be justifiable—especially the Hotel Lafayette, whose restoration and reopening is a prime example of both the revival of downtown Buffalo and the boom in the hotel industry there, not to mention its notability from an architectural standpoint as the most important remaining work of Louise Blanchard Bethune, America's first female architect of importance. As for the Swannie House and Sweetness 7, these two businesses are notable (respectively) as one of the last remaining links to the First Ward's past as an industrial hub of working-class Irishmen, and as the driving force behind the Upper West Side's emergence as the newest hip neighborhood in Buffalo. These points are thoroughly elaborated upon in the photos' captions or elsewhere in the article.


 * Regarding the chicken wing photo: I am in complete agreement with you on that, as you can see from earlier comments on this thread. As I mentioned previously, there are plenty of other photos in the article that would do as good a job or better at conveying the true nature of Buffalo. I'm definitely open to suggestions for an alternate cover shot!


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, we've considered "Stay Healthy" to be reserved for large geographic areas with significant steps one must take to actually remain healthy, or the rare destination article that has truly significant health issues separate from its surrounding area. Health information for most destination articles has usually gone in "Stay safe", though "Cope" isn't a bad option for hospital listings.  LtPowers (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Pine City

 * Support Of course, as the nominator, I support, but you'll see that there's a lot of content in this article, and it will represent the site well. The blurb can use some work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a star article. [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Pine_City&diff=2132093&oldid=2126352 an IP] (albeit one who wrote most of the content in the article) added the starcity template without a nomination or discussion.  I've downgraded it to usable, which would disqualify it from feature consideration.  We can discuss whether it might qualify as a guide, but if so, it looks like a fairly weak guide to me.  LtPowers (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw what you did and was just about to delete the nomination, if it hadn't been for an edit conflict. I'm guessing it's not a guide because it lacks a map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of guides without maps. However, it's the lack of descriptions in many listings plus the phone book feel of the cope section (do we really need an extensive list of barbers and salons?) keeps it from feeling like a true "guide". PerryPlanet (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very few prices on the listings. LtPowers (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yellowstone National Park

 * Support. As well-written and comprehensive an article as any I've read. -- (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 01:19, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Oppose There's a lot of text, but not a whole lot of content. What I mean is that Understand, Get in, Get around, & Stay safe seem too short to do the park justice. I'm sure even the park's official brochures have much more useful content than those sections and there are a number of complete books about just Yellowstone or Yellowstone/Grand Teton NPs (see Amazon.com). Is this really something we'd want to feature? See listings are plentiful, but many don't have useful descriptions...where exactly are they (directions together with a map...maybe even a special map, like one for geysers or one for hikes). Buy listings need expanded. Eat & Sleep listings don't have an address...the park is huge...where are they? There may not be a precedent for this, but Yellowstone is actually a suitable candidate to be divided into districts. Much of the See/Do is already conveniently divided by section of the park. AHeneen (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to improve the article and appreciate the feedback, but while the sections you've mentioned could clearly be expanded, there is a fine line between sufficient and too much detail that I think we want to be cautious of, so feedback from others would be appreciated. As to addresses, the park doesn't actually use numbered addresses and instead simply organizes places according to the village it is in, which this article does as well.  As to the "see" listings, could you provide an example of one which you feel isn't useful?  Again, they have been divided according to the park region they are located in, but perhaps the article can be cleaned up to make that point clearer. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I think there's a lot of good, solid info here, but I hesitate to throw my full support behind it just yet.
 * The biggest issue I have is that a lot of the See listings are written in a very dry tone. Take the first one: "Yellowstone Lake is the largest lake at high elevation (more than 7,000 ft.) in North America. It is a natural lake, situated at 7,733 ft. above sea level. It is roughly 20 miles long and 14 miles wide with 141 miles of shoreline. It is frozen nearly half the year." Rather than painting a picture of the site, it reads like a statement of facts. Some livening up of the tone would be really nice.
 * Additionally, while I get that there are no addresses in the park, there really should be at least some indication of which village each Eat, Drink and Sleep listing is in, because I can't for the life of me figure out where they are.
 * A minor suggestion, but I would expand the lead and liven it up a bit, with a greater emphasis on what makes Yellowstone worth visiting.
 * Another minor suggestion, but the text for the state names in both maps is really small and faint. I would make them more prominent, to give viewers a clearer sense of where Yellowstone sits in the country. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are lots of things that need worked on outlined above so I won't repeat them, but these things definitely need to be addressed in order to make this guide useful for travelers as well as to be featured. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Johor Bahru

 * Soft support It definitely needs some shortening in the Get in and Get around section. If you are willing to tackle that, then yes. Jc8136 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Needs major work I tried to improve the JB article but currently i think without a major drive to improve that article, it will not happen. jan (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not yet. This article is much too long. It needs a lot of clean-up work to be done, some listings even have prices listed for each product sold. If it is featured, however, I'd say it should be a DotM, as it has more than 1.5 million inhabitants. And it's a stop-over point for many travellers to Singapore. --Globe-trotter (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Needs work This article has troubled me for quite a while as it has needed a good scrub out, as indicated by Globetrotter above. I notice Jan has recently given it some well needed attention, it probably needs some more. The article and the destination are both worthwhile, it is a gateway to Malaysia and has it's own facets of interest.-- Felix (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Comment Whenever this article is judged as ready to feature, it needs to be a DoTM. Johor Bahru is on and not off the beaten path. It's a major makan (eating) day trip for Singaporeans and a city that most traffic between Malaysia and Singapore goes through. If we want to call this off the beaten path, what is Newark (New Jersey)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most likely a moot point; odds are this nomination is going to end up in the slush pile due to chronic lack of interest in making the many necessary improvements spelled out above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Kolyma Highway

 * Oppose. I don't remember there being any rule about FTTs that states that each stop on an itinerary must be at Usable status. However, the fact remains that the article itself needs to be Guide or better in order to go on the front page. I think it's a great destination, but realistically there's nowhere near enough content in this article to justify bumping it up to Guide status as it is now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This is by far the best existing guide to this route/region, and would therefore make a good showcase of what we do, despite the lack of "completeness" found in our guide-status articles. If that means making an exception to our guide status rule, I think that's OK in this exceptional case. And there is actually a fair amount of very interesting content in those linked destination/points. --Peter Talk 23:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I'm concerned about the number of red links in "Go" and "Go next." I'd also love to see more photos. If some progress could be made on both fronts - more blue links and more photos - I would be OK with running this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not ready yet, I think. The Magadan article mentions the translation "road of bones" for this highway and talks about gulags. Shouldn't the translation, and perhaps the story behind it, be in this article? Also the gulags? Pashley (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Antigua Guatemala

 * I'm lazy. Too lazy/tired/busy to do the fixes that I should just do myself, but I'll mention them quickly (and link to the old slushed nomination): See & Do should have listings, the "Learn about the people" subsection needs to be reformatted, and probably merged to different parts of the article including the Homestay subsection of Sleep. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:39, 20 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Well, we have until at least October. I'm sure I, or someone else, can make these changes between now and then. (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower 15:48, 20 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Oppose The content isn't bad, but the whole page needs formatting before we feature this. Understand, Get in, Get around, & Stay safe all need sub-headings with the content appropriately divided. Eat & Drink need more info like phone numbers, prices, & a few are even missing addresses. Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of adding a listing template, but going through and organizing the blocks of text. It also needs some good pictures and a map. This is more than something I or another editor can fix in 30 min. This wouldn't be a bad nominee for Wikitravel:Collaboration of the Month, though, as most of these issues don't require local knowledge. AHeneen (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Bogotá

 * Almost support. Some of the museums in See section could be described better. Sleep may need trimming. (WT-en) Jjtk 03:01, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Oppose for now. I love the city too, and I don't think the article yet does it justice. With its size and population, I think it needs to be divided into districts (and I would be happy to help with that task!). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:57, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Oppose Agree with Peter that this city needs districts. Plus, Bogata is just way to big to feature this page in its current state without a good map to go with the districts/orientation section and see/do listings. AHeneen (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Kraków

 * Not yet. The main article is great, but the district articles are all outline—there is extremely little listings content throughout the guide, which limits its usefulness for now. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:25, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Oppose. While a great destination, it deserves its time in the spotlight when its districts have become more developed. --Globe-trotter (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Not yet. Unfortunately, some of the Eat and Do sections are empty, while others contain bare listings without any descriptions. It should not be difficult to bring this article to the guide status, but some work remains to be done. Atsirlin (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2012 (CEST)

Tokyo

 * Oppose This article is a mess. Districts have not yet been agreed upon and as it is, there are way too many districts with too little information. This article makes Tokyo seem way more complicated than it is. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:10, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Oppose. Since it was slushed last time, not enough has been undertaken to fix its overlapping districts. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2012 (CEST)

Kabul
I've given some love to this article by updating, formatting/cleaning up, and adding history. An interesting destination for the most seasoned of travelers, you could make a case for it as OtBP--few tourists (mostly military, businessmen, & redevelopment people), it's close to a war zone (and thus perceived as dangerous and off the beaten track), and it has a history of isolation & war (including much of the past 30 years)--but I have nominated it as DotM because despite its historical isolation it is a name recognized by most Westerners as Afghanistan's capital, number of visitors is high despite low number of tourists, it is rather safe despite its proximity to war zones to the south (towards Kandahar) & east (towards Jalalabad), and it is a large city and a regional center of culture and trade. The first 2 arguments for were brought up in discussions(Nov 08) over the nomination of Riyadh as a DotM.

The article is not perfect, as I struggled to find addresses or locations of some of the "see" listings I wonder whether much of Kabul has much of a street numbering system (even the US embassy does not list a number in describing there location). So one of two things needs to be done: some of you could help find out locations or we could just leave it as is and assume taxi drivers know where these places are and how to get there. A recent map would be nice along with more info to fill the "orientaion" section (or else it can be removed) and another thing I couldn't find was info for "Get in/By bus"...a simple note of where bus stations are is all that's needed. Aside from these couple of small problems, the article is a beauty and I'm going ahead with nominating it so it can get a decent spot in line to fill summer DotM slots. May-August seems like the appropriate window for Kabul. (WT-en) AHeneen 01:39, 14 November 2009 (EST)


 * Support A great article, except for a few things which need to be cleaned up as mentioned above. (WT-en) AHeneen 01:39, 14 November 2009 (EST)


 * Support. I'm rather amazed at the quality of this article! I agree that it should be featured as a DotM for the reasons you outline above. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 07:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)


 * Support This is a nice article for an interesting city. Some minor things that I'd add to be worked on: The Bagh-e Zanana is a place where only women can enter, right? It says "dedicated to women", which is awkward English, so if it means what I suspect it means, the wording should be changed (even if it doesn't, the wording could be clearer). The Bagh-e Bala should probably have some information about it (history, significance, the usual). Stadiums and cinemas are "Do"s, right? Also, "Money" probably shouldn't be its own heading. I'll make it a sub-heading of "Buy". (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:46, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, the park is women-only according to its Wikipedia article. I guess I overlooked a couple of things, feel free to add info...I'll see when I have time if I can fill in some more info. (WT-en) AHeneen 23:07, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 * Okay, I've added some info for Bagh-e Bala and moved the stadium and cinema to the "Do" section. I also added content to the Bagh-e Zanana BUT most of the content came from this website: The information is interesting, but I posted it in case someone wanted to challenge the info. I don't have any personal knowledge about the city, so if the article reeks of political agenda and seems false, feel free to get rid of the info and add a better description! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)


 * Support wow, nice work, i have also considered nominting Mogadishu for a while, since it's one of our most loved articles, if twitter is anything to go for, but I've no idea how to push it the last stretch. This one is already there, very good content. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:49, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 * If it is even possible to get it to guide status, given the difficulty of getting info about the city. How about Hargeisa, also in Somalia but DRASTICALLY safer, easier to visit, and very inviting to tourists. I read quite a bit about tourism in Kurdistan (Iraq) and looked through all its city articles, but only a couple (Dahuk & Arbil) were even at outline status and I knew I could not find enough info to bring them up to OtBP status. I would love to see some more articles from off-the-beaten-path countries. (WT-en) AHeneen 23:07, 14 November 2009 (EST)


 * Support Very good work. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:52, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Support This article is great and offers a DotM that most people would rule out as a travel destination. (WT-en) jan 03:27, 20 November 2009 (EST)


 * Maybe .... good work on the history section, that was much needed! However most of the listings in this article, especially the eat listings, were added years ago and I suspect are fairly outdated.... but I don´t know for sure. I worked on the few that I visited when I was there 3 years ago, but that wasn´t many. Also, for a destination such as this I think a good map is essential.... enough so that I would probably withold support until it has one. Re the question above about addresses, I don´t remember them being particularly relavent.... I don´t think taxi drivers use them much.... and I recall paying much more attention to intersections and dots on maps than addresses. Also about the bus stations.... I recall Kabul as fantastically complicated to get in and out of.... there are departure points scattered all over the place with minibuses headed to various locales.... tell a taxi driver where you want to go and he´ll take you to where the buses depart.... and probably get it wrong at least once – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:55, 19 December 2009 (EST)
 * Remarkably, OSM has good coverage of Kabul! It shouldn't be hard at all to put up a basic import, but someone other than me will need to choose what part of the city needs to be covered in the map. Better to do that at Talk:Kabul.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:30, 20 December 2009 (EST)


 * Still no map, I won't be able to do it, but can give a little feedback and guidance to anyone else who is willing on Talk:Kabul – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:03, 26 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Object strongly. Does anyone else look at Kabul in the dotm blurb above and want to laugh? That on our front page is pretty much a joke. Still no map, in a city that I would say requires one more than any other destination we've ever featured. Many listings are almost certainly outdated. I also think that if it is improved and thus featured it should be OTBP (forgive me for not noticing and bringing that up earlier). – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:00, 1 June 2010 (EDT)


 * Support, but it should be an OtBP. --(WT-en) Tiagox2 09:33, 16 December 2010 (EST)


 * Oppose, it's a warzone. Besides, the information is probably outdated. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:16, 19 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I think "warzone" is a stretch when applied to Kabul. It's one of the safest cities, in an admittedly unsafe country, and is filled with foreigners. I'm working on a map that should knock a sock off or two, and will try to get the information refreshed in the coming weeks. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:35, 19 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I know tourists go there, and Kabul is one of the safer areas of Afghanistan, but making it a DoTM? I still think it's an odd idea. Security issues can change overnight. We should be weary sending travelers to places like this, while at the same time warning them for life-threanening danger. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Strongly object, I think the listing of things to see and do is not complete. Things to see: be witness of a suicide attack. Thinks to do: get abducted in broad daylight and have the experience of your life! Make Kabul Destination of the Month and Wikivoyage will be Joke of the Year. --(WT-en) Whatsinaname 20:02, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Don't support. We should not be encouraging tourism to an occupied country at war. At most, I'd suggest making it an OtBP. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Maybe OtBP, but definitely not DOTM now. Kabul is an interesting city, used to be a major stop on the overland route to India; the place itself would be fine as DOTM in other circumstances. The article itself looks close as well; Cacahuate's comments above have what seem to be valid objections, but those could be dealt with. However, it seems to me that recommending it as a destination now would be insane. It is certainly safer than some other places in Af, but not safe enough to recommend. (WT-en) Pashley 00:02, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park
Again, I don't now if it should be an OtBP or a DotM, but seems like a nice article. --2.80.122.99 14:16, 25 January 2011 (EST)


 * Don't Support The "see" section could probably have more and certainly should have more to say about the museum and the "Do" section is mostly just a list. The "Sleep" section is not formatted correctly. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:02, 26 January 2011 (EST)
 * Don't Support - So many things wrong with it. Needs some serious formatting and detouting. I'm putting a style notice on it and downgrading it from guide. Probably should be slushed too. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 22:26, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Cologne
Very nice city article. --188.81.189.10 06:21, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Needs work I removed it from the schedule because the articles needs work to fit our requirements. Maybe summer 2011 is better to allow the needed changes. (WT-en) jan 10:31, 24 January 2011 (EST)


 * Not yet I agree with Jc. Many restaurant and bar listings still lack addresses and telephone numbers. But once that's remedied, the rest of the article looks good. I think it's very close to being ready. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Salzburg
Nice guide of an austrian city. --2.80.109.50 12:35, 14 October 2010 (EDT)
 * Not yet It's on its way but some of the see listings are incomplete and the whole needs a thorough tidy up. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:33, 31 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Not yet, needs quite some listingifying done before it's ready. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:50, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Lyon
Nice guide article. --188.81.111.95 16:27, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
 * Not yet - The info is quite complete, writing is ok (could be tighter), but the formatting needs work. I'm confused why it is districtified but doesn't have separate district pages. The map doesn't entirely follow the WT style. The info box placements are inconsistent. The See text looks very dense. (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:33, 31 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Don't support - totally agree with Cardboardbird. Formatting needs a lot of work, and the whole districts subsection should be removed (as the city doesn't contain districts as of now). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:04, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Dublin
Probably one of the nicest cities in the world where the people are so friendly. It's a great city for sight-seeing, shopping and if you want to get out of the hustle and bustle of city life, the beautiful Irish countryside is only a short drive away. I've never been in a city where the people are so friendly and you can experience a true Irish welcome there. The best time to visit is anytime really, though i would recommend the months of March - September where the weather is slightly better making your visit even more special.


 * Don't Support This article has a Style Tag that is rightfully there. It needs formatted listings outside the "See" section, and many sections need to be presented better and made less wordy. There are a lot of really long paragraphs that I think could be made more precise or reworded. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Don't Support Not yet anyway. The style tags still remain and no progress on fixing yet. I'd say slush it till it at least the style issues are addressed. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 21:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Vercors
Surprisingly detailed article for the depths of France (or should it go to DotM instead?) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:45, 26 July 2010 (EDT)
 * Not Yet There are a lot of listings, but they need to bee formatted properly. Right now it is more of a list of attractions with external links rather than an independent guide. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:10, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

Antigua Guatemala
(WT-en) Anne has put a bunch of work into this guide lately, and I think it looks pretty great. It's a world heritage site and Guatemala's top city destination, so I think it would be fine dotm material.


 * Support . --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:55, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Wow! This looks good! Is there a more appropriate place to put the "laundry" information aside from the Buy section? It really doesn't seem to belong there. 58.191.155.98 04:51, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's normally a "Cope" topic, and I see that someone has moved it there. Support. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:19, 9 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Support And again, nice to see dotm/otbp ready guides, outside our "core" areas' of North America and Asia. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 08:45, 1 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Almost support. It is looking pretty good and has a ton of listings, but the see section is very weak, and should be one of the strongest. The article could also use a serious copyedit and a small beating with the MoS stick – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:52, 25 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Update: needs even more cleanup after today's verbose additions – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:27, 31 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Yeah, a lot of work has been put into the article post-nomination, which has added good content, but has also mangled the English and some of the structural style. It shouldn't take that much work to get this back up to a DotM level of polish, but that work should be done before we feature it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)


 * I tried to work on MoS items. I posted a thought about currency usage on the discussion page and changed most entries to local currency but left some in USD since some prices/locations seem to accept USD quite easily.(WT-en) Zepppep 13:34, 21 January 2010 (EST)


 * Support anew. I've restored this nomination from the slush pile, as I think Zepppep has resolved the outstanding issues, and this looks like it will be a good feature! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:44, 21 January 2010 (EST)


 * Hmm... The "See" section still isn't Wikified. It lists worthwhile places ("La Catedral, el Palacio de los Gobernadores, Convento de Capuchinas, Convento de Santa Clara, el Arco de Santa Catarina, Iglesia La Merced and the Handcrafts Market") but shouldn't they each then be given their own listing? They are kind of glazed over, but if someone were to visit using our guide, I imagine they would want that extra information. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:34, 22 January 2010 (EST)


 * Tentative support, as it is an interesting guide to a popular destination. But I would like to see some more work done on it.  The first half looks a bit like an essay and would benefit from some sub-sections. A history sub-section is a glaring ommision from understand, when the destination is all about history. Most of the existing understand section could go into an orientation sub-section. Get in needs some categorisation. Perhaps split into "from the airport", "from Guatemala City" etc? I would support ChubbyWimbus' point about formalising attractions in the see section.  Get out is very long and not really in line with the stated purpose of that section. All easy to put right I think. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:50, 22 January 2010 (EST)


 * Support --188.81.103.46 12:27, 21 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Slushed. This article has been in need of very obvious work for a long time and nothing has happened. Indeed it has deteriorated. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:20, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Isha Yoga Centre
Really nice little article which I saw for the first time today. Well-written and seemingly complete. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:05, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Not sure. While well-written, I am not sure if this even constitutes an article. The VFD discussion seems rigged by false voters. I think we'd first need to think about where the boundaries lie before we showcase such an article on the frontpage. But if there is community consensus that this is a valid article, then I could support it. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 00:10, 4 September 2011 (EDT)


 * The voting including keep recommendations from a number of regular Wikivoyageers, as well as very obvious rigging. If it is a valid article, then it's of good enough quality to feature here. On the other hand, I was not around when that debate took place and the more I think about it, I might well have voted for delete...... hmmm. I would actually like to withdraw this nomination.--(WT-en) burmesedays 00:28, 4 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Slushed. Slushed by the nominator. I had a rush of blood.  Not an appropriate feature article.--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Apple Valley (Minnesota)
A very complete article, although it has a strange sense of humor. --188.81.113.239 15:23, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Not at this time. Most of the images in this article are under consideration for deletion on Shared, as User:(WT-en) Banana1 seems to have a tenuous grasp of copyright.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:42, 18 August 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support the Architecture section is not formatted properly, the prose need work in some places, and the pictures will be deleted. Also, it's definitely more of an OtBP. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:21, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Khartoum
Another African find. This one in a much better shape than Niamey. It's extremely well written I think, it feels complete. There are some missing addresses here and there, but must of them has GPS coordinates instead, and this is Africa so I suspect there is a reason for those. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:17, 10 October 2009 (EDT)


 * Support, definitely. I find myself rather shocked that we have a great Sudanese article! And one that seems to have grown organically, without love from any one contributor. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:20, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Nice, but needs work A surprisingly good article for the region, but I think it needs more information before it is fit for DotM...this is a city of EIGHT million! As for coordinates, they are very useful to some people, not at all to others. I've been doing a bit of browsing the past few months on the |HUBB and coordinates are used (& more useful than addresses) by practically everyone driving themselves...but for other tourists (and there are lots doing Cairo-Nairobi independently or with an overland bus) addresses are more helpful (even just the street name, esp. for telling the taxi driver and watching for signs on a minibus).
 * Photos: There is one good picture and one that isn't really necessary.
 * Intro: Needs some history and certainly needs some climate info
 * Get in: (By bus) Where's the new bus terminal/name? (By train) So the station is chaotic and trains erratic, but how do I get a ticket?
 * See: Could use some more items and lengthier descriptions.
 * Do: Two things?
 * Buy: Lists places, but are there any particular items which are good to buy?
 * Eat: I realize this is Africa and so there are thousands of small, good places to eat which frequently open/close and relocate...so we don't really need more listings. But this section would be best served by dividing it into the three sections of the city.
 * Drink: Why does 'drink'='alcohol'. Is tea served anywhere?
 * Cope: A few more embassy listings.
 * Get out: Descriptions should be more brief and those destinations should have their own article. I think the Red Sea area and Jebel Barkal listings are too far away (and in whole other regions of Sudan) to be listed.
 * Stay Safe: A VERY important section is missing! While the city is considered one of the safest for expats in E.Africa (despite violence elsewhere in the country), there are quite a few cultural sensitivities. If you follow the news, you'd know that in Khartoum: a schoolteacher was imprisoned for naming a teddybear Muhammed, a Sudanese journalist was jailed and sentenced to a fine & 40 lashes for wearing trousers (deemed inappropriate attire for a woman), and a US embassy employee and his driver were shot to death last year by conservative Islamists (although terrorism isn't really a huge threat). Political topics should be avoided. Some are sensitive to the North-South conflict (I think the South will vote on independence in a year or two), the Darfur conflict (I doubt many will side with Westerners who blame the Sudanese gov't), and the warrant for Bashir's arrest issued earlier this year (which Western governments lauded).
 * So, while the article is much better than most African ones, I think a lot of info should be added to bring it to true guide status and to be featured. The second edition Bradt guide (the best guides to African countries) for Sudan should be released this December, . The first edition is a bit outdated, and this one claims a big update to Khartoum info. I got the Bradt guides to Mali, Niger, & Nigeria this summer and they are truly incredible in their scope of these 'off-the-beaten-path' destinations...if someone picks up this guide, I guarantee we could have a star article for Khartoum. Another good source of info is over at LP Thorntree . I'd do most of the updating myself, but I'm very busy (and it's quite late at night while I'm writing this)...hopefully I'll find time to contribute to this fine destination soon. (WT-en) AHeneen 02:57, 13 October 2009 (EDT)


 * The Stay safe argument is quite compelling, so should we slush this? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:31, 14 October 2009 (EDT)


 * NO. As far as safety goes, visitors must simply be careful to avoid insulting Islam (I think it's about the same as in Saudi Arabia or Iran) and avoiding politics concerning the North-South conflict and the president's role in the Darfur conflict (just like you shouldn't discuss politics in many countries). Khartoum seems to me like an interesting city in the region, and with just a little work (like I outlined) it could be a great DotM. (WT-en) AHeneen 23:13, 14 October 2009 (EDT)


 * I can't find much info to fix this article. I really hope it stays here and isn't slushed for a while as I would really like to see it featured. As far as timing goes, very important and (we hope not) potentially explosive elections are set to run from 5-12 April with results announced later in the month. While the city is not too dangerous to be rejected for DotM, these are the first elections since 1986 and the first after decades of civil war. As the capital and largest city of the country combined with very sensitive elections, I think it should not be featured earlier than June...to give time to see if violence (like in Iran) breaks out. Again, it is otherwise a fairly safe city. (WT-en) AHeneen 17:56, 13 December 2009 (EST)


 * Actually, I think featuring it during the elections period might be best, since people will be googling "Khartoum!" We are featuring Copenhagen during the COP15 summit, which clearly is not a great time to visit, but to great effect. The true goal of the DotM is really just to attract new users (aside from encouraging users to improve their pet projects with the reward of a front page feature, of course). Stefan noted that on 14 Dec, "Copenhagen" was the #3 "hot search" on Google trends, and our guide was the #3 search result! I think featuring articles when they are in the news can be a good way to give our site extra exposure. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)


 * Aw, I like to think there's a wider variety of goals in featuring destinations! ;-) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)


 * I would like to echo AHeneen's sentiments. I would definitely love to see this featured, but I'm also curious as to whether Khartoum should be the DotM.  This city shouts OtBP me.  Am I mistaken?  -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 20:50, 28 October 2010 (EDT)


 * At this point, the nomination is over a year old with no move to make it good enough to be featured. I support it as a DotM nomination over OtBP, but I think this current nomination is at a stalemate... Should we slush it? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:42, 5 November 2010 (EDT)


 * Good eye - I just saw "October." I guess, as no one has really addressed her points, yes, it should be slushed. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 12:55, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Vienna
Great city guide of one of the world's biggest tourist destinations. --2.80.109.50 12:35, 14 October 2010 (EDT)


 * There is a Hofburg Palace and a New Hofburg Palace, right? They are right next to one another, right? Why are they in different sections of the guide? This is a great example of why districts need to be used instead of the arbitrary headlines "Palaces, Museums, Architecture, etc." It feels highly disorganized. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:53, 14 October 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't support Article is far away from being DotM! It lacks maps, some district structure and Get in is still way to big. (WT-en) jan 04:05, 19 November 2010 (EST)


 * Don't support. It really requires districts as now it's too much information on one page. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:40, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Kiev
This article is an excellant, very comprehensive guide to an amazing city. —The preceding comment was added by 80.47.236.121 (talk • contribs)


 * Almost support. It's actually fairly close, to my pleasant surprise! But there are a few issues holding it back from quite reaching guide status, including the lack of buy listings. If you are interested in fixing the article up a bit, please let me know and I'll provide a bit more guidance on the article's talk page! It would be great to feature such a beautiful, important, and fascinating city, so I hope we can in the near future. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Not yet. The whole article is nice and comprehensive, but the See section is very messy and clearly incomplete. Several important sights, such as the House with Chimeras, are just missing. And Hreschatik is more than "the main drag of the city centre".
 * By the way, this brings another question. Kiev is a large and a rich city. Should it be districtified? If yes, this will probably delay the nomination for quite a while... (WT-en) Atsirlin 16:09, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Ultimately, yes, it most certainly should have districts. I think it's OK, though, to feature before they are implemented, as long as the article is a strong guide—and it's not quite there yet. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Peterfitzgerald (talk • contribs)
 * One more thing that came to my mind: what about the season? I think, this should be spring, the blossoming period. If so, one can interrupt the discussion for half a year and see what comes out till then. (WT-en) Atsirlin 12:03, 30 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Nearly. Peter has identified the key omission. Otherwise, a bit of a spring clean and this would make an excellent DotM I think.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:01, 28 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support Basedi on the districtification comments, if we anticipate Kiev having so much to see/do that it needs districts, then this article must be highly incomplete, because it is nowhere near ready for districtification. If the city really has that much left out, then I would rather not feature it until it has its districts. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:35, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Well, don't take my comment too serious. The present version is reasonably close to a "one day in Kiev" guide that obviously does not need any districts. However, this will not be a full guide to Kiev. (WT-en) Atsirlin 12:03, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Adelaide
Although Australia is a very turistical country, Adelaide is not one of the country's biggest attractions. The article is very complete --85.243.150.10 13:44, 26 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Adelaide is by no stretch of the imagination Off the beaten Path. Any nomination should be as Destination of the Month. Maybe you meant to put it there?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:30, 26 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Not Yet I think proper formatting would be good for this article, but even beyond that, the "See" section needs reworked. If the linked (and redlinked) areas are cities outside of Adelaide, then they should be in the "Get out" section. If they are in Adelaide city, they should be put in proper format and more information needs to be provided. Many of the entries are just names of museums. If you know the city, it probably wouldn't take much to get it up to standard, but I think there is still work to be done. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:52, 26 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Not yet and is also not OtbP. Adelaide is a charming city and one I have enjoyed visiting a couple of times. I am not sure his article captures that charm very well. The Understand, See and Do sections need a fair bit of work I think.

London
A great city with a good guide article. --188.81.105.156 03:48, 5 July 2010 (EDT)


 * It certainly meets the requirements as it is, but I would personally like to wait until it's of an even higher quality. We featured Bangkok a long time ago, before all the recent work transformed it into a glittering work of art, and it's disappointing that we cannot feature it again. I'd hate to run into the same problem with London, if at a later date we have a contributor putting tons of work into it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:57, 5 July 2010 (EDT)


 * Not Yet Some of the other boroughs are rather weak "usables". I also wonder if the page should be organized like New York City? With nearly 30 sub-categories, it just seems a bit overwhelming putting it all on the country article. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:31, 8 July 2010 (EDT)


 * Not yet, for the same reasons as Peter. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:24, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Cologne
Beautiful city and a decent guide article. --2.80.96.196 07:31, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Seville
Good article, great city. --188.81.103.46 12:41, 21 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Not Yet This article needs more pictures. The article suffers greatly from a lack of proper formatting. There is also information in the See and Do sections that should be in the Get around section. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:53, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

Bilbao
A guide article --188.81.103.46 12:41, 21 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Not Yet The Buy, Drink, Eat, and Sleep sections need more listings and more information about the current listings. Even some of the listings in the See section could use more information. Proper formatting would be nice. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:48, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

Grand Canyon
A huge touristic attratction, and a guide article --188.81.103.46 12:41, 21 May 2010 (EDT)


 * This article has been slushpiled however, User:(WT-en) Wrh2 has added content to the previously incomplete trail description. I do not know if all the trails are covered or if enough has been said about them to judge whether or not this concern is still relevent, but I think it's always good to review the slushpile. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus (talk • contribs)

Florence
A pretty good article. --81.193.162.197 11:37, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

Don't Support (Yet). Good article and seems pretty comprehensive however Understand seems way too long and a lot of the listings need some MOS work. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:14, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

Dogon Country
Just got back from a trip there and even after traveling a lot, was still impressed. Put a great deal of what I saw and learned in to heavily expanding the article. I think that in six months more can probably be added to make it worthy of a feature. Or maybe it's an OTBP instead? Not sure. Whatever the case, if it doesn't make it in to the rotation, my feelings will certainly not be hurt, although it is a very, very cool place. --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 10:54, 05 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This should be at the bottom of the list, not top - moved. I would have thought a cast iron OtbP, rather than DotM.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Almost support. I would love to see Dogon Country featured, especially since that article was frustratingly not even created until last December, languishing as a red link on my (WT-en) wishlist! The one obstacle is the empty Bandiagara article. If we could improve that article to a strong usable, then this would be a great feature. And I definitely agree that this should be OtBP—while very well known in Africa travel circles, it's still pretty far out of the way. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:35, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Support Sorry, didn't realize and still don't really understand how the order of this page is to work. Figured if I stuck it at the top, someone would put it somewhere better ;) So, then it should be an OtbP instead.  makes sense.  There are a lot of question marks up top, so I'll leave it to whomever to either move it to an earlier month of just move it across to October.  And I have expanded Bandiagara out a good deal.  Still slim, but a lot more there now.  Maybe someone else can find a few more items.  It's a small town, so it's bound to remain pretty small. --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 22:57, 05 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there anything that can be said about each of the villages aside from whether or not they have housing? The "See" section should probably say more. If descriptions of the villages were added, perhaps they could even be moved to the "See" section? I personally always think it's strange if the "See" section is lacking information. It makes it seem like the area is boring, but clearly this is a major destination in West Africa and well worth the visit. I am not sure if Dogon County is OtBP... I know I've said this before, but I don't like always making Africa OtBP. It's a well-known destination for those familiar with Africa; and more famous worldwide than Hamamatsu, I would say. I think it is a nice DotM. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:18, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
 * I agree, Dogon Country should certainly be a DotM as it is one of the most popular attractions in West Africa. (WT-en) AHeneen 03:51, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Well, I just moved it, although it can definitely be moved back. I think that the issue of it being in Africa would apply more if it were Bamako, Abidjan, Nairobi, Dakar, etc.  Those are DotM and it's true that as Dogon is 12-14 hours by bus from Bamako it takes some effort to get to.  I'll work on the Abidjan article and see if I can get it in to shape to be a DotM as it's quite a happening city with direct service from major airports, whereas Dogon has none. --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 16:38, 06 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't support (yet) I would like to see this featured, but the article still needs a lot more information. Featured articles should be at guide status and while length is no indicator of an article's quality, I feel Dogon Country still needs much more information. According to the Project:Region guide status, a guide region "gives you different choices for which linked destinations (i.e., cities, subregions, and other destinations lists) to visit (all usable status or better), and information on multiple attractions and things to do...All important ways to get in are detailed, along with some suggestions for moving out, and thorough information on getting around." Since culture is what attracts so many to Dogon Country (although there's really no "stereotypical" Dogon culture), I think the understand section should contain an overview of the cultural facets which make DC so appealing to visitors (masks, gender roles, animism, etc) along with some history & info on the architecture. The see/do sections need to be expanded and I feel information about hiking and finding a guide and starting needs to be together. The "guide to guides" can be condensed a little and should go under "Get around" along with other info on hiking (ie. where to start info now listed under get in). Finally, a mention of the Festival des Danses des Masques is essential along with info about it. I have a (slightly outdated...2005) Bradt Guide to Mali which has much of this information...I just need to not be lazy one evening and fill in some of this missing info (there's 3 pages about Bandiagara). Until then, the official DC tourism website is here and has some useful info. The best time to visit (and thus feature DC) is between November & February (cool and dry), which is perfect as it's winter in the Northern Hemisphere and we usually have a lack of good choices for DotM/OtBP then and it gives us time to get DC to guide status. (WT-en) AHeneen 03:51, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Sounds like you've had a lot of experience there. I don't really have too much more to add to the article as I poured out everything I had gotten from my trip.  I hope you find some time to add all this in.  And I think that October would be the perfect month as most people need info in the month before the trip,so if November if the start of the busy season, October makes sense to run it then.  --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 16:43, 06 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It surely has to be OtbP? How many visitors who are not fairly grizzled travelers go to Dogon country? Or have even heard of it? In 2005 (latest I could find) there were only 80,000 foreign arrivals to the whole of Mali. I would imagine a large number of those were business, government and NGO travelers. Of the balance, some would have gone to Dogon country. If this isn't OtbP, I am not sure what is. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:01, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Saw a lot of poshy, older package folks when I was there. A lot of it is just off the road or down a slightly bumpy dirt road, which is easy to get to if you can stand the heat.  Then there are the 12km hikes down the cliff that I did which are more for those with an adventurous spirit...  Still, I think OtbP probably makes more sense.  --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 16:46, 06 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's more famous than many of our DotMs: I mentioned Hamamatsu, but Shimla, Bergen, Medellin, Okayama, Bayreuth; Not exactly world-reknown destinations, either. Maybe I am atypical, but Dogon County seems much more famous than any of those. Tourism statistics can only do so much, anyway, because Africa will almost always lose if we are comparing it to Europe or America, who have the money to travel. Timbuktu is in Mali, and it's name is very famous, thanks to that quote. I'd call that DotM, but the statistics argument could be made against it, as well. Bandiagara is one of Africa's best known World Heritage Sites. It made our "Top Nine Other destinations" on the Continental page. If our top nine can't even be DotM, then I don't know what would qualify... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus
 * I'm pretty sure Timbuktu is a byword/cliche for remote? Among people who think a lot about West African tourism, Dogon Country is a popular wishlist destination, at least, but it's pretty far off any path that even reasonably approaches a beaten look. That's one of the reasons why I'd love to visit. This place could get ruined quickly by serious tourism. I'd say the only destination in Mali that could plausibly be DotM would be Bamako, as that is a big, bustling city. If you look through our previous OtBPs you'll see plenty that are much better known and far more visited, like Mesa Verde, Panmunjeom, Denali, or, hell, even Dalian. There's always room for debate at the margins, but I'm a little surprised that this one is drawing any. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:13, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
 * I think that there is also a secondary issue in that people aren't too keen to support it if the article isn't near Star quality, which, unless someone steps up to bat, it will probably stay. By the way, is there a tag to put on an article that's up for DotM or OtbP?  Might get more people to work on it if there's the chance it could be featured.  Otherwise, it seems like the same 10 or so people working on most of the articles.  --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 22:09, 06 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, star quality is definitely not needed, especially for a OtBP. It just needs to be squarely at guide status, and that's a little shaky at present. Shouldn't be too hard to fix, especially as there are a bunch of people interested in it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:13, 6 April 2010 (EDT)


 * You would really place Bamako above Dogon Country? I see your point that it's not exactly the type of place you can hop on a bus and go in 10 minutes, but I think it's fame extends far beyond Mali's borders. As you said, those who know West Africa know Dogon Country (and often want to go there), and I'd still venture to say those who know Africa as a whole know Dogon Country/Bandiagara. Hamamatsu isn't even that popular among those interested in Japan, and I doubt most people interested in the broader East Asia have heard of it. Medellin doesn't bring anything to my mind, and neither does Bergen (I don't think the nation itself is known for much more than fjords outside of Europe) yet somehow a destination that is actually known is being questioned simply because it's African? I don't see why we have such loose rules on what can be DotM in Europe/Japan, yet we take such a hard-line approach with Africa. Africa isn't Europe, and it shouldn't have to be. It's major attractions may not be engulfed by cities, but since when was that a requirement for DotM? I was/am surprised that there is opposition to this as DotM; It seemed like a clear-cut example of an African DotM to me. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:37, 6 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Absolutely, this isn't just about fame (and I don't really think Dogon Country is so famous—I'd wager that if you asked every last English speaker, <1% would know what it was, and I'm absolutely including your average world traveler). The paths leading to Dogon are not beaten—it's a tiny place quite purposefully in the middle of nowhere in a country with very few tourists. I know there's a bit of sensitivity to the fact that African destinations are more likely to be listed as OtBPs than destinations in other continents, but a) I don't see how that can apply for this one, when it is similar to our Mesa Verde OtBP (a popular American cliffside village), and b) Africa simply is a less-visited continent. (And to me, this is a plus.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:56, 6 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Should this be slushed? More content is needed, but nothing has been added for over a month. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:05, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Space
Why not, after all? A valid guide-level article, and absolutely not only for April 1. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:58, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Before proceeding with support/opposition, this was nominated in 2007 and received the critique that many of the listed opperators do not actually allow civilians to go to space . If this remains true, then perhaps it is still not ready for nomination. Does anyone know? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:13, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Irrelevant -- "Any destination, region, itinerary or event that passes the "What is an article?" test is eligible for DotM/OtBP." Of course, if there are inaccuracies re: operators, they should be fixed.


 * My personal opinion, though, is that we should hold off on Space until Virgin Galactic starts flying in a year or two and the destination becomes slightly more approachable. $100k ain't cheap, but it's not utterly within the realm of fantasy in the way that a $20m trip is... (WT-en) Jpatokal 19:11, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Judging from your response, I'd say that discussion is just as relevant now as it was then. You are concerned that we are featuring a destination that people can't realistically visit, which is basically what is expressed in the discussion, and your own response could be refuted with the information you've cited. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:29, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Not exactly. Jani was just saying that there is a better time to feature this article: when Virgin Galactic "launches." It's best to feature articles when there is buzz about them, when they are in the news. &rarr; more hits for our site. We have already featured destinations not everyone can get to, like Wake Island (which was a great feature, IMO).  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:00, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Strongly oppose. Perhaps the 2.5 hour trip will become as "cheap" as US$ 100,000 (currently reckoned to be more like US$ 200,000 I think), all of which goes on burning more fuel than a decent sized town manages in a day. I cannot think of a more self-indulgent, destructive and pointless travel idea; nobody should be recommending this.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:28, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Although I can't disagree with any of your points, we can't bar features for moral reasons, and that would be a slippery slope. Places like Amsterdam, Bangkok, or Las Vegas could easily be described as "self-indulgent, destructive" destinations. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:36, 28 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Oppose until Virgin actually starts to fly most public available offers are either limited to abundance of money or scientific staff. French Novespace is one of the few who regularly does it for official space agencies and invited guest. Let's wait a couple of years. (WT-en) jan 04:15, 28 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Just a reminder, neither disdain for a destination/topic nor scheduling matters are grounds for an actual oppose vote per the guidelines. I'm all for slushing this, though, and bringing it back during a more opportune news cycle, per Jani's suggestion.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:05, 29 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Of course it doesn't count, but the opinion remains :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:28, 29 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support I do think that when the timing is years off, there are grounds for not supporting a nomination (having nominations that we can't actually feature cluttering up the page only give a false sense of options to feature). Beyond that, though, I think some of the links to Earth sites really need to be improved. I mean, this is pretty much an OtBP that we would feature just because it's "interesting" and "cool" rather than a realistic destination. Also, I think more could be said about preparations, what you can/will see and do, etc. This was written by people who have never actually been to space, is it not? Sections are rather sparse, and I think there is expertise needed to make this a real guide and possible feature that we just don't have. I would honestly only call this a "usable" guide. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Support It's a good article. Why not? --81.193.160.225 17:09, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Baku
A good guide article. --81.193.160.225 15:44, 6 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Not quite. The buy section is very weak, and both the bars and restaurants really need descriptions, but the most important omission is information about the Old City! That should be a good, long section of "See," as it is the city's main attraction, and simply because there is so much to be said! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:01, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

World Heritage Tour in Nara
A good article, although it only has one image.--2.80.122.145 15:03, 15 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support As I metnioned on the Talk Page, I don't believe the Asuka-Yoshino-Ominesan part is feasible in a day. Nara city was also featured as recently as this January, so this would seem like a double-feature. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:31, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Quebec City
Great article. --2.80.122.145 15:08, 15 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support It's a rather weak guide article. Most listings are just one-liners and a website. Like many of the recent nominations, this article would be well on its way to being a real candidate by properly formatting it and filling in the missing information. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:54, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Istanbul
Great city. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured yet. --2.80.122.145 14:55, 16 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Actually in surprisingly good shape, with all districts at usable and a rather good lead article, but there are still enough empty sections here and there, that I'd mostly prefer it be used for backup. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:20, 16 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Comment. I'd prefer it to be featured after going through a collaboration of the month, it needs a little bit of cleaning. – (WT-en) Vidimian 17:45, 16 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Not Yet The main criticisms are addressed in the CotM nomination, along with the need for more even coverage across all districts, as Sertmann mentioned. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:01, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

Bangkok
A nice article. --81.193.162.197 11:57, 8 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Strong support . Largely due to Globe-trotter's enormous recent work on these articles, Bangkok has become one of our best huge city guides. Great feature. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:02, 8 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support This article was already featured in January 2005, and our guidelines state, "The nominated article must not have been featured previously." (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:37, 8 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Bangkok is ineligible for the reason ChubbyWimbus describes, although perhaps the strongest district article could be featured instead? At a glance, I'd say that's Rattanakosin, but Thonburi is also good. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:15, 8 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Indeed. It seems a shame to disqualify it, since the article bears little resemblance to the short page featured five years ago.


 * The Rattanakosin article is excellent, but I have mixed feelings about featuring a district of a city that has already been featured, unless it has a character sufficiently distinct from what people think of when they think of the city—I think it would work best to choose an "OtBP district" with a good dose of individual character. Previously suggested Chicago/Bronzeville as well as Copenhagen/Christiania would be good examples of what I mean. For Bangkok, I would say this would be Yaowarat and Pahurat, which is ready save the eat and drink sections. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:01, 9 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Too bad it cannot be qualified anymore, as the Bangkok article has improved considerably. Now might not be the best time to feature it though (although it is in the news a lot). If we're looking for a neighborhood that is considerably different or off-the-beaten-path I'd say Yaowarat and Thonburi could qualify. But I'd need some time to improve them even more. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:22, 17 May 2010 (EDT)


 * It definitely is a shame. That's the problem with featuring articles prematurely, which is why I won't support Kiev right now. Eventually we will have to re-feature articles, but there is still so much of the world that has not been featured, I can't see that happening anytime soon. To keep this page organized, should we slush Bangkok and then nominate the chosen district whenever it is deemed ready? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 12:41, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

Kunming
A good article on one of China's nicer cities, a provincial capital with some historical importance.

I live in China; to me this seems a major destination, DotM candidate. I wonder, though, if others might think it is more an "Off the beaten path" candidate. Among WT itineraries, Kunming is the jumping off point for Yunnan tourist trail (definitely well beaten), one end point for Overland Kunming to Hong Kong, and on some of the routes in Overland to Tibet and Long March.


 * Almost Support. The Do section is empty and the Eat section needs to be cleaned up, with some restaurants and preferably food pictures added, but other than that it's looking pretty good.  I'd pop for DotM, it's a fairly major destination. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)


 * Not Yet It's a great destination, and is definitely more of a DotM, but I don't think it's ready yet. I think the "Understand" section could be more clear. Some of the entries/sections are not properly formatted. The organization of the "See" section would also be better if it were organized according to locale rather than arbitrary things like "Buildings" and "museums". The two temples could be presented better, also. Pictures are needed, as JPatokal pointed out. The "Do" section definitely needs content. No featured destination should have empty sections. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:59, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Can an itinerary be DotM? Yunnan tourist trail covers four towns, three at guide & one a good outline, and two trekking areas, one guide & one stub. Could the whole thing be DotM? (WT-en) Pashley 21:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, the Dalton Highway was an OtBP, but...I believe it's the article which must have DotM-worthy content, and Yunnan tourist trail certainly does not contain DotM-worthy content. (WT-en) AHeneen 00:21, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Christchurch
Another find outside our core areas, this time found among our most edited destinations. We might have the (usual) issues with formatting again, but the content definitively seems up to standards. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 08:21, 14 October 2009 (EDT)


 * Almost support. I like the article and the city, and I'm not a stickler for formatting, but there are a handful of junk listings that would need to be cleaned out, and I'd like to see a bit more organization within the headings to emphasize highlights &mdash; as it is, they're all just long lists of listings. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:00, 15 October 2009 (EDT)


 * Support. Great destination (when it is not foggy and raining... errr.... ). The article looks a wee bit untidy at first glance but nothing that a quick spring clean would not put right. And it needs a climate section as the weather is an extremely important factor down there. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)


 * Soft support The sleep section is weak with non standard listings (budget/mid-range/splurge), the article does not have a map and some minor formatting issues that can be handled until the article goes online. (WT-en) jan 09:13, 16 October 2009 (EDT) Withdrawn support no improvement and does not match our criteria. Shall it end in the slush pile ? (WT-en) jan 05:33, 1 February 2010 (EST)
 * With only eight listings, the budget/mid-range/splurge headers are not needed. =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:41, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
 * The drink and sleep section are not up to our standards and we don't have a map for the city. I think the article is a bit weak for DotM if not someone rather soon starts to improve the article. Maybe we take the article out of the schedule until someone starts to work on the open issues. (WT-en) jan 11:58, 25 November 2009 (EST)


 * Needs work With only 8 listings, the Sleep section is woefully inadequate for a city the size of Christchurch. One sleep listing is probably better in a separate Lincoln article rather than Christchurch, while the other 7 are a rather incomplete selection of mostly downtown accommodation. There are many (hundreds, perhaps even a thousand) more places to sleep in Christchurch than those listed, both in the city and the suburbs. Enought to justify budget/mid-range/splurge headings with 10 or more places listed in each. Many of the other listings lack addresses or other contact details. Also, there is no mention of Canterbury University or other places of learning. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:49, 19 October 2009 (EDT)


 * Should this be slushpiled? I am not sure of the criteria for that.....--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:34, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Durham (England)
A pretty popular destination, and a good article --81.193.160.225 17:06, 5 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support The "See" section needs to be written with the proper format. Currently, it is not much more than a redirect to other websites. Other sections (such as "Eat") are also suffering from lack of information and formatting. If you're up to the task of improving it, have a look at the Project:Manual of style to see exactly how listings should look. You may also want to have a look at the Previous Destinations of the month for examples of articles that have been featured.(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:29, 5 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support. A badly formatted article which is very incomplete and does no justice to a really interesting city.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:50, 7 May 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support. For the reasons given above, and also becasue it's so close to Newcastle-upon-Tyne which looks like it will be featured shortly. Hopefully this nomination will spur a few people to work on it though. It's a great destination so if we can get the guide up to scratch perhaps it could feature in a year or two. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:05, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

Barcelona
A huge touristic destination, and a very complete article as well. --85.243.150.10 14:19, 27 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support The lack of consensus on how to districtify this article is a problem. Also, it has been nominated as a Collaboration of the Month . These concerns need to be addressed before Barcelona can be considered.(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:05, 29 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Don't Support I absolutely love Barcelona as it is my second (and soon to be first) home but the fact of the matter is that this article is a mess. I have no idea how it got so out of control as it should have just been divided down by municipal districts, but as it sits now, it isn't presenting its information in a meaningful way to be useful for travelers. (WT-en) Primecoordinator 12:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC+3)

Lisbon
Although it was refused some time ago it is more complete now, and it's a very popular tourist destination. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 188.81.106.36 (talk • contribs)


 * Not Yet Although I have never been to Lisbon, I have a sneaky suspicion that there is more to see and do in the city than what is listed. Also, the "See" section lacks organization. Districts make better subsections than the arbitrary headings like "Architecture". The transportation information does not really belong in the "See" section. It seems better suited for "Get around". (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:30, 28 October 2009 (EDT)


 * Oppose Lisbon is a fantastic city, and this guide still really doesn't do it any justice. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 02:52, 30 October 2009 (EDT)


 * More criticism wanted. While I completely agree that Lison is 'not there yet', I would welcome more criticism on what is missing and what should be improved. It could help me (and hopefully someone else) in improving the article. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:39, 14 December 2009 (EST)


 * Comments. Some suggestions to improve the article:
 * Understand section is thin. Certainly needs a history sub-section and generally to tell us much more about the city.
 * Do section is tiny - there must be more - theatres, cinemas, sport?
 * Drink only has 3 listings.
 * Get out is full of red links. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 19:55, 14 December 2009 (EST)


 * Should this slushpiled? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:35, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Kawasaki
I've been involved with Wikivoyage - mostly on Japan related articles - for a few years now. Can't believe it's been this long, and yet here I am making my first plunge into a suggestion for DOTM/OTBP. I would like to suggest for OTBP, IF we can expanding the article more or get help doing so, the city of Kawasaki. Overlooked between Kanto's two major cities, Tokyo and Yokohama, it has a charm all its own as well as a few interesting attractions... Kawasaki Daishi being the prime one. It would be a perfect fit for April, since the city's main matsuri occurs at the beginning of the month at Hachimangu. (WT-en) JRHorse 20:52, 19 December 2009 (EST)


 * Support, and agree that it's OTBP -- pretty much off the radar even for Japanese tourists. April is perfect, as it's Iron Penis Festival time as well! (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)


 * I can see a good burb text, but a 1,3 mio population and not a single bar? and one single restaurant? I think most of locals head of Yokahama and Tokyo, but still, at least a drink listing should be added before a feature. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 08:55, 10 January 2010 (EST)
 * Added a Drink listing today, HUB Kawasaki. (WT-en) JRHorse 00:24, 15 January 2010 (EST)


 * This is now lined up for April, but I agree that a few more Eat and Drink listings wouldn't hurt, and the article is still tagged only as "usable". (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:20, 23 February 2010 (EST)


 * Somebody needs to do quite a lot of work on this article before it is featured I believe. It is not even an especially strong usable guide. The See and Get in sections are good but the rest surely lacking?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:46, 16 March 2010 (EDT)


 * Well, it now has two more things to "Do" in it at least, in the unlikely event it be reconsidered for 2011 Kawasaki Penis Season (Wikivoyage really almost needs a page on penis/boob shrines and festivals across Japan given there are so many). Wish I wrote down a link for that bus tour though, was all over the news last year.(WT-en) Snave 04:10, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Anyone interested in improving this nomination or should it be slushed? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:14, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

Arusha
Another nice little article courtesy of a relatively (WT-en) new user, which would be our second ever featured article from Sub-Saharan Africa. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:57, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
 *  Support and since this more or less smack under the equator, it's good to feature in winter, where we are usually short on good guides to display. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 08:50, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Are there really only 3 things to "See and Do"? (there are four bullets, but the second thing listed to "Do" is leave, which makes it even more noticeable that there's nothing to do/see...) It would be great to feature this (and I like the market photo), but it just seems rather bare. Does it really offer so little? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 08:48, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Don't Support —While interesting and helpful to a visitor, I think the "usable" status is very appropriate. There is very little under see & Do (which shouldn't be combined), could possibly use a few more "eat" listings, & the opening of the "sleep" section should be rewritten & include addresses. I agree w/ChubbyWimbus that it is quite "bare". I don't know about attractions there, but it's in the Serengeti and very close to several safari hotspots (Ngorongoro Crater, Lake Manyara, & Tarangire National Park). It's also the largest city near Mount Kilimanjaro (Moshi is much smaller). My guess is that it's more of a base for exploring nearby areas than a tourist destination in-and-of-itself. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:59, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Support, looks well written overall. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 22:05, 15 May 2009 (EDT).


 * Don't support. It's only at usable status, and I agree with AHeneen, not up to guide quality yet. Arusha is primarily a base for surrounding excursions into parks and up mountains, and an overland stop between Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, so should discuss further and point to those options.... eat/drink/sleep all need beefing up and more info, at the moment you wouldn't know that it's probably the most visited place in Tanzania – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:02, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Combine Arusha and Moshi as one OTBPArusha has Mt. Meru, Moshi has Kilimanjaro and they both have safaris. If anything, the Moshi article is more informative. If you go to Arusha you will almost certainly go to Moshi, and vice versa (I did!). So why not feature them both?(WT-en) Shep 14:43, 28 August 2009 (EDT)


 * If Arusha and Moshi were both up to standard, then I think they would probably each be able to stand on their own as featured destinations. Currently, the Moshi article is not up to status. If you would like to work on it, some of the issues I notice are
 * It needs pictures
 * change first person to third person in some sentences
 * The "See" and "Other Activities" (in "Do" section) are not formatted properly. The "Add listing" feature will help to fill in the necessary information. Each temple and mosque should be written with their respective names and info
 * This goes along with properly formatting, but specific information is needed. Things like, "Tours can be arranged through several companies, and it is advisable to use common sense when finding a company. Your best bet is to ask other tourists who they used" are not very helpful. Wikivoyage is supposed to be the guide, so advising people to "ask other tourists" is not the type of suggestion we want to give. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:02, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

Olomouc
The article is already in the guide status but I think there are still things to be improved (I am working on that - comments are welcome). It is probably the most beautiful city in the Czech Republic but unknown to most travelers, so I think it is an excellent destination for the "off the beaten track" category. Probably the best time to visit the city is spring (it is the city of flowers after all) but it needs some work and the queue is full anyway, so I would like to schedule it for spring 2010 - probably April, as it is the time of the traditional flower exhibition. (WT-en) Kyknos 17:33, 20 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Close, but not there yet. Needs more Sleep listings, and almost all listings are lacking proper addresses, contact information, websites, and MoS formatting.  In particular, it should never be "X is foo", but "X, address, tel, website. This is..." (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Support with the same reservations as mentioned above by (WT-en) Jpatokal. Olomouc is a very nice city. It is a bit different from the most visited, western part of Czech republic and should certainly by highlighted. I believe that there is still a lot of time to do the necessary improvements. (WT-en) Atsirlin 03:57, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Not yet. This would be a great destination to feature, but I think the critical deficiencies are the missing addresses throughout the article (shouldn't be too hard to track down for a motivated contributor, I think), and the near empty sleep section. So track down the addresses (at least, although other contact info is obviously desirable), and add at least 3 more hotels, and I think we have an OtBP. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:19, 17 July 2009 (EDT)


 * Don't Support To add to what Peter says, the listings are not properly formatted (which I think is likely the reason content is missing from the listings). Also, the "Get out" section is not organized properly. It should focus on directing people to nearby cities, not random attractions. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:16, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Las Vegas
Another one I found while browsing (coincidentally, from the Death Valley article). Although I despise gambling, I think that this article is very good and definitely-DOTM worthy, and unlike Death Valley, this one's already at Guide status. The Restaurants, Bars, and Hotels aren't organized by price like they usually are, but that can be fixed or left alone depending on preference (they are currently organized as to whether or not they are on the Strip). Also, it's nice to see that the article shows some non-gambling things to do there. Like Death Valley, I know little about the time, but I think it's fair to say that this shouldn't be featured in Summer. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 07:34, 19 November 2009 (EST)


 * Support, obviously. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 07:36, 19 November 2009 (EST)


 * Not quite. At first look this does not seem the most user-friendly article I have seen. It is certainly packed with information (you might argue that there is too much) but the organisation and formatting leaves a bit to be desired. The see and do sections are full of lots of bulleted text which could be better presented as prose IMHO.  The sleep sections need either culling (probably) or sorting into price brackets or probably both. Too many get out options. Overall, an information-packed article but needs some organisational work and is too long I would say. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:29, 19 November 2009 (EST)


 * Well, the good news is that there is time to fix all these things up. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 10:26, 19 November 2009 (EST)


 * Not Yet As stated above, the "See" section is lacking a lot of information. Also, I think many of the listings under "See" are actually "Do" (shows, casinoes). Do the strip clubs belong under "Drink" like dance clubs? The organization is just not very good in this article. The "Do" section seems to have an awful lot of text, too.


 * I don't know Las Vegas well, but are all of those shows permanent shows? One listing has an end date. If there are non-permanent shows there, they should probably not be listed. This article looks like a better candidate for Collaboration of the month. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:21, 19 November 2009 (EST)


 * I don't know much about Las Vegas either, but I know it is famous for both its casinos and shows...so yes, I don't doubt that all of those are permanent. The listing with an end date, are you referring to "Mama Mia!"? I think that was probably a permanent show but slated to close when the edit was made. (WT-en) AHeneen 20:07, 20 November 2009 (EST)


 * Not quite I'm with Burmeseday...there's lots of information, but it needs to be better formatted. And while I realize that we're supposed to only list attractions once, the city is famous for its casinos...why isn't there a list of casinos? (WT-en) AHeneen 20:07, 20 November 2009 (EST)


 * Isn't it better to districtify this city? It's huge and now there's a big clutter of information on the main page. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:57, 20 December 2009 (EST)
 * Time to slush this?(WT-en) AHeneen 22:16, 21 December 2009 (EST)

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


 * Don't support. It is indeed a very nice guide, but it's not yet at guide status. For guide status, all district articles would need to be at least usable. It also looks like the districts might need to be reorganized a bit to cut down on the large number of them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:35, 4 December 2009 (EST)


 * Don't support, but I would love to see it get up there, always wanted to go. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:50, 4 December 2009 (EST)


 * Don't Support There is a lot of work to be done before this article can be featured. Even the name of the article is wrong according to both the Wikivoyage Consensus and naming conventions. It should be just Sao Paulo, which was discussed and agreed upon until some user moved everything to this name. That's not to mention all of the issues with the districts...(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:53, 10 December 2009 (EST)

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


 * Not yet I'd love to see another featured destination from India, and there is time to get this up to standard. You mentioned formatting, and that definitely needs to be addressed in some of the sections. The "Buy", "Do", and "Learn" need more descriptions. If "Work" is to be a part of the city's article, then it definitely needs content. I also think the "See" section would look better if it were organized according to location, rather than attraction type. Right now, I have no idea where any of the attractions are in relation to one another. In the "orientation" section, it seems to state that the city is spread out, which makes it important to know what sites are located near one another and what sites are located in other areas. If it were organized by district, I think that would make it a more useful guide. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:42, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks. I will work on these. &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:13, 14 September 2009 (EDT)


 * Support. Great article, lots of detail. The 'Buy' section needs to be tidied, and 'Work' is empty; I'd suggest handling 'Learn' as paragraph rather than a list, and perhaps being more selective, identifying highlights and specialties. Under 'Cope', the bookstores should be in 'Buy', and the list of grocery stores could be collapsed to a couple of sentences identifying the major chains to look for. None of the serviced apartment listings match Project:Accommodation listings, although DotM candidates needn't be formatted to a tee. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:44, 14 September 2009 (EDT)


 * Not yet I tried cleaning this up a bit a while back, but I'm still not happy with it, a bit to chaotic for my taste, in the streets of Hyderabad I'm sure visitors don't need Wikivoyage to add to the mayhem.  --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:50, 4 December 2009 (EST)

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


 * Support. This was actually slushed once way back, but the article has improved by leaps and bounds since then.  Definitely a late spring/summer destination though. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:10, 26 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I'd Support it for February 2009 or around there. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 00:02, 11 November 2008 (EST).
 * February is still deep winter in Germany at that time. Early fall is also an option though, mid-October was surprisingly pleasant... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:18, 11 November 2008 (EST)


 * Don't support. Overall a good article, but almost half of the Eat listings don't have descriptions, and almost none of the clubs or hotels have addresses. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:50, 8 December 2008 (EST)


 * Support It's a good article and it would be best in summer s loads of travellers arrive in September for trde fairs.(WT-en) jan 16:09, 24 January 2009 (EST)


 * Don't Support The "Museums" and "Other Museums" are redundant and shows poor organization. The "Skyline" is an odd sub-heading, as well. Not properly formatted. The page doesn't make a very enjoyable read/browse. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm with Chubby. It is basically a fine article, but not properly organised or formatted so it still needs work. Could it be a Project:Collaboration of the month? (WT-en) Pashley 00:45, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Yellowstone National Park
A UNESCO World Heratige site, the first national park in the world, and a very popular "nature" destination here in the US. It is best in the summer, which looks full right now, but wouldn't be terribly bad in the fall. (WT-en) AHeneen 00:47, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * The Tower Roosevelt section needs some information/description, along with the Natural Bridge, but the page looks good to me! There is always that looming issue of too many American destinations, but I have mixed feelings about that. Of course, ideally, the featured destinations would be highly diverse, leaving no nation or area of the world out however, I also feel that if the Wikivoyage community chooses to make better pages for countries like the U.S., Japan, and strangely Cambodia has been featured a few times, there is not much that can be done (aside from those who want to see new places featured actually working to get them up to standards). I'd support Yellowstone. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 05:09, 3 March 2009 (EST)
 * Don't Support After looking this over again, I think there are way too many listings with either no descriptions or insufficient descriptions. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:41, 19 November 2009 (EST)


 * Support, with reservations. The article is quite good; I use it, despite being something of a "regular" at Yellowstone.  However, as with most US national parks, I'm not convinced that a Yellowstone article shows Wikivoyage to best advantage (or vice versa, which is maybe less important).  There are two problems.  First, there's a great deal of good stuff on line on Yellowstone already, much of it in more coherent form than is true for other DotMs.  Second, the "attractions" of the park are not well presented in the limited format that we've imposed on ourselves here.  Yes, the article "can" be used in DotM, in that it meets all of the requirements for a DotM article.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 3 March 2009 (EST)

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


 * Support. Not much wrong with it that I can see, although I trimmed some of the more obnoxious warning boxes. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)


 * Iffy. It is looking pretty good, but there is still a lot more to say.... more info on the treks down Bright Angel, for instance, I think are crucial to a good GC article – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:19, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
 * It seems that the issues Cacahuate brought up have not been addressed, so should this be slushed for now? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I say slush it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:24, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Worked a bit on MoS items and added a few pics. (WT-en) Zepppep 15:03, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Fraser's Hill
Low-key, semi-abandoned colonial hill resort featuring a very different side of Malaysia. Good any time of year, but probably best not listed until they finish fixing up the town square, sometime in "early 2009". (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)
 * Upon glance, looks pretty good, nice pictures, complete info, etc. Support.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 16:05, 19 December 2008 (EST).
 * I guess I can't say I don't support it on grounds of boringness, but I sort of feel like it's lacking something. Maybe an interesting picture of the birds, if it's so famous for them? It just seems REALLY dull. Hm.. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:11, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

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


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

Point Reyes National Seashore
I can't help but feel this National Park is a hidden gem overshadowed by parks like Yosemite, OTB this article is. There is a great picture, along with a park map. Great place & Great Article. -98.228.6.230 21:14, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Maybe I think the number of US DotM and OtBP destinations have been a little disproportionate. Don't take that as rude (I, myself, am an American), but that's the truth. If we do list another US destination, it should be something "off the beaten path", as in...away from big cities, in the middle of nowhere (somewhat), and someplace many have never heard of (this article meets that, but it is too close to San Francisco). Just my opinion, it's not as if I speak for everyone. (WT-en) AHeneen 19:48, 17 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Maybe. I'll second that maybe. It's interesting, and the article is pretty well done. Is there nowhere to eat there? Only the one place 45 min away at Drake's beach? We should at least put contact info for that place. I think we could use this if we need to fill a slot. But I wouldn't cry if we skipped it either. If it does get featured, I'll do a WT style map for it first – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:55, 25 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Support - overall it is pretty good just from a quick look. The only thing that the Buy and Get out areas need more loving and caring!  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 13:05, 14 December 2008 (EST).


 * Having recently been here, I'm leaning towards not supporting.... this is a destination that relies heavily on nearby areas for lodging and food, and Point Reyes Station and Tomales are in need of TLC. Once it has proper support though from its neighbors, I think this is potentially a fantastic OTBP – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:57, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Edmonton
I was told that the summer months fill up fast, so I want to propose this now, I suppose! Edmonton is a very touristy city (though you wouldn't think it upon glance): it's got North America's largest mall, vibrant theatre scene, growing retail market outside that mall (a lot already established), Canada's Festival City, Alberta's Captial, Canadas largest historic park, the biggest parkland system in North America, a growing population, and an out of this world job market. The best time would be between May and August. I would support it for June or July. What do you think? I have worked lots on the article and it has gotten praise by many people as being very good. So, from my mind, it's a touristy area (not the likes of Toronto or Tokyo, but holds it's own for it's size) and is a good article. Also, the new Art Gallery of Alberta will be open in March and will be a very amazing gallery that is going to be another major attraction-as opposed to previous when it was meh. Would you support it, gimme your thoughts! If you think there are major areas that need improvement (in the main and distict articles)...point them out for me so I can fix 'em. I don't think theres anything major wrong with it. Your thoughts? Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">ee <font color="#8848d7">talk 17:44, 16 November 2008 (EST).
 * Support. Reads pretty well, has a few maps and photos and probably the most exhaustive coverage of Edmonton anywhere. A couple of the districts are weak in non-touristy areas and not all listings are complete, but I don't think that should hold it back. If we go ahead with it, I'd recommend August -- still summer but a couple months space from DW and SF. (WT-en) Shaund 00:52, 20 November 2008 (EST)


 * Thanks Shaund. You are right, it is very comprehensive compared to other guides.  Why?  Because not everything is promoted well and you need to know exactly on the web where to find it or you won't find it.  I know all those, which makes a big bonus for Wikivoyage.   Yeah, there are some non touristy areas-they're kind of the struggle.  August would be fine, so long as it's one of the summer months-it'd be cool, Summer is the best time in the city.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 09:54, 20 November 2008 (EST).


 * Support Well it's the one thing EE is doing right at the moment, so i'll throw in my support. It's quite impressive coverage for a young city this size, a couple of maps, and most of the entries look good. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:38, 8 December 2008 (EST)


 * Not yet Two major problems: first, the status on the article is incorrect &mdash; Edmonton is at usable status, since at least two of its districts are outlines. Articles have to be guide or better to be featured as DotM. Second, there's a discussion going on right now (see Talk:Edmonton) about changing the district hierarchy or scrapping it altogether. Ergo, the article may wind up in a different form than it is now &mdash; perhaps better, who knows? &mdash; but it needs to be in that form before we can evaluate it here. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:44, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Um unnecessary. The article will improve for the better anyhow.  I've waited a long time for this to be DOTM for a specific time, and it's only fair that it follows through for obvious reasons.  Edmonton is also at guide status, so I don't get where you get that from.  Two districts are weak, yes, which is why I brought it up.  I will be soon merging some of the districts so that problem could be resolved today.  Technically Edmonton should be usable status, but just leave it be cause as you brought it up, I'll go and do a merger.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 17:53, 24 May 2009 (EDT).


 * Support contingent on districts being sorted out. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:31, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Sorry, have you looked at Edmonton? The districts aren't sorted out &mdash; the map disappeared, and there are two districts without descriptions called "North" and "South". South is an outline and does not follow the manual of style ("Luxury"), ergo Edmonton is 'usable' per Project:City_guide_status. The article as a whole is riddled with grammar mistakes, particularly the new History section (which features lively writing such as "In the 1990s, the city was stable economically, but nothing much new happened"). This article needs a lot of work before it's ready to be featured as one of the best of this site. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:43, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Excuse me, I've put a lot of work into those articles, and yes I've made some gramatical mistakes so what lots of articles have some grammatical mistakes. The map is gone, whupee, it's a great map, but it needs an update due to new districts, and am waiting for Cacahuate to help.  Not to mention many districted places don't have maps.  If I had the map up you'd complain its out of date.  Can not win with you.  The history section still needs some work, but not everything has to be pristine perfect as the Chicago articles, there are many articles in my opinion that have gone as DOTM.  The Edmonton article definitely pushes it's weight above many Wikivoyage articles.  The districts are sorted out, I just did that today, as I mentioned in the talk.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 00:43, 25 May 2009 (EDT).
 * Point taken, GJ... I've done a quick edit of the history - I just stuck to basic facts and tried to make it appear more travel guide-like and less like a history text book. It still needs works, but at least the grammar should be ok. Cheers. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:54, 25 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Gorilla is absolutely right on all accounts, but we do have a couple more months before this is was be featured, so let's see if it improves in the next month or so. It has come a long way, but it does still need a lot of work, and must be up to guide status (meaning every district should be at least at usable status, no outlines) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:23, 25 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Not Yet If I knew anything about Edmonton, I'd help out, but sadly I don't. However, if this is going to be featured, I think the Edmonton/West End page needs to be revamped. For me, the only thing I know to go to Edmonton for is the mall, and although I realize that is partly my own ignorance, I believe it is definitely the most well-known thing in the city. With that said, the West End page is disorganized and a bit confusing. For example, despite having the largest mall in the world, it states in the "Buy" section, "Most of the West Ends shopping is nothing interesting. Despite it not being a tourist attraction, it could be helpful to a traveller because some people like going to Walmart on vacation or want to know where to get batteries, etc. " This seems like an odd comment to make about the area that holds the largest mall in the world. Is it really only good for buying batteries? Also, I think the information about the mall is disorganized. I don't think it's a "See" thing. A mall is always a "Buy" thing, and this one also has many things to "Do". The sidebox could be trimmed down if the "Do" items inside were taken out and made into their own activity listings. I think that would also help to highlight how big and amazing the mall really is.

edmontonenthusiast: I guess you feel a bit blind-sided since much of these issues were not brought up until now, but try not to take the criticisms personally. You've done some amazing work with this city's page, so don't get discouraged. You are working on a large city, and it seems you are mostly working alone, so I can imagine this is quite tough, but if you reread the articles with the criticim in mind and think about how to better present your city, when it is finally featured, it will really shine, and you can be all the more proud of it! Definitely keep smiling! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:29, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks Cacahuate and CW. I think giving it another month or so would be fair, so yeah.  Yeah I guess you could say except for the Central and Old Strath-Uni (now South Central - name is more fitting for the area), and in some cases the North it is disorganised.  Maybe the reason my writting on West Ed is so terrible is because I really hate it.  And comments like yours only further that, you basically only know West Ed, but don't know about Whyte Ave, the festivals, the river valley, the art gallery(ies), the U of A(lberta), 124th street, The legislature, etc.  I guess I'm working on getting those things much more well known :).  Thanks to the both of ya!  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 16:34, 25 May 2009 (EDT).


 * Well, with the idea that the mall is the city's best known attraction (whether it deserves to be or not), perhaps it will be more bearable for you to make it look worthwhile by keeping in mind that if people are going to Edmonton and see that the mall descriptions are accessively negative or confusing they will be less likely to look at the other pages (which you hope they will look at) and more likely to refer to a more "fun" guide. One of the reasons I began working with the Okayama page was because I felt the guide was excessively negative, and it was obnoxious. Actually, it turned me off of the entire Wikivoyage site for a while, until I started contributing to the page myself. This is why I think it's beneficial to the entire Edmonton guide to make the mall look fun for travellers. Of course, if there are some particularly shoddy places or rip-off activities in the mall, I'm not saying you should lie about them, but from personal experience looking at a negative guide, I highly recommend only including negative remarks when you feel that a majority of travellers could feel disappointed or ripped-off by the activity/site. When it is a matter of personal travel preferences, I think it's best to give it nice presentation and let the traveller decide if it's worthwhile for them to visit. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:51, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
 * The mall is really against a lot of things I "believe in". I hate those suburban piece(s) of trash.   I understand what you're saying but if I was visiting Edmonton, WEM would be the last thing on my mind.  It's certainly not something I want  to promote, and I don't think we should go overboard on making something look so amazing that is so tacky and unoriginal.  Many people visit it and are dissapointed, just like they are with the MOA.  Megamalls suck.  But realistically, that's one of the few things that are "slightly" negative.  I still show it's "amazement", like over 800 shops, the amusement park, etc.  But thanks for the tip, I'll try to make it seem more uplifting, without it taking away and making it seem like it's the only thing to do.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 15:02, 26 May 2009 (EDT).
 * Come to think of it, I've been to the Mall of America, and I didn't really think it was anything special, but I think these mall attractions, particularly Edmonton's, are a sort of obligatory visit, just to say "I've been to the largest mall in the world!" (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:15, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
 * North America. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 19:37, 29 May 2009 (EDT).


 * Not yet, and I'm concerned about early claims of a consensus that I do not see. There are only two of the current five districts up to guide status at the moment, and there are a lot of writing issues left to work out - some of which will definitely require local knowledge (district descriptions on the main page, say... is "epitome of suburbia" supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?).  However, great strides have been made in listings content, so there's not as much original research to be done as there once was; perhaps it could benefit most from a revised plan for CotM first, allowing time for more section completion and an aggressive bout of copyediting, then DotM in the future?  It would take more time, but I would not want to rush an unpolished article through just to catch this year's warm months - as the header says, "timing can be worked out later".   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I've taken Edmonton off the DOTM schedule to make everyone (but me) happy. I'd rather not have to debate this, so why not scrap the whole idea of a DOTM?  What do you think?  Am I being irrational or not?  COTM?  I'd made a COTM for Edmonton months ago - NOTHING happened!  And I don't think many participate in CotM anyhow.  Yes sometimes I word things incorrectly, usually if I read over it I can pick out the mistakes, but sometimes I do not have the time or forget.  Really, if the DOTM doesn't happen as planned for months, in August, as it is the perfect time, I am not waiting until August 2010.  That's so dumb.  Hence the idea of me just scrapping the idea of Edmonton ever getting a DOTM.  Maybe I'm being over the top, I don't know.  The epitome of suburbia isn't a good thing, by the way.  Districts do not have to be up to guide status to be a DOTM, they have to be usable, and the main article has to be Guide.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 01:26, 23 June 2009 (EDT).


 * If your heart is set on making it to dotm by august, then simply get to work and satisfy the current objections.... you still have time. If that happens, then we can consider replacing Okayama then – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 05:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I could try. I've been busy lately, but I will have some free time now.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 19:17, 26 June 2009 (EDT).

Preah Vihear
Off the beaten path but certainly in the news; just named a UNESCO World Heritage site and Thailand and Cambodia are still squabbling over it. Now has a gorgeous new map from Wikimedia Commons. Good more or less any time of the year, perhaps best in the winter though. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Undecided. If "Thailand and Cambodia are still squabbling over it," is it really a good idea to recommend travel to it?  How serious is the "squabbling"?  Please advise. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Not particularly serious. Thailand occasionally closes off access for a day or two, but it's fully accessible from the Cambodian side (if rather harder to get to). (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:08, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
 * You're positive? This article kinda caught my attention... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Should we create an "adventurous dotm" section for the main page? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:36, 20 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I thought we called that "OtBP". (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
 * "Off," not "On," and "Beaten," not "Bombarded," "Besieged," "Battlefield..." -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:57, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * OK, if the squabbling has died down, I'll support, but let's keep an eye on it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:29, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * I've popped this off the list for time being, but mostly because Phnom Penh is about to be featured. Let's see again in late 2009. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)
 * Best to Wait right now. According to the BBC, Thai troops have just taken over the whole temple compound. Not sure if that will mean a skirmish, but that doesn't sound like it will make visiting a safe thing to do. (WT-en) AHeneen 07:10, 25 March 2009 (EDT)


 * If the decision is to wait until Preah Vihear is safe, should it be slushed for the time being? According to this website dedicated to the site, the issue was supposed to be brought up at the recent UNESCO meeting, but since it failed to make the agenda, they may have to wait until the next meeting to discuss the issue. It seems like this issue is going to take a long time to resolve. If a resolution is what we are waiting for, maybe it should be slushed for now. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:01, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Portland
This one looks like it has a lot of solid information. The only thing maybe is a map or two (I might be able to do it) and a few more images from my standpoint. Looks well written with lots of images. What do you think? If you think it needs improvement let me know where and I'll try and fix it when I can. the summer or fall months would be best, so maybe 2010? Or we bump October or November I suppose. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 20:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT).


 * User:(WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill nominated this one a while back, and the primary objection then was a lack of decent photos, something which I think still needs to be addressed. That Downtown Portland photo looks a little drab, and the pic of the MAX train looks more like an artistic photo than a traveler photo to me. Once that's done I think we could still do with at least 3-5 more photos on the page. Otherwise it seems like a pretty good guide - I'd tidy it up a little, add a few more phone numbers, but it's looking good. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:41, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'd been working lots on this one as the city interests me lots.  So I made two maps - I hope they are ok.  I was just picking out some good photos from the commons really, but I could find some more.  But I want to not upload too many as I'm going there this summer and I'd love to put some of my photos up.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 23:10, 4 June 2009 (EDT).


 * Don't Support I think the problems with this page go beyond simply needing pictures. The "See" section is not organized well at all. Most of it is a listing of neighborhoods that, as far as I could gather, have nothing to see. That's the majority of the listings. It reads like a districtification list rather than a travel page. Also, there is a "Districts" section that seems rather odd. If the page itself is not going to be split into districts, that little section doesn't seem useful. If this is to be featured, the "See" section really needs to be redone. Let people know what there is to see rather than listing neighborhoods. (It's also more helpful to separate listings according to location rather than categories like "museums", "art", etc.) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:55, 29 June 2009 (EDT)


 * Made several MoS edits and hope to see the article sparkling soon. (WT-en) Zepppep 16:00, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Stockholm
Good example of a guide for a large city we haven't distritified, and hence no poor quality outline districts. Good content, a few of the listings are missing phone numbers, and some others opening hours, but overall I still think it's pretty much up to standard --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:12, 19 January 2009 (EST)
 * Support A very good article in my opinion, but should it be districtified? (WT-en) AHeneen 19:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)


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

Reykjavík
Alright, so this time I have discovered an article which is at guide status. Hotels and most restaurants list addresses. The buy section is a bit slim and there is nothing in the work section (but does the work section really matter). Iceland has recently gone bankrupt and the people are clamoring for money that isn't worthless so it would be a destination where the dollar (or pound or euro or loonie) really goes far. Hot springs in an arctic land would make for an interesting late-winter or early spring article (Feb-Apr?), although the best time to visit would be in the summer. (WT-en) AHeneen 04:07, 25 November 2008 (EST)
 * Support- looks fine, but then again I am not very proffessional and it would be outweighed to Stefan or Peter. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 10:37, 25 November 2008 (EST).


 * Dubious it's not DOTM yet, but it could get there with a little work, as it is pretty close (might do some myself, maybe we should make it COTM!?) - as far is I'm concerned, there is only one good time to feature this, and that would be during the super cool Iceland Airwaves festival in October, as the town itself is rather dull, Iceland's impressive nature non withstanding. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
 * Sure dunt look boring to me. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 11:25, 2 December 2008 (EST).


 * Almost support. Generally good, but the 'Understand' section stinks, and there's almost no descriptive text in the 'Drink' listings. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Canberra
It looks quite solid and shows a lot of information that is useful. It's listings are complete and looks like a neat lil destination. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 14:11, 8 December 2008 (EST).

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

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

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


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

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


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

North_Pole
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this guide when I bumped into it, well written, has a map, it's not a remote tropical island (in fact it's not even land) but still indisputably off the beaten path --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's OK...but its shortness makes me think the article needs more information. Yes, there isn't a lot to be said of the N.Pole, but I really think a little more can be added to this article. (WT-en) AHeneen 03:02, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Don't Support It's interesting, but I agree with the above comment that the content is rather sparse. It's also not at the proper status to be nominated. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:05, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

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


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


 * Not even close. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:43, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Portugal
The article is very complete, and it's a famous turist destination.
 * It's only at Usable status, and some of the cities listed are broken links, and most of the other cities and region links don't contain much information. If a nation is to be featured, I think at least the major cities and regions should be at usable status. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:25, 10 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Indeed the large region that comes close at the moment is Northern Territory, but I'd like to see all destinations have guides before we feature that. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:56, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

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


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


 * Don't Support It's still a long way for the article.(WT-en) jan 16:02, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Galapagos
Popular place but still off beat. Took a look through it and information is valid and pretty good to use as a destination. Due to it's popularity, it only seems fitting for it to be a Of the beaten path, in my opinion. I really don't see anything wrong with it. I am sorry if this is a stupid nom, it just looked good. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 16:04, 19 December 2008 (EST).

Pyongyang
A destination that is truly off the beaten path, Pyongyang would make quite an interesting addition to the list. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 59.190.38.7 (talk • contribs)
 * If this does get featured, it should definitely be in April to coincide with the Arirang Festival, which is said to be an amazing spectacle. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus (talk • contribs)


 * Don't support - I agree it's an intriguing destination, but the content is not really up there to say the least - which I know is hard - but still --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:31, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * Don't support — I'll repeat Sertmann...it's certainly an interesting destination, but it needs a lot more content (guide status) before being featured. If it is, August would be better for the Mass Games. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:34, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * Don't support. Same observation as the last two, but if someone would make the effort to get the article up to Guide quality, I could be persuaded to change my mind. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:08, 24 February 2009 (EST)

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


 * Seriously? No offense, but how is this a GUIDE article?  It is so tiny and even if there isn't much to do I am sure you could have added a bit of OOPH to it.  Sorry for ranting, it just seems out of place.  I don't get it.  Personally I wouldn't nominate it yet, you just need to add some wording additionally to what you've got! NO FOR NOW.Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:51, 2 November 2008 (EST)


 * Objections for a place located in a restricted zone, and hence probably hard to get to, the get in section needs some work. Also I'd like some more information about why i should go through the trouble of going there (see/do) just some prose would be fine. Otherwise i find it very interesting (WT-en) Sertmann 11:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Inner Line Permits are a hassle, but they're a formality -- they're not going to reject you unless the village has just been taken over by al-Qaeda. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:46, 11 November 2008 (EST)


 * Undecided. I wrote most of the article, and yes EE, it's about as "guide" quality as this article will ever get! While I love love loved this village, it has very little infrastructure, and can't support a lot of attention. I'm not sure if we've touched on that subject at Wikivoyage before, but it's something LP is keenly aware of when choosing to feature destinations. As for the concerns with the article, the thing that would make it clearer is a map on the Kinnaur and Lahaul and Spiti pages, which would put things in perspective... There's only 1 road that loops through those two valleys, and if you take it all the way around from either direction you'll pass by Nako. The Nako article isn't really the place to describe that, the article assumes (rightly) that anyone reaching Nako will already have a very good sense of what they're doing. FYI, there's faaaar more info here than even LP devotes to it (or how to get to it). Lastly, I'd almost prefer to wait until Lahaul and Spiti or Kinnaur are up to speed, along with the major stops along the way, and feature them as little regions... that's the only way that anyone visits them anyhow, you don't go into this area to just see one specific place like Nako, you do the loop (or half of it, anyway) – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 20:33, 2 November 2008 (EST)


 * We've featured more "forbidding" (and "forbidden") places than this before, e.g. Panmunjeom, which also has durn little infrastructure for tourism. Part of the idea behind OtBP is identifying places that are really off the beaten path, not just to alert travelers to their existence but to make the point that Wikivoyage can treat such places better than written guides can, exactly as you point out.  I don't see the remoteness and restrictions of this place as a disqualifier. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:27, 2 November 2008 (EST)


 * Well, I've cleaned it up a little, and added more detail on getting in to the Lahaul and Spiti and Kinnaur articles. I also drew a map for Himachal Pradesh, so hopefully it's becoming a little more clear where the heck this is and how to get there. It is otbp for sure, and it is interesting, but I really feel like it should be the whole region that is featured as otbp when it's ready. I won't withhold support though, if we need to fill a slot. July thru September is probably the best time to feature – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:37, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * I agree with Cacahuate. The Kinnaur region would probably be a better candidate for showcasing than this village (which I believe I trekked to some years ago), but will go with majority ruling, and neither support nor object. `(WT-en) WindHorse 11:08, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * Actually, Panmunjeom is visited by tour buses daily, so while it's unusual, it's not that off the beaten path... but I agree that featuring a slightly larger region would be good. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:46, 11 November 2008 (EST)
 * Should there be a "stay safe" section????? Anyways, I agree that a slightly larger region should be featured. This town is very small and the description is quite short...it just doesn't make me want to get up and start planning my trip there. The article may be as good as it possibly can be, but there just needs to be more substance for a featured OtBP article. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:36, 3 December 2008 (EST)


 * No need for stay safe section, very quiet and stable area. At the moment this is near perfect for what I think it should be, but I also have concerns about trying too hard to sell tiny destination with no infrastructure... and also, half of what's special about this place is its remoteness and the fact that it's a bit off the trail for most people, even among those that come to this region. So writing a fabulous salesman intro that makes you want to go there, to me anyway, is not at all what the article needs, and would then probably let down the tourist who decided to make the journey based on that sell. If that makes sense – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:38, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Walt Disney World Resort
This article is chock-full of detail and has a Guide status. It deserves to be Star, especially by this coming January, which is when "The American Idol Experience" will open.
 * Discuss -- carefully. The article is terrific, no doubt about that, and it stands on its own merits.  However, it is a radical departure from our usual DotM practice to feature a privately-owned resort with a single, commercial operator.  I'm not sure that disqualifies Disney World -- it certainly does meet the criteria for "destination" -- but let's not rush into this one without thinking through the issues. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Support. The article is excellent, and I don't see a problem with featuring it &mdash; it's clearly a valid article, and so it's OK for DOTM in my book. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:10, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Support. It's a great article, and I'm sure it'll be Star by the time it's featured as DotM.  Walt Disney World is well-known enough, and the article is well-written enough, that I feel comfortable going against precedent. --(WT-en) Tally talk 23:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Support. Great article. I'll agree with Jani&mdash;as long as it meets our article criteria, it should be allowable as a DotM/OtBP, regardless of the inherent weirdness of having a resort as our featured article. I'd give scheduling priority to more traditional DotM nominations, but I suppose this could be scheduled any time of the year (probably any time other than crowded summer would be best). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:20, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Er, let me append that by saying that huge airports, despite meeting our article criteria, should definitely not every be featured. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:27, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't got that far -- I'd be happy to feature one if the article ever becomes star/guideworthy. I just don't see that happening though, because few Wikivoyagers are willing to put in the elbow grease for (say) documenting every restaurant in Heathrow... (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:42, 3 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Don't Support for all the reasons listed by Bill-on-the-Hill (first comment). Personally having been there several times, and living 50mi(80km) from it, I can say this: it is expensive, very commercial, and lacking in any form of "culture". While it is indeed a great place to visit, it can be plagued by long lines on weekends, around Christmas/New Year, and all summer (April-September). My biggest concern is that there really isn't much culture involved except for Epcot and it's lake surrounded by representations of several nations (they also hire lots of diverse persons). The cost of such a trip should be considered too...the admission is high, food prices and snacks are expensive, shopping/stores on the premises are expensive, and anyone planning to stay at the resort should be prepared to pay a lot for a room. Also, if one considers the vicinity, Orlando and Kissimmee are somewhat lacking in culture (save a couple of VERY small enclaves of Indians and Vietnamese). While it is a great article and a great place to visit with children, I do not believe it is worthy of being a DotM for the preceding reasons. (WT-en) AHeneen 19:41, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure that anything you mentioned should disqualify it. It's a destination, one of the most popular travel destinations in the world, and it's one of the better articles we have on the wiki.  Culture value doesn't disqualify an article from DotM status, and even if it did, there's a strong argument to be made that Disney World and its commercialism is a good representation of American culture, in all its excess.  As for expense, that's not relevant; a lot of our featured destinations are rather expensive to visit. --(WT-en) Tally talk 14:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Let me be clear that I was not "voting against" the article; I was simply saying that the issues need to be discussed, as is occurring. I still haven't decided whether I support this as a DotM or not, but the things I raised were intended as points to ponder rather than as show-stoppers. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:50, 25 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Support Although i would not set my own feet there in a million years - it's a very nice article, and one of the worlds biggest tourist draws. (WT-en) Sertmann 08:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * Don't Support. If we're going to expand this article with districts and whatnot -- which is something I'd like to get started on over the next few months -- I strongly suggest we wait before showcasing it as DotM.  (WT-en) LtPowers 18:51, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Balatonfüred
This article is full of beautiful pictures and excellent detail of one of Europe's most unheard of tourist resorts, for the Westerners at least. Balatonfüred, Lake Balaton, has a beautiful charm and is one of Hungary's oldest Spa Towns. Surrounded by stunning countryside and mountains, yet still posessing a waterpark and an amazing town bustling with life, this surely is the destination of alifetime.

The Article has Guide Status and contains maps and indeed travel information.


 * Both maps in this article have been recommended for deletion on shared. Please address this issue there. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:00, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Both Maps have now been deleted, with a new legal one put in place.

Jakarta
Developing as one of major cities in Asia, Jakarta is one great destination. It has the best shopping destination as a lot of shopping centers were built in this city. Let's not forget about Ancol Dream Park, which consists of Dunia Fantasi (Fantasy world), Sea World, Ocean Park, beach, resort, hotel, and great restaurant. Personally, it's even better than Hong Kong Disneyland. Perfect weather comes in May through August.


 * Don't support, yet. While I do readily agree that Jakarta the city is better than Hong Kong Disneyland &mdash; for example, Jakarta has far better street food, shopping malls and strippers &mdash; Jakarta the article is in pretty poor shape.  There's actually a lot of content in there, but the districting is really half-assed and much of it has been mangled by non-native speakers. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Not yet. While I wouldn't say it's half-assed, I mean, thats a little harsh in my books.  It's hard work districting.  Though, it needs more work and maybe just give it anotehr month and work on it;)!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:38, 3 November 2008 (EST).

Osaka
Looks like a solid article. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 21:03, 27 November 2008 (EST).


 * Needs work. The sleep section for starters, anything that employs the template probably isn't quite there yet – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 02:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)


 * Needs work. What (WT-en) cacahuate said. Plus the Drink section is pretty inadequate. More than half of the section is things I put in there without even knowing the city all that well. There are tons and tons of bars and clubs there. Surely there are places worthy of recommendation other than the handful i happen to know. (WT-en) Texugo 02:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)


 * Needs work. That Sleep section, in particular, is a total mess. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:35, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Buffalo National River
A forever pristine environment, located well out of sight from Little Rock, Arkansas or Springfield, Missouri.
 * Not yet. The seeds of a very good OtBP are there, but it's awfully wordy, has barely sufficient Eat/Drink information, and needs some MoS work.  (However, I wouldn't bother replacing the maps, even though they're out of compliance with our standards; they "work" because of the unusual nature of this destination.)  A campaign to get the article cleaned up in time for spring 2009 would be well received. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ohrid
Great article, well balanced and especially July is the best time to visit since they have the Ohrid Summer Festival. (One of the best music events held under open skies in The Antique Theater overlooking the lake, is Aug 2nd).

" Archaeological finds indicate that Ohrid is one of the oldest human settlements in all of Europe. The lake itself is over three million years old. Ohrid town is first mentioned in Greek documents from 353 B.C.E., when it was known as Lychnidos - or, “the city of light.” ". Read it and experience it...


 * Support. I was there last year and this destination is "must-feel" in a life time, and the article is true to it.(WT-en) Hoh 18:18, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Support. Yes looks like a good article and the place seems unique and interesting, why not.
 * I Support it. Very interesting and objectively written article. Definitely support, go with it. But I noticed there are few good pictures in the article, do you think this is the best one to have on the main page? I am not sure, I could not put my finger on the best one.(WT-en) Celia 21:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Oppose. Looks like a lovely destination, but at first glance: the "get around" section is blank, "see" listings lack any directional or contact info, no "buy" listings, no address/directional info for "eat" listings, no "drink" listings, the Project:External links policy is violated numerous times, all listings should be listingified, "sleep" listings should have price listings, the photo gallery violates Project:Small city article template. Moreover, shoving this into the July slot without even waiting a week to see if anyone objects to this as the DotM was totally inappropriate, and against the rules set on this page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Support These are minor structural changes that you are welcomed to go and make Peter. The article is however full of substance, is objective and easy to navigate and it will be a pity not to be featured in July when most events there happen. As for people being able to comment, it has been on the wikivoyage site for some time and people have modified it for a long time. There are "buys" listings and as I understand the listed places are well famous there, while street addresses not so much, so the name is more than enough. I think what one has to have in mind is that different places have different distribution of priorities and information and a good article should reflect that, as does this one.
 * No, those are not minor problems. This page is about showcasing good articles, not just nice places to go. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:42, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Oppose. First of all, you're only allowed to vote support once. Secondly, the article is ineligible for the reasons that Peter listed. Those are not "minor structural changes" - they're requirements. There's a lot of good writing in the article, but a lot of articles on this site have a lot of good writing - the ones we feature are the ones where someone has done the hard, boring work that's really useful to the traveler, like finding addresses and opening hours and prices. Since you keep promoting objectivity as a virtue of the article, you may wish to review Wikivoyage's Be fair and Tone. As I understand it, they're planning to include the month of July in 2009 as well, so you may be able to have it in shape by then. (Note that Mount Fuji has been in queue since April 2007.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Support I just explained at the Fuji section since it is just a matter of timing and both are good articles, lets have Ohrid in July and Mount Fuji in August. Ohrid Summer Festival in July looks great and the technical polishing I will try to do please join me. (WT-en) Miko 09:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Not yet. Interesting article, but it needs serious editing.  (BTW, please sign your contributions to this discussion.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Incidentally, once the concerns about readiness have been resolved, I see this more as OtBP than DotM. No town (as opposed to "park") that we have featured for DotM since the creation of OtBP has had a population as small as Ohrid's 42,000 (Wikipedia), and the "beaten path" in Macedonia lies elsewhere (e.g. Skopje).  I could definitely see this article as OtBP for June 2009, once it's been cleaned up; that's exactly the right timing for the summer festival. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:46, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 * On this point I do agree with the nominators -- Ohrid (the entire lake area, not just the town) is Macedonia's top draw and definitely the most destination-y place in a rather OtBP country. But this, too, should be sorted out better: is the article's focus the town of Ohrid or the region of Ohrid? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Support. I have been in Ohrid few years ago and I know entire Skopje goes there in the summer, so it is definitely the "beaten path" in Macedonia. (Is Mount Fuji more populated than Ohrid?) What needs to be cleaned up to have it ready for July? Because as it stands now we have two mountain destinations, so to add diversity and accommodate that Ohrid is most interesting in July, I would also push for clean up changes in the Ohrid article and have it in July, and Mount Fuji in August. (WT-en) ElenaJ 16:17, 21 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Not yet. It definitely has potential, but I also agree with everything Peter says above... once those things are fixed I'd support for OTBP in an appropriate season. Also, Elena/Hoh/Celia, etc, please stick to one user account, you aren't accomplishing anything by voting under multiple usernames – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:11, 21 June 2008 (EDT)


 * To clarify on Cacahuate's point, we don't use majority rule voting on Wikivoyage, we work by consensus. Moreover, if you read that consensus article, you'll understand that simply voicing an opinion isn't relevant, you need to make arguments per policy or established practice. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Word – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:51, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Bern
A stunning city that combines a truely Swiss stadt with a global and diverse capital city. Bern would be a flexible option because the city and the area has much to offer all year long. Article is complete in many categories however some headings with no comment should be deleted and maybe more photos could be added. But I definitely believe that Bern should be considered. --(WT-en) AZGSB9 18:06, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Do not support -- strongly. We shouldn't be using "Usable" city articles for DotM. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:57, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Oppose, for the moment. Contentwise, I'd call the article a guide, but it does need some cleanup.  (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Zermatt
A small, car free village set below the jaw-dropping Matterhorn is what Zermatt is. One must take a train or a helicopter to get here in the first place, but is it ever worth it. The truth is, there are many tourists here, but the fact that is isolated, picturesque, and has a very complete article makes this a very viable option for OtBT.
 * Not yet. This article has enormous potential (it's a great destination) but needs a great deal of de-touting and MoS work.  "See" and "Do" both need a great deal of expansion, and details are needed on lodging -- without external links.  I'd love to see it put into shape that we can consider it for OtBP, but it's a long way from that point. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:36, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Sydney
I think this city could make it as a DotM and is definitely a super touristy area. Maybe May 09 or something? Thoughts? Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">ee <font color="#8848d7">talk 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST).


 * Perhaps it could be a cotm first. Although Sydney is quite complete, just one level down at Sydney/City, Sydney/The Rocks, and Sydney/Chinatown it is decidedly bare... Also if I had to pick a time to showcase it, it would be the southern spring. rather than winter, so maybe a September target..  --(WT-en) Inas 21:28, 16 November 2008 (EST)


 * Alright, you'd have time to work for that, that's for sure! Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">ee  <font color="#8848d7">talk 23:35, 16 November 2008 (EST).

Ville D'Quebec
Looking over Quebec City, it looks like it would be a fantastic DotM. I would probably say for WInter time. Either 08-2009 winter or 2009-10 winter. What do you think ? Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">ee <font color="#8848d7">talk 12:32, 17 November 2008 (EST). February has the Carnaval so that'd be interesting. Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 13:54, 17 November 2008 (EST).
 * Don't support. It looks like a lovely place, and the guide is pretty decent, but some of the See and Do listings seem rather lacking. Besides, an article has to be at least "guide" status before it can be DotM. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:08, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * Oh boy I always for get to look for the status....errgh! Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 13:51, 19 November 2008 (EST).


 * Don't support, yet. I think it'll be a great DotM someday, but still needs some work. There must be some good restaurants outside of the Old Town and the Get out section could be better. A map would be nice too (at least of the Old Town)! (WT-en) Shaund 00:52, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Denver
Would make a cool Summer destination, or maybe winter. Lush mountains, big population, liveable downtown, Aspen, etc. What do you think-Aug 09 or Nov 09? Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 21:33, 18 November 2008 (EST).
 * Do not support. This has a lot of work to do yet.  As much of the city's attractiveness stems from its proximity to knockout outdoors stuff, that outdoors stuff should be described by high-quality articles before the city itself is featured.  Many of the in-town listings are rather perfunctory as well. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * Adding on to what Bill said, Denver is still at "usable". An article has to be at least "guide" to be DotM. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Tokyo
Don't know Tokyo very well but it looks like it'd be a good article. I presume this city would be best anytime or during summer. Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 18:33, 20 November 2008 (EST).


 * Not sure about this one, while the main article is probably up to standard, some of districts are in a sorry state, and not something I would want to showcase. And one more thing of note, I can't think of any other city where district maps is more important than in Tokyo - As anyone who has ventured into this - the greatest of all urban jungles - will testify; for the most part you're simply not going to find a place unless you have it plotted on a map. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)


 * Hehehehe, well we'll see some more opinions ;). Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 19:30, 20 November 2008 (EST).


 * Don't support. I agree with Shaund: the Tokyo districts are highly uneven in quality (and even their borders are suspect, see the long but abortive redistricting discussion on Talk:Tokyo), and the lack of maps is major issue. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
 * Stefan. Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 00:19, 21 November 2008 (EST).

Yerevan
The other Caucasus nations have had a town featured (Sheki, Azerbaijan & Gori, Georgia). To me, the only negative thing about the article is that the "see" and "do" sections are just lists of places with short descriptions...could elaborate a bit more. It is also only a "useable" article...MoS? -- (WT-en) AHeneen 23:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)


 * Don't support. That article has come a long way, but it lacks a single buy listing, and none of the listings have addresses. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:15, 23 November 2008 (EST)


 * Which is a pitty, cause it's a mighty fine article --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 00:46, 23 November 2008 (EST)


 * It is so so close but not ready for it not to mention it is usable. A lot of it is just plain listings.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 01:07, 23 November 2008 (EST).

Antarctica
Has improved by leaps and bounds since being COTWed. The only accessible season is Nov-March. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:13, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Not yet. I can't imagine an OtBP that doesn't have "See" and "Do" sections, particularly one where "seeing" is really the main reason for going there.  That needs to be fixed.  Incidentally, the lead time for preparing for Antarctic travel is so long that I could easily see the article featured as early as August or so, even though you'd normally never dream of going there then.  -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:20, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I think we'll get Antarctica up to DotM status by the end of the CotM&mdash;I'll cast a vote then. I've particularly been meaning to get rid of other destination sections and roll them all into see. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I second that...this should be a DotM, not an OtBP article! (WT-en) AHeneen 21:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)


 * In a few months if it gets edited a little bit further, then yes. It should be DotM though.(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * This seems like the very definition of "off the beaten path". Why would it be DotM?  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:30, 7 November 2008 (EST)


 * I'd call this a DotM too. We don't have a very clear consensus on what makes an article either dotm or otbp, but my sense is that the most important thing is the obscurity, rather than the inaccessibility of the destination. Our main goal with the otbps is to showcase our ability to cover destinations that ordinary travel guides never would due to their obscurity (and there are plenty guides to Antarctica). As a matter of fact, since the LP guide is 380 pages, that makes me kind of loathe to support this article as it currently is&mdash;I think it needs more research. So: Don't support. Hopefully we can build this up and nominate it again in the future. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:06, 11 November 2008 (EST)
 * I don't entirely agree with the part about "obscurity" vice "inaccessibility." Quite a number of our OtBPs have been places that are reasonably well known, just far enough from the main arteries that it requires some effort to go there.  OTOH, your point about the LP guide is utterly compelling; we are probably never going to get this article to a state where it really shows off Wikivoyage, in contrast to the other OtBP possibilities.  Accordingly, I'm changing my vote to do not support. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Northern Armenia
Lovely in the Spring! (WT-en) Raffikojian 19:20, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Pretty good so far, no doubt about that for sure! But it is useable (or Usable for you Americans :P) and needs to be Guide or Star.  Also, some sections are empty (or contain little information) that should be fille,d most definately ;)!  So, since you say it's so good in the spring, why don't you set a goal.  Try and get all this done, or get other help by at the latest February, then nominate again for maybe April or May or something of the like:)!  Don't you worry, you have time and you don't need to do much.  I hope to see this on the front page in the next year :)!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:25, 27 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Do not support. It's certainly emerging as a fine article, but not there yet, and we should also resolve whether the area being covered fits the size criterion at the top of this page -- articles on overly large regions are generally disparaged as DotMs and OtBPs.  That one can be debated, but for now, I have some doubts.  (And yes, I get the incongruity of this complaint right below the Antarctica nomination, but that one's kind of a special case.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Banff
Major touristy area and could be done anytime of the year. Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.t.a.l.k. 12:51, 17 November 2008 (EST).


 * I'm kind of wondering if I can comment on whether I like it or not. Well, just to try-I support. Looks "luvvy juvvy."  Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 16:39, 19 November 2008 (EST).


 * Don't support. It's a cool destination, but... the article is only usable, there aren't a whole lot of addresses or directions in the listings and I'm a bit worried there is only one listing in the See section (this is one of the most beautiful spots in the country, after all!). I'm also not sure if this is OtBP or DotM material. It's a small place, but according to Wikipedia, it's tied with Calgary for getting the most visits in the province, plus it's a popular spot on a lot of coach and backpacker tours. Perhaps it would be better to bundle it up with the National Park, Jasper, the Icefields Parkway, etc and do a Canadian Rockies or Alberta Rockies DotM when all the articles are ready? (WT-en) Shaund 01:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Rapid City
Looks pretty good, and though small is home to a lot of really neat tourist spots. Most notably crazy horse and mt rushmore. Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 14:05, 17 November 2008 (EST).


 * Do not support. Only at usable status, and for good reason&mdash;it's not nearly comprehensive enough to do justice to the city, and almost none of the listings have sufficient contact information. Also, the city itself isn't very interesting&mdash;the surrounding areas are the main draws. I'd rather see us put up Badlands National Park, but it too is not up to dotm/otbp standards yet. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Good point. Maybe a CotM.  Thanks.  Your a pal!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 14:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)!

Baku
In a part of the world that's been curiously neglected by our DotMs, and a well-constructed, if comparatively terse, article that has been featured as a CotW. Not clear when the best time would be; Wikipedia describes the climate of Baku as "hot and humid in the summer, cool and wet in the winter." That seems to leave spring and fall; might this be an option for November? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:02, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd love to see this get featured, but maybe when a few of the other cities in Azerbaijan are more complete, especially the ones in the Get out section - currently Sheki is the only one in the list that is at a reasonable level. Secondly, is Baku not more of an OtBP destination rather than a DotM??? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 06:43, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Fair point about other cities, but the largest city and national capital of a reasonable-sized, strategically-placed country, with a city population of 2,000,000 or so, doesn't really seem OtBP to me. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:25, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Hmmm maybe, but I personally consider Azerbaijan off the beaten path as it is most definitely off the path trodden by your average traveller... -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 12:37, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Being OtBP is a relative question &mdash; the next one scheduled has a population of 6.2 million, but (aside from us obsessive travelers) nobody's ever heard of it! (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:15, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Good article. I'd support it for OtBP given the region's obscurity as a travel destination, though I'd like to see some verbiage to accompany at least some of the MoS-licious data about what I can expect to find at the listed bars, cafes and restaurants. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 13:44, 13 June 2007 (EDT)


 * My philosophy about determining whether or not a place is an OtBP destination includes the question – how easy is it to get into the place? Lufthansa has three flights a week from FRA, British Airways appears to have daily flights from London, however, a round trip flight seems to cost $1,400+.  Plus, visitors need a visa to enter Azerbaijan.  It's possible for travelers to get a visa at the Baku airport, however, you'll need to get a visa before your arrival if you intend to cross the border in another way.  The mere logistics of planning a trip to Azerbaijan (let alone Baku) is daunting enough to say it's not a DoTM candidate.  Even if someone suggested this as a OtBP candidate I could not support its candidacy because it doesn't meet MoS (even generally).  Specifically, the problems are not all listings have addresses, or at the very least directions.  Plus, there are some listings with absolutely no descriptions, which doesn't help me and I absolutely need information that will help my stay.  Until then, I do not support. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:52, 13 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Would support for OtBP after some clean up. There is still too much use of second person language and a lack of addresses - almost there...(WT-en) WindHorse 12:10, 14 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Could ya'll let us know what needs to be changed to make the Baku and other Azerbaijan pages ready for OtBP nominations? I want to make it as good of a page as possible. Thanks! (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 08:39, 18 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Sure, for a city of two million I'm flabbergasted that there are so few activities and sites for visitors to visit. Even Cincinnati, a city of 300,000+ has more activities and sites for travelers to visit than what's currently listed in the Baku guide.  I'd be stunned if there wasn't far more to tell our readers about.  I'm also having a big problem with the "Get in" info.  Under the "Ferry section" it lists Russia and Iran, but doesn't elaborate on how to get from Iran/Russia to Baku.  Also, there needs to be more descriptions of restaurants, hotels, activities, and sights. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:05, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Paarl
Good article for a continent we haven't featured much. Not sure of the best time to visit. -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I'd like to see the non-listing aspect of this article fleshed out a bit more first. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Good, but not good enough. Eat and Sleep listings need prices, Sleep should also be split into Bud/Mid/Spl.  Drink section needs a little more info.  (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:33, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Paarl is a major tourist destination and definitely not off the beaten path. A large number of tourist than visit Cape Town also visit Paarl and the surrounding vineyards. If featured it should be under Destination of the month rather than Off the beaten path. It is however a a bit of a horrible article consisting of little more than listings. As one of the oldest towns in South Africa, situated in a beautiful location it really should include some prose to describe the history and the area. As it stands now it definitely does not inspire anyone to visit. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:34, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Belfast
Was nominated a while back, but put in the slush pile with a few objections. I have made the required changes to it and figured it could go back onto the list. We definately shouldn't put this as the dotm outside of the summer... it rains alot in Ireland. The article could do with a few more pictures, but it is more or less ready as it is. For previous objections, see why Belfast got slushed. (WT-en) Tim 11:34, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Support, with reservations; "Eat" and "Sleep" are still pretty thin for a major destination. The rest of the article is in good enough shape, and these two sections at least have some entries that would help a traveler, but improvements would still be appropriate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:48, 15 August 2006 (EDT)  I withdraw my support.  There are a number of MoS issues, and some "tout" problems have started to appear. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:51, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

Berlin
It's an interesting city and would be perfect for spring 2007. It may need some more content for the districts but more or less it's complete. (WT-en) Jan 05:20, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Support, but alot of the info needs to be filtered down to the districts, with links to it from Berlin. (WT-en) Tim 11:39, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I started a little to bring it into the boroughs but I guess that maybe we creat some sites like Berlin nightlife because it is much more helpful than break too many things in the boroughs. (WT-en) Jc8136 05:30, 15 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Support. (WT-en) Kingjeff 22:05, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Contentwise it's there, but this is going to need quite a lot of work to bring it back inline with the Manual of Style... (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:32, 1 February 2007 (EST)
 * I think that it needs quite a lot of work to put the info into good district articles. I'll try look for an alternative -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:37, 2 February 2007 (EST)
 * Oppose, as long as those editorial exhortations to move content to district articles are there. If the job isn't done by the middle of the month, then this needs to get removed from the queue. &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:12, 5 February 2007 (EST)
 * Do not support. Just too much work remains to be done, as has been true for quite a while. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:13, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Birmingham (England)
The UK's second city, shopping mecca and apparently more miles of canal than Venice! It's a comprehensive article and there are good maps. Could do with a bit of an MoS finetune and some more photos, but the core material is there. I would suggest that the summer months would be the best time to visit the city (this is due to the obvious issue with the good old English weather in every other season) -- (WT-en) Tim 06:12, 29 October 2006 (EST)
 * Close, but not quite ready yet. More than a "bit" of MoS work needs to be done, lack of photographs is a shortcoming, and if the place "could not be described as a city full of tourist attractions," the "Get out" section should definitely be expanded.  Resolve these issues and I'd vote for it; the hard parts (content, maps) are up to standards already, so getting it into shape shouldn't be hard. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 24 November 2006 (EST)
 * Fair points. I shall nominate this for CotW and we'll see how that sorts things out. -- (WT-en) Tim 07:26, 26 November 2006 (EST)
 * Don't support - the 'Sleep' section is too thin for a city of this size, though will support if this can be corrected. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:31, 1 February 2007 (EST)


 * Don't support. I agree that the "Sleep" section needs a lot of improvement. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:10, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Jerusalem/Old City
One of the most important square kilometers on Earth! Comprehensive article. Central to Judaism and Christianity, whilst being important in Islam. Great all year round but could fit in well with Christmas time - December in particlar for obvious reasons.(WT-en) Flymeoutofhere 09:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Not yet, it's got a little work. First, I'd like to see more photos (my personal preference is to get a some images of off-the-beaten-path sights), but another problem is that for many listings there's no address or directions.  I'd be especially interested in contact info for a lot of the churches and such too.  The article also should list a few internet cafes.  Regarding December time slot, wouldn't Bethlehem make more sense?  I think if this article is chosen to be a DotM to display it in month of Nisan (preferably when Passover, Good Friday, and Easter) would be ideal since travelers could then experience Jewish customs and Christian customs.  -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 02:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Do not support. I really like the idea of getting Jerusalem into shape for DotM, but the whole city, not just a district, should be the DotM, and it's not there yet. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:03, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Leeds
Largest city in the wonderful world famous English county of Yorkshire. Has won a host of tourism awards recently including UK Visitor City Of The Year, UK Favourite City, Best City for Clubbing, Most Female friendly city. A host of attractions from museums, countryside, shopping and nightlife. This article is fantasticaly in depth now too.
 * Do not support -- yet. There's a lot of excellent content in this, but it has three serious problems.  Several sections are quite out of conformity to the Project:Manual of style.  A tendency toward touting has also crept into some of the text.  Third, and hardest to remedy, the lists of attractions are so long and cobbled-together that they're hard to follow.  Some way of reorganizing the content needs to be found, so that it doesn't read like a laundry list.  All of these objections can be overcome, and I'd gladly change my vote if they were, as the amount of effort that has gone into this article is impressive. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:33, 29 December 2006 (EST)
 * Do not support. There is probably too much information, the listings need addresses / phone numbers and the district articles are thin. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:20, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Lucerne
It looks like someone tried to nominate this but had syntax problems. I've fixed them so that we can give the article due consideration, but I strenuously oppose using the article as DotM. It's not even close to the standards we require. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:51, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Montreal
A very good guide. Best time is summer I presume. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:39, 5 February 2007 (EST)


 * There's an ongoing debate on Talk:Montreal about districtifying the city, so it might be best to wait until that's sorted out. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:02, 6 February 2007 (EST)
 * Agree with Jani. Montreal is a great city that should be DotM at some point, but the district issue really needs to get settled (and has been pending for a long time).  In my opinion, districtifying is necessary -- there's altogether too much interesting stuff in Montreal to lump into a single article -- but who will bell the cat? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 * The districtifying is now in progress, but this is still not ready. Any objections to slushing it again, until the districts are all in shape? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:02, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Portland (Oregon)
Fantastic content on a perennially underestimated city, with "Get out" links to several of the innumerable great-outdoors destinations of the region. The only shortcoming is a shortage of imagery, but that can be remedied. Suggested for August 2007. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:11, 3 December 2006 (EST)


 * Support, on the condition that some decent images can be dug up. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:22, 1 February 2007 (EST)


 * Support, although could do with a couple more photographs and telephone numbers for the "eat" items. -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


 * On thinking about this one, I think it might be best to postpone it until the imagery is in better shape. Furthermore, Albuquerque is looking like an absolute gem for October, and three United States DotMs in a row would be a bit much. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Bump. The image problem still hasn't been fixed.  This isn't a bad article, and would be a viable DotM in harder times, but I think it may be better to put Zion into this slot (and Albuquerque in September), leaving this one open for inclusion next year -- if we can dig up some photos. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Agree. The sole drab image does nothing to enhance the article, so like Bill says, maybe defer until a few good images can be found. That would place Zion in the August slot and Albuquerque in the September one....two US sites in a row. How about Zion for August, Hiroshima for September (they might get a typhoon or two, but they are passed in half a day) and Albuquerque for October? I'll rearrange in that way and then gauge the reaction (WT-en) WindHorse 10:21, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Maybe Albuquerque should be moved into the October slot, since that's when the Balloon Fiesta is happening. But Zion for August? Too hot. Can we push that into September, when it's cooler? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 19:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Quebec
Québec is unique among tourist destinations. Its French heritage sets the province apart, and it is one of the only areas in North America to have preserved its Francophone culture. Its European feel and its history, culture and warmth have made Québec a favourite tourist destination both nationally and internationally. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Bonjour Quebec (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose

The article reeks of racist implication that is of no interest to a vistor. I think most of the article needs to be deleted and one needs to start over and address the interests of a visitor and scrap the information on racist differences, who cares except the residents and it appears they need to grow up. Mention the differences and go on. (WT-en) 2old 15:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Do not support -- to put it mildly. I will give the nominator the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith, in which case this is a complete, if well-intentioned, misinterpretation of what a DotM needs to be.  This article isn't close. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Do not support - not at all according to our manual of style. Unfortunately User:(WT-en) Bonjour Quebec who is the nominator and did a lot of work on the article does not reply on his/her discussion page. --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 16:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Do not support - the Quebec province articles are generally not in good shape, and my impression is that their quality dismayingly has been deteriorating, rather than improving. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Oppose - I would love to see Quebec a DotM, but the article isn't there yet. As a side note, I'm still trying to contact someone at Bonjour Quebec to a)verify the identity of the user using that name and b)discuss how we can collaborate according to our Project:Goals and non-goals. (WT-en) Maj 23:48, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Would anyone object to slushing this one? The consensus seems overwhelmingly clear... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
 * No objection here. It's not ready to be featured. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:07, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Sao Gabriel da Cachoeira
It will be very difficult to find anything more off-the-beaten-path than this place. And it surely makes an amazing trip. User:(WT-en) Guoyifan 05:21 20 February 2007 (EST)


 * Do not support - It looks like a great destination, but there are problems with the images in the article: the photo of the natives is not consistent with our privacy policy, and the other two do not appear to be properly licensed for use on Wikivoyage. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Warsaw
CotW which has been hugely improved. Very good article. Could do with a better map and more info in a few more districts. Not exactly sure when to put it, maybe summer 2007? (WT-en) Tim 15:45, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Districts are a bit thin, the airport is a nightmare for any traveller but might be good for late summer 2007. (WT-en) Jan 05:42, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Support with a caveat: this is one of those Pattaya-style articles where the content is great but the formatting is a little eccentric to say the least. I fixed up the biggest booboo (Get in stuff in Get out), but this could still use some more work. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:30, 1 February 2007 (EST)
 * Luckily, this is one place that I can actually do something about. I hate the fact Pattaya reads like a yellow pages or a paper of random listings and useless services that shithole motels hand out to guests.  I'm not going to let that happen this article so I do not support until we make a real attempt at it.  I'll do my part. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 22:40, 1 February 2007 (EST)
 * Don't support - ditto (WT-en) Sapphire's comments. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:05, 1 February 2007 (EST)


 * Oppose. If you start looking at it closely after the (far too much) travel info, it has far too many districts and then areas labelled as districts that then link to (unique to Warsaw) walking tours. The main district article - Warsaw/Srodmiescie is really just a long list. This is an idiosyncratic work that I don't think we should be promoting. -- (WT-en) DanielC 15:30, 5 February 2007 (EST)
 * Do not support. Really needs MoS-based overhaul. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:14, 6 February 2007 (EST)
 * I don't support this either anymore... It could almost do with going in for another CotW to sort out the MoS problems.--(WT-en) Tim 11:28, 6 February 2007 (EST)
 * Support. I was working hard on this article last September to improve it (independently of this nomination,  in fact I've found out about it only now) and I'd be delighted to do everything I can (provided I have the time) to make Warsaw a well-written, informative and helpful article. I see some people have objections to this nomination and it's great, because it means you have read the article and know its weak points. Could you please take a minute or two explaining what exactly needs to be improved, on the article talk page? The reason I'm asking for this is that I'm afraid I don't fully understand what the problem is ("Pattaya-style"?). (WT-en) CandleWithHare 15:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)
 * Also, please remember the style rules were different at the time most of the article was written and if something isn't explicitly stated in the rules it doesn't mean it's prohibited, so the question that should rather be asked is whether something is reader-friendly or not. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 15:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)


 * Generally, style policies have not changed much, though, there have been some small changes. My attempt to fix and remove a lot of the crap no one would really use was reverted by you, now you'll understand why it needed to be deleted, and I suspect that we'll just end up deleting the same stuff, if not more.   The toilet information needs to be deleted.  I moved it to the Poland guide, though an explanation of square v. circle could still be used there.  No one needs to know all of the major hypermarkets on the Warsaw guide.  If it's really important, then we'll put it in the districts, which is what policy requires.


 * Also, we don't need:


 * Ice-skating
 * Bowling
 * Climbing
 * Cycling
 * Golfing
 * Shopping malls
 * Hypermarkets
 * Consumer electronics (Wikivoyage isn't a catalog!)
 * Antiques
 * Provisional-now-permanent


 * Pattaya is bad article because it's the type of thing that a shithole motel gives out to it's guests so they can go and get pizza from Pizza Hut, or whatever and Warsaw (and it's districts) are taking this route. If there is some potentially useful information it's need to be removed to the proper district.  A major rewrite is needed too, but that can come last, in my opinion otherwise we'll probably end up where we began.  -- (WT-en) Sapphire &bull; (Talk) &bull; 16:16, 2 March 2007 (EST)


 * Ooi! I think almost all of those are useful information, although you should pick a few noteworthy shops/facilities, not list the whole lot. Travellers do go bowling, climbing, cycling, golfing, and shopping, although more probably for antiques than consumer electronics.  (At least in Warsaw; the reverse would be true in Hong Kong.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)


 * I believe it's spelled "Oi". Anyhow, you're right that most of it can be useful, but we need to give an very fine grained overview and shuttle off most of the info to the districts.  The Russian Market, as an example does require a mention in the top-level guide, but the nitty gritty details belong in the districts.  -- (WT-en) Sapphire &bull; (Talk) &bull; 00:04, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Candle, "Pattaya style" was a reference to how Pattaya had turned into a yellow pages directory, listing absolutely everything that there was possibly to see or do in the place, rather than being a focused and discerning travel guide pointing travelers to just the best and most relevant things. If you're interested, go back into the history on that article and look at it before Sapphire and I started deleting some stuff [or even now, it still needs help ;) ]. Anyway, I would also propose that we delete the 1900's picture and the Emblem of Warsaw pic, which are more appropriate for Wikipedia than here... photos in the articles, I think, should just be ones that aid the traveler by giving a good impression of what to expect when traveling there, anything else just clutters the article... btw, you did a great job on the Warsaw way back when, it's good that you're around again now to help us perfect the article and bring it even more in line with the Manual of Style and the current ideas of good Guide articles (WT-en) - Cacahuate 03:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)


 * Thanks for the explanation, I get it now. Indeed, I didn't take into account that the article may get too long in the process of improving it :) So, what are we getting rid of first? I agree about the toilet stuff -- personally, I've never understood the peculiarities of the alleged public-toilet problem in the city I live in, but as people keep adding such information, I always thought there was some need for it, with websites such as this one emerging around the world. I also agree about the old photo, which is useless, but it was around before I started meddling with the article, and I was generally unwilling to remove stuff. As for the emblem, I only added it because it occupies the place that would otherwise be empty anyway (at least that's how things show up in my browser). (WT-en) CandleWithHare 12:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Windsor (Ontario)
Fairly complete article. The only problem I really see is a lack of photos, but if I ever get my film developed I can solve that problem. Time format should be MoS'd (I have a hard time reminding myself to do civilian time). Also, I didn't include a whole lot of info for the descriptions of listings, but I'll dfix that in a few days. I thinks some of the strong points are: the "Get in" info, the abundance of nightlife, and the diverse cultural aspects of the city (you have Middle Eastern/Lebanese, Asian, Italian, African neighborhoods all within several minutes of each other).

I'd suggest making this DoTM for summer '07 or early fall. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:36, 2 December 2006 (EST)


 * I'd support this providing the issues Sapphire mentioned above are addressed. I'd also like to see an understand section, more info in get around and at least a few listings in budget sleep. If that gets done it'll be a nice article. -- (WT-en) Tim 04:47, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * A problem I see with this is that, while the Windsor article has lots of good stuff, Windsor as a destination is dominated by that city across the river -- and its article still needs serious work despite its "Guide" status. Some discussion of how to handle DotM candidates along national borders, with matching cities across the border, might be appropriate before proceeding with this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:30, 3 December 2006 (EST)
 * OTBP is an option too, but it's not exactly off the path. I suggested summer 07 because looking over I'm not as happy with the article as I thought I was and in a few weeks I should whip this in shape. -- Andrew (Sapphire)


 * Support for OTBP, because iit's not one of the main destinations in Canada (and I've never heard of it!) - (WT-en) DanielC 16:13, 2 February 2007 (EST)
 * Aren't all destinations in Canada OTBP... by definition? :) But seriously, Detroit/Windsor is Canada's busiest border crossing, and one of the busiest in the world. Just about anyone driving into Canada from the U.S. Midwest goes through Windsor. To say nothing of its popularity among 19/20-year-olds and strip-club patrons throughout Southeast Michigan. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:14, 5 February 2007 (EST)
 * Since this one is in the gray area between DotM and OtBP, I suggest we consider it a "utility" destination to plug into whichever of the two is more in need of candidates. At the moment the DotM list is actually more sparse than OtBP, so how about we use it for the August DotM (Portland still being short on photos) and look for a different August OtBP? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Support - clean, simple article - summer best for feature? (WT-en) WindHorse 19:34, 2 February 2007 (EST)
 * The current blurb does a really bad job of selling the destination (automobile industry? near Detroit?), and the article doesn't have anything better. Could somebody who knows the place better come up with something nice/interesting? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:35, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I took a stab at reorganizing the blurb based on available facts. However, it is still not very appealing. I reiterate Jpatokal's appeal for someone familiar with the city to add fresh and interesting info. (WT-en) WindHorse 02:11, 17 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Potentially don't support – So maybe I'm chiming in a little late in the game here, but how did this make it so far in the first place? I appreciate that the article covers the destination so well, but it's still sounding like a thoroughly uninteresting place, and I'm not convinced that it's one of the 2 articles that should represent the site for an entire month. A park along the river with views of Detroit and drunk-ass 19-20 year old Americans with but-her-face strippers in their laps are the main highlights? No thanks. When I think of OTBP it conjures up images of quaint little cities or far off villages just waiting to be explored and uncovered – not busy border crossing towns. Sorry to throw that out there so last minute, but are there any alternatives? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:32, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it is not a great destination, but there is no substitute in the nomination list at present. I'll enter Jakar in Bhutan for consideration as a possible alternative as this a summer only destination. (WT-en) WindHorse 02:43, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Sado Island has been nominated as an alternative destination to Windsor. See below. (WT-en) WindHorse 04:53, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Space
Just throwin' it out there... can't get more OTBP than that... and the article's pretty comprehensive, considering the limited options... and I'm in love with the new opening picture... OR... should this wait a couple/few years until there's a little larger # of people going up each year? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * At first I thought this was a little ridiculous, but I'm rather pleasantly surprised by the article. I mean there's off-the-beaten-path, then there's absurd.  Some of the options listed in the guide are surprisingly cheap and with a little savings someone like me – trying to get into college and working a job at a restaurant – could actually participate in.  If I hadn't actually read the article I'd be ignorant about those options.
 * However, the thing that sold me is that the understand section is very, very eloquent, which we often lack in our guides. I think this would be the perfect DotM/OtBP candidate, especially as it highlight and exemplifies some of our goals and philosophies, which can never be expressed by our other guides. Support -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 05:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Support. Nowhere is cooler than the space! (WT-en) Guoyifan 12 April (EDT)


 * Actually Space can be very hot as well. :) Support. No hurry to feature it; it's not going anywhere. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Do not support -- yet. Cute idea, and well-done article, but too many offerings in the article aren't presently available no matter how much money you have.  When Virgin Galactic, etc., actually start offering trips rather than just promising them in the future, I'll reconsider. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, good point Bill. I suppose it would also suck to feature it now, and then when things are really rockin' up there not want to feature it again. Waiting might be good. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:08, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * So let's provisionally slot it for June 2015 - 2020, in case NASA starts taking people to the moon. I say June because that seems to be when the weather permits shuttle launches. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Don't plan on seeing any Shuttle launches in 2015; those birds will be 23-31 years old by then, and fit for museum display only. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, supposedly they don't want to send shuttles to the moon, but something closer to the Apollo modules. Plus, the current birds are going to retire in 2010, then we can all go to Dayton and see them up close and personal. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) •
 * I though the Toyota Prius was being modified for moon launches, no? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 11:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Yangon
"Known for its colonial architecture, which although decaying, remains an almost unique example of a 19th-century British colonial capital." A good number of sights, hotels and eateries listed. An interesting guide that has info about history, as well as stuff about staying safe/healthy. November to January is a good time to visit, so maybe a candidate for the empty December or January slots. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:50, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Do not support. Yes, it's an interesting article, but according to Wikipedia, this city has a population of nearly 5 million, and the coverage is awfully sparse for a city that size.  (Incidentally, I'd also consider it more DotM material than OtBP for the same reason; it certainly isn't off the "Asian" beaten path.)  I'd be willing to consider changing my vote if someone could make a convincing case that the coverage really is comprehensive despite the size of the city, but to actually get me to change it would also require a bunch of MoS work -- hours and locations for attractions, restaurants, etc.  It's all doable, though. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:15, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Do not support, partly due to MoS concerns, partly given the recent unpleasantness . (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:37, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Do not support. Travel to Burma is an inherently political act and, by highlighting Yangon anywhere, wikivoyage will take a side in the 'go nogo' battle. Best to let the reader decide. Also agree with Bill-on-the-Hill's comments about the sparseness of the page (the see section is pathetic, nothing confirms to the MOS, etc.) and am trying to fix some of that but, even if the article were a star, I would be against featuring it.--(WT-en) Wandering 14:38, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Comment: I don't think politics in themselves are a valid reason to object to a destination, or are we going to rule out ever having a DotM in, say, Israel or Iran? Actively dangerous destinations should of course be avoided, but I think things have quieted down enough now that I withdraw my objection on this ground. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:21, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Agree about the politics; if the "unpleasantness" creates problems for the traveler, that's a consideration, but political statements aren't a reason to push or reject a destination. My other reasons for opposing this nomination remain, however. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:48, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The point is that pushing Yangon as a destination is itself a political statement. I don't think the situation is the same as in Israel (a democratic state albeit with some issues) or Iran (also a kind of democracy albeit with a bit more than some issues!). Having a good guide for Yangon is one thing but featuring it as a destination feels, IMHO, a bit dirty. Anyway, I'll plug away on the Yangon page regardless.--(WT-en) Wandering 13:47, 30 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I kinda agree with Wandering - whether or not to go to Myanmar has been turned into a rather large moral question, and us putting it on the front page looks like we're saying yes. I wouldn't fight hard not to feature a Myanmar destination, but I would like everyone to understand that, if we do, it is definitely making a political statement, intentional or not – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 14:53, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Bad Reichenhall

 * Bad Reichenhall would be good for the summer.(WT-en) Kingjeff 13:59, 11 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Do not support. No pictures, no map, no explanations or contact info for the very long laundry lists.  Whoever called this a "Guide" was being awfully generous. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:13, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * In your opinion, what status should it have? (WT-en) Kingjeff 17:34, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Usable, for reasons I give on your talk page. Definitely at the upper end of Usable, but more is needed before this qualifies as a DotM. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:47, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)

Belfast

 * Self-nominated by (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 08:22, 11 Oct 2004 (EDT).
 * This is really nice. I think I'd like to see a little more content, or maybe it's not as big a city as I think? Is there any month that would be specially good? I don't know if November is a great time to visit, or is summer better?
 * The "Do" section is a bit light, and some items from "See" should probably be moved there. Once that gets done this seems like a great article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:37, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)
 * Done.(WT-en) Tim 11:27, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Needs to be rated. (WT-en) kingjeff 00:30, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Done.(WT-en) Tim 11:27, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Adding back into Detination of the Month (WT-en) Tim 11:27, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Cape Town
Added to the slush pile because this was nominated despite having been previously featured in 2005, and the nomination criteria specifically states that a destination should not be featured twice:

Cape Town is a very interesting city that is perfect to visit from November until March (summer) and therefore dits very good for December. The article is ok and it's an African destinations that everybody wants to go too! Therefore I would like to nominate it for december. (WT-en) Jan08:29, 20 June 2006
 * Already featured back in September 2005. &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:53, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Agreed, we really can't do this one again (at least not until everywhere else in the world has been featured once...). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:23, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Copenhagen
Well-constructed article on an important city, with good balance between main article and districts. (Some of the district articles could use some work, but there's time, and the totality of the articles is still excellent.) Plus, this photo just absolutely demands to get put on the Main Page! -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:23, 29 June 2006 (EDT)


 * The article needs some work. The districts are ok but the main Copenhagen pages lacks big chunks (Sleep, Drink, Cope, Learn). It should be better before a Cotw to get the formatting and content things done.-- (WT-en) Jan 12:13, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

Flores (Guatemala)
A very good guide article, also includes a couple of maps. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:42, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't think it's quite ready yet. There should be some work to reconcile "Do" and "Get out" -- the latter is content-free at the moment apart from a somewhat garish map, while the former has lots of stuff that seems to be rather remote from the city.  Shouldn't be too hard to fix that, though, and it's otherwise a nice article.  One thing: is it DotM or OTBP? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:44, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
 * The "garishness" of the Get Out map can be fixed easily enough with a less saturated background color; otherwise I kinda like it. Flores does seem a bit OTBP to me, being neither large, famous, nor in a heavily-visited region.  And since one of its main attractions is nearby Tikal, I'd like to see that built up (the article, that is, not the site) before featuring Flores.- (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:40, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I've moved most of the "See" items to "Get out", but I tend to agree with Todd that it is probably worth waiting on this article until the Tikal one is improved. I also thought that it may be better as a OTBP destination, but thought that as the base for the main site in Guatamala, it was difficult to say that it wasn't mainstream. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:03, 4 May 2006 (EDT)

Graz

 * Graz is good for January because of the ski resorts. (WT-en) Kingjeff
 * Several of the listings need to be updated according to the Manual of style. The info in the article looks good though. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:06, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * Needs article status and more info as mentioned above. (WT-en) Kingjeff 00:44, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)

Kruger National Park
Good article that will need a bit of MoSing, as some info is in the wrong sections. The Understand needs to be split up into climate/fauna etc. Having said this, the info is there and a CotW would sort it out. Possible candidate for Feb 07? It is also an African article, and we haven't had an African DotM since September 05. Finally, having this as DotM might also draw a few editors down to South African articles so we can get some more info into them! -- (WT-en) Tim 06:55, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Whoa! This still needs quite a bit of work -- sections are unpopulated, key contact info is missing (and may be hard to get), and so on.  Also, there needs to be discussion as to whether it's DotM or OTBP.  I'm in favor of getting this into usable shape, for all the reasons you cite above, but it first needs to be improved to where it's ready, then scheduled into the appropriate slot (more likely OTBP than DotM, IMHO). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:48, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Agree with Bill contentwise, but I do think this (just) qualifies for DOTM: it's probably Africa's best-known and busiest national park (a quick Googling says over 500,000 visitors yearly), although the huge size does compensate to some extent. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:59, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Okay. It's on the list of things to do! (WT-en) Tim 12:06, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Since it was posed as a CotW with the statement that it was nominated for Feb 07, I've made it so, but I'm not convinced it's going to get there from a quality perspective. We should keep an eye on it once the CotW editing is done, to be sure that it really is good enough. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:30, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Not as many people ended up contributing to this when it was COTW as I had hoped, and I will have nowhere near enough time to make this DotM standard, so I think it should be removed from the nominations list until it gets alot more material. It will make a fantastic article though because it is a fantastic place! (WT-en) Tim 13:20, 25 October 2006 (EDT)
 * OK, it's getting slushed, reluctantly. It would be really nice if someone would make the effort to get it up to standard (and thanks for your tries, Tim) -- we could definitely use a DotM like this. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:54, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Montreal
Has a map, very thorough article and good city to visit. (WT-en) Kingjeff 16:56, 3 March 2006 (EST) I don't agree that Montreal needs to be split into districts, as the districts are not familiar to many travellers. Better to keep all of the content on Montreal, this is great content, for all to discover.
 * Not bad, but Montreal is too big a city to fit smoothly into a single article. Should be broken into districts and much content moved to same, at which time it should be revisited, as it is indeed a cool place well worthy of being a DotM. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:50, 4 March 2006 (EST)
 * There seems to be no current advocacy for this one, nor any move to address the issues. Can it be slushed? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:44, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

Munich
Most people would associate Munich with September, because of Oktoberfest, but I think it would be great for the month of June/July.
 * Nominated by (WT-en) Sapphire 13:42, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * Nomination withdrawn until August is debated, so I have time to put in districts. (WT-en) Sapphire 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * I would suggest tightening up the formatting a little better (according to the wikivoyage guidelines) and improving the grammar. --User:(WT-en) Kenliu
 * Support for March.(WT-en) Kingjeff 21:06, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Would August be unreasonable? Gives enough time to make plans for Oktoberfest.  Yes, the formatting and grammar could use some work, but there's plenty of time for that and the content is in good shape already. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:59, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * I would like to get 1 location in before FIFA World Cup. (WT-en) Kingjeff 23:26, 2 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Is there anyway we can bump Munich up to May? (WT-en) Kingjeff 22:10, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Districting is not complete, there is still some duplication and most of the districts don't follow the template. Even the main page is a bit odd. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:23, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Does all the districts really need to be there? (WT-en) Kingjeff 19:42, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * They don't all need to be filled up, but they should at least be formatted correctly, and all sights/destinations should be in the right place. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:29, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Considering how great this would be for Sep/Oct, I think it should probably wait. --(WT-en) Evan 10:28, 27 February 2006 (EST)
 * Is there any German city we can nominate and have a ligitimate chance of gettin the DOTM before June? (WT-en) Kingjeff 21:21, 27 February 2006 (EST)
 * Berlin is already nominated: contentwise it's there, it just needs a lot of grunt work to district properly... so if you want to see it as DOTM, get to work =) (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:52, 27 February 2006 (EST)
 * Districting needs work. Few attractions have locations or phone numbers listed -- just websites.  Too little Manual-of-style.  Looks like a slush pile entry to me -- and then renominate when someone thinks it's ready rather than nominating an article that would we all wish was ready. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:46, 20 March 2006 (EST)
 * Anyone object to placing Munich in the slush pile? I doubt few people will have a signifcant problem with MoS, with the exception being the clubs and discos. The districts are coming together, but Thalkirchen sucks. Haidhausen and Olympic area could be better. (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 17:12, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Newcastle (New South Wales)
Looks like a fairly good article. Could be a little more MoSie and a few more sleep listings. Plus, it's summer there in November, December 2006. (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 00:01, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't think it's quite there yet. "See" and "Understand" both need significant work, and significant info is missing on some of the entries.  Every reason to believe it could be put into DotM shape by (austral) summer, though. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:40, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Rotorua
The most visted tourist destitnation in New Zealand. The Weather is generally good. But the summer monthes are preferable. Rotorua is home to the world famous geysers and thermal mud pools, it also the home to zorbing. basically Rotorua is a great place if you want extreme sports OR if you are more interested in relaxing it has many great spas with the mineral from the thermal pools.


 * Please read above.  Destination of the month is a way to feature the best Wikivoyage articles, and this does not meet that criteria. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:28, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Oppose. Article is not up to snuff for DotM: for example, the Sleep section has only one hotel.
 * Oppose, but a question: just how big and developed is the place? If it's OTBP-size, the article is really not that far from ready.  As far as I can tell, the entire Rotorua district has a population of only 50,000 or so, which means that it (1) may be appropriate for OTBP and (2) might not have to have that much information added to become comprehensive.  Still will need lots of MoS work, though. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:41, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
 * This one doesn't seem to be getting legs. Any objections to slush-piling it? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:24, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Salzburg

 * Salzburg (city)- Salzburg would be good for May 2008 since Austria is a co-host for Euro 2008.
 * Listings need to be MoS'd. The Eat, Drink and Sleep listings also need more details (addresses, prices etc). (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:55, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Needs understand section plus some additional info mentioned above. (WT-en) Kingjeff 00:39, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)

Stockholm
Guide article, I've added lots of images and some more information. / (WT-en) Adestro
 * It's close, but a go/no-go decision should be made as to the use of districts. There is a big long section that lays the districts out as sub-articles, but no district articles exist yet, let alone have any content.  Either use 'em or purge 'em.  Some copyediting would also be useful, but nothing major.  Your added photos are certainly nice. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:53, 25 February 2006 (EST)
 * Yeah, I agree. I added that section just before posting this nomination. Perhaps we should wait until the districts have been done, I don't live in Stockholm so I'm unable to contribute to them. /(WT-en) Adestro 15:26, 26 February 2006 (EST)

Torino

 * Torino for February 2006. Torino is hosting the 2006 Winter Olympic Games and it would be an excellent DotM for Feb. Our coverage of Torino right now is so-so but I bet if we put our minds to it we could really get it cooking. --(WT-en) Evan 00:09, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * Good choice. But more info is needed before it'll get picked. (WT-en) Kingjeff
 * Support. I realize I've already supported Hangzhou, but the Winter Olympics are just too good a tie-in. If we can pull the article together, would others supprot Torino for Feb? I'll put together a list of what needs to get done. (WT-en) Majnoona 14:45, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Do not support. This is a perfect example of why a longer lead time is desirable for DotM.  There is too much left to do on the article on the spur of the moment, and in any event, it's far too late to be able to use this page for travel for the Olympics, since lodging in particular will be nearly impossible to find at this late date. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:09, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Against. I agree completely with Bill, it's way too late for Torino.  I wouldn't mind nudging it onto the Main Page though...  but in the meantime, time to start polishing up Vancouver for 2010? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:14, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Agree about the Main Page, and we do have the 2008 Olympics coming before Vancouver... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:18, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * It would be nice to in some way feature Torino during the Olympics, but I agree that it's too late to make it DOTM. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:13, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

Waitomo Caves (New Zealand)
Waitomo Caves is just a 2 hour drive from Auckland. It is home to the famous Waitomo Caves, Glowworms,There are many places to view the glowworms including some where you just take a boat road, to others with a 4 hour walk. Apart from the glowworm there is alot to do in the area including a free Angoran rabbit shearing show. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 220.245.179.131 (talk • contribs) 18 Oct 2006
 * Please read above, as well as Project:What is an article?.  Destination of the month is a way to feature the best Wikivoyage articles, and this does not meet that criteria. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:28, 18 October 2006 (EDT)

Stuttgart

 * Stuttgart- is a beutiful city and will be hosting the World Cup in 2006. So, May would be a good time to put it up as Destination of the Month.
 * Need pictures, formatting into the standard template and more places to Sleep. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:20, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * Are we basing cities on the actual city or based on what wikivoyage has? I understand not nominating a city that has little or no information, but you can only go so far with that.
 * The criteria for choosing a DotM are at the top of this page. --(WT-en) Evan 10:56, 12 Dec 2005 (EST)

Walnut Creek

 * Walnut Creek. Lacks a picture, but otherwise a very complete and readable article. --(WT-en) Evan 13:42, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 * While I like this article, I don't think Walnut Creek is a destination per se, especially if Frankfurt was already put into the slush pile as a good article but a less than ideal destination. Walnut Creek might be better used as an example of how to write an interesting article, rather than a destination of the month. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:37, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Ipoh

 * Ipoh. Good chinese food paradise.
 * Nominated by (WT-en) Maldini8289 10:47, 14 April 2005 (EST)
 * No Sleep listings, and needs to be checked carefully because some content is copyvio'd from Wikipedia... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:48, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * The sleep listings are done, the content are not copyvio'd from Wikipedia as it's mainly all edited by me, a local resident. (WT-en) Maldini8289 1:18, 19 May 2005 (EST)
 * The formatting does not follow the MoS (although I just inserted the standard headings). In particular, the Eat/Drink/Buy listings should cover [i]places[/i] to eat/drink/buy, not things.  Of course an intro paragraph for local specialities is great, but the focus of the listing should be on restaurants/bars/shops.
 * In my honest opinion, the Eat/Drink/Buy listings can't just cover on particular places or restaurants/bars/shops because Ipoh's variety of great food are at many places around the city. Hope that the current listing won't be changed so that many travellers won't miss out these food when they come to Ipoh. Thanks a lot, Jpatokal, for helping to edit. (WT-en) Maldini8289 13:20, 23 May 2005 (EST)
 * We could say that about most destinations. The idea here is yes, to give travellers some idea of what sort of foods they might find, and point out a couple of local specialties which are not to be missed.  The idea of the listings though is provide names and addresses, contact information, opening hours, and a short review of actual places where they can enjoy a nice meal.  DOM is a showcase for our best articles.  Ipoh seems like a lovely place to visit, but the article just isn't one of our best (yet).  We really must have some listings for individual places.  Some more images would be nice too. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:46, 23 May 2005 (EDT)

Frankfurt

 * Frankfurt
 * nominated by (WT-en) Mark 04:41, 30 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * The museums listings need to be completed at the very least. -- Nils
 * Good article, but a terribly boring city to visit =) (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:27, 30 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * I tend to agree, but didn't want to say it ;-) I guess it depends on what you like. And nobody (yet) said DoM's have to be "exciting". ;-) -- Nils
 * Ok, let me say it. DoM candidates should be at least interesting, if not exciting. The purpose (I assume) of the DOM is to show off what we have, and tempt new visitors to dig further; showcasing (say) a derelict coal-mining town in the ex-Soviet rust belt is hardly likely to do that. Having said that, my 12 hour experience of Frankfurt doesn't suggest that it is *that* uninteresting. -- (WT-en) Chris j wood 11:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Okavango Delta

 * Okavango Delta
 * One of the most famous and beautiful places on earth and still no information in wikivoyage... Nominated by (WV-en) Fluglotse2000
 * Uh, this one might fit better on Project:Articles needing attention, "Destination of the Month" is kinda for showing off the finished (as much as anything is finished on a wiki) guides we're proud of-- usually with some sort of seasonal tie-in. They should really be as complete as possible and Okavango, beautiful as it may be, has a ways to go ;-) (WT-en) Majnoona 11:18, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

South Africa

 * South Africa - Best place on earth ;-)
 * Nominated by (WV-en) Fluglotse2000 01/April/2005
 * Rather big for a destination, I think... can you suggest a specific city/attraction? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:26, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)
 * Okay, why not the Western Cape or Cape Region, with Cape Town, the Cape Peninsula and the Cape Winelands. (WV-en) Fluglotse2000 13:39 (GMT) 01 April 2005
 * I agree, a city or region would be better. I'll take a look at those suggestions and maybe nominate one of them... (WT-en) Majnoona 11:33, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

United States

 * United States
 * Nominated by (WV-en) Rspga49 19:30 (EST) April 4, 2005
 * That's kinda a vague destination (because it encompasses too many sub-topics) and not a really exciting article. Also, the vast majority of the subregions are stubs.  How about choosing a specific and interesting destination within the US, working on its article until it is complete, informative, and interesting, and then nominating that. A DoM article need not be about a famous or important place.  It should instead be an interesting destination with a Really Great Article written about it.  -- (WT-en) Colin 19:43, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * I agree with Colin. Too broad and hard to tie to a season or month. (WT-en) Majnoona 11:33, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

London

 * London
 * Nominated by (WT-en) Rspga49 16:09 October 17, 2004 (EDT)
 * A great article I think everyone would agree-- when's a good month? (WT-en) Majnoona 01:45, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)
 * Currently, London sufferes from linkitis &mdash; the use of web links instead of trivial stuff like descriptions, directions, addresses and phone numbers. Needs cleanup first. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:33, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

San Francisco

 * San Francisco
 * Nominated by (WT-en) Chip 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)
 * Support with two caveats: the Districts section should give brief summaries of what to expect, and the picture needs a little work (poorly scanned?) (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:15, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)
 * I think San Francisco needs some cleanup work. --(WT-en) Evan 20:06, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park

 * Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (Australia)
 * Having tried in vain to find a good African article, how about this one from Australia. It has a couple of good pictures, and good text. And I can vouch from personal experience that it is a fascinating place if you have never seen the 'Red Center' before -- (WT-en) Chris j wood 21:46, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Not bad contentwise, but needs a little cleanup. Some listings are also quite stubby (just the name with no content). (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:24, 6 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Agreed, too unfinnished. -- Nils
 * I'm slowly working on this one (I don't think it's ready yet), so people may want to check back over the next month or two. It's probably not a good southern summer destination anyway: humid and rainy. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 22:36, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)

Atlanta

 * Atlanta
 * Nominated by (WT-en) Rspga49 18:00 October 1, 2004 (EDT)
 * There's a lot missing from Atlanta before it really can be considered. E.g. there is no Sleep, Drink, Stay Safe, Picture,.... Keep up the good work and try to get it into shape before nominating it.  Have a look at the current destination of the month or previous destinations to get an idea of what we're looking for.  -- (WT-en) Colin 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Valdosta

 * Valdosta
 * Nominated by (WT-en) Rspga49 17:50 October 1, 2004 (EDT)
 * Valdosta appears to be composed of two kinds of things that need work: 1) empty sections and 2) sections whose listings are not formatted in the Manual of Style manner and also one section (Get out) which is not really a list of interesting places you might go to get out of town (it's just a list of nearby cities).Keep up the good work and try to get it into shape before nominating it. Have a look at the current destination of the month or previous destinations to get an idea of what we're looking for. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Upgraded articles
This section is for articles that were formerly slushpiled, but have been promoted back to DotM-candidate status as the objections were addressed. Looking at some of these articles, in particular their histories, might give you some ideas about getting things on the current slushpile into usable condition. Note: If you add items to this list, please try to keep them in alphabetical, rather than chronological, order, for ease in sorting through the material.

Berlin

 * Berlin- Berlin would be good for May 2006 since FIFA World Cup Germany will be there. kingjeff
 * I support Berlin for February 2006. (WT-en) Kingjeff 23:45, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Berlin's division into districts is badly incomplete, with tons of duplication and most info still listed only on the main page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:55, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * It's listed on the main page. It's a very thorough article. I don't think it's as bad as you think it is. It's a good article and a good city to visit. I think any traveller can pretty much fill there vacation to Berlin with this information. (WT-en) Kingjeff 00:21, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Do not support. This article is badly in need of breaking into districts, precisely as Jpatokal says. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:56, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * Do not support. But I think as soon as the district issue is taken care of it should be revisited. (WT-en) Majnoona 11:53, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Re-slushed following 2007 discussion; see above. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Budapest

 * Attractive city with lots to see. The articles are good now and the pictures are really good too. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:59, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 * I've been to Budapest in January, and it's not much fun then (except maybe ice-skating and mulled wine at Varosliget). I would be all in favor of a springtime nomination though. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:40, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * 2 or 3 sections needs to be done. (WT-en) kingjeff 00:35, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)

La Paz

 * La Paz - South American (see above). Quite a small article, but information in each of the categories. (WT-en) DanielC 08:19, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Indeed, a little short but otherwise OK. Not sure we need South America now though, as we just had the Falklands... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:31, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Not eligible due to article status. (WT-en) kingjeff 00:35, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * The above issues appear to have been addressed, and it's been re-added as a DotM candidate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:08, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Route 66

 * A historic highway in the United States, Route 66 has been a classic itinerary for years, and user (WT-en) Rt66lt has been making huge strides with this article. Probably best if featured between April and October when there isn't snow anywhere along the route.
 * Nominated by (WT-en) Ryan 14:24, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * Support contentwise, but this needs better pictures &mdash; one good enough to showcase on the front page, and others to liven up the text. Some maps would also come in very handy. (WT-en) Jpatokal 16:16, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * Maps and pictures now in place (I'd use the "Cadillac Ranch" photo to illustrate the article), so it's back on the nominee list. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:22, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Swansea

 * Swansea for October 2005 as this is an especially exciting month to visit Wales' City by the Sea: The US$60 million National Waterfront Museum opens its doors on October 17 . Also, the city will host the annual Swansea Festival of Music and the Arts from September 30 to October 22 (the second largest festival of its kind in the UK), from October 1 to 9 the Swansea Fringe will bring festivity and entertainment to the streets of city after a twenty year absence, and finally The Dylan Thomas Centre in the city will reverberate to the sound of Thomas' poetry and prose during the annual Dylan Thomas festival, which runs from October 27 to November 9.
 * Support. Could use a couple more pictures, and "Media" isn't a standard header, but otherwise very nice.  DOTM for October sounds reasonable unless Munich gets re-nominated. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:37, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)
 * Oppose, half-heartedly. The solitary picture just isn't good enough, and we just had Winchester in July, so it's a bit early for the UK to come again.  The formatting is also a bit off in many parts. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:22, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * These objections seem to have been addressed; it's now not only back in the Candidates list, but apparently heading for DotM in July 07. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)