Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates/Archive/2014-2018

Scheduling
Why was Mitzpe Ramon moved to a later slot? I don't oppose this; I'm just curious to know what went into the decision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew has specified the reason in his edit summary. --Saqib (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A dumb question about shortcuts
Don’t you think it’s a bit weird when:

I would suggest to make a change so that each of the above would redirect to the Destination of the month candidates. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dotm redirects to Destination of the month candidates
 * Otbp redirects to Destination of the month (according to the blue box on that page both Dotm and Otbp are supposed to redirect to that page)
 * Ftt redirects to nothing
 * Absolutely. Please go ahead and create the shortcut. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do it now. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC

Along the same lines as the above comment...
...shouldn't Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path, and Previous Featured travel topics be in project namespace rather than mainspace? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No; they're travel topics, like Star articles. Powers (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have expected Star articles to be in projectspace as well, but I understand your rationale. What confused me is that there are no breadcrumbs at the top of the article. Perhaps we should create another subcategory of Travel topics that deals with concepts related to Wikivoyage itself, such as star articles, featured articles, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we discarded the idea of trying to shoehorn travel topics into a breadcrumb hierarchy. Powers (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I may very well be wrong about this, but I don't think I've ever seen a travel topic article outside any breadcrumb hierarchy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Travel topics never had a hierarchy until relatively recently, and it turned out not to work well. Powers (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The travel topic breadcrumbs seem odd to me. Having Japan's Top Cherry Blossom Spots as "Nature", "Kimono-buying guide" as "Shopping, Japan's Top Three as "Cultural attractions"... It seems an odd way to organize them and doesn't seem to represent the way in which a typical (or even atypical) traveler thinks. Very few people will say "I want to go shopping somewhere in the world" and then go from there. However, a lot of people would say "I want to go to Japan... I wonder where I can buy a kimono" and go off of that. Previously our travel topics were just given the hierarchy of the smallest region in which they are relevant (in these cases, "Japan"). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Over-extending the schedule
Policy states that our schedule "should contain about six months' worth of upcoming destinations". We currently have nine months scheduled, and if Ypsilon's most recent edit to dotm hadn't been reverted, we would have had eleven. Notwithstanding the "these are not cast in stone" clause, there are way too many variables that might come into play between now and, say, November or December for it to be of any real use to prognosticate about which articles we'll feature at that time.

Several months ago, a variety of factors (our crosswiki collaboration with de: regarding Travemünde as OtBP, an extreme backlog of feature-article nominees) combined to create a unique situation where it was appropriate to extend the schedule through October. It bears repeating that this was, in fact, a unique situation. We no longer have a significant backlog (in fact, we have a temporary moratorium on new nominees except FTT), and in any case it's not absolutely necessary that nominees always be placed on the schedule immediately upon being nominated. There's an HTML-hidden note placed above the schedule grid that reads: "PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY NEW MONTHS TO THE SCHEDULE FOR NOW. WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY AS IT IS". I thought that in itself would have been enough to deter folks from further over-extending the schedule, but in any case, let's please heed it.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I won't do it again. Somehow I didn't notice the notice. :P ϒpsilon (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, Ypsi. Even with a lengthy edit summary, I thought that it would be a bit too curt for me to revert your edit without a full explanation. Anyway, you're not the only one who's been making noise recently about extending the schedule (q.v. the most recent comments on dotm). It's true that under ordinary circumstances we usually add a new month to the grid after the old one ends, and I want to make sure everyone understands why that's not been happening lately. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL! Andrew. Sorry for making that noisy, but actually neither me was knew about such tag exists. --Saqib (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. I've been actively involved with the DotM section just since a couple of weeks and haven't read all the discussions here. Good I didn't start filling the table with Cruise ships and Hue and stuff... ϒpsilon (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On a positive note, it does seem like a small victory, this problem :-) Not that long ago we were struggling to find both candidates and users willing to join the discussion. And now... Before long we'll have to start discussing a shorter featuring time :-) Well done! JuliasTravels (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a thought but would it be a good idea to feature OtbP guides on bi-weekly basis? --Saqib (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How about increasing the risk for nominated articles to land on the slush pile instead, ie. tightening the requirements or something? Maybe we should vote on the articles in the same way as we vote on Main Page banners for them? The winning article would become the DoTM/OtBP/FTT while those with less votes would be "quarantined" for ? months (like user blocks this duration could be increased for each time the article "loses") so that we don't have the same articles around here all the time. If we at some point don't have enough articles to nominate we could revert to the current procedure when nominated articles are virtually guaranteed to become DoTM's. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though this is something I really don't want to support at this time when one of my nomination (Kirthar National Park) already waiting for support and might be slushed if your proposal accepted, but I must confess that your proposal is good and I second it. After all, featured articles should exemplifies our best work if not very best work and recently some of the articles were featured on the main page but from my point of view, few of those articles lacked the capability of a featured article. Wikivoyage is progressing and developing and we've started to receiving many new nominations so I think its time to tighten the requirement of article nominated for feature and lets discuss the new criteria. --Saqib (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any such policy. The current procedure is perfectly sufficient. If a Wikivoyager feels that a particular article is not good enough to be featured on the Main Page, s/he is free to vote oppose and give reasons why the article needs improvement, after which the article will either be improved to everyone's satisfaction or be put on the slush pile. But it makes no sense for people to decline to make their feelings known and then claim the system doesn't work. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, with everyone's cooperation in holding off on new nominations for the past few months, the backlog of nominees has been greatly reduced. I think in a month or so we'll be ready to start accepting new nominations, and of course after the end of May we can start adding new months to the schedule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, a look at the slush pile itself should put the lie to the idea that we've been shy about slushing nominees when warranted. We've slushed five of them (Blackpool and everything after) in the relatively short period of time since alarm bells about the backlog of nominees were first raised. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current procedures have been working well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 1, 2014
I'm going to be in Pennsylvania that day visiting my future in-laws, with no Internet access except on my phone, so someone else will have to update DotM. The last few times I've been unavailable on the appointed day, it took a long time - sometimes upwards of a full day - before anyone bothered to update the Main Page, so fair warning.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I'll take care of it Andrew and I wish you will have a good time there and remember "First impressions last." --Saqib (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Saqib. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought March started and I changed the DotM. Sorry! --Saqib (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

May 10, 2014
Once again, I'm going to be out of town all next weekend and someone else will have to slot in Vianden as OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I'll take care of it. --Saqib (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

More nominations than months available
Recently we have had a whole lot of new nominations coming in. We also have Lodz, Stockholm and Tallinn contesting for one DotM slot, Georgetown (Malaysia) disappearing somewhere, D-Day beaches being suggested to be featured because of the 70th anniversary and Munich is also now suggested to be featured in September.

Should we maybe have a fourth category in addition to DotM, OtBP and FTT or something? Or something else? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon, i think we should take it rather easy and building up a backlog. I remember the times very well when we had a severe lack of articles... Specific articles like 70th anniversary of D-Day beaches are imho more relevant than e.g. Munich. Munich can be displayed in 2015, too. I would oppose an inflation of more featured articles because this would reduce its "singularity". Stockholm is lingering for some time and i would rather prefer to raise the bar for articles. jan (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jan. There's no need for a fourth category, and it's great to have an embarrassment of riches. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two threads back I indeed suggested tightening the requirements for the articles to be featured, but it wasn't a popular idea. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There might be ways to tighten things that I could agree with, just not a straight popularity contest for articles. But for now, I'm pretty content to just let things unfold as they will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It has often been the case that we have more nominations in the summer and then they wane off towards the winter, so I think we should encourage all legitimate nominations. Of course if some don't have support and no one seems to be working to get them up to standard, they should be slushed, but it's a good thing to have nominations. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Something more from Latin America, Africa and Oceania next winter?
As you know, the areas WV covers best are “North America proper”, Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia and Australia. This is also reflected in the articles that are featured on the main page. In the winter when most Canadian/US/European destinations are rather unpleasant to visit, we quite often have Asian articles featured. In the last 12 months, 6 DotMs and 3 OtbPs have been from Asia. The 2014-15 Northern Hemisphere winter does not seem very different; all four destinations for Oct and Nov are from Asia, plus we have Georgetown, Malaysia and Kirthar National Park coming up, and a couple of Chinese destinations up for nomination.

Sure — Asian destinations are interesting and exciting, but a little geographical diversity wouldn’t hurt, would it? I would therefore ask everyone to keep their eyes open for good articles of Latin American, African and Oceanian destinations, the parts of the world that quite seldom get featured here. Besides, I believe much of Latin America, Africa and Oceania are at their best during the Northern Hemisphere winter. (I may have counted wrong, but you get the picture, I think?)
 * For example, since the DotM section was started ten years ago we have had 118 featured articles. Just three of them have been from South America and equally few from Africa.
 * Among the OtBP's we have three African features (or four, Niamey has been featured in Feb 2013 and Jan 2010), and although South America has been quite frequently represented during the last year, La Macarena last September was the first ever OtBP from the southern cone.
 * For Oceania other than Oz and Nz we currently have two OtBPs, Vava’u will become the third.
 * Something from the Mexico+Central America+Caribbean area has been up for DotM two times and for OtBP three times.

So, if you know some good or decent article from these parts of the world - either in English or in a language you could translate to English, why not go ahead and make a Guide out of it? As we’re talking about the timeslots of Dec 2014-Apr 2015 articles do not need to be put up for nomination right away. They would perhaps need some polishing, updating and expansion, though, perhaps something to work on a few rainy afternoons this summer? I’ve myself nominated Montevideo for DotM and Andre has nominated Fox Glacier for OtBP. 2-3 more destinations from these areas would be good to have. Even if “your” article is not going to land on the main page, you are still expanding our coverage on places that certain other travel guides do not cover. And maybe you’ll discover an interesting destination to visit yourself someday? Happy hunting and editing! ϒpsilon (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfeatured guides
I started looking through Category:Guide cities. None of the first ten &mdash; Abbots Langley Air Itam Akron Alexandrov Alice Springs Alkmaar Altrincham Amed Amritsar Antigua Guatemala &mdash; were tagged as having been DoTM or OtBP. I'll stop there, but this seems to make it clear there are lots of possible candidates among the 434 articles with that category tag. Pashley (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Antigua Guatemala has been an unsuccessful feature nominee on at least two past occasions. Maybe it's time to dust that one off and make the improvements to it that would earn it Main Page coverage. I'm fairly familiar with what needs to be done, as I was its most recent nominator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do have some quite good articles from the seldom featured regions. Antigua plus coordinates minus dead links would make a good DotM or at least OtBP. Then there are also Stars and Guides in other language versions (discovered fr:Mombasa yesterday) ϒpsilon (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC).


 * I'd definitely support improvements to the Antigua guide, so that it could be featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

10 point waterproof DotM/OtBP test?
I came up with a 10 question waterproof(?) test to determine whether a destination would be more suitable as a DotM or OtBP. The topics are notability, accessibility and popularity. The more affirmative answers you get, the more of a DotM candidate it is and vice versa. This is NOT something that should to be turned into official policy, but could nevertheless be a good tool every time someone wants to create a nomination:


 * 1) If you think about the continent where it's located, would you possibly come to think of this destination?
 * 2) Does it have over 250,000 inhabitants?
 * 3) Does it have a decent article on WP? (don't know how to define that exactly, but at least it must not be a stub)
 * 4) Does it have its own airport?
 * 5) If yes, is there at least one flight to that airport which is international AND over 1h in duration/a flight from an airport with intercontinental connections?
 * 6) Is the destination in general well connected to nearby major cities by public land transport/boat?
 * 7) Can the destination be visited just like that without special permissions, taking a tour etc.?
 * 8) The article is at least a Guide, so all the important things to See and Do that exist at the destination are supposed to be in the article now. Are there at least 15 Sees and Dos combined?
 * 9) Is the destination visited also by people who do not go there to visit relatives, friends or a business? (i.e. does it have "universal" attractions?)
 * 10) Does it have an official tourism web page?

ϒpsilon (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good list. But #8 should go; all DotM and OtBP articles must be at least Guide status.  Powers (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In my estimation, Ypsi doesn't seem to be implying that articles at less than Guide status should be featured. Childs fails the test presented in #8, but is still rightly at Guide status, so according to his metric it should be OtBP (and was). On the other hand, #3 can be safely jettisoned; any Guide or better article will surely be "decent" and "not a stub". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support this proposal, but I have a further question about #8. What happens when we feature Huge Cities, which, by definition, should not have any listings at all? Do we tally up the listings in the district articles instead? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say Yes to that. I also think these tests seem like a reasonable basis for discussion on the flip side (so to speak) of this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good list, but of course many fine DoTM candidates fail some of these. Boracay is nowhere near 250,000, Suzhou lacks an airport, going to Lhasa requires a permit, ... In archipelagos, some fine places may be easily reached by neither air nor land, only by boat. There are many you might not think of for the continent but certainly would for some smaller region; I would not suggest Calgary or Buffalo as essential stops on a North American tour, for example, but certainly would for someone planning to explore the Canadian prairies or the Great Lakes region. Pashley (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See also earlier discussion at and several DotM/OtBP discussions for particular destinations. Pashley (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Concerning #8: of course the article should be a Guide, which means that there is (almost) nothing left in the destination to add to the article. If the number of See's and Do's is still small, we are talking about a small/"non touristy" destination. And yes, if it is a districtified city, everything that is in the city districts should be counted (of course, something with less See & Do's than 15 is seldom districtified).
 * Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough, but the article does not need to "pass" all of these to be a DotM (if it does it means it's certainly not OtBP). For example you need a permit to visit Lhasa, but otherwise I think the answer is "yes" to at least five of the above questions.
 * About #3, as I'm not very familiar with WP's article status categories I don't know how to define it exactly. w:Magnitogorsk would be a prime example of a short WP article of a largish city. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see; the first sentence under #8 is not a criterion but background for the criterion in the second sentence. Thanks for explaining.  I totally agree with your metric; I think this is an excellent list that can help clarify DotM/OtBP status.  Powers (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great that you like it! And remember, everyone, this test is just a helpful tool, not something everyone would be required to use every time they want to nominate an article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misread #3. I thought it said "does it have a decent WV article." -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's refine it with some bonus questions:
 * 11. Prominence: Is there anything scoring higher on those ten questions within e.g. 100 km from the destination? (here the destination gets a point for a "no")
 * 12. Is it/does it have an UNESCO World Heritage site? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also propose a 13. Is it a major business center? The reason for this criterion is that if a destination is important for both business and pleasure, it's probably a DotM, and also that there are some really important cities like Dubai and Doha which have few tourists but are obvious DotMs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a good concept but it's highly subjective compared to the other proposed criteria. Powers (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to make this one less subjective, please propose some numbers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't do that; I have no idea what numbers I'd even look at. Powers (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone else will, but I think whether a city is an important center of business, banking or manufacturing should be a criterion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, this discussion has been fermenting a long time, and aside from the minor point Ikan and Powers were debating above, it seems like we have a fairly broad consensus behind it. When we have a resolution to everyone's liking of how to quantify when a place is "a major business center", I think it's high time we enshrined this proposal as official policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, or at least official guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Chicago/Far Northwest Side
Once again we've run up against the banner problem, and I'm hoping against hope that this time it finally gets solved. Far Northwest Side is due up as OtBP in a month's time.

See how the words "Far Northwest Side, Chicago" shag over the right margin of the text shadow box? It looks like total amateur hour. Unfortunately, the quick-fix solution of shortening the title, as employed with Rail travel in the United States inter alia, won't work here. There's no way to further shorten the article's title (with the exception of truncating "Northwest" to "NW", which would look equally shoddy).

If I haven't made it clear before, let it be clear now: THIS PROBLEM HAS TO BE SOLVED. Either by shrinking the text or making the shadowbox expandable. I don't care which. Again, I would do it myself if I had any real proficiency in MediaWiki coding, but I don't. I know I'm being a pain in the neck, but please let's just get this taken care of and then we'll never have to listen to me harp on about this again.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the shadowbox. Powers (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look carefully, can you see the "o" in "Chicago" bleeding ever so slightly past the right edge? I believe I can, though it is marginal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The width of the banner box can currently be overridden - see the "width" parameter in Template:Banner. Is something more needed? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ryan. I wish I had been informed of that one of the previous times that I asked this same question. I really dislike making a nuisance of myself with posts like the one at the beginning of this thread. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, the DotM banner. I was looking at the article.  Powers (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Riga
I know we just had Tallinn on the front page, but Riga has seen a similar amount of work to it and is now a very presentable guide IMHO. I was wondering if I should nominate it as DoTM or OtBT though? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dotm. It's the capital of a country, and not a tiny capital. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no fear of having Riga "next to" Tallinn, because if you look at the table, everything is booked until next spring. And then there are still a couple of cities already waiting... Riga should absolutely be featured as DoTM, Greater Riga has a million inhabitants and is a fairly popular destination. It's also a national capital, but that alone shouldn't mean a destination should automatically be DoTM (I'm thinking about capitals of island nations and such). ϒpsilon (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Capitals should generally be DotMs. For the tiny Pacific Islands, I would say that the nation itself, if featured, would be DotM-worthy over the capital. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Summer/Autumn 2015 scheduling issue
Hey guys, how would you feel about rescheduling Suzhou to June to make room for Milan in April, for the launch of the Expo? I am quite afraid if we do not feature Milan right at the launch (it's May 1), the impetus to improve the article will be lost completely, and it's one of the major destinations in Europe whose coverage by Wikivoyage has been below par so far. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm...fact is that we would have five European DotMs in the upcoming summer season, as the schedule would look something like this: Apr-Milan, May-Vienna, Jun-Suzhou, Jul-Buffalo, Aug-Lodz, Sep-Munich, Oct-Manchester. Add to that a couple of European OtBPs and FTTs we already have (and I've been considering nominating a few more of those European ones).
 * I vaguely remember PrinceGloria or someone else suggesting somewhere that we should feature both Milan and later on the Expo2015 as a Featured Travel Topic. Would it be enough to just feature the expo? What do others think? --ϒpsilon (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a snowball's chance in hell we manage to get a guide-level article on the Expo in time. I am all for rescheduling Łódź and Manchester, are there reasons to feature them in those particular months? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not any particular reason, other than that they've already been sitting around here for a while (Lodz was nominated almost a year ago). On the other hand I do think it's a very good idea to feature candidates during major events such as the Expo and Eurovision Song Contest - the same thing was done for Copenhagen in December during a climate conference a few years back. I guess a good compromise would be to have Lodz in October 2015 and Manchester sometime in 2016. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a proposal on Wikivoyage/Lounge for an interlingual feature of Milan for the May, 2015 Wikimania. It would be good to have another interlingual feature, don't you think? By the way, I hadn't realized that Milan is now a Guide. Someone should please nominate it for Dotm, so we can discuss its current suitability for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, Ypsi, Ikan: I've moved this discussion from Suzhou's nomination to here, as it has very little to do with Suzhou and it stands a better chance for participation by a wider slice of the community on this page, I think. I will be adding my own thoughts on the matter in a moment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. There are three thoughts in my head that are germane to the issue at hand.


 * 1) As many others have said in this discussion and elsewhere, we currently have far too many European DotM candidates. In Ypsi's proposed summer and autumn schedule above, five out of seven months are occupied by European destinations, which is simply ludicrous. Also, in that proposal, Manchester is put off till October, which is far less than ideal given its climate, and which leads into my second point...
 * 2) Something else that others have pointed out is that it's important to give consideration to articles that have been languishing on the DotM nomination page for a long time without being featured. This is the reason why Buffalo's original nomination was slushed in 2013 after only 12 months, a shorter time than either Łódź or Manchester will have had to wait (21 and 19 months, respectively; bumped up to 23 and >29 months if we go with Ypsi's revised compromise timestamped 06:36, 27 October 2014). And don't get me wrong, I'm all for slushing stale nominees when we simply don't have room for them on the schedule, but...
 * 3) I think it's possible to go overboard with scheduling timely nominees to coincide with major events. If we have a major event like Eurovision or the Milan Expo in mind and we find the corresponding article to be in decent shape for Main Page exposure, that doesn't have to be the end of the debate. Particularly not if it would mean both pushing out worthy articles that have been waiting a long time, like Łódź and Manchester, and crowding more European nominees into an already disproportionately European summer/autumn schedule. Similarly, it's nice to collaborate with other language versions, but there's no reason to hold ourselves to some arbitrary threshold of doing it once per year if it doesn't work for our schedule. That's not a slight against it:, it's just that circumstances get in the way sometimes.


 * Bearing all that in mind, I think that a choice our community is going to have to make is whether we want to feature Vienna in May for Eurovision or Milan in April for the Expo. IMO, it's one or the other, not both. Personally, my choice goes with Vienna, for two reasons: one, Milan hasn't even been formally nominated yet, and whether it's ready for prime time has yet to be decided; two, we already have an Italian OtBP candidate in Iseo (with banners already made on the banners page, yet) that would also have to be put off till 2016 in the event Milan is featured, per previous discussions on this page about scheduling destinations from the same country in close proximity to each other.


 * Let's please hear other editors' thoughts on this.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't actually proposing that schedule but just wanted to illustrate what we would get if Milan would also be added to the equation - a similar situation as with the Asian articles in the winter. Yes,we have many interesting travel destinations on all continents with Guide articles but we just have 12+12 slots per year and if we feature a lot of destinations from one continent there will be less room for destinations from elsewhere. That's just the way it is.


 * The question is what to do with all European articles standing in line. If the reason for Lodz and Manchester still being unscheduled after 11 and 9 months would be "oppose", "not yet" or "almost" votes, then their nominations should be speedily slushed. This is not the case — both have enough support votes (Lodz has one "almost" vote but those issues can be easily fixed by using Google). Even as I would like to see Milan featured sometime, I much agree with Andre's points above, especially as Iseo is likely to be featured the month before or even the same month (BTW: in the case we'd have Milan as DoTM in June April I'd personally be fine with featuring Iseo as OtBP in September instead of having it "loitering" around until spring 2016).


 * But, how would it sound to cross-feature Vienna in May for the Eurovision song contest? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Assuming we could find another language version that's willing to collaborate with us and whose coverage of Vienna is up to snuff, I think that would be the perfect solution, Ypsi. Though Vienna is a German-speaking city, I might start out looking for partners other than de:, as we collaborated with them last year and we should build relationships with multiple different language versions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, cross-featuring Vienna would fully address the issue, it seems to me. I have to get ready and go for lunch and then a jam, but someone should mention this in the inter-lingual lounge. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, it is not "ludicrous" to feature five European destinations, it is A BIT too much, but Europe sees a disproportionally high share of tourist traffic compared to other continents. And four is certainly not an astonishing number - on balance, Europe is disproportionally underrepresented in the OtBT section. This is just a result of not only where the tourists go, but also the interests of our members. We may want to be very fair and balanced, but we are also a community and there is no need to be shy reflecting who we are now.
 * Secondly, Łódź is certainly not ready. I know the city really well and I am there at least once a year. Let's slush it, its time will come. Then we're down to four and we can survive. If anything, we can reschedule Munich until 2016 as well, although 2015 is the year of the IBA and I believe we really shouldn't miss the chance. Vienna and Milan both should go this year for obvious reasons. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To PrinceGloria's points:


 * 1. Sorry, but five European destinations, with one each from North America and East Asia and none at all from Oceania, Africa, Latin America, the Indian Subcontinent, or the Middle East is more than "a bit too much". Three European destinations would be "a bit too much", four would be really pushing it, and five is, yes, ludicrous.


 * 1a. For the same reason, I wouldn't call two European OtBP candidates (Turku and Iseo) a "disproportionate underrepresentation". That seems about the right proportion to me.


 * 2. Intentionally overrepresenting the Global North on the Main Page because "that's a reflection of who we are as a community" flies in the face of well-established consensus in favor of geographical diversity (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).


 * 3. If you know Łódź well and you feel that its article isn't up to snuff, why in the world don't you plunge forward and fix what needs to be fixed? Alternatively, you could argue in favor of slushing the nomination, but with three support votes, one almost support vote, and one de facto oppose vote (yours), such an effort would be, to put it generously, a long shot.


 * 4. Your proposal still doesn't address what's to be done with Iseo.


 * In conclusion, I think what you're proposing involves way too much pain for way too little gain. Is it really worth it to institute such an imbalanced DotM schedule, defer two worthy feature-article candidates till 2016, and slush Łódź against a clear consensus just for the benefit of having two "timely event" features rather than just one? With all due respect, I think your arguments strain credulity almost to if not beyond the breaking point.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Are we after showcasing our best work and attracting readers to Wikivoyage, or is this a rummy game? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As you know I'm Italian so I'm on conflict of interest, but I'll tell you what I think. I think that featuring Milan during EXPO is quite important: perhaps it can attract many visitors to wikivoyage (many users will probably look for 'Milan' on google -or other search providers). If necessary I think it's better to move Iseo to 2016. That Said I understand that 5 European destinations can be too much, so make your choices. -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as of now Milan isn't among the best articles we have either - for instance many districts desperately need more Buy and Eat listings. In the state it is now we shouldn't put it on the Main Page and most certainly not at the expense of articles that already have gained sufficient support. I don't think "timely events" should be the ultimate setpoint for what articles we choose to feature. Even if it was, Milan for instance makes it to the news twice a year during the Milan fashion weeks. Also, if the issue would be to just showcase the very best of our articles, I think we have almost a year's worth of unfeatured Star articles of city districts, in a total of four or five cities...
 * Now, I'm not entirely opposed to have Milan up for April for the Expo's sake but the district articles need to be expanded. Iseo could maybe be moved to September, then. The thing is, however that we in that case need to slush/postpone 1-2 of the mentioned European DotM candidates. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI the first EXPO month is May, so it is not necessary to move Suzhou from April. -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 21:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lkcl it, May is already dedicated to Vienna for the Eurovision song contest. Ypsi, the usual policy dictates that at least 6 months should pass between any two Main Page features from the same country, which would effectively relegate Iseo to 2016 per its "Time to feature"; however, this is complicated by the fact that Milan and Iseo are both located in Lombardy, only an hour by car from each other. That being the case, if we were to run Milan in April 2015, we could not truly justify featuring Iseo before 2017 (see last year's Hampstead/City of London dilemma for a comparable situation from the past). Frankly, this is all far more trouble than it's worth. We had a workable, if heavily European, DotM schedule before this development came and mucked it all up. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the current schedule, DotM Nov 2014 to May 2015, I see four Asian destinations and zero European among the six. Should we do some shuffling, perhaps swapping a European city into this block & an Asian one to a later slot? Pashley (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Inspired by Pashley's above comment I hereby announce a solution that wouldn't only make the waiting time of the now nominated articles as short as possible; less than a year in most cases, and prevent a too Asian winter and too European summer. Buffalo, Manchester and Lodz are all cities with a similar character (industrial heritage etc.) so avoiding having them all after each other would be desirable - this would also be addressed. But the good news don't end there: we would not need to slush any nomination, we'd have both Milan (with better district articles!) and Vienna on the main page for in time for Expo and ESC, just four European DotMs in those six months (remember, this is not uncommon for Asia in the winter!), and never more than two European DotMs directly after each other. Sounds too good to be true? Here it is:
 * Łódź for OtBP. Right now in November 2014 after two weeks!
 * What to do with Taketomi, then? Running Milan in April means May's OtBP slot is vacant again (Lkcl was fine with featuring Iseo later) - let's put Taketomi there.
 * After Vienna in May we'd have Suzhou and Buffalo for June and July. Then it's back to Europe for Manchester in August and finally Munich in September as already decided.
 * Is it really unthinkable to have Łódź as OtBP instead of DoTM? After all this isn't Kraków or Warsaw. And yes, unless one likes it cool, rainy and dark, November isn't weather-wise the best month to visit the northern half of Europe but a look at the previously featured articles reveals this wouldn't be the first time. Also, there's seems to be an "explorer's festival" in the city in November!
 * I think this is a good compromise, taking into consideration most wishes. So shall we polish :) up Łódź, pick an OtBP banner for it and get the scheme started? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That could work. Just for my understanding though... I always thought we try to link destinations to events just to give a good reason to have them on the front page and make them sound even more interesting. I get that putting a destination on the front page will give it more views. However, does the front page improve SEO results so significantly? If not, I'm not sure why it's such a great advantage to put Milan on the front page for the EXPO.. (Or Vienna for the Eurovision, for that matter). It's not like people will go to the Expo because we feature it right the same month. People who do go to the Expo, will most likely just search in google, but even if they come to our main page, they'll have plenty of incentive to just insert "Milan" in our search box. So the question is, does putting an article on the front page improve its position in the search engine? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of making articles Dotm or Otbp solely based on convenience of scheduling. If Lodz is Otbp, why is Buffalo Dotm? I don't like that can of worms. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Because some articles can't be absolutely categorized as black or white DoTM or OtBP. Sure, it'd be silly to nominate e.g. Munich for OtBP or Fox Glacier for DotM. But I don't find it unthinkable to run for instance Turku as DotM or Bangkok/Khao San Road as OtBP. Isn't it useful to have this flexibility to make scheduling easier? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm out of town for the day, but I have a thing or two to say about this. I'll get back to this either late tonight or tomorrow. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ϒpsi, because it's arbitrary to make Buffalo a Dotm and Lodz an Otbp, and I don't like arbitrariness. On the face of it, it seems to me that Turku as Otbp could be better justified, on the basis that Tampere was previously Otbp. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it's a matter of taste. IMO there isn't really that much difference between being featured on the Main page as DotM or OtBP (in both cases they will be there for a month etc.) Especially with articles that are so to say in the grey zone between DotM and OtBP - not world-famous but still known on the continent (or part of the continent) where they're located. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for some flexibility and there is a grey area in the middle between OtBP and DotM.. I also agree in those cases, it doesn't really matter all that much. For the record though, I would say it absolutely is unthinkable to ever make Bangkok/Khao San Road an OtBP destination :-)) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(reindent) Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. We are getting way ahead of ourselves here.

First of all, let me emphasize that there is a longstanding consensus on this site against extending the schedule further than six months into the future. And although Ypsi's speculations about what summer/autumn 2015 might look like haven't made it to the actual, official schedule, it's easy to extrapolate the reasoning behind why we don't have more than a six-month grid to conclude that any speculation about features that far off in the future is premature. We simply don't know what nominees may come down the pike that bowl the community over so much that we all want to feature them immediately, or if civil unrest or a natural disaster will strike a destination in the months before it's due to go on the Main Page (cf. the close call with Mitzpe Ramon a few months ago), or a whole host of other variables that could affect things. So instead of building up a yearlong house-of-cards schedule, hypothetical or otherwise, that could easily end up being scrapped, let's please roll with the punches a little bit and understand that sometimes flexibility means it's better to be reactive than proactive.

Now although I've been pretty much the de facto steward of the DotM feature for a while now, and I guided us through the glut of U.S. nominees last summer, I've tried as much as possible to keep myself from monopolizing the discourse and to encourage other members of the community to assert themselves as equal partners in decision-making - tough to do when most of you seemed content to defer to my judgment. So when I say that the situation is well in hand and this is really a non-issue, please don't misconstrue my intentions. As to Ypsi's plan, I'm afraid my reaction to it is similar to PrinceGloria's: it's way too disruptive to existing consensus (Łódź as DotM rather than OtBP, a can of worms I really don't want to open again) and to the schedule we already have in place (Łódź in November two weeks from now, despite PrinceGloria's opinion that it needs further work, and with a need to rush around and create banners for it when otherwise we would be covered through the end of the year) for way too small a gain (Milan for the Expo, when we already have both Munich and Vienna as "timely event" articles and the latter as a probable cross-language collaboration, and when we have two opportunities every year to run Milan for Fashion Week).

Second of all, regarding "a too Asian winter and a too European summer", there's a good reason why certain regions of the world tend to be featured more often during certain times of the year: we configure each destination's "Time to feature" so they're on the Main Page at a climatically opportune time. So of course winter is heavy on warm-weather destinations in places like Asia, and summer sees temperate latitudes like Europe and North America predominate. Within reason (i.e. not stacking the summer with five European destinations), there's no problem with that. That, in point of fact, is desirable. And that's another problem with featuring Łódź in November, when the average temperature is barely above freezing. Honestly, its current "Time to feature" range (Apr-Oct) is already too long; it should be May-Sep.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I'm frankly confused as to what we're trying to accomplish here. This is a problem that has already been solved: the proposal to scrap the Milan feature and use Vienna as our cross-language collaboration was simple and headache-free. Why we're now rejecting that solution in favor of something far more disruptive and complicated to implement and with far inferior results is beyond me. Can't we just leave well enough alone?

And if we really insist on going that solution one better and putting something on the Main Page about the Milan expo, let's make it an FTT, for Pete's sake. PrinceGloria says there's a "snowball's chance in hell" we'd have an Expo 2015 FTT ready in time, but come on. April 21 is six months away. Working by myself, it took me just over a month to create a pretty long and elaborate Guide article from the ground up (Percé), and I was also devoting attention to a lot of other work, both on- and offwiki, at the same time. In fact, it has never taken me anywhere near as long as six months to complete a Buffalo district article, all of which are among the longest articles on Wikivoyage.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What we are trying to accomplish is to have a dynamic consensus and not "long-standing consensus". Many users CURRENTLY active in this project (pretty much all nominators) have voiced their opinion here. I believe consensus should be dynamic and be achieved among users currently active.
 * I also believe it is important to feature BOTH Milan and Vienna on the front page not only because of people looking for them (although it will probably increase our Google Ranks on that), but also because people randomly coming in will come and see an interetsing destination AND becaise we could then go out and ask tourist organizations etc. to help contribute to those guides because they will be on the front page.
 * I would also like to challenge the current process of setting up the schedule and try to change it in this discussion, BY CONSENSUS. I believe that focusing on 6 months only and THEN being very inflexbile does not serve us well. I also believe we should generally feature locations during the very important events there, and whether we have a balance between Europe, Asia, North America, Oceania and Antarctica is of secondary importance. Finally, I believe that DoTM should also be a bit like the (pretty much dead) CoTM, drawing attention to articles that WILL need attention because those events are nearing, and being scheduled to feature is a good reason to rally around the article and impove it.
 * I base my opinion of 6 months on the fact that so far nobody expressed interest in creating the article on Expo. A chance is still a chance, but we should not count on it if it is small. Not because this is too little time, but also because we have nobody interested so far. I am interested in working on Milan and Vienna. As for multilanguage collaborations, I don't believe in much success here, but at least we had some support for Milan. Anyway, this is not decided here, but someplace else. We can't assume what the decision will be. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Both Prince and Lkcl it seem to be very enthusiastic about having Milan on the Main Page next spring. I came up with this idea to make it possible in the first place without entirely dynamiting the current schedule, having too many similar articles, having to put articles on hold for one extra year or slushing them. Lodz seemed to be the lightest stone to move.
 * OK, personally I wouldn't go as far as “we have to feature Milan in April 2015!!!”, besides the district articles need work before the article can be featured. Sure, for the reasons Prince just outlined there is indeed a point in featuring articles during specific months but this should not be an end in itself and I think it's a bad idea to have to hunt around for events in order to get an article featured. On the other hand "Vienna+big event" in May should’t per se automatically disqualify "Milan+another big event" in April. My opinion would in this case boil down to "let's give Milan and Vienna a chance". Also, which one of these articles (or both or even neither) that would be the cross-wiki collab can be discussed.
 * In the last paragraph of the above comment I did take into consideration that November isn’t the best month to visit Lodz, but also reminded that it wouldn’t be the first time we’d feature an article in an inappropriate month. To mention some examples: we’ve run Edinburgh, Reykjavik, Bath, Basel and Celle during cold months. And the we have the deep-frozen Northeast Asian pair of Harbin and Yakutsk in December 2008, the latter even without a proper nomination in the archive. Also, this would be just one month and one destination. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To PrinceGloria's comment, the arguments presented are pretty flimsy. You say you want both Milan and Vienna on the Main Page because "people randomly coming in will see an interesting destination" and "we could then go out and ask tourist organizations etc. to help contribute to those guides". The first point is inconsistent with the goal of DotM, which is to highlight our best-written articles, not to highlight the most popular cliché tourist destinations - and besides, speaking as the author of Buffalo, your implication that less popular destinations aren't "interesting" is quite insulting. As to the second point, it's a non sequitur: what's keeping us from working with the tourist guide of Łódź or some other second-tier destination to improve our coverage further?


 * That leaves your initial point, about featuring big-name destinations to improve our Google Page Rank. This, I think, speaks to a wrongheaded tendency I've noticed infecting our community's governance more and more lately, which is that we've begun making decisions based on SEO strategies rather than with the creation of the highest-quality product in mind (here's another example). SEO tactics are cheap tricks that, when we employ them in this kind of way, degrade the quality of our guide and don't even work terribly well for their intended purpose (see LPfi's comments on another SEO matter timestamped 10:27, 16 October 2014). And I like to think that Wikivoyage is better than featuring only places like Milan and Vienna on our front page, and other well-trodden destinations that a million other travel guides have covered and by which we bring nothing new to the table. Not to mention the fact that have you seen Alexa lately? Our SEO problem is quickly solving itself. Since August, Wikitravel has been plunging like a rock in site rank and in search traffic, while Wikivoyage is essentially flat in site rank and up sharply in search traffic.


 * Addressing your more general points regarding the nature of consensus, the restructuring of DotM along the lines of CotM, and abandoning our consensus regarding not extending the schedule past six months (which, contrary to your assertion, has been reaffirmed more recently than 2008, mostly by currently-active members of the community) - what you are proposing is fundamental changes to the way Wikivoyage operates. Specifically regarding consensus, you might want to have a look at Consensus. While not completely intractable, our definition of consensus is specifically designed so as not to be changeable on a whim (c.f. "be dynamic"). To redefine consensus in the way you propose would put us at odds with most WMF sites, and to say the least, it would take a Herculean effort to achieve such a policy change.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To Ypsilon's comment, I appreciate your efforts to mitigate the situation to everyone's liking, but I still can't get behind your proposed schedule change. You say you felt that Łódź was "the lightest stone to move", but you don't realize that it's a pain in the ass for me to come up with four DotM banner selections for Łódź in two weeks' time (because aside from the Iseo banners, it's been months if not over a year since anyone other than me has taken a turn creating banners) while simultaneously knowing in the back of my mind that the Taketomi banners are going to be cluttering up the page for that much longer. Furthermore, just because we've run articles in inappropriate months in a few instances in the past shouldn't be seen as carte blanche to do it again. (And I hardly think it's fair to mention Reykjavik; we ran that a month after launch when DotM wasn't the first thing on anyone's mind).


 * Secondly, and far more importantly, I remain baffled about the dismissive attitude that's been taken regarding the possibility of Expo 2015 as FTT. It's the obvious solution; by and large, visitors to Expo 2015 will be far more interested in the expo itself than the myriad other attractions in Milan that they may or may not have the time or inclination to visit. In fact, I'd support the Expo as FTT over Milan as DotM even if accommodating the latter didn't mean reorganizing the hell out of the schedule. PrinceGloria says that he has tried to canvas support for creating an Expo 2015 article without any bites; well, now we have a big, protracted, contentious discussion that most of WV's heavy-hitters have weighed in on (or are at least watching from the wings), in which the possibility of accommodating the expo in the FTT column has been bandied about repeatedly. If that doesn't attract attention to the article, nothing will. In fact, I'll sweeten the pot and agree, if necessary, to help out myself with writing it.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess we should start writing the Expo 2015 article, then. BTW, the "XXI Triennale International Exhibition", apparently a world's fair of architecture is listed in our World's Fair article. It's also going to be arranged in Milan, in 2016. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent. As promised, I will ensure this article is taken care of in a timely fashion; however, a note to any potential collaborators I may have is that Expo 2005 in Aichi served as DotM in May of that year (back before OtBP or FTT existed), and may serve as a useful model for 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I never tried to canvas support for Expo 2015. I find it unnecessary and superfluous, most of the information in the usual sections (Get In, Sleep, etc.) would pertain to Milan or at least Milan/West anyway, but the article will only live for a limited time, while enhancing Milan will leave a lasting effect. I am truly rooting for you to develop Expo 2015, but I will continue contributing to Milan and its district whenever time allows. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I do have to agree with PrinceGloria on that. It's laudable that you're offering to write it yourself, AndreCarrotflower. However, if there are no real Expo-fans who particularly like to write that article, I'd say it's a lot of effort for seemingly little gain, considering the limited time it's relevant and the fact that most visitors will probably just have a look at the Expo website for all the basics and more information and need a travel guide for Milan during their stay. I have no strong feelings in either direction really, but if we don't want to feature Milan for scheduling reasons, we should just feature it some other time instead of writing articles no-one is particularly enthusiastic about. For the record, the comments about SEO are a reply to my question above. I didn't ask it out of interest for SEO as a goal, but rather because it seems the only pressing reason to feature destinations during events anyway. My point was actually that I too believe the upsides might not be worth all the hassle. JuliasTravels (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but Milan hasn't even been nominated yet, has it? Powers (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right. Milan hasn't been nominated and Expo 2015 is a bare skeleton, only just created :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even Milan as DotM seems to have only tepid support. If we draw a strict distinction between "actively pushing for it to be featured" vs. "trying to accommodate the wishes of all parties", only one or, at most, two editors seem to particularly care either way. I'm still willing to pitch in on Expo 2015, because we could always use some new FTT candidates. But beyond that, I vote we put this issue to bed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

WV DotM on WP
Recently I've been to Italian Wikipedia and I saw DotM of Italian WV was being featured on the WP main page. I started to wonder whether we can avail the benefit as well? We may need to discuss things with EN WP community. It can a lot of efforts and chances are our proposal could be denied but its worth to try. --Saqib (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that when Wikivoyage's Facebook page posts the new DotMs/OtBPs/FTTs, Wikipedia often reposts them onto their own Facebook feed. It's not a huge logical leap to imagine that en.wp might be willing to collaborate with reposts on their own Main Page as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice to know that Andrew but unfortunately, they don't retweet us. So if you think they can consider our request, it would bring us a huge exposure. --Saqib (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Running out of potential FTTs?
To be short, this is a possibility we're facing in the relatively near future: a quick perusal of, , and shows an exceedingly small number of articles that haven't yet been on the Main Page. (The scenario at is marginally better, but we've been counseled to limit ourselves to no more than one phrasebook FTT per year.)

We need to make a concerted effort to improve more travel topics, itineraries and airport articles to Guide or better status - perhaps a good thing to do would be to take an inventory of Usable articles to see which ones might be improved with a minimum of effort. I'm almost tempted to gauge support for a Travel Topics and Itineraries Expedition, but lately it seems like Expeditions is the place where good ideas go to die, so I'll hold off on that absent a groundswell of support on this thread.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The situation doesn't look critical yet, but since we plan 6 months in advance, it is getting there. I think an Expedition is a good idea, and I'm willing to help with some copy editing, at least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How about accepting the reality that we shall have much less travel topics and non-guide articles forever and ever and stop trying to work around it, but either accept that FTTs live for 2-3 months or topics are covered only intermittently? We have a buildup of good destination articles though, and featuring more of them would be really good. Moreover, I believe at this point most topics that are truly important and not trivial are covered really well, but many destination articles, especially region-level, but also lowest-level, also for quite popular destinations, could use some editing focus. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been spending some time on taking a few low level regions from outline to usable, quite a task it turns out to do it properly. Will look into proposing an expedition on the process. On the topic of itineraries to guide, what do you think is needed with Wales Coast Path to get it to guide status? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As the nominator of most of the current FTT candidates on the nominations page I'd say the situation is not that critical and at this point I would oppose cutting down featured travel topics to just once every 2-3 months. As a comparison, in January 2014 there were just three months of FTTs in the "upcoming" table plus three question marks.
 * Here's a year's worth of non-phrasebook travel topics that are either at Guide status or strong Usables that could relatively easily be brought up to featurable status if they aren't yet: Frequent flyer programmes, Natchez Trace Parkway, Street food, Driving in New Zealand, Altitude sickness, Heathrow Airport, Hiking and backpacking in Israel, Rail travel in India, Money, Copenhagen Airport, E11 hiking trail, The Wire Tour. There are almost 20 more, some of them in Category:Guide articles.
 * I've personally brought up a few similar articles to acceptable status and it wasn't really a gargantuan task. Though, of course it would be great if more people would show interest in writing and expanding travel topics, not just for having potential FTT candidated but also in the interest of our readers. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also is there any harm in nominating a FTT that has already been used (and suitably updated in the meantime) ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the reason for limiting phrasebooks to one FTT per year? Is there anything wrong with having a phrasebook FTT every six months? I like reading phrasebooks. :) Also aren't the dive guide really travel topics? If Driving in China and Skiing in Lebanon are considered to be travel topics, I think Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay should be as well. Gizza (t)(c) 11:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Phrasebooks are super useful but the simple fact is that random language phrasebooks are generally less appealing articles on first sight and less likely to gain visitors' interest in reading on. We've more or less concluded that it's a good thing to showcase a few, also to make known that we have them, but to not use too many as a feature. There are no rules cast in stone though; it would do no harm if we'd have two in a year, but we strive to limit them. That's all. As for the diving guides.... I actually think you make an interesting point. They're great articles too. They could be used for the FTT imho, regardless of their exact place in the article hierarchy.
 * As for bringing more articles up the guide level, I'd prefer a collaboration of the month for 1 or 2 articles over yet another expedition. If there's enough actual collaboration, we can always create an expedition. I'm happy to help a bit too. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: dive guides, I totally forgot they were classified separately. The awkwardly named is indeed well-stocked with candidates, but in my view that just makes it all the more imperative that we bolster the number of eligible travel topics, itineraries and airports, lest we someday find ourselves running a dive guide for FTT every month after running out of everything else.
 * Also, to Julias' comment above: we've already featured Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay as FTT, so that's definitely the column dive guides fall into.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. :-)
 * Any suggestions on which article to polish up first? Street food would be a great one in terms of diversity, but anything goes. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very tough to make a huge topic like Street food acceptably complete, even in terms of highlights. We might want to solicit contributions from beyond Wikivoyage, from the Wikipedia community. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about Gothic architecture? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can try. If more people post about the Gothic and neo-Gothic architecture they know, me might be able to turn it into a great article. I humbly submit that good groundwork has been laid in that article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick look at Street food. I didn't remember it had so many great photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Street food may actually be good enough to run, with some fixes for consistency in format (e.g., are we doing 1-liner listings without periods or listings with normal sentence structure and periods?). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like at all the way Street food is formatted. Good articles should be written so as to hold the reader's interest; this one looks insufferably boring, utterly dominated by an insanely overlong list of food after food after food. I'd like to see it reworked somewhat along the lines of the "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" subsections of destination articles: break it up into broad geographical categories (say: North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, East Asia, and Oceania), each of which will start off with an introductory text that sort of summarizes the particularities of street food in that part of the world, then list 7±2 of the most commonly seen examples (if we have to parse the geographical categories a bit more finely, so be it). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very much open to suggestions of restructuring that article, but I disagree that that selected list is close to overly long. It would look less long if we used paragraphs of prose, rather than bulletted lists. Kerala, while still a work in progress in my opinion, has some paragraphs that might provide a useful template, in that they put the name of the food in bold and the English explanation of what it is in italicized parentheses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article again, I don't think the problem is that there are too many entries per section, but the fact that the sections come stacked one on top of the other without any interruptions gives the impression that the whole article is one huge list of dozens of entries. I think that writing intro blurbs for each section would go a long way toward breaking up the monotony and making the article read, and look, a lot better. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(indent reset) Something should indeed be done to the layout of Street food, plus the article needs to better answer the question "where?". I've been considering restructuring Street food for a while, at the very least add information of famous street food places like the hawker's centres of Singapore, particular night and other markets around Asia (like Donghuamen in Beijing) and elsewhere, the hot dog carts of Manhattan, Berlin's Currywurst stalls etc. etc. It's also an option to go further and divide the article, as Andre suggested, into broader subcategories and turn the text into prose (many dishes are native to cultural spheres rather than particular countries). Also, we should eventually post something in the pub to invite Wikivoyagers to add their favorite street food to the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's have a go at that Street Food first then. Imho, we shouldn't be focussed on giving a full and complete overview of street food dishes in the world, but rather turn it into the kind of informative article about the concept, do's and don'ts, how to find it and why street food is great for travellers. For structure I agree with AndreCarrotflower. The list of dishes should rather be... complementary to the text. In the end, reading it should make you hungry for food and travels both :-) Anyway, the details of the article should probably be discussed at its talk page. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(indent) As an aside here, I did once request opinions on how to improve Japan's Top 100 Cherry Blossom Spots with no responses except I believe from a banned user. If anyone wants to comment now, please do. No guarantees I can get it up to standard, but I'd like to try. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice topic too! I'd say its challenge is somewhat the same: it would benefit from some more "readable" text to make it more appealing as a feature. A better intro, and perhaps you can include some explanation of what those modern day festivals are like, what they cost, if you need to make reservations and and if foreigners are welcome? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still hold out hope of getting Erie Canal up to Guide status, but I have a long way to go and I fear the article will become too long at my present level of detail. Powers (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I just checked some itineraries and promoted both On the trail of Marco Polo and On the trail of Kipling's Kim to Guide. I did not promote Lewis and Clark Trail but it looks close to me; perhaps someone who knows the region could have look? I think there are other itineraries of this general type. Are any of these good candidates for FTT? Pashley (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems we're not in nearly as much trouble as we thought ;-) Somehow I thought the Marco Polo trail was featured before. It's a great topic, especially now with the tv series out. I really like that kind of itineraries without lists. They make great and inspiring reads, more even than many destination articles. I've always thought it completely silly that we typically don't allow "itineraries" except when they're based on some established route (the itineraries are the first thing I turn to when I buy a new LP guide or so, and the sole reason I order brochures for organised travel groups). Fortunately we have a few good historic ones though. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Itineraries not based on established routes are difficult to maintain after the original author loses interest. Powers (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] Powers, re: Erie Canal, my mother was a great writer, and her advice always was not to worry about making an article too long; it's always possible to edit it down when you're done writing your draft. And so that you don't get any static from others while you're adding a lot of content to the article, I'd recommend for you to do that work on your userspace and let us know when you'd like us to start helping with copy editing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I welcome copyediting at any point. =)  Powers (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These days I have been looking at Literary travel. Considering the subject matter's depth and width, this page is surprisingly and almost painfully short and undeveloped; it ought to contain both On the trail of Marco Polo's and On the trail of Kipling's Kim's entire scope. Getting the page to usable -> Guide -> FTT is not unrealistic in the medium run. Ibaman (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The DotM are curated, which is great. Reading about this topics as well as my addition on geo-bias (see newly introduced section), we may want to think about adding some further salt to it. It would be great to find a means to activate further articles' potential to become a DotM. One idea: use a tech based search along all content to figure out which articles have recently be edited and have a certain status (e.g. stub) and randomly add maybe 3-7 in a list that are suggested as "can you help to bring this up for guide", to then feature them as DotM. (Please feel free to use or dispose of this thought, it is just an idea, an impulse and I am happy with any outcome). Buan~dewiki (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A guide is a guide is a guide
There are rumblings on the nomination page about articles that are at Guide status but not good enough to be featured. There should be no such thing. Either it's good enough to be featured, or it shouldn't be at Guide status. Obviously, some allowance can be made for Guide articles that need a little sprucing up here or there before their date on the main page, but if the article is so bad that you can't support it being featured at all, then demote it to Usable. Powers (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The standard some would have us keep to is impossible to sustain if we're to have three new ones of these every month. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The alternative, gentlemen, is to downgrade articles to Usable when serious problems are noted that prevent them from being featured. I tend to disagree with Andre on this but might agree with Powers on downgrading more articles. There's a difference between a bit of sprucing and major additions or thorough updates. And I also distinguish between "Not yet" with suggestions for relatively small changes that would cause me to change my mind and "Oppose", which means that the changes are more than just a bit of Mosing and such. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need more stringend standard for guides then. I believe our standards are quite vague when it comes to the meaty contents - there are very few rules pertaining to "See" and "Do", as well as "Understand", which I consider the core sections of every guide. This is why some articles with the same "guide" status may seem to have different worthiness of being featured. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Then we would run up against the question of how many articles that are currently at Guide status would fail the new standards and have to be demoted, which in turn would lead to the question of whether we would have enough Guides under those circumstances to sustain three features a month. As it is, we're already struggling to deal with a small pool of eligible FTT candidates. In my view, any tightening up of the requirements for Guide articles would have to be done very carefully, and I would be firmly against any tightening of standards at all for Guide-level travel topics, itineraries, phrasebooks, or other articles that are not destination guides. Alternatively, we might simply acknowledge that at the present time the caliber of the material we have to offer is what it is, and stop holding ourselves to an impossible standard. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not concerned about travel topics here - any criteria here are just a fig leaf to "general common sense" with a bit of subjectivity. And I guess we do share a pretty common sense of common sense, so that isn't bad. For FTT's, I'd be OK with "a travel topic deserves the guide status when we feel it's really good and exhaustive", which it should boil down to, nothing more specific or stringend.
 * But for our traditional guides as such to countries, regions, cities etc. I believe we could use more guidance regarding improving their standards to disseminate best practice and ensure that adding a few train connections and a hotel does not automatically make an article vastly better. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually this is a two-fold problem as I see it. Firstly, it's possible that the requirements for Guide status is not clearly enough formulated. Secondly I suspect people slap the Guide tag on articles without Reading The Fine Manual first (or on the other hand don't upgrade a good looking article because they don't think it's good enough even though it is *cough* certain Mexican towns...). As a result there are some articles at Guide status that should be just Usable and very likely also a bunch of Usable articles that would qualify for Guide status. What I think we should do is to somehow spell out in detail the requirements for Guide status.
 * For an article to reach Usable status, there has to be at least one way of getting in, one sight or activity with directions, somewhere to grab a bite with directions and one place to sleep with directions and that's it. Insanely easy; within seconds you can tell whether it's usable or not. There should be something similar for Guide status. BTW, here is a discussion worth reading.
 * Finally, I'd say there isn't a need to make the (already existing!) requirements more strict. As a comparison, have a look at some of the articles that qualify for STAR status on Spanish WV. --ϒpsilon (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of articles are also upgraded simply because they are long without scrutinizing exactly what the content is or the quality of said content (or the upgrader simply does not have enough knowledge to judge the content in a meaningful way). I don't think that any article labelled with "guide status" automatically should be featured simply because it gets the label. Articles can be correctly labelled as guides but still contain enough issues to make them poor candidates for the front page. Lack of lively writing or capturing the essence of the city/town is also often cited, although it tends to come up in the form of "It looks/sounds boring...". Is the issue that guide status itself is unclear/problematic or that critical evaluations of articles are unwanted? We have always had the option to "oppose" article features and I don't like the idea of forbidding opposition. If guide status is supposed to be an automatic ticket to a front page feature then I suppose it does need to be a bit closer to star status, but I don't think that's necessary. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To Ypsi and ChubbyWimbus' points, I have several thoughts.


 * First, I agree that there are a lot of articles that are improperly categorized with regards to status. Perhaps it would be good to remind folks that rather than having blind faith that any article they might want to nominate is ready for prime time just because it has the right status template, they should instead look it over first to make sure it truly has Guide-level content. That seems like simple common sense to me, but whatever.


 * Second, the right answer regarding how to vote for articles lies somewhere between perfectionism and squelching all critical analysis. The status quo seems to be working very well now, where a) "oppose" votes are not prohibited but we reserve them for extreme cases where the article probably should be demoted to Usable, yet b) we encourage critical evaluation of nominees (i.e. "Not yet" votes and the like) that's aimed at improving them even more before they go on the Main Page. But - and this is the important part - at the present time there seem to be more people who like to chime in with criticism about DotM nominees than there are people invested in the process of improving the articles. The crux of my problem with the process is that critical evaluation is constructive when it's followed up on, and it's obstructive when it's not. That's what I was getting at with my gripe at dotm, which kicked this whole conversation off.


 * Third, I'm in full agreement that the requirements for achieving Guide status are too subjective. However, I think that in clarifying our policy, we should try to hew as close to the status quo as possible, rather than setting the bar between Usable and Guide markedly higher or lower than it is now.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Upgrading Amritsar to featurable quality is a very important task, but it's not a simple one. Knowing what there is to do in the city other than pray, eat, shop and study requires some real expertise, and we also need to make a decision about which hotel listings to delete or some other way to organize the "Sleep" section to make it more user-friendly. It would be great to discuss these and other things further at Talk:Amritsar and try to tackle the problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How about this as a proposal: Any article whose nomination is slushed for quality reasons should be automatically demoted to usable? Powers (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't dismiss that proposal out of hand at all, but if we were to adopt it, we'd have to decide whether it would be retroactive, thus including all previously slushed nominees that have yet to be renominated and approved, and we should also keep in mind that many previously slushed nominees were subsequently approved for featuring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] If I may be so bold, I think there may be a better way to deal with the problem of Guide articles that are judged not to be ready for a feature after a nomination: I would suggest that anyone who's interested in readying articles for a feature trawl through Category:Guide articles, see which articles that haven't yet been featured have Talk page discussions about what still needs to be edited to prepare them for dotm/otbp or ftt nomination, read them and do some work of your choice to help improve one or more such articles. Or if there is no such thread, start one yourself. (And if it's an article about India, look at the "What links to this" button and find the India Expedition state sub-article that more than likely has an appraisal of what needs improvement.) I often find that when I start Talk page threads that ask for comments, no-one posts any reply, and if anyone does, it's often only one other person. However, even one other person can help a lot, and ignoring those kinds of threads is unfortunate, in the event that you would have had something to add if you had read them.

The upshot is that if issues of what needs improvement can be thrashed out on articles' Talk pages and fixed or at least mostly fixed before a nomination here, we're likely to have a smoother process. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, with the "a guides a guide" philosophy, where would that put a guide like Wakayama. It's a large article that does include a lot of sites and useful information however, there are also quite a lot of problems that I imagine would render a lot of "Oppose" votes, particularly the awkward non-native speaker tone that needs revised and in many cases rewritten. Would we say that it's NOT a guide because of that or that it IS a guide but a highly problematic, unfeaturable guide? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly feel there is no such thing as an unfeaturable guide. If the prose is truly awkward, then it should probably be downgraded to usable. Powers (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what's happening is very understandable. Someone saw fit to rate an article a Guide, but when it was nominated for a feature, more users put it under a microscope, and it was found wanting in some way. I doubt that any policy change will end this phenomenon, but I don't think a consensus is required for you to downgrade any article to Usable, giving your reasoning in an edit summary and/or Talk page post. I've downgraded plenty of articles about places in India and promoted others, based on the criteria given at City guide status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If all articles properly rated as guides should be featurable, then our definition of a "guide" should be much stricter. I thought it already was at least a little bit stricter, but upon reading it (something I haven't done in a long time), it seems that any article with 4 listings in each category would actually qualify as a guide. That seems extremely low and also does not seem to reflect our current practice. With the current definition I could not support any proposal for even a properly marked "guide" article to be considered automatically feature-worthy. By our current definition I actually suspect a lot of usables could be upgraded. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Where are you reading that? That's not what I'm seeing at City guide status:


 * Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking, and information on multiple attractions and things to do. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. For huge city articles, all district articles are at least "usable" status. There are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in, clear information on getting around, and suggestions for where to go next, with one-liner descriptions.


 * I think the key point is "Listings and layout closely match the manual of style." Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what it says and what you've reposted here. Manual of Style is great, but in terms of what we require content-wise, the prose set the bar quite low. 3 hotels, 5 restaurants, a few bars, and 4 or 5 attractions qualifies any article as a guide (In addition to "Get in", "Get out", etc. filled out). That's quite easy to do without any knowledge of a city, and I wouldn't support featuring such an article unless it were a truly small town. I would strongly oppose featuring an article that simply met guide status. A ton of our usables would be guides if we actually followed our own guides as it's written. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see where you're getting specific numbers out of the word "multiple". To me it looks like the prose was intentionally left vague so that we would be left to judge articles individually on a case-by-case basis using common sense, hence the bar would be set higher for large cities than for small towns. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * None of what you've just described is even remotely implied in the actual wording. It does not state or imply that the coverage should be representative at all; just that no listing should be left to fend for itself in any given section. You are aware of all of the conversations about "intentional vagueness" used in many of our policies, but none of that is intuitive and the description reads as having a very low bar for all locations indiscriminately. I don't feel the wording matches practice, though. Most of us have seen articles that qualify according to the written guidelines and probably would all agree that it makes a solid "usable" but lacking as a "guide". If we are to consider properly marked guide articles as featurable then we absolutely need to tighten the requirements and make it clear exactly what we want from guides. Guides should be much closer to stars than they are to usable. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I think the intentional vagueness is intuitive, the proof being that you and I are having this conversation right now. I don't think the text sets the bar low at all - quite the opposite - which makes it obvious that you and I both have very different interpretations of what things like "multiple attractions", "clear explanations of multiple ways to get in", and "different choices for accommodation" mean exactly. That's a good thing. Imagine if we were having this debate not about the rules as an abstract, but about a specific article. It would be a very productive conversation, and, I think, would be exactly the kind of thing that whoever wrote that policy hoped for. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(indent reset) Myself I'm very careful with upgrading articles to guide. These are my own guidelines, and they've worked well so far:

For large cities the minimum requirements would be a decent description of the city's history, culture and climate, all "normal" ways for getting in and around, 20 See listings (or 30 See and Do combined) and 20 places in each of Eat, Drink and Sleep (eat and sleep pricified and something in each price class). Buy is for some reason always hard to find meaningful listings for, so a good explanation of where to find shops plus some interesting local things to buy (if there are any) is enough. Overall, all sections with listings should have a paragraph of descriptive text too, if possible. Towards the end precautions for staying safe and healthy, plus ideas where to Go next. There are four sections that are hard to fill; Learn, Work, Connect and Cope, and I don't think it's that bad to leave them empty. Finally, the article should have a banner, a dynamic map and POI coordinates.

Smaller cities (articles using the small city template) have somewhat easier criteria. Most notably they don't need to have as many listings, and the Understand section doesn't need to be as extensive. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And for Huge Cities, the requirement is that all its districts be Usable - a very high bar indeed, which is a formidable barrier keeping lots of well-written Huge City articles from achieving Guide status. A variation of the same problem is the only reason why Gaspé Peninsula won't be an OtBP this summer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "A guide article is a status rating for any article in Wikivoyage that is essentially complete. This is what a Wikivoyage article is intended to be. Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here." -- Guide articles
 * If it's not "essentially complete", it's not a guide.
 * -- Powers (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess when you emphasize that, it does seem like we may be too quick to promote certain articles to Guide status, and for example, perhaps Amritsar is really not quite a Guide yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Because of this discussion, I downgraded Dubrovnik to Usable. See Talk:Dubrovnik. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks LtPowers for posting that link. I thought our requirements were set at a good level of strictness, but the first link above is surprisingly out-of-touch with the guide status page that you posted and much vaguer. I think with THAT description, you are probably right that guides deserving of the status should pretty much be featurable however, I don't think it makes too much of a difference on the candidate page, because we will still require the same critique however, with your proposal, if there are enough "Oppose" or "Not Yets" that go unaddressed, the article would be both slushed and demoted to usable instead of just slushed. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Jaipur
Jaipur is in my opinion a lot closer to being ready for a Dotm feature than Amritsar. Can I interest more of you in helping to do the needed edits? I tried to jazz up the lede, so it may be good enough now. I think all the article really needs is for us to finish listifying, in particular adding location information to listings that currently lack it, and then everything should be updated as necessary, such as by making sure all the listed hotels, restaurants and bars are still open and changing pricing information as needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article looks almost ready to go. I'll try and make some quick fixes in the near future. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I finished listifying tonight and also fixed some external links (I think I got them all, but I could have missed something somewhere). The obvious remaining tasks are to add addresses and/or geo to listings that lack them, check to make sure all the listed establishments of any kind still exist and update old (mostly 2012) prices. There's also the question of what to do with Chokhi Dhani; I detail the issue in Talk:Jaipur. I guess I'm also unconvinced an organic farm 22 km from Jaipur is a "Go next", but since you can stay there, perhaps so. Some ways of reorganizing the "Go next" section could be considered, but I don't see anything in "Go next" with the possible exception of the Chokhi Dhani issue standing in the way of a dotm. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of work on Jaipur tonight. What's still needed is more work on "Buy", "Drink" and "Sleep": All listings in those sections need to be checked for still being in business, with prices and any other data updated as needed. I've already done my best to update "Get around", "See", "Do", "Learn", "Eat" and "Go next", though any additional good "Eat" listings, in particular, would be welcome. If any of you would like to take some time to help, that would be most appreciated. If I nominated the article now, it would have to be an "Almost", with the same comments about needed work that I've just written. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's make the article ready or almost ready before nomination, otherwise there'll be days and weeks of discussion at the nomination page. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Intermediate report: all POIs have coordinates (I think). The Eat section should be pricified and I think we should double the number of eateries (sadly the other language versions aren't very helpful). It's not impossible to get this nominated before the 21st, when the October slots show up in the table. BTW, this discussion should maybe be swept to Talk:Jaipur.


 * Thank you very much for your work! I believe the most urgent thing now is to update hotel prices. I did a little of that. That work is mind-numbing but important. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What's projected for October and November, 2015?
Knowing the answer to this helps us to have an idea of what parts of the world to trawl harder for promising Guide articles. I'm wondering, for example, whether the fact that Natchez Trace Parkway is the ftt for September would put Nashville, if nominated, out of the running for an October Dotm. November in Nashville, with average highs of 59 F. and average lows of 40 F. might be judged by some to be too cold, though as a New Yorker, I think it's fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally — for DotM — I've on the nominations page suggested Fortaleza for October, Banff for November (let's finally have a winter sports destination on the main page) and Dumaguete for December. If all of those other articles nominated for DotM would be featured as well, we would have DotM articles for well over a year! If we get even more of them, we'll end up with another Lodz.
 * On the OtBP side there would be Hyden for October and Grand Bassam or Taxila for November and the other one for December. I will google all the listings in Grand Bassam this week.
 * For FTT, I'm not sure which one of the nominees would be first featured; maybe something like this: Armenian phrasebook in October, Altitude sickness in November (would you still prefer to have a medical expert have a look at that one before supporting the article?), Driving in New Zealand in December and Begging in January 2016.
 * So there's really no panic with finding new articles to feature. It'd be good to have something (DotM or OtBP) more from Africa and/or Latin America in early 2016. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely comfortable with running Banff so early if we're shooting for ski season. If we can get the necessary changes made to Yangshuo, I'd like to run it in October with Hyden as OtBP and Begging as FTT; then Fortaleza / Grand-Bassam / Armenian phrasebook in November, Dumaguete / Taxila / Altitude sickness in December, and Banff in January or February. However, if for whatever reason we need to slush Yangshuo, it would not be too disruptive to follow Ypsi's suggestion of Fortaleza in October and Banff in November. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Ikan: I wouldn't want to feature Nashville as DotM in October if it overlaps with Natchez Trace Parkway for two weeks, but I actually have visited there in November and found the weather to be quite pleasant. Nashville would certainly work as a November DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. User:Ypsilon, I do still feel just as unqualified to make medical judgments as I did a few months ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but considering how afraid we usually are to run articles geographically close to each other too close to each other in the schedule, featuring Nashville in the autumn sounds absurd. Earlier on Andre wanted to have some months between Hyden and Driving in New Zealand, even if they are not in the same country (and Hyden is in Western Australia). But still we are supposed to run Natchez Trace Parkway and Nashville in September and November? They are not only in the same country and state but the northern end of the parkway is actually just outside Nashville. BTW don't we have an (unofficial?) two-year rule for destinations in (or involving) the same city? That's why London/Hampstead's nomination was suspended. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, no-one's been helping me whip Nashville into featurable shape, anyway (unless something happened while I was offline for the last x-number of hours), so the question is moot, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Ikan, about both Nashville and Jaipur—basically 100% of my Wikivoyage work of late has been on Buffalo/East Side, as time is running short before June 1st and there's still a fair bit of work to be done. In retrospect, I'm not altogether concerned about not having a DotM in October - we still have quite a lot of time between now and then, and even if Yangshuo doesn't end up in a featureable state by October, we still have the Plan B of running Fortaleza in October and Banff in November, as Ypsi advised. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! I wasn't assuming you'd be the one to help with Nashville, and it's not urgent to put some "final" polishes on Jaipur: several people have improved the article a lot, though I think it's still not quite ready to nominate. By the way, one of the things I've noticed about Nashville is that the prices in listings seem to be up to date (the ones I've checked so far, anyway). Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Otbp
Do we have a backlog of Otbps now? Should we stop nominating them for the time being? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless absolutely necessary, I personally don't like to discourage anyone from contributing to DotM. I don't think we're quite at the moratorium stage yet, though we certainly do have all the OtBPs we need. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me just say we have DotMs and OtBPs for a year, should all nominations be successful. Please consider that someone might write up an article about an interesting place they've recently visited and would like to showcase their work on the Main Page without having to wait forever.
 * Actually I think I earlier suggested a "bonus article" category as a vent for situations when we have too many featurable articles. Bonus articles could be either DotM or OtBP (I doubt we'll ever see a glut of FTTs!) and they'd be featured from the 15th day of the month in the case we have a surplus of featurable articles for that month. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaking of fourth features: in early 2013 we had a pretty vigorous debate about featuring Hong Kong for that year's Wikimania even though it had already been DotM in April 2005. One of the points that someone made was that there should be some way of providing Main Page recognition when substantial work has been put into an article that has already been featured. I suggested a fourth feature where we revisit past DotMs, but it was rejected because we still had the old Main Page format with the three banners stacked on top of each other, and a fourth one would have been too much. Now that we've switched to the carousel format, I wonder if we shouldn't resurrect that idea. (Hebrew Wikivoyage seems to do fine with four features on the carousel.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that the 4th "bonus"/"surprise"/"extra" etc. article would be just for those months when we're so to speak running out of months instead of articles (in practice: some of the warmer months in the Northern Hemisphere). If there would be only enough articles for our regular DotM/OtBP/FTT set, there would not be any fourth article for that month. BTW, I think such a bonus article option could be good to have already in upcoming August. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A fourth feature for new star articles, articles about places hosting important international events, etc. could be okay however, I don't think we are at a place where spillover is consistent enough to take features from those. Also, people may not want the city they worked hard on to be featured as "the spillover" destination if the goal was a nice DotM feature (or OtBP). I think in cases where a place was nominated by a user with no connection to it and no personal contributions to the article that the urgency to feature such an article is less, so they could be set aside if an article that a user has been working on is ready to be featured. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Two more points
I suggest adding two more points to Destination of the month candidates.

Point one: "Have a look a thorough look the article and try to fix the issues you notice or ask someone for help, before you nominate the article rather than the other way around."

Please have a look at some of the entries in the Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile — both the articles themselves and the long discussions below and I think you agree too.

Point two: "If there's no realistic chance for your article to get featured within a year of now (or it would require postponing an already successful candidate), don't nominate it yet."

I think nominees should stay on the nomination page for as a short period as possible. Of course, after the nomination there is a possibility that articles that need to be there for a certain event (e.g. Vienna for the Eurovision) shows up and push out some earlier nominated article, but that's a completely different story. On the other hand, if someone right now would be suggesting article for destinations to be visited during the Northern Hemisphere summer months this problem would occur. Because as we know the summer 2015 is full and the article would have to wait to 2016 (as a side note, for OtBP for the May-Sep months 2016 we already have London/Hampstead, Palmyra (New York), Percé and Dilijan so it's a chance that a nominated article —or worse — one of those four would become a new Lodz!). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Point One, but I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with Point Two. "I think nominees should stay on the nomination page for as a short period as possible" — why, exactly? Certainly for lags of, say, 3 years or more, we run the risk of the information in the article itself becoming outdated (along with many support/oppose votes made early in its nomination period), but there's no real harm done for an article to stay on the nomination page for a year, or even for as long as Łódź has (1 year, 8 months assuming it's featured in July 2015 as planned).


 * There's always been an ebb and flow to the level of participation in the DotM feature. These days it's relatively active and there are a lot of nominees. But I don't think that in itself is sufficient reason to dissuade people from nominating articles they feel are feature-worthy. If there's a lot of clutter on the page, so what? Would that we had that problem for all our features (Cotm and Starnom come to mind).


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I always regarded London/Hampstead as an obvious DotM; it surprises me to hear it spoken of as an OtBP candidate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree on Hampstead as DotM, and if you review the discussion before it was temporarily slushed, I think you'll find agreement that it is definitely off the beaten path for visitors to London. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Phew, now when I look closer at the dates in the nomination for Lodz I see it was nominated in 2013. For some reason I've always been thinking it was nominated in December 2012, was wondering how the hell that could possibly be possible, and this was what I had in mind when opening this thread. Nevertheless, articles do get outdated and I see no benefit in keeping them waiting longer than necessary. Also, occasionally newbies write up articles about their home town or some other favorite place, and they will probably not get happy if they learn their fine work will have to wait for very long. Thirdly, if there are some problems with the article, and it's clear the article won't go on the main page before next year, I think most people (including me) are not in a hurry to fix those issues right away. Later on, you may've forgotten about them. In the worst case, then, it's noticed just the day before the article goes live.
 * Other than the FTT section, I can't remember ever seeing us having too few candidates for featured articles, but it's possible that it's because I've been involved with featured articles for a little over a year We should really have the option to feature a "bonus article" now and then, as discussed in the thread right above.
 * Concerning Cotm and Starnom, those two are practically dead nowadays. As we've had no new Star articles lately it means that Guide status is thought of as the highest possible rank and that's probably why people have demanded tighter requirements for Guide status lately.
 * By reading the discussion here I thought Hampstead was nominated for OtBP. Don't tell me it's yet another article which isn't a clear DotM or OtBP? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I indeed nominated it as an Otbp. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikan - I don't see solid agreement in that discussion over whether Hampstead should be DotM or OtBP. I see Peter Fitzgerald arguing decisively in favor of OtBP, myself doing the opposite, and you, while having nominated it as OtBP, indicating an openness to it shifting columns. That rather says to me that the jury is still out. Especially because there were only three participants in that discussion.


 * I suppose it's fairly pointless to be having this debate over a candidate that probably won't be formally renominated until the end of this year and won't be featured until next year. However, in a general sense, I disagree that the simple fact of being among the less touristed areas of a particular Huge City should automatically relegate a district-article candidate to OtBP status. That argument breaks down the bigger and more touristed a Huge City gets. London is one of the most visited cities in the world, so proportionately it would have far more DotM-worthy districts than, say, Buffalo. For another example, let's take a look at Manhattan, which is divided into fifteen districts, but for how many of those could you make a believable argument in favor of OtBP? Maybe - maybe - Gramercy Flatiron and the Upper West Side, and that's about it.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Chicago/Far Northwest Side was Otbp. In Manhattan, Manhattan/Washington Heights and still more so Manhattan/Inwood would have been Otbp, except that they were merged with Harlem, which is not. No, I don't think any of the articles we have about Manhattan would be Otbp. However, Manhattan is not analogous with London, but with London in Zone 1 and maybe some nearby parts of Zone 2. London encompasses areas like Finsbury Park that are analogous to Astoria or Jackson Heights, Queens, and then much further-out areas of Zone 3 that are analogous to places like Bayside, Queens that would without question be off the beaten path if we ever featured them (not to mention that the entire island of Staten Island would qualify as off the beaten path, in my opinion). If you'd like to argue that Hampstead Heath is analogous to Prospect Park and that London/Hampstead is analogous to Park Slope (which is included in Brooklyn/Prospect Park, I'm not sure that would be right, but I wouldn't call Park Slope off the beaten path, even though probably a small percentage of tourists ever go there. Anyway, you're right that discussion hadn't been conclusive yet, but I think that we should pay attention to what Londoners or people very familiar with London have to say when there is more discussion. I won't insist on Otbp if Londoners or some other knowledgeable consensus think it's on the beaten path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

July 11, 2015
I will be out of town for a couple of weeks next month and likely won't be able to rotate Trondheim in as July's OtBP. If someone else could make a note to take care of that on the 11th, that would be excellent.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Will try my best, however I wil be travelling too. --Saqib (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I could do it, if I remember to. Thankfully, there are instructions available. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the instructions are pretty self-explanatory. As for the Wikivoyage Facebook page, I usually schedule the DotM/OtBP/FTT updates to automatically be posted on the correct date, so no need to worry about that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be travelling, too, and can't guarantee where I will be at any particular time. If no-one else takes care of this, I will try, but if you can do it ϒpsi, that would be best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to arrive at my hotel in Kenora at 6:30PM CDT (half an hour before midnight UTC) and have nothing on the docket for the rest of the day, so there's a good chance I'll be able to do it. Worst case scenario, if I fall behind schedule and no one else is around to make the switch it might be updated a little late, but I doubt it will be a huge deal if that happens. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! And it even looks like I got everything right! :) Yes, it's a little early, but Daylight Saving Time midnight UTC would mean 3 AM over here and I wouldn't really be in the mood for that. Good night. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ypsi! I'm just arrived in Kenora with twenty minutes left till midnight UTC, and it was quite a relief to learn I could relax after a long day of driving without having to attend to my thrice-monthly DotM duties beforehand. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy voyaging! ϒpsilon (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Itineraries
First of all, am I correct to assume that Itineraries should be nominated for "featured travel topic" just like phrasebooks? Second of all, I think this may not be the best way to draw attention to (some of) our rather well written itineraries and the way in which they represent other ways of seeing travel. Due to several factors, we already have less itineraries than "legacy" dead trees" guides like lonely planet or any self respecting guide to one city or just a few of them. May it be a good idea to have a "featured itinerary" that at first may only be updated every three or four months (making for three or four per year) and than slowly and steadily building from there, once we are overwhelmed by nominations...? Some of the most "legendary" trips and places on many people's bucket lists are itineraries or are situated along them. Be it Around the World in eighty days, the Orient Express (even though the train as such does not exist any more) or the Panamerican Highway. It might raise our profile to more prominently (and more often) feature our truly outstanding itineraries. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We regularly feature itineraries as featured travel topic, yes. Why exactly do you think that is not a good way? It gives them the same attention as any other feature. As you can see at Previous_Featured_travel_topics, examples from the past three years are Ad's Path, El Camino Real, Trans-Siberian Railway, Golan Trail, Silk Road and Across Canada by train. Please feel free to nominate any other good and up to date articles we have. I for one find them far better suited for features than phrasebooks :-) The itineraries you mention wouldn't yet qualify, however, as we do require featured articles to be guide status. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I know that they don't yet qualify. Hence we should focus more improving them. And imho giving them a shot at a seat at the kid's table is not the same as reserving them a regular seat. The problem will only get worse the more we run out of travel topics per se. Imho travel topics itineraries and phrasebooks are different enough to be featured individually along side each other. Though not necessarily with a monthly rotation... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how itineraries only "get a shot at a seat at the kids' table"... We have an equal value carousel of a DotM, a OtbT, and something else, be it an itinerary, travel topic or (occasionally) a phrasebook. Creating an extra slide in the carousel could be helpful (and is discussed now or then) when there are many good nominations, but creating an extra slide for itineraries would increase pressure on finding a good fit for the travel topic slot, and would then add extra pressure to create suitable itineraries for the 4th one. It's not as if we have no proper space to feature good itineraries, it's rather the other way around. But we'll see what others think. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This idea is a nonstarter, I'm afraid. We have enough trouble finding valid FTT candidates as it is without subdividing itineraries out of the field. Let's generate some more content, then we can talk about a fourth feature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * True. FTTs are for any article which is not a destination. Each article gets 30 days on the main page and nowadays the starting point of the main page banner carousel is randomized too so I don't see why it'd be a problem having the article as FTT. If we want to add a 4th category I'd suggest that would be an optional "bonus destination" category that can be activated in cases when there are several destination articles that can only be featured a few months a year competing for the same month slot. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal itineraries as FTT
I'm wondering what people think of having non-official/"personal" itineraries as FTT nowadays. One of the first Featured Travel Topics, from 2012, was Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour, a personal walking tour. Fast forward one year and in the slush pile we have World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka which however was slushed for other reasons. Then a couple of months later Three days in Singapore which was specifically slushed for being a personal itinerary.

We do have a couple of itinerary articles that at least status-wise are eligible for the Main Page (Loop Art Tour, Along the Magnificent Mile, A seaside stroll in Helsinki and World Heritage Tour in Nara - though that last one needs some polishing - come to my mind, I think there are a few more of them). Other aspects aside, what do you all think about personal itineraries as FTT? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal itineraries' existence, let alone nomination to FTT, is frowned upon by policy. They're supposed to be merged into the corresponding destination article, and there was a mass culling of them some months ago at vfd. I suspect many of those that remain owe their existence to the fact that we're reticent to delete well-written content (for example, Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour, which is a Star article). All the same, though, I don't think it's good practice to run articles for FTT that are technically not allowed per policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It should, however, be mentioned that not all the itineraries you listed above are "personal". One of the hallmarks of personal itineraries of the type proscribed by policy, is that the choice of destinations on the itinerary is arbitrary. At least in theory, World Heritage Tour in Nara and World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka include all the UNESCO-listed destinations in those places, so there's nothing arbitrary about that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)We could have some non mainspace space where personal itineraries (inasmuch as they cannot be simply copied into the appropriate destination articles) are allowed. After all, most "dead trees" guidebooks have "personal itineraries" or walking tours in them... But having them as FTT probably flies in the face of policy Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed...FTT is probably still a bridge too far. For me, "personal" is a false way to describe such tours and the day we start deleting the few well-written tours we have will be the day I stop editing here. I've always found that the policy against them (which, imho, is clearly invented by a group of editors who clearly don't use them) a real shame. As a lazy traveller, the suggested highlights, "London in three days" or "Vietnam in 2 weeks" are one of the main reasons why I still always buy a printed guide. But anyway; no FTT of that kind in the near future, I'm afraid ;-)) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem about such walking tours or personal itineraries is that they are highly subjective. After all, some people who spend one weekend in London will only care about the American Football that can be had during said weekend (NFL international series and all), while others will want to take the tube to Trafalgar Square and stuff. This subjectivity is no major issue with a printed guide with a limited number of authors and an editor who has final say, but it may be a huge unsolvable mess for a wiki. Of course we might wish to "allow" them in userspace and we might tweak our policies in other ways. But overall anything that aims to create a "best of x" "y in z days" kind of itinerary is doomed to failure imho Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I'm very well aware of all the arguments against, and I have no hopes for any repetition of the discussion at this point. Still, I can't resist saying that we determine our "nine" destinations list by consensus, districts by consensus -and some of those choices are arbitrary in a way too. We don't have an issue there, so I'm not convinced it would be such a huge problem. But I won't say anything more about it now hehe... I know I'm (still) strongly outnumbered, and fortunately, in practice, there's tolerance when the articles are written well ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to hijack this thread, so I started a related thread about finding ways to support "X in Y Days" articles at Wikivoyage talk:Itineraries. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote an itinerary some years back about a trip I did. Later several others contributed & the direction was reversed to give Hong Kong to Kunming overland. I think that is now close to guide status & nomination. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Have some spare time? DotM needs you
Fellow voyagers, as you can see in Destination_of_the_month_candidates, there are quite a couple of candidates that would (1) need your opinion and perhaps (2) some more content.

Most of these aren't going on the Main Page before 2016, but especially Destination_of_the_month_candidates would need some more attention as it's scheduled for OtBP for November, André will soon make Main Page banners for it (I believe), and there's one person opposing the featuring of the article due to that article's perceived low quality/reliability. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ruta del Tránsito has a couple of holes that should be filled with more information, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If anyone has been in Dumaguete recently, that article may need some updates, see Talk:Dumaguete. Pashley (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We now have 11 articles in the table that would benefit from an approving vote or constructive criticism. Actually one of them is Praia, up for OtBP in November, which means a little more than two weeks. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone can edit for more information to new article Bokepyin.Welcome to edit to grow help it.Yanlinnnaung (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A bucketful of summer DotM alternatives
Ikan asked if I could mention some good DotM candidates. Well, here's my list of some good Guide articles that are best featured during the summer months. They do still partially lack coordinates, and would probably need some other fixes too but they nevertheless are in a good shape compared to some other Guide-rated articles.

and
 * Riga
 * Ulaanbaatar
 * Kaunas — Lithuania abandoned the Lita in January, so prices have to be updated to €
 * Baltimore — now, somewhere it was mentioned that we already enough US articles for 2016's summer, but nevertheless I'm putting this and Seattle here (we do have many splendid articles of American cities and national parks in case someone wondered)
 * Seattle
 * Dublin
 * Bucharest
 * Gothenburg — though, as we will have Stockholm up this summer, it's probably not a good idea
 * Winnipeg?
 * Hamburg —should probably first translate content from German for the districts
 * Bonn
 * Düsseldorf
 * Zürich
 * Ljubljana
 * Milan
 * Vatican
 * Lisbon? - yes, I know it's still Usable but not far from Guide
 * Valletta
 * Busan/Haeundae — also still Usable
 * Gyeongju — though mid-summer is rather rainy in East Asia including Korea

The Mediterranean ones are perhaps better saved for the shoulder seasons when we have a little harder finding articles. Also, there are two articles I plan to write up to Guide status, Marbella and Tangier. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above list is extremely Europe-heavy, and I'd rather not have a repeat of last summer's Main Page. We have Stockholm on the schedule for summer already, so I'd caution against running more than one additional European candidate. As well, any further U.S. destinations will have to wait until 2017 for the reasons Ypsi alluded to.


 * Of the destinations that don't fall into either of those two categories, Busan/Haeundae stands out to me as what would be our first DotM on the Korean Peninsula, and if it can be brought up to Guide level I would be happy to see it as a nominee. Ulaanbaatar might be interesting, though three Mongolian features in as many years seems excessive for such an off-the-beaten-path country. Similarly, Winnipeg might not be the best choice in a summer that already features two Canadian destinations.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice list, but some of them don't seem to me to be best to feature in the summertime. Baltimore has a very hot summer and would probably be a lot more comfortable in the spring or fall. Vatican is probably at its busiest high season in the summer, so more or less ditto. And I'm not so sure about Valletta. When is it at its most crowded? Summer or spring break? Doesn't Milan also have hot summers? And for the German cities, I don't think it's essential to go in summer, either, though winter wouldn't normally be recommended (I spent 18 lovely days in Munich last January, but it was unseasonably mild). For Zürich, my question would be whether skiing is relevant. If it is, it could be featured either in the winter or summer. I'm guessing Lisbon is probably warm enough to feature almost any time of the year, unless there's a super-rainy month or two. On the other hand, I'd think summer would be nearly essential for Dublin, though my bases for comparison are Northern Ireland, which is surely colder, and London, whose weather might not be too relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to throw in my copper coin (0.02€) as well and say that geographic considerations don't have to trump the quality of the articles in question, but we should always keep it in mind, and as we are now at the end of summer, there is more than enough time to get our coverage up to par for next summer. As another aside, when translating content from the districts of Hamburg, we have to keep in mind that they are differently drawn over at de-WV, so some listings might have to be put in different pages. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And that's part of the reason why I wrote "The Mediterranean ones are perhaps better saved for the shoulder seasons when we have a little harder finding articles." and grouped them in a separate group at the end of the list — they can be featured in the summer but do have fine weather almost around the year.
 * We definitely should have one European DotM in addition to Stockholm. The northern 3/4 or so of Europe can really just be featured from May to Sep, and therefore a summer list of course very heavy on European destinations (aside of North American destinations). Also we're probably just going to pick one or two places from this list anyhow. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

[Unindent] We should wait a while on this one, because we featured Manhattan in June, 2014, but Staten Island could be a good OtBP. I think it's a good Guide-level article, and the borough is OtBP even for most New Yorkers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

An Idea
As this page and its community now have existed for what - in the tubes of the internet - can be regarded a pretty long time, there are of course a lot of articles that have been featured in the past. Yes, I understand that we do list them in the "previously x" list and there is a note on the banner... But this is still imho a poor acknowledgement of some of the huge amount of work that went into getting these articles featured. What do you say of including a category of "random featured article" that shows the best WV has to offer on a random basis? Do you think this is a good idea to give more prominence to our good articles or a complete non-starter? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In the past I've suggested a fourth Main Page feature consisting of basically the same thing. I continue to think it's a worthwhile idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me make sure I understand: The idea is to re-feature a previously featured article every month? That might be a good idea, but after how much time has passed? We'd need to establish some clear guidelines. And I suppose there are enough of them that that wouldn't be a problem? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My idea was more along the lines of featuring one random page (i.e. generated anew for each user or each refreshing of the page or some such thing) out of the pool of previously featured pages, unless there are disqualifying factors. But I am of course open to things this idea evolves into in discussion... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. That would mean not having to nominate and vote on the re-featured pages. I can see some potential problems with that, as some previously featured pages are now no longer Guide-level, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said "unless there are disqualifying factors". I don't know where this idea will ultimately go, but I think our current "burying" of good articles among not so good (anymore) ones in the "previously featured" categories might be hurting us... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned with articles potentially having become outdated. In particular restaurants and pubs tend to close, and all kinds of prices tend to get higher. Therefore if we would want to have the article on the Main Page, "someone" should check it through beforehand especially if there's been >4-5 years since it was featured and if there has been very few edits to the article subsequently. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Right. You can't have a random set of pages featured if you can't trust that all are still worthy to be featured. I think our discussions show amply that just because someone has classed an article as a Guide doesn't mean it's actually necessarily in good enough shape to be featured, and that includes articles that were previously featured but have deteriorated without a change in status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(indent) Well, since there is no timeline as to when this would happen, we have time to review and approve each entry (or deny but those that are not approved should be noted with reasons so that there is a pathway to approval). We'd also have to either rewrite or dig up the write-ups that each place had and for most features we'd also have to create banners that fit our new format. I like the idea of keeping our best articles visible. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with re-featuring Guide- or Star-level articles as long as they are subject to the same kinds of discussions about them that we have about the other articles proposed for a feature. In most cases, it will probably be a no-brainer to approve their re-feature, but we have to allow for the cases in which it is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Three features a month is plenty at this stage in our development. I don't support adding a fourth article to the front-page carousel. Would it help if we linked Star articles and Previous Destinations of the Month and the like from the Main Page? Powers (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually we do already link to previous DotMs from the Main Page (the Destination of the Month text in the featured banner) but most new users probably don't find it.
 * We could have a fourth "Check out what's previously been here-banner" in the carousel with links to all three lists of former featured articles and to the Star articles page. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what good a fourth carousel with previous features would do, when the waiting list for new features is already so long and we've been actively discouraged to contribute to the DotM suggestions. I also strongly agree that we cannot feature previous destinations without the same kind of discussions and improvements we require from new ones. Just browsing through a few of the old features I was involved in, I can tell that some are seriously outdated. If we were to change anything on the carousel, it should be to give more space to new features (either by rotating more quickly or, although it's not my preference, by adding a fourth). If waiting lists would thus be shortened, I think re-features for articles that have been updated would also be less of an issue in the normal setup. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have, probably more than once, suggested an optional fourth "extra" feature for months to let off some pressure when there are more candidates than months available, but the idea wasn't regarded as a good one by others. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OtBP situation
Is it reasonable to nominate more OtBP candidates? Salalah looks good, and presumably is off the beaten path and not a DotM candidate. But how is the schedule for OtBPs looking? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We have OtBPs for a little less than a year; the summer is full and then there's Washington Anacostia for Sep. It's probably OK to nominate a new candidate for OtBP.
 * I've also looked at Salalah as a candidate for feature, and it would probably make a great destination for around this time of the year 2016. (Salalah is more of a OtBP, but wouldn't oppose it being featured as DotM either.) ϒpsilon (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's moot now since Salalah has already been officially nominated, but for the record I don't see it as a major problem to start introducing new nominees. In fact, I'm planning on slushing Percé and later nominating Gaspé Peninsula for summer 2017 - there are already three Guide-level destinations in that region, with five more due to be improved to Guide status by the time the project is through (namely Gaspé, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Bonaventure, Gaspésie National Park, and Gaspé Peninsula itself; the other cities in the region are less important destinations that, per Region guide status, we could probably get away with leaving at Usable) - and I'd rather a feature function as an indirect portal to all of them rather than a direct portal to just one. So you can consider there to be one additional open slot for the upcoming summer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the nomination. Where is it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I had seen it there. I stand corrected. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now you will. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] What about Staten Island as an otBP nomination? Too soon to nominate another New York City borough? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Staten Island article would need some fixes first (coordinates, price classes for Eat and Sleep, the Districts section looks somehow clumsy). Also, the northeastern corner of North America will be quite well represented next summer even if Percé isn't there (Indianapolis, Halifax, Palmyra (NY),Washington Anacostia). ϒpsilon (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right about "Eat", but "Sleep", with 3 entries, doesn't need subdivision. Indianapolis is nowhere near the Northeast, but I take the rest of your points. :-) Nick1372, if you're still reading this site, here's your roadmap to an eventual feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned that a Staten Island OtBP could not happen earlier than 2017, because there's no way to arrange the summer '16 schedule such that it neither shares the Main Page with a U.S. DotM at any time, nor comes immediately before or after another U.S. OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it OK to have a travel topic from the same country at the same time as a featured destination article, then? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. Andre? Namely, I was thinking of nominating Oregon Trail for FTT sometime during the warmer half of the year 2016, but it will inevitably (for at least 1/3 of a month) be on the Main Page together with either an US DotM or OtBP. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - To answer your question, I think it's best to keep any country-specific FTTs off the Main Page at the same time as OtBPs and DotMs from the same country. However, since we always seem to have a deficit of FTT candidates compared to the other categories, I understand a little bit of flexibility is in order. I'd be willing to support running Oregon Trail in 2016 but only if we truly can't find enough other candidates to see us through until 2017. (Keep in mind, as well, that it will have been more than a year since we ran our most recent phrasebook FTT, and almost as long since our most recent airport FTT.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of phrasebooks, it would be nice to feature the Malay phrasebook at some point, because it has a lot of good practical information, such as the names of a lot of food terms. However, some of the formatting is not standard, more pseudo-pronunciations are needed (although Malay is a phonetic language, so as in Italian, if you understand the rules of pronunciation, it's easy to read), and I'd like more input from native speakers. Sure, I was fluent in Malay, but only at a 6th-grade level, and I spoke more in a backwoods dialect than in standard Malay and certainly mostly in informal grammatical structures and forms of address. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have some other suggestions, for example there are some nice European itinerary articles too that could be featured almost right away (itineraries can we never have too many of, right? :)). Concerning phrasebooks, remember that Armenian will be on the Main Page in February. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the medium term, Roman Empire could be an interesting FTT. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A little scheduling detail
Andre, I noticed you put Halifax in the June slot in the schedule, but I would suggest Stockholm or some other European destination instead. Otherwise there is going to be three European DotMs after each other in July-August-September (Stockholm/Edinburgh/Riga), and (even worse?) there will be four North American DotMs in the first six months. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will change June to Stockholm now. Revert if you don't agree with my comment above. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Ypsi - for some reason I thought I had already responded to you here. At any rate, I agree with you and the schedule change is fine with me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we put Stockholm for April tho for ahead of the ESC and move Cartagena back - both are "pending stronger consensus", and I am quite happy to further work on the comments raised, as are some other users, including yourself I guess. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer regarding Stockholm is the same as before. 1) we already ran the Eurovision host city as DotM last year when we featured Vienna, and doing so two years in a row would be unprecedented overkill; 2) April is not even within Stockholm's "Time to feature" range; 3) if Cartagena is bumped from the April slot it will have to wait until 2017 to be featured, despite having been on the waiting list longer than Stockholm; and 4) most if not all of the fixes to Cartagena have already been done; at this point we're just waiting for more votes (which, in any case, are not absolute barriers to us running it on the Main Page; Driving in New Zealand went up as FTT two days ago with two "Support" votes and one unresolved "Almost"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me, if April is not that good a time to visit Stockholm, that resolves the question right away, regardless of anything else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * April is actually a very fine time to visit Stockholm, April to June is actually the best period IMHO. That said, I did not realize Cartagina's "best period" ends in April and featuring it in June would be against the customary rule. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being blunt but the fact that we last year featured the Eurovision host city is actually more of a reason to avoid having Stockholm in May.
 * Weather-wise I think the summer proper plus one month on each side (ie. May-Sep) would be the best time to visit Stockholm as most parts of the Nordic countries.
 * I wouldn't move Cartagena, it has already sat on the nominations for 9.5 months and was, I think, intended for this winter season (Northern Hemisphere summer is the rain season in Cartagena) but has been delayed. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ps. "pending stronger consensus" articles do often not have any problems themselves but there haven't been four people who has read through them and given them a "support" vote. Speaking of that, most articles currently in the schedule seem to have that problem. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Helsinki
Could someone nominate Helsinki to there? I'm not clever enough to know how to do it. —The preceding comment was added by Ä Vinnis Persön (talk • contribs)


 * Articles can be featured just once, and Helsinki already was. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is time to clear the records? Back in 2005, the overall quality of The Other Site was rather low, even for DotM articles. The current Helsinki article could easily pass the test; the 2005 article looks lousy. /Yvwv (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If we re-feature Helsinki, though, it would be at the expense of other worthy destinations that have never been on the front page. Powers (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. The past year-plus has been the longest unbroken period of having enough or more than enough DotM candidates since I joined the site in 2011. It's absolutely the least useful time to start talking about rerunning old DotMs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Previous talks about refeaturing also always seemed to carry consensus that whenever it does happen, only star articles will be considered. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Solving the Rubik's Cube
Per Destination of the month candidates, there's a risk that Mt Rinjani will be closed in April when we've planned to feature it, which would be sort of embarrassing. Incidentally, it also looks that we have quite many US OtBP candidates on the list, and one of them will possibly have to wait until 2017. If someone not familiar with the DotM process reads this: 1. there may not be two articles from the same country on the Main Page at the same time, 2. there may not be articles from the same country in the same category in two subsequent months.

However, I thought up a solution to this, for entertainment purposes if nothing else :). This arrangement of the OtBPs would allow to fit everything in 2016, without breaking the rules and featuring each articles during a suitable month.


 * Mar: Salalah
 * Apr: Swakopmund
 * May: (Indianapolis is DotM) Hampstead
 * Jun: Palmyra (New York)
 * Jul: Dilijan (American Industry Tour is FTT)
 * Aug: Mount Rinjani
 * Sep: North Central New Mexico
 * Oct: Lady Elliott Island
 * Nov: Washington DC/Anacostia
 * Dec: still empty, likely somewhere in the tropics :)

ϒpsilon (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually Dresden would be a good fit for the December slot. It has a rather well known Christmas market and it draws tourists from all over the world. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Forget what I said above, Dresden is of course not "off the beaten path" except maybe in terms of transportation, as the "airport" is a joke and the railway connections in any of the four cardinal directions are in bad need of upgrading... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know the page emphasizes that the schedule "is not cast in stone", but I think best practice in this or any other scenario is not to alter the already-existing schedule grid, as displayed on the page, except to the degree that it's absolutely necessary to solve the problem. A massive reshuffle is emphatically not necessary. The solution may be as simple as nominating a new OtBP candidate - maybe even from the same region of the world, broadly speaking - for April, moving Rinjani to October, bumping Lady Elliott Island (currently in the October slot on the aforementioned draft schedule on my desktop) to November, and keeping everything else the same. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another solution to the Rinjani problem would be to otherwise keep the schedule as it is, but switch places between London/Hampstead and Rinjani. Inland, mile-high Dilijan is probably too chilly in April but London shouldn't be that bad (been to London myself in April 2008). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Preferrably, London/Hampstead should not be featured besides Stockholm, as both are cities in northwestern Europe. Don't know if there is any guideline against featuring articles from the same continent at the same time. /Yvwv (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both in Europe, but not very close to each other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK to have articles from the same continent on the Main page, but I think we want to avoid having all three articles at a given time from the same continent. Also, London not being in the Nordic countries, I don't have any problem with having it on the Main page at the same time as Stockholm. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have only so many Guide or Star articles, and fewer still that are suitable to be featured at a particular time of year, so let's take care not to overthink this. It's fine not to feature two destinations from the same country simultaneously (and even that rule is bendable in unusual circumstances, such as the glut of U.S. destinations that we had in summer 2013), but to extend that to destinations from the same continent would be impossible from a practical standpoint. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

10 years off the beaten path
I just noticed that OtBP will turn ten on May 11th. Perhaps we should put up our first OtBP, Svalbard, on the Main Page for a day just like we did with Geneva to celebrate ten years of DotM? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? Does anything in that article need updating? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly some dead links and old dates, can probably be fixed in a few minutes. Region articles don't get outdated as quickly as articles below. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * André, do you like this idea? I just checked through the Svalbard article as promised. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I not respond here yet? Sorry about that. Yes, I'm in full support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

DotM candidates that need your vote
A troubling trend that many of us have noted over at dotm is that the nominees seem to be getting progressively fewer votes and other feedback lately. Currently, of the 17 articles currently on the schedule, only four of them have four or more support votes, and the past two featured articles (Driving in New Zealand and Banff) had to be put on the Main Page despite the "pending stronger consensus" disclaimer still being in effect.

Ein Gedi is due to go up as Off the Beaten Path in only five days. It has three support votes already, so it only needs one more. Antigua Guatemala, Hilo, and Armenian phrasebook are also due to be featured before the end of next month but need more votes. So please, anyone who has a bit of time to spare, it would be excellent if you reviewed those articles (or any others that are currently scheduled) and left your thoughts over at dotm - either a support vote, or specific remarks on what improvements you think the article needs before it goes on the Main Page.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, it would be good to have some more eyes looking on the featured articles (I mentioned it here in the pub already in September). Out of I think 20 or so Wikivoyagers who contribute at least once weekly, it's mostly only me, Andre and Ikan who've been reviewing and fixing articles (except for a couple of cases when one person has worked very hard on one article and then nominated it).
 * One does not have to be an expert on the place or the topic to be able to comment on it or to even fix some problems, heck, out of the 18 articles now in the schedule I've only been to Stockholm and I know how to use money. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see a nice uptick in feedback for some of our DotM candidates. Let's build on this momentum, because there are a lot more nominees that have yet to clear the four-vote hurdle. I'd like to call attention specifically to Hilo, which will be on the Main Page in a little over a month and only needs one more Support vote to earn our community's unqualified endorsement. Ypsilon, Ikan Kekek and myself have all weighed in with our support; who'll be the next? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Attracting more voyagers to the DotM nominations page
Again more than half of the articles in the schedule need more supportive votes, including two articles that are about to go on the Main Page in less than a month. This is not the first time this happens, and voyagers have been notified about similar situations in the pub several times before (see the thread above, for example). When the issue has been brought up there, people come and help with votes and improvment suggestions and other comments to the nominations plus edits to the articles, which is great, of course.

But, a few months later the schedule once again looks the same. And you need to open up a new discussion in the pub or somewhere which is sort of tiresome. Is there any way to attract more voyagers to the DotM page who would stay around? Alternatively, how would it sound to have a banner at the top of the traveler’s pub or somewhere that we could activate when needed to alert voyagers with time to spare to drop in and have a look? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DotM attention banner?
Again many of the articles nominated for a month on the Main Page could use more voyagers to check them through/support them on the nominations page, in particular five out of six upcoming travel topics would need some more support votes.

However, this is not the first time this happens, we seem to have the same problem every couple of months. When the issue is brought up here in the pub voyagers do come and help out with the nominated articles, but 2-3 months later we are back at square one as the next bunch of articles are in need of more attention…

To avoid having to start a thread here in the pub every time this problem arises, I suggest putting a banner on the top of the pages (along the lines of the "We will be performing server maintenance..." banner that's up as I'm writing this) whenever, say, more than half of the articles in the table need more support. What do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Plan B in case Copenhagen Airport is not ready?
I really enjoyed looking at the banners for Copenhagen Airport, but it has only one support vote on the project page. I think that in addition to appealing to those who know that airport to improve the article, we should have a Plan B for another travel topic or itinerary article to feature in July if this article isn't ready. The problem is that all of the articles in the queue for FTT are "pending stronger consensus to support" except Hiking and backpacking in Israel, which would be inappropriate to feature in midsummer. Perhaps we could get a consensus behind Igbo phrasebook? We don't care about matching phrasebooks to good seasons to visit the countries where the language is spoken, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ikan Kekek - For starters, my Very close vote will be upgraded to Support as soon as the necessary copyedits, which I've already gotten started on, are completed. The only other non-Support vote on the nomination was Hobbitschuster's, but he didn't make it clear exactly what the problems with the article are other than the lack of information about the airport expansion plans, and I think PrinceGloria made a good point by saying that information about the expansion is not strictly necessary for travellers except insofar as it affects the present state of affairs for those flying into or out of CPH. In other words, airports are usually not considered attractions in themselves, and Wikivoyage readers will be using the information in our airport articles mostly for practical purposes, and no one really cares what the CPH experience will be like 5 or 10 or 20 years from now so long as the information in the article reflects what they can expect for the trip they're currently taking. I did a quick Google search and it appears that the CPH expansion is planned to be phased in on a timescale of decades, and the only improvements thus far have been a resurfacing of the runways which was completed last year, an expansion of the parking lot, and an addition onto Pier C of Terminal 3 that includes a few new gates and lounges. Only the latter of those three things potentially necessitates any changes to the article, which would be an extremely quick and easy thing to incorporate into the copyediting blitz I'm already in the process of.


 * It seems like the problem here has more to do with lack of participation in DotM voting than with the article itself, and while I would be the first to jump on board with anyone who proposed to solve that problem once and for all, I don't know myself what the answer to it is. Maybe rather than using a particular number of Support votes as a benchmark to determine a nominee's readiness to be featured, we should instead focus on the Oppose (or Not Yet, or Almost, or Close) votes, addressing problems as others bring them up and then assuming the article is ready when they've all been fixed, without worrying about how many Support votes there are, or else deciding that there are too many issues to address in a realistic timeframe and therefore slushing the article. But I fear that solution would be too much of an accommodation to a "new normal" of low participation when what editors really need is a kick in the rear to actually vote on nominees. All I know is it would be a damn shame if a perfectly good FTT nominee were put in limbo over what essentially amounts to nothing.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I can't think of anything missing in the article (unless we decide the article can't do without POIs for every trash can, times when bathrooms are cleaned, detailed description of what material the floor is made of, a complete menu for each eatery etc.) and I've been to CPH quite a few times. As I said in the nomination, I couldn't find anything about any expansion plans in the article; Prince probably removed it and there's nothing on the airport's own website indicating that there'd be any major expansion/renovation underway right now. I could possibly help out with copyediting if nobody else has time, but I will probably fail to notice some small errors especially when they are of the same type that Scandinavians who speak English as a second language may make (wrong prepositions or word order) when editing before morning coffee or in the middle of the night :).
 * One doesn't need to look any further than the discussions right above this one to see what the real problem with the DotM nominations right now — it's just us three who are guaranteed to take look at every nominated article. Other voyagers only sporadically comment on them and when they do, they often don't say whether they support the article for the Main Page or not. If we post an alert in the pub, some voyagers will come and have a look at the nominated articles but this doesn't last very long, two months later we will have the same amount of articles that need more votes. Note that this does not mean that the articles themselves are bad, in that case we'd have a lot more "Oppose" or "Not yet" votes. A while ago I suggested a banner on the top of articles alerting people to come and have a look at nominated articles every time there are too few votes. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Feb 2017 OtBP
February's slots will appear in the schedule in a little more than a month and as Sde Boker was moved forward I believe there is nothing planned for February's OtBP slot yet. Looking at the schedule (i.e. what other parts of the world are already represented next winter) and where in the world the weather is suitable that time of the year, I believe we'll be looking for some African or Asian article, so here are some suggestions:

From Africa:
 * Entebbe, usable but not far from guide status (also see Talk:Entebbe).
 * Mafia Island, also usable as of now, wouldn't be that hard to bring up to guide status either.

From Asia:
 * Alishan, a guide since 2007 with many additions thereafter, a little short but I guess a national park isn't famous for restaurants and such.
 * One of our Pakistani guide articles, like Keenjhar Lake or Thatta, or have we had too many articles from there over the last years?
 * Mount Sinai is also a guide article, but many parts of the Sinai peninsula are as of now apparently not safe to visit, so I'm not sure about this one.
 * Unawatuna, an usable article which needs some listingfication, coords and such but I believe most of what this town has to offer already is in the article, also, it would be our first Sri Lankan feature.
 * Ukulhas actually requires some research, but it would be the first feature ever from the Maldives. Right now Ukulhas is only an outline but after a cleanup I believe it can be regarded as usable already. Its Wikipedia article is tagged as being written as a travel guide so probably there is a thing or two we could bring over. Also, the atoll is so tiny there cannot be very many POIs to add to have everything in the article.

You may notice I haven't suggested anything from SE Asia, and that's because Ipoh is probably January's DotM and I've envisioned one of our Vietnamese guide articles (Da Nang or Nha Trang, possibly Quy Nhon or Mui Ne) as March's DotM. However if one of these Vietnamese articles would be better suited as OtBP, this could also be a solution. March's DotM won't be a problem, the parts of the world where we have good coverage are in March already much warmer...

If none of these articles are good enough for feature, we could perhaps also consider San Miguel de Allende or Guanajuato (also see User_talk:StellarD), despite that North America will been well represented in the OtBP section in the upcoming months. The articles are usable, but I think both of them could be upgraded to guide with little or no additional work. It seems Zika isn't a problem in that part of Mexico, nor at that elevation above the sea level.

ϒpsilon (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The most attractive course of action for me would be to get one of the sub-Saharan Africa options up to snuff. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Arusha has been slushed a couple of times but is a Guide. If the reasons for it having been slushed could be addressed, we might be able to run it. I feel like there are other Guide African articles that haven't been featured, but I don't know how to effectively search for them within Category:Guide articles . I know one of them, Dakar, was slushed in part because no-one who contributed to it had actually visited. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Both places Ikan mentioned have dry weather in February, but Dakar is far too large and prominent to be OtBP.
 * This service can be used to list articles of different types. The other not yet featured African Guide articles all have at least one of these problems: more suitable for DotM or FTT, wet season in February, something is missing or the article is messy in general.
 * So, from Africa, I believe the articles that need the least amount of additional edits are Entebbe, Arusha and Jeffreys Bay. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wasn't really paying attention to the Otbp/Dotm dichotomy in my remarks above. Dakar would be a Dotm if we ever run it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * So what do you both say about Entebbe? I brought up some things on the article's talk page, fixed them and promoted it to guide status. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

One possibility would be Stanley (Falkland Islands). I did suggest avoiding Q2 2017, due to being 35 years since the 1982 war, but that was 2 April to 14 June, so it would be off the main page well before the anniversary. AlasdairW (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Stanley is what I had in mind for January. I suppose we could move it forward a month, but then we'd have an open question as to what to run in January, with essentially the same slate of possible options. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not realise. January would be fine. AlasdairW (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Featured Travel Topic - problems ahead?
Now judging by the (largely unresolved) kerfuffle about Next to impossible destinations as well as the issues raised about Rail travel in India, it might be necessary to change the planned FTTs. However, currently our travel topics rated guide (there are three stars itineraries, one star Phrasebook and two star travel topics, so they are not really enough to make up any imbalance at the guide level even though no airport and no dive guide is rated star) have a somewhat low number and a somewhat unequal distribution, which limits the number of pages that can be featured without major effort. (Things currently rated guide can be featured, but we should not kid ourselves as to them not requiring any effort). Currently 44 Phrasebooks and 66 Diveguides are rated "guide". We have six airports rated guide, making the amount of articles that can only be scheduled one or two a year (as per current guidelines) one hundred and sixteen out of a total of (wait for it). There are 25 itineraries and 43 "travel topics" rated guide. So the total number of articles that - unless there are geographic or thematic concerns -can be FTT does not exceed 68 out of the total of 116+68 = 184 potentially eligible guide articles. While we do have (including the six star articles) a total of 190 articles that could according to the rules be or have been nominated for FTT (of course excluding previously featured FTTs which I am right now too lazy to count), which should last us a bit over fifteen years, we have a severe imbalance with dive guides and phrasebooks dominating the scene (110 out of 190). Now we could change de facto policy and allow a dive guide or phrasebook every second month instead of one each every year or so, but this might very well get monotonous rather soon. Now how do we fix this? The easiest fix would of course be to create more guide travel topics and/or itineraries in the first place, but experience with travel topics has shown that many of them get started and then edited a lot in the first hours and days only to lie dormant for a long time after, only rarely disturbed in their slumber by a recent changes patroler. I know several people have articles in mind that they would like to see featured at some time, but they do not want to overwhelm the current schedule or nominating page by jumping ahead with them just now, but maybe it would also be worthwhile for some of those efforts to be directed into travel topics and for the travel topics on the "mental lists" to be brought forth now rather than down the line. FTT nominations also seem to have a different dynamic as far as drawing eyeballs and comments goes, but that is just an aside. By the way, allowing countries to be featured as FTT of they have nontrivial size would not fix much as there are currently four countries rated guide one of which Nauru has already been nominated (though I would not count it as of "nontrivial size"). In short, do you see this as a problem and if so, what should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. We have enough of them (I'm also counting good usables like Internet access that are guides or almost guides). Although I do think phrasebooks could be featured more often than just once a year (maybe twice?). Rail travel in India perhaps needs copyediting, perhaps not, plus a checkup of prices if possible (however the latter would've been fairly meaningless to do in the spring when the article was nominated). If people decide NTID shouldn't be featured, let's just slush it and have something else. Igbo should be OK for February; I've e-mailed the user who wrote most of it and who probably can help resolving the issues mentioned in the FTT nomination and if he/she doesn't reply we have tens of other phrasebooks to choose from. In March we'll see Buffalo's churches on the Main Page, in April probably Driving in the UK, and in May King's Road. I have plenty more in mind, but don't want to fill up the summer yet. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The concerns regarding NTID are overblown, and I don't see the "kerfuffle" as "largely unresolved" at all. The major objections to the feature were all made by one individual user. Remember that consensus is not unanimity, regardless of how outspoken the minority may be. The article could do with some minor improvements - I mentioned some possible ones in my "Very close" vote dated 1 July of this year - but by and large, the article needs far less work than the discussion would tend to indicate.


 * As for the lack of FTT candidates in general, I feel like my opinion falls somewhere between Hobbitschuster's and Ypsi's, but more on the side of Hobbitschuster's concerns of undersupply of FTTs. In my opinion, regardless of whether we've always been able to scramble to find or improve an FTT in time to keep the schedule stocked, I'd like us to come to a place where we're not always sneaking through by the skin of our teeth. I think it would be a fine idea to feature dive articles or phrasebooks a bit more often - twice a year rather than once is good - but I think the best approach to the problem is to target Usable-level travel topics, etc. that might be promoted to Guide with a minimum of effort, and then make the necessary improvements.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I think the idea of treating countries as FTT candidates rather than DotMs or OtBPs is a nonstarter, for the simple reason that there are very few of them at Guide status and they're among the most difficult articles to advance to Guide status, given that all the subregions and all 7±2 of the Cities and Other Destinations listed in their respective sections have to be brought up to Usable. It's far easier to focus on improving bona fide travel topics, itineraries, phrasebooks, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing with the countries was just thinking aloud. We have now brought three countries of major size (I am excluding Nauru and Vatican) to guide status and the question whether they could be featured and if yes where and how does arise. Putting them in FTT might help us fill a slot or two in a pinch, because both DotM and OtbP have usually had enough candidates in the pipeline. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

(indent) Rules like "Not too many phrasebooks" etc. can only really be applied if there are other options. In the case that there are phrasebooks to feature but not other options, they should be featured. We can't work with articles that don't exist (or don't exist in the state that we require for featuring). The "kerfuffle" in the Next to Impossible Destinations section is mostly unrelated to the article (being focused on myself and how to overrule opposition to nominations), although the issues about the actual article have gone wholly unaddressed. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A way forward
I took a look through and was very quickly able to identify about a half-dozen travel topics that could be promoted to Guide with a minimum of effort:


 * Advice for nervous flyers (this one might actually be at Guide level already)
 * American football (Hobbitschuster, this might be one for you)
 * Bed and breakfasts
 * Business travel
 * High-speed rail
 * Judaism

I didn't look at anything close to all of the articles in that category, and I didn't delve into Usable-level itineraries, airports, phrasebooks, or dive articles at all, so it's almost certain that this is only scratching the surface of potential FTT candidates. In another discussion it was mentioned that we're covered on FTTs at least through November 2017, but let's not let ourselves use that as an excuse to procrastinate.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Want more? Arriving in a new city, Travel basics, Metric and Imperial equivalents, Military museums and sites in Australia, Cruising on small craft, Avoiding travel through the United States (routes need update), European Union, likely some airport articles too, maybe Tips for travel in developing countries and War zone safety. Hobbit mentioned Rail travel in Germany on the article's talk page. Plus some articles that are at guide status but likely need some updating or other edits, like LGBT travel and Charlotte with children. E11 hiking trail does need a larger amount of work, but that's just about drawing a route on the dynamic map and adding POIs, the route description is already there and it'll become a nice long-distance walking itinerary. Street food, which I started up in 2014 also has potential when I get the energy to make the article less listy. And then we of course still have a some not yet featured guide articles such as Rail travel in the UK, Oregon Trail, The Wire Tour (in Baltimore, hence needs to wait until 2019), Along the Magnificent Mile and Loop Art Tour. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * American Football has been discussed Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As for rail travel in Germany, there are certainly concerns as to the number of "rail travel" articles featured per given time. On another note, there will be quite some changes with the December 2016 and December 2017 timetable change - the former will see the definite end of all DB operated sleeper and car trains while the latter will see the opening for service of the Erfurt-Nurember high speed line, significantly speeding up Berlin-Munich trip times. The ICE 4 (currently doing test runs in revenue service) is also planned to be introduced in one of those timetable changes. The ICE 4 has the capacity to carry bikes, though I have yet to hear definitive proof whether you will be able to take a bike on that train. As some or all of that is either mentioned in the article in future tense or not at all, we would certainly have to look through that prior to featuring. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Make SEO edits a precondition for featuring
So I am currently editing Berlin a bit, always copying sections into copyscape to see how much they match a certain other page and then trying to edit accordingly (do look over my language and the general flow of the text and be as strict as you must when excising parts where I got carried away on a tangent) and I found there are some quite large matches, especially in sections like "get in" or "get around" and - most damning of all - the lede. Berlin is not currently scheduled for featuring and I have no intention of nominating it (though Berlin/South is currently rated guide and could in theory be nominated/featured), but this got me thinking; our featured articles are the most visible and high profile articles and featuring (or even a nomination) usually entails a lot of editing at any rate, so how about we try to better our search engine rating by deliberately editing featured articles or articles nominated for featuring with that in mind? In other words, should we ask for editors to do a bit of that before a feature goes live? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * While any divergence from WT content is of course a net gain for WV, this is the kind of thing that happens organically over time regardless of anything we editors may do intentionally to speed that process along. In my estimation, the primary impulse behind any edit to this site, or question an editor should ask himself before clicking the "Save changes" button, should always be "does this constitute an improvement in the content that we offer the reader?" If there's also an incidental SEO benefit to the edit, so much the better, but it strikes me that simply making lateral changes to the content of our articles for no reason other than SEO runs the risk of inadvertently degrading our content. It seems picayune, but word choice, clever turns of phrase, etc. do matter. To a certain degree, they're how we define ourselves relative to other travel guides. Given that SEO edits are merely a way to move us in a direction we're already moving anyway, it seems unnecessary to run that risk, and I'm especially wary of going so far as making them a precondition for featuring DotMs, OtBPs and FTTs (which are supposed to be open to all Guide or better articles, full stop). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, you be the judge of my recent edits to Berlin. I do think that some of them improved the content of the article rather than just moving laterally. And furthermore we should take a serious look at section that were not changed at all in years, as they are both the most likely to give us SEO penalties and the most likely to contain outdated information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed We can at least make it a point to have several users pore over the page before featuring. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster, I wasn't referring specifically to your edits to Berlin, and I take you at your word when you said they improve the content of the article. I think maybe you and I are talking about two different things here. When I hear about "SEO edits", what that implies to me is a simple, superficial change to the wording of an article such that it says the same thing as before but in different words, which fools search engines into regarding it as original content. If you're talking about adding information to an article that wasn't there before, or updating information that hasn't been edited in years, I'd regard that as an improvement to our content first and foremost, with any attendant SEO benefit secondary. And if you're saying that DotM candidates should be looked over to make sure that all information is up to date and nothing is left out, I'd agree with that too, but I would also say that's something that by and large we already do. Lastly, the mere fact that improvements to our content do necessarily also improve our SEO standing, and the fact that they happen all the time at WV, is precisely what makes me think it's maybe not utterly necessary to make the sort of "lateral SEO edits" I described at the beginning of this comment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that certain sections - once they are written - do not "move" much in any direction, as evidenced by a cursory glance at the text on that other site and our site. For instance this is quite true for a lot of the "by bus" content in articles about Europe, despite the rather rapid development of this market in recent years (I have tried some stabs at it, but way too many articles still list companies that may or may not still exist) and if I take a look at an article, I tend to skip certain sections (e.g. everything "by car", because cars to me are boring and I just assume there is some street and you just follow the signs). Incidentally, when I then look at the comparison tool, those sections are not unlikely to be those most in need of work. Now I am sure we all have different sections we tend to skip - some of us may not skip anything ever - but using comparison tools could help us identify the areas where work is most needed and beneficial. Frankly, I seem mostly incapable of "lateral edits". When I try to reformulate a text, I usually do it from scratch or from only a list of talking points. But we are all different. And a particularly damning thing is if the lede of an article has not changed since the migration. Some ledes may be unimprovable and the best prose since I don't know when, but the vast majority of our ledes were written by someone who thought "well there needs to be a lede" and not much improved on since. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are points well worth pointing out and keeping in mind. I think, though, we should not talk about SEO in any guidelines or feature discussions: that could lead to sections being rewritten by people not too good in writing English, and as you and Andre say, the reason for changing the wording does not matter much for the SEO issue. Using the comparison tool to find possibly outdated or less developed section will help SEO and improve article quality without our saying anything about SEO. --LPfi (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The featured article should showcase the best Wikivoyage has to offer. As such, it should offer the voyager (a) original content which is (b) up to date. I recall the question of whether Internet access should be a featured travel topic (FTT) was raised; my reaction was that it's not ready to be a featured travel topic if it still contains a substantial amount of three-year-old information which was copy-pasted from some other website. If it's not worth the trouble to replace the outdated text with new and original content, it's not worth featuring. K7L (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the requirement for original content. If some free content found elsewhere makes an article better in other aspects, what is the point of using less good or less complete text instead? In most cases, of course, text from elsewhere needs at least some rewriting to fit our style, but that is a separate consideration. And old content is not necessarily outdated, if it has been checked and updated where needed. I think we should not confuse quality issues with SEO and the wish to cut any connections to that other site. For SEO, I hope Google & co are smart enough for our work to show in search results without efforts on just changing content, which seems to be true. For the other site, a company abusing a community does not mean the community did not produce valuable content before the fork. I hope we could just leave that site to degenerate on its own and concentrate on making this site good. --LPfi (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyscape
A short while ago, Hobbitschuster placed "Oppose" votes for FTT candidates Passport and Driving in the UK, citing as his rationale high percentages of duplicate text vis-à-vis WT as determined by Copyscape. I was under the impression that the above discussion had already failed to lead to a consensus that SEO edits should be a consideration for approving DotM articles, and I strenuously oppose the idea of these factors being considered as relevant to support or opposition for a featured article candidate.

In my view, SEO, while indeed a valid and ongoing issue on this site, is a problem that has nothing to do with an article's fitness or lack thereof to be DotM/OtBP/FTT. While edits to eliminate duplicate text that are done on an author's own initiative are harmless enough (though frankly, the jury is still out on whether and to what extent that even has an effect on SEO), in no way should an article be held up on that basis. In fact, our policy states that all articles that are at Guide status are ipso facto fit to be featured, and that in order to be considered valid votes, "all objections have to be based on the guidelines [spelled out in dotm]", which do not mention anything about SEO or duplicate text. While in practice we've upheld somewhat higher standards for our nominees, I think this is several bridges too far. If an article contains accurate information, that should be the end of the story.

This is not to mention the chronic problem we have finding suitable FTT candidates. It almost goes without saying that tossing two otherwise suitable FTT nominees for picayune reasons will spell problems down the line.

Can we please try to come to a definitive answer on whether duplicate text is or is not a valid factor to consider when voting Support or Oppose? I'd love to set an ironclad precedent here to refer to when this issue comes up again, as there does indeed (thankfully, in most ways) seem to have been a renewed attention to the SEO issue lately.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Well, I hope you do not intend this to be as aggressive as it sounds to me. Because I would not consider the question of whether an article is up to date "picayune". And this is ultimately (besides SEO benefits) what it boils down to. Now rewordings to reduce the copied content may not do anything to better our search ranking (though judging by the position articles newly created from newly written material after the migration enjoy on search engines like startpage as opposed to articles that were either created before the migration or originated with content spun off from an article written before the migration there is some evidence to lend credence to this theory), but, reading through the content that has stayed the same since the migration instead of skipping over it gives a good reason to think about exactly that content for at least a little while. And just like closed businesses are easier to identify when dead weblinks are highlighted, so too is outdated information without a weblink or where the weblink is still alive easier to identify when we look at the content that has not changed since the migration.


 * Now certain things certainly have not changed in the years since the migration. And it may indeed from some standpoint be a loss of time and effort to change some wordings if the search engine benefit is indeed nill (which again, evidence seems to indicate is not the case; there seems to be a search engine benefit for content different from WT). But what certainly cannot be a waste of time or effort is to check whether certain content is still true / up to date / what have you.


 * While it is true that we are in danger of running out of FTT nominees, the problem is not caused by "withholding support from otherwise worthy article for picayune reasons" but by the dearth of articles worthy of that consideration in the first place. Of the currently nominated Travel Topics, the majority were created after the migration. English language varieties was not even remotely the same article in October of 2012. Besides, a phrasebook would not become outdated so fast, would it? Of the other nominees, only the two which I have commented on were created before the migration or contain more than incidental pre-migration content. There are several travel topics that are either ready for featuring in all but polishes or could be brought up to snuff quite easily. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like a valid basis for opposition to me, but I would leave that question to each user. The bigger problem that you touch on without stating is that you believe a single user's opposition would in all cases make it impossible to feature an article. I hope that's not what you're saying, because I was under the impression that we did away with the equation of consensus with unanimity several years ago on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster - There was no aggression intended, and I'm sorry if you were under the impression that there was. Moreover, it sounds as if you and Ikan have somewhat misunderstood what I was trying to say. Duplicate text and outdated information are two issues that, while they probably coincide to a statistically significant degree, ultimately remain separate from each other. To be a bit more specific, it's certainly possible that an article can contain a lot of duplicate text from the old site, yet its information is still up to date simply by virtue of the facts on the ground not having changed since the text was written. And, if Ypsilon's comments on its nomination are to be believed (and I think they are), that's likely to be the case with Passport (one of the articles you opposed, and, I guess, the main inspiration for my having brought up this concern). What I'm asking is this: all else being equal, if we're to assume that an article's information is up to date and it fulfills all the other requirements to be featured, should we give any weight to an Oppose vote simply because of a high percentage of duplicate text? That's what I oppose. If there's outdated information, of course we should bring it up to date, but that's a separate issue entirely. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I rarely participate in DOTM discussions anymore so my opinion may not count for much, but what originally drove me away from the whole process was the seemingly arbitrary criteria that evolved to get an article featured. The criteria for nomination states "The nominated article should have an article status of guide or star", but the reality is that it depends on the personal preferences of those providing feedback as to whether a guide article will be slushed or not.  If the goal is to only feature the site's very best articles then SEO updates, content refreshes, and other factors are important and should be called out as criteria for featuring, but that should be made clear on the nomination page so editors aren't caught unaware when a nominated article garners opposition due to things like SEO issues. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 02:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Ryan, it's become quite a rare occurrence for any nominee to be slushed. For me personally, I've come to almost take it for granted that every article that's nominated will eventually be featured, and I take any "Not Yet" or "Almost" votes to be de facto equivalent to "I Will Change My Vote To 'Support' When..." votes. If nine times out of ten the overall effect is to make a good article even better, I think the pros of that outweigh the cons of us not following policy to the letter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know that slushes are rare these days. I'll bow out of this discussion since things have obviously changed since I was last regularly involved. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 06:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not excited about the whole "SEO wars" thing. I just don't care if text is being used anywhere else.  I'd like an interesting, well-written article on the front page.  That's all I really care about.  Whether it was created before or after The Great Divorce (or if it's been mirrored by any other site) just doesn't matter to me.
 * If other people care about other things, then we should probably figure out what people care about and what we can do that would actually help meet those goals. For example, if the hope is to drive traffic to the site, then factors such as trendiness ought to be in the list of criteria.  (Favoring "trendiness" could mean paying attention to news articles that declare that the best destinations this year are X, Y, and Z, or checking trends on how many people visit each year, and then preferring articles from those favored locations.)  But unless we actually agree upon some such goals and adapt the written criteria to support them, I'm not excited about imposing personal criteria on the process.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

SEO I think there is value in preferring it but maybe not requiring it. It can be a factor and a decent one. If two articles are roughly as good, complete, etc. but one is more-or-less identical to the other wiki travel guide and the other is substantially different, then that would tip the scales. I think of it more as part of a rubric than an outright veto. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't the idea to feature the best of Wikivoyage and not merely something from some other website which might have been a good article four-and-a-half years ago? We're not WT. We split in 2012. It's 2017 now. All that imported text will soon be half a decade old, and that gap can only increase. We need to move on and showcase what good information Wikivoyage is producing now. K7L (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WV and pre-fork WT are, for these purposes, one and the same site. The content was generated by the same community. Does good writing stop being good after a certain arbitrary period of time? So what if the text is old, as long as it remains accurate? (And if it's no longer accurate, again, that's a separate issue.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I think can be seen in the case of some of the text I highlighted in my critique of Riga, the issue of pre-fork content and the issue of outdated content is really intertwined. And to be frank, just because a certain wording has not been changed in a while does not preclude it from being garbage. And if the text does indeed remain accurate, surely a more or less complete rundown of all the copied content and its continuing accuracy could be given. My reasons for criticizing Driving in the UK and Passport are for the former that precisely this language (which originated in the get around section of the United Kingdom article) has recently been gone through with a fine toothed comb and little of it remains, so it cannot be all that good writing. True, the main country article is supposed to be more concise than dedicated travel topics on single issues, but still this indicates that the writing in the article is certainly not at the absolute top of what the community can achieve. And I think this is what the Featured Articles should be about: Highlighting and celebrating our best work (be it writing, research, flow and myriads of other points that make a top notch travel guide) and sharing it with (hopefully) the wider world. Featuring an article that mostly contains text that was written some time ages ago and seems to have sat there forgotten since then does not exactly say that to me. The more I think about the SEO issue, the more I think that this is about more than "just" SEO.


 * I have a question to which you may answer or not as you please, but I am curious nonetheless; did you have a look at (some of) the "copied" content in the three articles that this debate is and both isn't about? That is, Riga, Passport and Driving in the UK as compared to the "Get Around# By car" section of the article of our inferior competitor. I think it would help to not have this debate in the abstract. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think quality is important. I don't think it is important how the quality was arrived at or how old the text is per se. (SEO is important for the site, but not for selection of these candidates.) My tuppence. Nurg (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested change to DotM
Carrying on from this conversation at Wikitravel (external link removed), would it be wise to have multiple destinations per month? That is, one in the Northern and one in the Southern Hemispheres, since their climates will be opposite? Or simply have a more frequent rotation (maybe fortnightly)? Having just 12 places in the world every year seems like too few to me. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, we don't link to WT on this site.


 * Secondly, we actually feature 24 places in the world every year, plus 12 travel topics, itineraries, phrasebooks, airports, etc.


 * Thirdly, the answer to your question would be a firm "no". It's a tall enough order already filling all the slots with three features that change monthly.


 * If WT - a site whose content has already been degraded by spam, touting, and other such problems that they don't have the manpower to bring under control - has seen fit to further debase the standards of what they allow on their Main Page by forcing themselves to make space for more feature articles, that's their problem. It's certainly not something we should ape here. It would be completely and totally counterproductive especially given that we're trying to play up the superiority of our content and the differences between us and them.


 * Frankly, the fact that you're even suggesting we do this raises red flags for me.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that was rude. Wikitravel is not suggesting on having two DotMs. You are mistaken. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, this suggestion does not fly. Pashley (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll defer to the opinions on DOTM issues to those who are more involved with that feature (sounds like the preference is to maintain the status quo), but given the fact that any mention of WT raises people's ire, I'd ask everyone to please be extra-careful to keep comments civil, and to ensure that you are assuming good faith. In addition, unlike at WT, I'm not aware that we have any policy against linking to them, although it's something Wikivoyage would prefer to discourage as much as possible for various reasons. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 04:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I know of no such policy. I also think that Justin has earned a presumption of good faith. Suggesting that perhaps WT might have a good idea about something is no red flag to me, though I fully agree that in this case, our way is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I just find it amazing that someone who's a fairly active contributor to our site could be so heedless of our checkered history with WT, ignorant of the SEO problems we've been having vis-à-vis the old site (especially since Justin admits to occasionally adding duplicate content to both sites), and forgetful of the pattern of behavior we've often seen with several other users who contributed to both sites. It may not be bad faith and it may not be against policy in a strict sense, but the suggestion does demonstrate an astonishing tone-deafness (in addition to being a bad idea to begin with). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We need to differentiate ourselves from the old site, not imitate them. However the suggestion above that featured articles ought to be rewritten first for SEO purposes is I think just a horrifying lot of extra work and little bang for the buck. If something needs to be done vis-à-vis SEO and our featured articles right now, we could rename "Destination of the Month" for instance "Recommended Destination Article" and "Off the Beaten Path" for instance "Less Visited Destinations" (or something else).
 * Also, it would be great if more people would help out with fixing issues in articles rather than just pointing them out, let alone inventing new requirements. It's already — or should I say, in the last half year it has become — hard finding articles satisfying everyone. Just my 2 cents. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well right now Feature discussions don't involve the participation of all that many editors (I am only half active there myself) and increasing the number of slots would certainly not decrease this problem. I also do not consider SEO edits - or rather, edits that keep SEO in mind - a waste of time or little bang for the buck. My anecdotal evidence may not count for much, but surprisingly little effort has sometimes cause articles to rise a lot in the duckduckgo rankings (which I think are independent of who is doing the searching, but I may be wrong in that). There is a general tendency - at the very least on this wiki, maybe on all wikis - not to remove old text in most reversions, so that oftentimes our text is longer than the one on that other site and contains more accurate information, but there is still a huge duplicate penalty because so much old text just sits there unchanged. Having a look at Copyscape has often helped me identify outdated information, or stuff that is contradicted in other parts of the article. Often the previous wordings were clunky and unwieldy but had just stayed due to inertia. Copyscape has also often alerted me to parts of the article I normally do not focus on. If we want to polish our feature nominations prior to featuring them, looking which content has not been looked at and/or changed in years is not wasted time imho. And it does have SEO benefits. Also, but this does not seem to be a major problem, if you dislike my SEO edits, tell me and please don't just reinstate what was there before but try and come up with something else. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course there's nothing bad with updating the articles, and I would be surprised to learn that anyone would have reverted your or other people's edits of such kind. Nevertheless, I don't think we have the manpower for systematic SEO edits of all articles that are about to go up on the Main Page. While they might help the site as a whole (regardless if they are done on a specific article that soon is featured or not), adding this as an extra requirement for nominated articles is certainly not going to make it easier for people who are actively working to prevent there from being months without articles like myself. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have the editor power to increase the number of DOTMs in the foreseeable future. This will be a good discussion to have once the community grows. Gizza ( roam ) 08:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

geographical bias
Girls & guys, when reading this, I have two thoughts popping up: (1) this is great for explorers and (2) it unfortunately has a strong Northern Hemisphere bias. I imagine that may be due to the background of most active authoring travellers, which is ok, but not where we should stop. It would be great to come up with ideas regarding destinations elsewhere, to really cover most of the inhabited world. Buan~dewiki (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I brought up the topic about two and a half years ago. Since then the situation has gotten better. The thing is that active users on English Wikivoyage outside non-Latin North America, Europe north of the Alps, and Australia/New Zealand can almost be counted on one hand's fingers. This also reflects where in the world our good articles mostly are located (though we also have a pretty good coverage of the easternmost third of Asia).
 * There are however ways that articles can be upgraded. Sometimes another language version has a good article that can be translated, upgraded and featured (e.g. Mombasa). There are also articles that we already have that have content but are just a mess and possibly outdated. In general a spare afternoon and Google will do it. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an issue that's actually come up multiple times in the past, for instance here. As Ypsi has already said: we indeed do endeavor for our featured destinations to be as geographically diverse as possible, but how diverse they can be is limited by the number of Wikivoyagers who live in and/or are familiar with a given region, as well as the degree to which some regions simply have more Guide- and Star-level articles than others. I'd also add that we try to place each respective destination on the schedule at a time of year that would be conducive to actually visiting the place, which in practice usually means summer months and/or the dry season. Therefore, during the Northern Hemisphere summer and adjacent months (usually April-Oct), we tend to "make hay while the sun shines" by featuring an overabundance of destinations in North America, Europe, and sometimes Northeast Asia (this is especially true because these are the regions of the world that Wikivoyage covers most extensively). Meanwhile, in other months, destinations in the Tropics and the Southern Hemisphere predominate. Indeed, if you look at the current schedule you'll see that pattern holds true. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A holiday or Christmas destination featured for a day?
Every April 1, it seems that we send our readers to hell in a handbasket or some similarly lovely destination. The article appears in place of the featured destination for a day, then is promptly forgotten.

I'm wondering if we should take a similar approach on December 25, but feature a real place with a holiday theme like Bethlehem or a North Pole-style destination like Rovaniemi? It's a bit late now to create something new, but do we have a good article on an existing destination which fits the theme? K7L (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * At a minimum, a destination could be featured on Facebook - see Social media/Nominations for a place to suggest future social media posts. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What we could do is create something travel and Christmas related. I don't know... holiday travel, Christmas around the world, Channukka in Jerusalem or whatnot. And yes, I know Channukka is a minor holiday that even many Jews don't know more than the basics about, but it is commonly celebrated as Ersatz-Christmas by North American and European Jews. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A Christmas feature seems unnecessarily Western-focused for a global travel website. Why not Yom Kippur? Or Chinese New Year? Or any other primary holidays in other parts of the world? Powers (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not solely Western-focused, but focused on a Christian holiday. And I totally agree with you about a feature. We would need to also feature both Eids, Wesak, Chinese New Year, Thaipusam, Diwali/Deepavali, etc., not to mention Easter, which is more important than Christmas in many Christian countries. In the long term, maybe features for each holiday could be a good idea, but considering the ratio between the amount of work, the number of people who might do the work and the number of days anything would get a holiday feature (at most, a month for Ramadan, but we already featured Travelling during Ramadan), I think this is a thought to put in the deep freezer for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

DotM voting participation: at an all-time low?
We currently have 18 DotM, OtBP, and FTT candidates on the schedule for the next six months. Of those, only two (Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side and Driving in the UK) have the requisite four votes needed to establish unambiguous consensus that they're ready to be featured.

Only two.

I don't know how many times this same message has been posted on this page, but once again, we need there to be more participation in the voting process. This is getting repetitive.

The next trio of featured articles - Hobart (DotM), Entebbe (OtBP), and Igbo phrasebook (FTT) - each have three votes; one each from myself, Ikan, and Ypsi. If we could get one more vote for each of those candidates, we'd be set for the month of February. In the long term, though, it would be great if this were the last time people had to be reminded to participate in the DotM process. Looking over articles to make sure they're not missing anything is not a difficult or time-consuming process. There's no reason why it can't be done more consistently without these periodic reminders and entreaties.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think for newer users such as myself it's easy to forget about. There's nothing (obviously) visible on the main page and I only remember about voting when it's posted to the pub. Out of sight, out of mind and all that jazz. Perhaps it would be worth discussing the addition of a link on the home page with verbiage such as: "Would you like to help curate our featured articles? Vote on upcoming nominations here!". Additionally, in the past (and even now) I felt like I wasn't qualified to vote since I didn't feel I had a good enough grasp of what is being looked for in a featured article. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up
To all Wikivoyagers who responded to this appeal: thank you for your outpouring of attention and votes, Support and otherwise. We went from 2 nominees with the requisite level of support to 9 (which will likely soon become 10, pending Ikan's feedback on whether Da Nang passes muster for him), which is quite impressive.

Let's build on this momentum. I know the flood of new DotM/OtBP/FTT candidates has slowed to a trickle lately, but we've got OtBP slots to fill for September and October 2017 and not much of anything for November and after, so I anticipate there will be an uptick in new nominations sooner than later. When that happens, let's be ready to push those through with the requisite four votes (or, alternatively, identify and solve any issues) in short order. But until then, again, good job everyone! (And don't forget, there are quite a few current nominees that still need your vote!)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Voting on phrasebooks without understanding the language
I am a bit queasy about voting on phrasebooks without understanding the language. I know, ultimately we will have to take a lot on faith in all our coverage (unless of course we know the place) but at the very least we can cross-check with maps and check the URLs of hotels and restaurants to see whether they are what they claim to be. But if we have four people who don't speak - let's say Hungarian - vote on say whether our hovercraft is full of eels because someone is playing a quite elaborate prank on us, or more benignly an obscure dialect is presented as the standard variety we will encounter everywhere. It is overall quite weird to vote on a phrasebook for a language few of our readers understand and none of our authors understands and take on faith what (in some cases a lone long gone) editor(s) have written who may not even participate in the feature discussion. I am not making any proposal here, just an observation as to why I won't vote support for phrasebooks for languages which I do not speak. And given the low number of languages most people speak, it may be a fools errand to get four speakers for any given language, so if we want any to go live without "pending stronger consensus" we will always have people voting support on languages they do not speak. Ultimately, someone will try to get us into a Bicholim conflict eventually and given the past behavior of our friends at IB, we might sooner or later find something like that pop up. I hope we will detect it when it happens; thus far IB trolling has been blatant enough to identify eventually. But for the reasons outlined above, I will not vote "support" on phrasebooks of languages I do not speak. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Good points. We need to be careful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sites like Linguee or Reverso Context might perhaps be useful. These are online translation sites that derive their power from cross-referencing analogous passages in publicly available texts that have already been translated professionally into multiple languages, thus enabling the searcher to compare whole phrases rather than relying on word-to-word machine translation à la Google Translate, thus negating the problems of mangled grammar and syntax and misunderstandings of slang and idiomatic expressions. I've used both sites extensively in my translation work, and they've actually been instrumental in my efforts to teach myself German, which I've been doing for the last three years. It seems to me like even someone who doesn't speak a particular language could (with the help of conjugation tables such as they have at Wiktionary, and basic information on grammatical structure that can similarly be researched online) suss out whether there are any errors in our articles - or even fill in some blanks themselves. A relatively wide range of languages are covered, as well: between the two sites, Arabic, Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovakian, Slovenian, Spanish, and Swedish. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

When to oppose nominees on grounds of safety or morality
There's been a lively discussion at Destination of the month candidates about the abuses of human rights on that island and elsewhere. It might be good to have some discussion of cases in which articles that are otherwise worthy of a feature should not be featured.

So far, we've declined to feature Kabul for safety reasons and postponed a feature for someplace due to the Zika epidemic (I think it was Fortaleza). We also discussed postponing a feature of someplace in Israel after Hamas fired a rocket toward Ben Gurion Airport, potentially threatening passenger air traffic. A feature of Mount Rinjani was postponed due to volcanic activity. There are probably other examples I can't think of right now.

But what about human rights as a reason not to feature? In the linked discussion, I brought up the time when we featured Riyadh. Riyadh is a major center of business and also the capital of Saudi Arabia, so many foreigners travel, work and live there. However, Saudi Arabia is the country (I'm not counting the areas the Islamic State organization or the Taliban rule, because they are not countries with stable borders) where Islam is at its most extreme, they are responsible for a large portion of the spread of extremism throughout the Islamic world and beyond, and they are one of several Arab Gulf emirates where workers are allowed to leave only with the consent of their employer, with the result that workers are frequently mistreated, beaten, raped, enslaved and denied requests to go home for years on end, and then if in extremis they kill their employer in self-defense, they get executed. To my understanding, this is a problem throughout the Arab Gulf. Should that also call into question features for places like Doha, Dubai and Abu Dhabi as well as places in Saudi Arabia? I should say, I think that documented, systemic abuse of foreigners is probably the soundest reason, other than a place being an active war zone, deadly epidemic site or place of volcanic eruption, to forego a feature. But so far, I don't think we've even debated the question until discussion came up in regard to Nauru.

We could also discuss the human rights records of countries like China, but in practice, people who travel there and don't deliberately proselytize or get involved with politics are very unlikely to get in trouble with the authorities, so issues of treatment of Chinese citizens (Han and non-Han) don't usually directly impinge on visitors. That's a commonplace situation. Even in North Korea, visitors who behave as expected by the authorities are very unlikely to get in trouble.

I should add that especially right now, issues of treatment of travellers could strongly call into question any features within the United States, if we want to avoid featuring places that could be really unpleasant for some people to travel to, but for now, the problems are at a much lower level than employees with impounded passports being reduced to slavery and sexual brutalization, as happens in Arab Gulf countries, so it could simply be noted in United States of America that ordinary and even famous visitors from various countries including Australia have been arbitrarily harassed and subjected to long interrogations at U.S. airports and border checkpoints, and run any features, anyway.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I think there really are two issues here: (1) Traveller safety is a good reason to postpone or oppose a feature; (2) however, if we oppose a feature based on morality or the oppression of the country's inhabitants, we have a much more difficult task in establishing guidelines. I should say, I think all of us would draw the line somewhere and would surely oppose a feature for a place of active genocide, even if we thought people outside of the groups targetted for annihilation were unlikely to be attacked if they kept to themselves. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic to the impetus behind this, but by the same token you've just put a huge proportion of potential destinations, maybe more than half, out of play. I think the inevitable result if we considered factors like this would either be that the policy is enforced inconsistently or we'd quickly run out of destinations to feature in "clean" countries.


 * More than that, I think it's a patronizing, paternalistic approach vis-à-vis our readers to presume that we know better than they themselves do where to draw the ethical line about which problematic places can be visited with a clean conscience. Of course human rights violations that a country may be committing or playing host to should maybe be discussed in the article itself, but if we've made travellers aware of the cold hard facts surrounding human rights abuses in Nauru or Saudi Arabia or North Korea (or China or the U.S.) and they decide that the pros of visiting outweigh the cons, we have no business questioning that decision. And that extends to taking a stand before the fact by choosing to feature or not to feature it on that basis.


 * Of course, common sense still applies: I would have voted no on Kabul as DotM if I had been here when it was nominated. But a big part of my "no" vote would have had to do with the fact that the place was a war zone. I see safety concerns and human rights concerns as two wholly separate issues that shouldn't be conflated here.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't put destinations out of play. The point of this thread is to have a discussion about the limits of which articles we feature, not for me to dictate what to feature or not. And just because I bring up issues doesn't mean I am actually suggesting not featuring all these places; the examples are given for the sake of discussion.


 * I'll add something else: How much do we actually cover the cold, hard facts of human rights in all these countries? That's something we really should keep in mind, because it's different to avoid telling people where to travel (when there isn't a universal or specifically traveler-focused issue of safety) than to not inform them of risks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we should stay close to official travel advices and not get into other ethical debates to avoid ending up in political, biased and/or subjective discussions. Officially reported human rights issues can be mentioned in articles about places, but we should let travellers make their own decisions on what to do with that information. Personally, as a traveller, I for one don't think avoiding such destinations is the way to go at all. No individual traveller can change a situation, and allowing tourism to flourish will not always help. However, locals being able to discuss how things work in other countries is good, and the economic and political incentive of trying to avoid negative publicity since it might harm the tourist industry or reputation are at least better than isolation for places with human rights issues. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What about human rights abuses that are reported by media sources? To take one example, the Trump Administration would not have reported the 10-hour interrogation of Australia's most famous writer of children's books in a U.S. airport, but that kind of incident, since it seems to be cropping up more lately, is certainly of concern to potential travelers to the U.S. And the abuses of workers in the Arab Gulf are really well-known but certainly denied by governments of the countries where they occur. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing now that I drew some invalid conclusions about what Ikan was getting at in his remarks, but I think Julias articulated my own point of view pretty much perfectly. We are an opinionated and often stubborn bunch here; we all have our own political points of view, and in the end, as distasteful as some may consider it, one person's unconscionable human rights violation is another person's unfortunate but necessary measure to maintain security. Asking us Wikivoyagers to come together and make a definition even as to what constitutes human rights, let alone whether and under what conditions and up to what point it's morally defensible to contravene them 1) kind of makes me feel icky to begin with, 2) forces the site to take a political stand in complete opposition to our longstanding policy against getting involved in such things, and 3) is a surefire recipe for the exact kinds of quagmire debates that we already have too many of here, where we go around and around in circles until we all collectively throw up our hands and walk away and nothing gets accomplished or decided.


 * And again, this should not be taken to mean that common sense isn't still the rule that supersedes all other rules. Ikan mentioned places where active genocides are occurring as one such clear-cut case, and I'm inclined to agree, but by the same token I don't know of any place in the world where such a thing is happening where there aren't also numerous other non-human-rights-related dangers to travellers that would play an arguably bigger role in informing our decision to feature it on the Main Page or not. While I still feel it's important not to conflate these two concepts even though they may often overlap when it comes to certain specific destinations, I'm having a hard time avoiding the thought that if we came up with a policy specifically forbidding any destination in an active war zone (defined as places where conditions described in our article on war zone safety apply) from being featured, that would also take care of most places where egregious human rights abuses are of concern. But beyond that, we need to treat our readers like adults and empower them to make their own decisions rather than dictating to them what is and isn't a valid ethical decision.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with you two, but I still think this discussion is worth having. And here's the thing: When human rights issues affect travelers, they are topical. That would include people going to a place to work, even though covering contract work that lasts more than a couple of weeks isn't a core part of this site's mission, as we've defined it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, we should make sure the articles in question have complete, detailed, and accurate enough information that the reader can judge for him- or herself the risks of travelling to or working in those places. Which, in the case of Guide or better articles, I can't imagine they wouldn't already have. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, but let's keep this in mind and make sure each time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The criteria for Guide articles, as currently defined, wouldn't preclude Aleppo from being promoted from its current "usable" status to "guide" or even nominated here if the city has "different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking and information on multiple attractions and things to do" with listings and layout which "closely match the manual of style" and "clear explanations of multiple ways to get in, clear information on getting around, and suggestions for where to go next, with one-liner descriptions." There is no requirement that a guide article have an "Understand" section to actually explain what this place is or why anyone would contemplate going here. There is no requirement for warnings that this destination is an active war zone, that the country's leadership are tyrants who drop barrel bombs on civilians, that millions have fled Syria because their lives are at risk or that most of what's listed in Aleppo may or may not still be standing, inshAllah. Just keep collecting multiple listings for a choice of restaurants and hotels and presumably this (or any) destination will be yuge and great again.
 * I'm tempted to suggest that the criteria for guide status be tightened. An article which is merely a directory of restaurants and hotels with no context and no "Understand" section should not qualify - we're a travel guide, not a telephone book. If there are human rights problems, disclose them. Armed conflict? Disclose it and warn the voyager. Unverifiable listings due to a problematic situation on the ground? Fix this before even considering the page "guide" or even "usable".
 * A next to impossible trip like the apocryphal "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success" might be legitimate, but only if we make full and fair disclosure. A "guide" article should be reasonably complete and human rights issues are part of that larger context. K7L (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems sensible. What do other people think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Frankly if something like Riyadh were to be nominated today, I'd vote oppose. I'd likely also vote oppose for Tehran, even though this Islamic regime is perceived to be more moderate by some observers. I think we all "know" that there are some criteria besides the ostensible ones for having something go on the mainpage or not. I think the proposal of tightening the formal requirements for something to be guide is a good idea as well (even though it might make the "jump" from usable to guide even steeper and might result in a case being made for a mezzanine between this basement and first floor). I mean we even had the discussion of whether places in war zones are fit to be listed in "discover" (where a preponderance of voices said the fact that a place is currently a war zone should not preclude it being listed) which has much lower thresholds and a much shorter timespan of visibility than our features have. I'm not sure we'll be able to hash out any formal requirements beyond the hazy feeling that Kabul while the bombs are falling is not okay to be featured. Maybe we can work our way from existing consensus. For example, warningboxes are usually fairly uncontroversial things and put there not by our own fiat (alone) but because reputable governments say there is serious non-obvious danger to life and limb in going to a place. I think we could perhaps then make the jump saying articles that are covered by a warningbox (either in the article itself or in its parent region/country) should not be featured while the warning applies. Now the general human rights record is a dicey issue. On the one hand, we don't want to encourage people to visit the lovely beaches while millions of innocents rot in prison and are tortured on a daily basis. On the other hand, there is no one reputable source on human rights that is generally accepted as politically neutral and I think part of the reason why outrage over human rights abuses in "the West" is greater is that most Westerners apply a stricter standard. It's of course hard to draw a line. I think during the days of Apartheid, a good argument against featuring anything under the control of the Apartheid regime could have been made, but I consider it foolish and dangerous to draw equivalencies between anything happening currently and Apartheid.
 * That said, I think travel topics (where we have a much greater issue with filling slots) are less problematic, because many of those are not geographically focused and those that are, often focus on countries whose human rights records are not that bad. We can - and in my opinion should - exercise greater scrutiny and caution for destination articles. Not every article that currently sits at guide can and should go live and votes of "not yet" for guide articles prove that this is a fairly uncontroversial opinion. I think besides the climate and geographic issues that (rightfully) go into drawing up the exact schedule, we should put more emphasis on the time the information was last updated and - yes - security, health concerns and the human rights situation at the destination.
 * Let me close by raising an issue that I don't actually know how to address: What if the place can generally be considered safe for travelers, but certain minorities are viciously persecuted? To draw a drastic picture: Can we really say X is lovely in summertime when they hang gays from cranes there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which countries would that leave us being able to feature? I don't think I agree with an inflexible position about warningboxes, either. There have at various times been international travel advisories to Israel when it was objectively a lot safer to be there than in many crime-ridden cities that lacked warningboxes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * True, some of the travel warnings (or lack thereof) have more to do with diplomacy than the "situation on the ground" so to speak. But I think the number of places where gays are hanged from cranes (as opposed to "merely" put in prison) is no higher than two or three dozen. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite a discussion so thanks for that. My original concern was nothing to do with traveler safety but about featuring a DOTM as an implicate recommendation to travel to a destination with human rights abuses, which I would find hard to do (and as such I would abstain from voting on such a destination). Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the people attempting to seek asylum are travellers. But where would you suggest drawing the line? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As Andre mentioned, we can't act in a paternalistic manner towards travelers but actually nominating Destination X as a DOTM is actually paternalistic in itself so it is right we consider all aspects before nomination. There are a lot of potential DOTM articles, so I don't see the issue in adding human rights record as a measure (not a strict criterion) to consider before nomination. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I really feel this is a very one-sided view of how human rights issues should be addressed. Again, I don't think a travel guide should get into this kind of judgement on which places are doing a good enough job, but if we must have this discussion, I hope we'll not end up with a western tunnel vision outcome. As someone who has been heavily involved in various international human rights projects, I want to stress that a simple embargo may make us feel like we're taking a stand, but in many cases and according to many experts in the field, reducing foreign influence can have the exact opposite effect. I'm strongly in favour of calling out human rights issues in destination articles and including suggestions on how travellers can help by e.g. supporting local NGO's and student movements. Simply excluding such destinations (and even then, based on which criteria?) gives, imho, just the illusion of doing something right. At this very moment, the Women's World Chess Championship is taking place in Teheran, Iran, a place so well-known for the suppression of women's rights. Some top players decided not to take part, obviously out of support for women's rights and dissatisfaction with the obligatory hijab. Many local women's rights activists were saddened by that decision, however, because they believe that having such an event and having "strong" western women showing and discussing their reality is a far more powerful tool in their battle. All I'm trying to say is; this kind of thing is complicated, and I don't think DotM on Wikivoyage is a suitable platform for this political debate. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing that point of view (for the second time in this thread, but I think that was necessary, and you elaborated more here). I think that there is little to no positive or protective effect on the population when foreign visitors have to travel with a government-issued guide everywhere, as in North Korea, and there are also many places where tourism hurts the local population in various ways (sexual predation, debasement of local values and traditions, etc.). I think that virtually all of the editors here think travel can be for the good, and that's why we participate - I know for my part that understanding more of the world prevents me from having a myopic view of "my country or the highway", but it could well be that a lack of more time spent in very conservative areas of the U.S. has caused me to understand the U.S. less than I should, and that, too, could be remedied in part by travel, if I'm open to really listening to people. But just as staying home and being a citizen of your home town can come with all sorts of issues, so can traveling. As you said, it's complicated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(starting at the left again) I think in certain places there are only undesirable options. If the female chess players go to Iran an refuse to wear a hijab, they might cause all matter of stuff (though I am sure it would at the very least bring the issue into media focus) but if they want to avoid the very real danger of being arrested or worse they have to put up with the sham and cover their hair. I can understand that many women don't want someone to dictate them what to wear but aren't exactly looking forward to being locked up in Iran. At any rate, we have mostly kept political discussions out of WV talk pages and I would like to keep it that way if and when possible. I have been accused by people on both ends of the political spectrum of pretty much all the horrible things they accuse their opponents of and in my experience no good conversation ever comes after such accusations. We should also keep in mind that most of our readers are not activists of any sort, but there is a certain desire to not "support" regimes they dislike. For instance, flights to Turkey from German airports have decreased a lot in the last couple of years, which cannot be explained by the security situation alone and if judging by the facebook comments not wanting to "support" Erdoğan by going to Turkey is at least an oft-stated reason. I think we are perfectly capable of stating some human rights issues, as we do in blatant cases like North Korea and that one Central Asian dictatorship (I forgot which one), but naturally the real or alleged issues of other countries can become a rabbit hole pretty quickly. What one person regards as illegal detainment and whatnot, another defends as necessary to protect the homeland from crime and terrorism and whatnot. Travel is, after all, a net positive, but I do think we should point out problems, be it the untreated sewage a hotel produces, the danger to marine life caused by surfing or diving, the ecological issues caused by excessive skiing, especially away from designated slopes and - yes - political issues as well. And yes, our featured articles are not only featured to highlight what should be our best writing, but also an (implicit) call on readers to go there or consider going there. Otherwise it would be irrelevant whether Vienna is featured in January or August. So the question "Can we in good conscience tell people to go to X (at this point in time)" does enter into our considerations. I'm sure it's not the first consideration, but it is one. I am not, however, sure whether we need to formalize this in any way or allow each of our editors their own criteria or include a general clause like "featuring can also be withhheld due to characteristics of the destination and the political or security situation during the time of proposed feature". Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to strongly object that this line of discussion represents an 'embargo', and it is quite a misrepresentation to suggest that. I have never advocated for making any attempt to prevent a traveler visiting a safe (for the traveler) destination. I'll say it again, DOTM is a recommendation to visit by Wikivoyage, and as a recommendation should we be more careful in selecting those destinations based on moral aspects of the destination? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Where did we get the impression that a DotM feature represents a recommendation for the traveller about where to visit? For as long as i can remember it's been treated as a showcase for well-written articles, irrespective of the subject matter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(indent) On safety, I think if the situation has recently become unsafe (against the general image of the destination) or it is a war zone, we shouldn't feature an article. Some places, though, such as those in Israel where the conflicts are well-known would seem more reasonable to feature. If beheadings became a daily/weekly occurence in Pusan and the city was up for nomination, it should be opposed.

On "human rights", maybe my views are similar to safety, but I think it's even harder to establish any kind of meaningful policy. I think it would have to be a case-by-case basis (saftey, too, should be discussed). As North Korea was mentioned, I would support Pyongyang if it were a viable option. Similar to safety and Israel, human rights issues and North Korea are so well-known, we'd look foolish if we thought we were sparing readers by not going through with the nomination. And if they are, the article itself should mention how strict you will be monitored and tied to the specified itinerary. I think we need to keep civil rights minimal and tempered in most cases, since we're not a tribunal, but destinations with major issues should mention them.

Both of these do tend to get political. As I wrote the Pusan example, I thought it was a good one, but as I think about the European situation with "migrants", violence, rape, murder, threats, curfews, etc. could in fact be valid arguments even for not featuring destinations there. A brief browsing of a few articles however suggest we do not address this at all, and whether it's a major issue or not, I think we actually need to update high-profile countries like Sweden and Germany (maybe UK and others as well). There is a lot of conflicting information, but a problem exists that could affect travelers. People are aware and would likely want to know and we seem to have ZERO references. The fact that we omit it makes us look clueless or like no one has edited in years. Trump chatter seems to slip into conversations a lot here but this, which DOES concern travelers, has not even been discussed in Talk pages as far as I have seen.

On this issue of trying to establish guidelines though, we also shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that our readers can't think for themselves. There is a point where the traveler will decide the destination is safe enough or not or whether the nation/city is morally sound enough or not. Users may be introduced to a destination and inspired by our DotM, but they should still read the article, research the country itself, etc. We are not responsible if some idiot decides to visit our DotM destination without any research, openly search for homosexual encounters and end up in prison or dead because it's illegal in the destination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're insinuating. Yes, there has been a troubling uptick in xenophobic and racist attacks, particularly arson against the dwellings of refugees and foreigners in countries such as Germany and overall things that would have been unthinkably racist just a few years ago are now commonly said and heard both online and offline, but overall the security and safety in Europe is still better than in even the US. Where objective measures point to heightened danger from crime, we should of course point that out (See Central America for a way I think this could be approached), but when it comes to e.g. Dresden all we should say is "stay the hell away from Pegida and avoid the week around February 13 unless you want to make a political statement of one side or the other. I do not think going to some places in the East with a darker shade of skin than the locals is an untenable risk, but I am quite convinced the risk is greater than it would be for lighter skinned people.


 * I also don't think we should just ignore gays being hanged in the streets. When it comes to me, it should be a big red banner on every city article in countries that do that, but I know this is as unlikely to stop the regimes or individuals that do it from doing it as any weak worded protest from governments or NGOs as long as those regimes can continue to trade with Europe and the US. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Is anyone suggesting we should ignore the execution of gays? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't "insinuating" anything. I thought I was quite direct. I'm not talking about "xenophobia" in Europe, I'm talking about the migrants victimizing the natives across Europe, reports of Muslim-only zones, rapes, harassment of local/white/non-Muslim citizens. Claims of stark rises of Antisemitism with the rise of Muslim migrants. I'm talking about Sweden being called the "Rape Capital of Europe". Maybe the leftist leanings of much of our membership doesn't care or feel these are "real issues" and therefore not worth addressing, but there's been a relatively steady flow of cases and news about migrant problems and they certainly aren't all fake. Even on Google, typing "Sweden is", the 4th popular search is "doomed". "Malmo is" gives 3/4 responses related to safety/migrants ("it safe?", "dangerous", and "lost city"). It's very difficult to find even remotely unbiased sources, but the degree of the problem seems to be what is hard to determine, not whether or not a problem exists, and clearly people want to know, so I think it's an issue that we should attempt to address.


 * My comment about gays was not to ignore it, but that travelers are responsible for themselves. Since you say it should be a concern, would you advocate we not feature anything from a nation that criminalizes homosexuality? I don't personally think we need to do that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you feature Manila today, given the current government's support for the widespread drug-related vigilante assassinations? K7L (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (multiple edit conflicts) I don't think google autocomplete is anything even approaching a source for anything other than the biases of those who search - plus, unless you access google through means other than your own PC without a proxy and with cookies, the biases of the person who uses the PC. At any rate, it would be quite interesting indeed to hear the actual numbers of rapes and how they have developed over the years. I rarely hear people who make sweeping claims cite them. The claim "El Salvador is dangerous" can be connected to reality via the murder rate which is available on numerous sources, including wikipedia. The murder rate of course does not tell the whole story, but it's a start. Asserting Sweden being the "Rape Capital of Europe" without providing any data is a bit much. You should also keep in mind when analyzing such data, that Sweden has quite a broad definition of rape and - as far as I know - one person raping another person more than once shows up as several separate "incidents" in the crime statistic, whereas other countries count it as one instance of repeated rape. Now as for your statement regarding Antisemitism, I and User:Ikan Kekek recently discussed the issue on my talk page and another thing I might wish to add is this link. I agree that antisemitic crime is undercounted in the official statistic, but not because crimes are not registered (the German police is very thorough in filing a report for every reported act of spraying nasty words on walls) but because "antisemitism" is underreported. There have been media reports where vandalism of synagogues was internally counted as "a reaction to the Gaza war" and "not antisemitism". But while that might change the individual security assessment of some people, it does not affect the crime statistic. The NSU murders were misinterpreted as murders perpetrated by various groups or individuals for over a decade before it finally came out that they were the doing of racist terrorists, but they were nonetheless counted in the official murder statistics. There is disagreement over the number of people who were killed by right wing terrorists for political reasons (sorry de-WP is the only one that covers the topic), between various groups, but there is no disagreement that those people were in fact murdered, and those murders were counted towards the official murder statistic for their respective year. Of course safety is a subjective issue as much as anything, but stuff like "uptick in antisemitic incidents in the US since January 20 2017" can be formulated as a question that can be answered with data. And when the data is available, we should rank data higher than feelings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. I might of course be reading the wrong media (mostly Finnish mainstream papers in Swedish and Finnish), but my impression is people here are either just confused about those reports about Sweden or sigh at the latest trumpism. As Hobbitschuster says, rape is broadly defined in Sweden, and much more likely to be reported than in most other countries. It is telling that Trump even cited one incident where somebody tried to stub a police. Anyone heard of a police having to fear for his safety in USA? And for the harassment of local/white/non-Muslim citizens – never heard about such a case (although avoiding gangs in the night is wise even here). --LPfi (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(reindent) As this discussion has ably demonstrated, you can come up with a human-rights horror story connected to pretty much every place on the globe, from North America to Europe to the Middle East to Asia to Africa to some lonely little South Pacific island like Nauru. We take our readers for fools if we assume they don't know there's inherently some degree of risk in travelling pretty much everywhere, especially given the current state of the world. And we already discuss specific risks that go along with particular destinations within the text of the individual articles, or at least that certainly ought to be the case for Guide-level articles. But beyond that, there's a part of me that almost wonders why we even bother having a DotM if all we're going to do is get cold feet, and hem and haw about all the terrible horrible things that might befall a traveller who goes to these places. At some point we need to can the high-minded moral bloviations and boil it down to: our duty is to provide the most accurate information to our readers that we can, which they then use at their own risk. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ChubbyWimbus, I've repeatedly held back from slapping back at you for making derogatory, stereotypic remarks about "leftists", but I suggest that you consider making such remarks elsewhere, not on Wikivoyage talk pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this discussion Ikan Kekek. It is unfortunate that responses have been on the defensive side and full of really unhelpful 'whataboutisms' and even 'holier than thou' comments. I just wanted to question whether destinations that are severely morally compromised should feature as DOTM since I regard that as a travel recommendation (I acknowledge but don't agree with the counter argument that we are only 'showcasing' the article and not the destination itself). I'll just conclude that I won't be involved with DOTM articles that feature morally severely compromised destinations. No big drama. Others can make their own choices. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I Think our standards have in the past been higher than "if it's a guide and it's nominated, it goes live as soon as opportune" - we have always (as long as I am aware of these discussions) kept geography and season in mind, trying our damnedest to avoid featuring too many places from North America all at once or a place for which it might not be the best season. We have more guide destination articles than we can reasonably feature in the foreseeable future (this is notably not the case for Travel Topics, but this discussion was started elsewhere and I won't reopen it), so I think it is high time we acknowledge what many of us have known for some time: Guide = Feature is an equation that we haven't followed in years if ever. An OtbP or DotM has for a long time been understood to be Guide + X. Otherwise we could safe a lot of time and effort and just write a script to feature random guide articles. Yes, our best writing should be highlighted, but there's more to it than "just" that. I think there's a good deal of "Hey why don't you go to X" even in the way our DotM and OtbP blurbs are written, so we'd be kidding ourselves when we say "we're not in the business of giving travel recommendations" - every travel guide is. "Dead trees" ones by being bound to paper and thus by nature excluding stuff, our through WV:Avoid negative reviews, WV:Tone and the sheer fact that we have featured articles. I am probably beating a dead horse when I am bringing SEO into this, but given that we have more than enough Guide articles that could be featured if we read the letter of the law extremely narrowly (and - I suspect - some editors have pages at the back of their minds they'd like to feature "eventually" but have not yet nominated for various reasons), so tightening our standards is unlikely to hurt us, on the contrary. Of course, I don't want the internet nastiness brigade running in circles every time some Israeli destination is proposed to be featured and I also don't want to have silly debates about the apocalypse coming due to this or that scare story, but I do think we should consider whether a guide article is worth featuring when rockets are flying overhead or looking the wrong way at the dear leader carries the "death by extremely unpleasant means" penalty. I hope we are still small enough to avoid what is called in German a "shitstorm" (a barrage of criticism that the person employing the term does not see as fully justified) that might come with featuring a "controversial" destination and I do not in the least advocate (self) censorship, but on the other hand I know how the internet works ("How can they tell us to lie on our fat stomachs on the beach in X while they murder little puppy-dogs with clubs?") and I would not like at all to have some place featured when the situation there is not conductive to travel. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What's problematic is the assumption that there's some hard-and-fast definition of what's morally acceptable. As I said in an earlier comment, "one person's unconscionable human rights violation is another person's unfortunate but necessary measure to maintain security", and attempts to impose some one-size-fits-all standard for what's acceptable will inevitably lead to heated political discussions (of the type we're already flirting with on this very thread) that are really outside this site's scope. It's not Wikivoyage's place to moralize, which is not to say that we would be able to even if we tried - our site has a diversity of viewpoints on this issue such that any attempt we might make to formulate a consensus viewpoint to then impose unilaterally on our readers would almost certainly be in vain. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * True, even the most horrific abuse of human rights had (at the time at least) their defenders and even the most common sense measures to combat crime and violence and whatnot have people who decry them as evil human rights violations. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ikan Kekek, I think bias was mentioned a few times in this discussion before I brought it up, and you yourself said you are out of touch with conservative views/people which is the same as saying you believe you may have some left-leaning biases. It's not an insult rather something we need to be aware of and something that on discussions about things like defining "human rights" and "human rights violations" is relevant. Maybe I sound like I'm pushing a "conservative/right-wing agenda", but I really don't want to see the political stuff and when it is necessary, I prefer balance and in these political discussions, "balance" requires inserting the opposing side, which recently is "conservative". I've annoyed people with "leftist" thoughts as well and am sure I've come across as such in other discussions.


 * On my comments about Europe/Sweden/Germany, I'm not suggesting we must regurgitate all of the claims I listed (or any others that can be found). I just think we should say SOMETHING about it. Let the world know we have editors and we are aware of what's being said. Although Trump did recently make a high-profile remark about Sweden, the news about Sweden has been ongoing for months (well over a year, actually), as well as Germany, so it's not a Trump-made issue/topic. But the fact that Trump did mention it does make it more likely that people are going to search for it and think about it (and that was my point with bringing up the Google search. I've never searched anything about Malmo ever nor have I ever searched something silly like "Sweden is doomed", so it wasn't giving me results for any searches I've ever done. Others must be using those search terms). Again, with such polarizing depictions of these countries, we could really do the travelers a favor if we had a little something to say, and (also) again, I don't mean confirm it all and add "Rape Capital of the World" to Sweden's intro line; I mean just give the issue a mention with whatever we can glean to be somewhat true. Maybe the situation is mostly okay, maybe it's all really bad and the media/government is trying to cover it up, maybe the antisemitism is the main problem, maybe Malmo has become inhospitable but the Swedish nation is otherwise okay... I know the situation is complicated and Sweden's rape definition muddies things on that front, but we should say something if for no other reason than to let travelers know we're aware of what's going on/being said, even if what we say is more an admittance of the complexity and difficulty giving any sort of definitive answer. It just doesn't look quite right to say absolutely nothing.


 * This discussion seems to be winding down. I tend to agree with AndreCarrotflower's points throughout this thread. While human rights can be kept in mind, in most cases I don't think it should be given much thought. But of course, if it's brought up, discussion will ensue regardless. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your remarks here sound reasonable, but this is what you wrote upthread, which I think is objectionable:


 * I'm talking about the migrants victimizing the natives across Europe, reports of Muslim-only zones, rapes, harassment of local/white/non-Muslim citizens. Claims of stark rises of Antisemitism with the rise of Muslim migrants. I'm talking about Sweden being called the "Rape Capital of Europe". Maybe the leftist leanings of much of our membership doesn't care [emphasis added]


 * I don't think you get out of making inflammatory, derogatory and stereotypic remarks about left-wingers by oversimplifying my remarks that I might understand conservatives better if I traveled more to very conservative areas of the U.S. and really listened to what people say there. Damn right, I have a "bias", if by "bias", you mean values and principles. But I don't come to a travel guide with an agenda of preaching politics, and now and then, you seem to not only have that agenda but don't even seem to try to couch your words in a respectful way, in my opinion. If you think I've also been disrespectful to people with conservative opinions, I'm sorry and should be called out if I do that (with the caveat that I don't tolerate racism on the rare occasions I see it on this site and don't consider racism a conservative value, and at least so far as I can remember of your comments, I am not talking about you in this caveat). Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know. Do we sufficiently address xenophobic violence in places where it occurs, is rumored to occur or where the societal and political climate encourages it? Overall our "stay safe" sections are remarkably and thankfully free of all sorts of panic-pushing and I'd personally prefer it that way. That said, we may indeed have blind spots here or there. I do not, however, think that we can win in any way by reproducing alt right talking points even if we say they are inaccurate. I think the term "agenda setting" or similar has been used by those who analyze PR and propaganda and certain people are indeed rather successful in making people discuss an issue, even if the people discussing the issue disagree with the issue even being an issue. To give one non-Trump example, when Hillary Clinton called "half" of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" the initial debate was much more along the lines of "well not half, but some sure are" than the "deplorable doesn't even enter the vocabulary" before her remarks. I think we're wise to avoid falling into the agenda setting and narrative pushing traps out there, even if it becomes harder and harder these days. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ikan Kekek, I do apologize. Yes, reading it isolated taking out all of what I really wanted to say does showcase the flippancy of the comment over what should have simply said something about how we overall seem to lean left/liberal but should think about readers who may have concerns based on topics that are covered more/better/excessively/(other adjective) in other outlets or are simply unpopular topics among those with such leanings.


 * Hobbitschuster, the points of concern are all related to the Migrant Crisis, which is considered real by most English media outlets and has been acknowledged by many politicians. Many outlets in the US, UK, etc. have covered crime and cultural rifts that are occurring as a result to varying degrees. Also a lot of politicians and prominent European figures have expressed concern before Trump, so I don't think the argument that this is just an "alt-right" fabrication is true. I'm also not certain that it matters the source if it is a travel concern that any significant number of people may have. If your argument is that the number of people who know about these issues/believe these are issues is so small they're irrelevant, that may be a discussion worth having. Your argument seems to be more based on it being (alt-right) media hype. That's possible, but that in addition with whether or not this "changing Sweden/Germany/Europe" image is a concern in which travelers might benefit from by having addressed are both worth looking into in my opinion and certainly something we should be monitoring. Even if on the national level these countries are stable and remain what one would expect as a traveler in Germany, Sweden, etc., I still wonder if there aren't some cities/places that have already changed in ways that make them un-Swedish/German in some ways that could be worth pointing out, especially if they are dangerous, but even if many citizens there no longer speak the national language it would be relevant. I'm not trying to advocate for "panic-pushing" (I don't want that sort of thing either), but in looking for information (not on alt-right outlets either), it is actually quite easy to start wondering if some of these places are safe anymore. Facts/stats could be worth inserting (more than just assertions) for whatever the situation is. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well the murder rate (a weak proxy, I admit, but the only one that can be compared worldwide as murder is hard to hide or statistic away) in Europe has not changed in any significant way and it is still somewhere from five to ten times lower than in the US, where most of the "Europe isn't safe" rhetoric seems to circulate. That said, statistics for petty crime might be different, but they are hard to report on the global level. The problem of definitions has been raised already; some countries will fudge statistics for petty theft and the like; in some places the police might even be part of the problem. Maybe this discussion is too abstract as is. What concrete change would you like to make to e.g. Germany or Sweden in light of recent developments. Another "funny" thing of this whole debate is that there is much more complaining about foreigners in Dresden (where there aren't all that many and fewer Muslims still) than there is in Berlin or Cologne. And when it comes to antisemitism, to make my point crystal clear: The Germans never needed foreign help on that one. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In Finland, like in much of northern Europe, xenophobic violence has indeed increased significantly (as a result of populist parties rising), but still I'd say a typical foreign-looking traveller should not worry about it. Sure, you should be quite cautious with skinheads and loud drunk gangs, and I'd recommend having company (preferably local) if staying late in night clubs, but I suppose that is good advice in any unfamiliar city. I do not think it warrants any specific warnings. Incidents are probably few enough to mostly reach the headlines.


 * For antisemitism, also here that is about the same xenophobic crowd. [para break inserted]


 * The problems in Malmö and some suburbs of Stockholm (like those in suburbs of Paris) are something very different. It is about frustration and mistrust in authorities. You should of course stay away from any riot, but I suppose you are perfectly safe as an individual at other times. And those riots have very little to do with the current immigration "crises", it is about people who arrived a generation ago and whom the societies have not succeeded in giving a good life. A big problem, but not a concern for travellers.


 * --LPfi (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (I did make a change in Sweden. Is that the kind of comment we should add? --LPfi (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC))


 * If it's accurate, why not? I will say that as a Jew, I am very concerned about anti-Semitic incidents anywhere, and it's possible we may be underplaying those. I'm not sure whether you're saying that acts of hatred against Jews have to do with frustration and mistrust in authorities, but that doesn't make any sense, as Sweden is not some kind of Jewish kingdom. Hatred is hatred. ChubbyWimbus, thanks for reading and reconsidering, and it's big of you to apologize, which I wasn't demanding you do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If I may, Ikan Kekek - in my reading of LPfi's second paragraph, it sounds like "the problems in Malmö and some suburbs of Stockholm are... about frustration and mistrust in authorities" are a perhaps euphemistic allusion to the Muslim migrant crisis (that's definitely an accurate description of the majority-Arab HLMs of the Parisian banlieue), and his discussion of antisemitism seems to have ended after the first sentence of that paragraph. It's a somewhat awkward flow, but then again LPfi is not a native English speaker. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think what LPfi wanted to say is that the issues in the banlieus (and similar neighborhoods in Sweden) predate the current refugee issue. Which I would agree on. We can argue the reasons far and long and up and down, but I think there is no fundamental difference between the second and third generation migrants in Europe today and those in North America and some parts of Europe in the late 19th / early 20th century. We shouldn't forget that a US President (McKinley) was killed by a foreigner from a poor country with a strange name and a radical political ideology a century ago.

At any rate, we now know that what is generally called Plattenbau in German is crappy urban design and most of the problems cities experience originate in those neighborhoods - ironically both radicalized people of foreign descent and right wing extremist people. That said, I think it is fair to say that even the "bad neighborhoods" in Europe are - for the most part - not as "bad" as the "bad neighborhoods" are when the tales of certain (mostly white) Americans are to be believed.

At any rate, I do think we have some guides on neighborhoods with a bad reputation that do a fairly good job of accurately describing them and I must admit that there are certain neighborhoods that I would not see many reasons for visiting ( is what I mean), but I may be bad at estimating those risks. That said, the time someone uttered racist comments in the general direction of me and my (nonwhite) girlfriend occurred pretty close to downtown Dresden, so maybe the neighborhood is less of a factor than I like to make myself believe. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for clarifying, and yes, you understood me right. --LPfi (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that while the migrant crises is a true crises in Syria, Greece etc., here in Finland the asylum seeker volumes, although exceptionally high (comparable to those in Germany), are nowhere near what we could handle with some dedication. We have been closing down even well functioning facilities at a high rate instead of truly trying to relieve the situation in Greece, Turkey etc. The expenses are not negligible, but significantly smaller than proposed additional defence investments. --LPfi (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

luvvly-jubblyness
So given that my attempt to make the "sample nomination" less strangely worded was reverted, I'd like to gauge some opinions. Do you think we should encourage users to use luvvly-jubblyness in spring or any other season as a criterion for nomination? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose that raises the question of whether we are judging the destination or merely judging the article. If someone were to create the absolute "bestest" Centralia article ever, only to find the town isn't worth visiting because of an underground coal fire that's been burning since the 1960's, would nominating this destination be valid? What about Palmyra, which was UNESCO-listed but is now a war zone?
 * If we're judging destinations, a good article about a marginal or bad destination might not make the cut. (The question did arise earlier, with for destinations with a history of human rights abuses.) Conversely, City guide status does allow a good article about a place really not worth visiting to be promoted if it meets technical criteria. K7L (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for reverting without comment; that was inappropriate. I admit I get tired sometimes of having to defend instances of lightheartedness and whimsy when they are removed or mangled. If we really feel that the example needs to be more realistic, I guess it's not the end of the world, but I think it gets the point across, doesn't it? Have we really had a problem with insufficient nomination rationales? Powers (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To K7L's points: If there's nothing to visit, there is no basis for an entire article on it. Otherwise, if it makes the cut at WiaA, policy has been to prohibit consideration of the quality of the destination at the DotM nomination page. If you'd like to debate changing this policy, I think you should start another thread. Otherwise, I'm pretty sympathetic to Powers' point of view. Keep Wikivoyage fun. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Featuring Kassel for documenta, striking Wernigerrode from the list for now?
I am not sure whether I raised this issue in Dotm already, but it is getting closer and closer. I think my objections to Wernigerrode are rather known (it is by far not the best guide article about a German city to not yet have been featured) and the documenta is not a common occurence (and really; if we are going to feature Kassel, it'd better be during documenta). I want some input from the community as the decision will have to be made rather quickly, because we will likely not feature two German cities in one year, especially with potential FTTs down the line in Rail travel in Germany and Intercity buses in Germany. Keep in mind that the documenta will be from June to September of this year and will most likely only happen again five years later - and I don't think we should be reserving featured spots five years in advance, which I think would be the consequence of ignoring Kassel this time around. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the topic of the Kassel page. There are a lot of broken links on the page, looks like the Kassel Museum English pages have gone. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kassel article needs some work. It has more content than the Wernigerrode article and more pictures. I also like the idea of promoting a city if it has such a unique and "rare" event going on. I definitely think there is a strong case for featuring Kassel over Wernigerrode, so it should be added as a candidate on the DotM page with all these points brought up. There's definitely a fair amount of work to be done on Kassel though. Lots of "empty" listings (have no description) and those funny green icons that I'm not sure the purpose of. It would be a mad dash to finish it up nice before featuring, but I think it might be feasible. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The funny green icons are German tram/bus stop signs ("H" for "Haltestelle"). They are supposed to indicate the closest tram or bus stop for the respective sight or other listing. --RJFF (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty useful thing to have. It's a bit unintuitive for English speakers (who haven't been informed about the meaning) so I wonder if there would be a way of making it more so. My initial thought, as someone who hasn't been to Germany, was that it was a copy + paste mistake from the de.wikivoyage article since I haven't seen it (or at least haven't noticed it) on the German destinations I've seen here. Maybe it's not a big deal and only uncultured American swine such as myself have difficulty with it. All things to discuss on the DotM nomination page, if Hobbitschuster decides to go ahead with suggesting it there. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that Kassel isn't even at Guide level yet and slushing Wernigerode at this time would be extremely premature, the mere fact that we sometimes like to time DotMs to coincide with timely events doesn't mean we need to stop the presses every time we hear about some random event that happens to be planned for some place for which we have a Guide-level article. Pretty much every city worthy of tourist interest has a full calendar of such events every year, probably including Wernigerode. In a larger sense, I can't for the life of me figure out what huge problem you have with Wernigerode that you are so hellbent on finding a reason why it shouldn't be featured, but please either come up with policy-based arguments why it should be scuttled or else drop the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. So first of all the "H" symbol is pretty close to the sign you'd see on the street for a tram/bus stop. I am not married to it, but it's certainly not a bad idea, even though it is not as people over on de-WV are maybe more justified in thinking immediately obvious to most readers. I think the case for not featuring Wernigerode is mostly because it is not really a great article. There is no reason why we should feature that place now instead of a year or two or three from now, whereas Kassel has an event every five years that makes it relevant whereas the rest of the year people are just wondering why the ICE had to make a stop at that godforsaken village (scnr). And with Kassel we have a huge benefit that we do not have for Wernigerode. We have a local who has expressed interest in keeping / making the article up to date and answering our questions. I think we should chose local knowledge over "hey we just chose any guide article at random" every time and twice on Sundays. Does any of our editors have local knowledge on Wernigerode? And remember, according to the expedition, there are 32 guide articles for Germany. I am not opposed to featuring Wernigerode in principle, but it would take up a "Germany slot" that we can fill with a much more timely candidate and I think ceteris paribus we should go with the more timely candidate. Wernigerode contains a lot of stuff written five years ago or earlier. Some users here say that shouldn't be a criterion to withhold featuring now, so surely this won't be a criterion if featuring comes up a year or two from now. And while I am not quite sure of the importance of documenta, apparently the last edition drew almost a million visitors and it is commonly mentioned on the fifteen minute national 8pm news, which as cultural events go is a pretty huge deal. I have never once heard of Wernigerode in the news. But this is not primarily to bash Wernigerode. This is simply asking the question: Why should we feature a shoddy article with a lot of outdated or potentially outdated content over one with a local who can help us, a timely event of international renown and an ICE stop? I mean there are at the very least two considerations behind dotm nominations, one being the "timely event" or at the very least "feature warm weather destinations in the local summer" consideration and the other is "show our best work". And what is WV about if not locals writing about their town? Oh and btw, de-WV even says that they have more editors from North Hesse than mere chance would explain. My reasoning for not featuring Wernigerode at this time is in short that it uses up space we can be filling with much more worthy German destinations and topics like the three mentioned (Intercity buses in Germany, rail travel in Germany and Kassel). And once those have been featured, we might well wish to fill the "German slot" with Wernigerode. Who knows, maybe we'll have gotten a local by then. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for answering your question with a question, but why does a five-year event that you openly admit not knowing the importance of make a town that's otherwise so unimportant that people wonder why the train stops there, one whose article requires a great deal of improvement before it's technically even eligible to be featured, a better OtBP nominee than one that's already at Guide status, that's of interest to visitors on its own merits, and on a year-round basis, rather than merely as the site of an obscure art exhibition that takes place once every five years, and that already has banners made for it? I don't buy the argument that because documenta is only held every five years, there's some greater sense of urgency to feature Kassel now - there are plenty of events that occur as infrequently or more infrequently than that, most of which Wikivoyage will never get around to acknowledging on its Main Page, and that's not the end of the world. And as I have already said at dotm, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the outdated information in Wernigerode. Since Ypsilon has seemingly dropped off the face of the Earth, I've taken up the role of making sure upcoming articles that are "pending fixes" get looked after before featuring, and I don't see why Wernigerode would be any different. And furthermore, if it's only a matter of verifying whether places are still open, and confirming opening hours, phone numbers, and website URLs, I don't know why we would consider it particularly advantageous to have a local editor on the ground to verify that, rather than someone like me verifying the information via Google from far away. That's another question I asked already on the nominations page and never got an answer to. It's not as if Germany is some remote Third World country where most businesses don't have a presence on the Internet or social media. It doesn't require intimate local knowledge or an on-the-ground presence in a particular place to look up a restaurant's opening hours, or a hotel's phone number. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If all you need for an article of ours is google, why should anybody use an article of ours instead of google? Also, my badmouthing Kassel is an old bad habit many Germans exhibit: Give me the name of pretty much any German town and I can say negative stuff about it. Except maybe for my home town and even then, there are annoying things about it, I am just a little more reluctant to blurt them out. And the fact that I, a total know-nothing when it comes to art (especially contemporary art) have heard of documenta should tell you all you need to know about its importance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * stern.de - for some days during the documenta, Kassel is the most important town in germany ;) -- Feuermond16 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that documenta is not some "obscure art exhibition", but a major contemporary art festival of international renown that attracted nearly a million visitors last time. It is not only about the exhibition itself, but also special events surrounding it. And saying that Kassel were bland during the rest of the year is simply untenable. It may not be the hippest of German cities, but at least the Wilhelmshöhe park is a UNESCO World Heritage site! Also, I do not really see what keeps Kassel from being upgraded to guide status. While the Wernigerode article is OK, it is certainly not among the best Wikivoyage has to offer that should absolutely be showcased. Kassel is certainly more presentable. --RJFF (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel there is one person here who feels strongly - or seems to feel strongly - about sticking to featuring Wernigerode in 2017. There seems to be an opinion held by more than one participant in this discussion that documenta is a good reason to feature Kassel and the article is quite good as it stands. I would like more people to weigh in, but at which point can we say that such a change to the schedule can be made, even if the objections of one user (and if I mischaracterize anything or anybody here, please let me know) are still there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps noteworthy that at least two, and possibly all three, of the people who swear documenta is an event of towering importance in the world of modern art come from Germany themselves. I can imagine that an event like that might get its share of local coverage, but I would characterize myself as somewhat more attuned to the world of art than Hobbitschuster claims to be, and as an American, I have never in my life heard of documenta. And the one million visitors per year that it attracts does not seem like an especially impressive statistic to me - the Erie County Fair takes place in Hamburg, New York, a rinkydink midsize suburb of a rinkydink midsize American city, and no one would ever call it the preeminent anything, yet it attracted nearly 1.2 million attendees over twelve days in 2015, compared to the 100-day duration of documenta. (However, since the proposal is to run Kassel as OtBP and not DotM, perhaps that doesn't matter.)


 * Most of all, I find it annoying and disruptive that the suggestion of replacing Wernigerode on the schedule is being made with such short notice. Wernigerode, or whatever replaces it, is due to go up on the Main Page in only a little more than a month. We already have DotM banners made up for it.


 * That all having been said: in the abstract, I am not dead-set against the idea of running Kassel as a feature. But I do think the flaws that are keeping the article from reaching Guide status are much greater than they're characterized on this thread as being. For starters, the "documenta-artworks" section - in other words, the marquee attraction that we're using to sell the idea Kassel as a worthwhile destination - consists only of naked bullet-point listings, with no descriptive blurbs in the "content=" argument to give the reader any context. The same is true of literally every listing in "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep", and those sections also could benefit from introductory ledes. These are just the things that caught my eye from skimming the article briefly; there are surely other problems as well. If you're absolutely positive that in the space of five weeks, you can make all these improvements, get a nomination for Kassel up on the dotm page and accrue four Support votes, and get DotM banners made, then I won't stand in the way of Kassel being featured as OtBP if you succeed. But for the time being, color me skeptical.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have raised the issue of featuring Kassel more than once, at the earliest I think in April 2016. So please don't characterize this as a last minute thing. I just saw that the only way to keep the imho unfortunate result of Wernigerode edging out more deserving nominees from happening was to raise this here and now. I also though that Feuermond16 himself (I'm assuming male, please correct me if I'm wrong here) would do the nominating and didn't want to take that away from him. Also, I think the comparison between a County Fair and an art exhibition is not entirely fair. County Fairs tend to attract people from the regional area only. Art stuff tends to attract people globally. Also, I am not sure we are counting the same numbers here. If somebody goes to the County Fair twice in the same year, is that one visitor or two? What about documenta? And at any rate, which are the art exhibitions that beat documenta? I will also see how much stuff we could translate from the de-WV edition on stuff you mentioned. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) "I have raised the issue of featuring Kassel more than once, at the earliest I think in April 2016. So please don't characterize this as a last minute thing." - There are dozens of articles that we've "raised the issue of featuring" but never got around to actually improving or nominating: off the top of my head, Albany (New York), Denpasar, and Barentsburg are a few examples. You can't equate simply broaching the subject of Kassel being featured to Wernigerode having been a formal nominee for six months already. That's doubly true since Kassel isn't even eligible to be nominated yet, being only at Usable status, which leads into my second point...


 * 2) Several times now, you've mentioned that Wernigerode is "not really a great article" and "not our best work", but for all its outdated information and other flaws, at least it's currently at Guide status. You argue that there are "more deserving nominees", which may be true, but with a great deal of improvement necessary before Kassel is even eligible to be upgraded from Usable, your contention that it's a superior choice to Wernigerode on the basis of article quality makes no sense.


 * 3) "County Fairs tend to attract people from the regional area only. Art stuff tends to attract people globally." - If the Erie County Fair managed to draw 1.2 million visitors over 12 days from within a region that's no great shakes in terms of population yet still "no one would ever call it the preeminent anything", while documenta drew fewer people over 100 days from among a global attendance base, does that not strengthen my original argument about respective attendance figures? Also, to your point about repeat attendees: between admission fees, parking fees, wristbands and/or tickets for carnival rides, not to mention food, your average family of four will spend something like $150 all told for a day at the Fair. If you can afford to do that more than once a season, you can probably afford a trip to Walt Disney World or some other theme park where you can have real fun. So I doubt 1.2 million paid admissions translates to much fewer than that number of individual attendees.


 * Again, I'm more than willing to give Kassel a fair consideration on its own merits if and when it gets formally nominated. It hasn't been, though, and for now it can't be. Until it's brought up to Guide status, it's pointless for us to be arguing about it here. Why don't you set about improving the article, prepare a nomination once it's a Guide, and for the question of what to feature for OtBP in May, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed - bring it up to Guide status, then nominate it. If it can't be featured during documenta, the next best thing is to mention documenta in WV:Discover. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential German FTTs; please point out their flaws
So over the next few years we'll probably have one article from Germany that could be featured each year. I think the following three are potential FTTs somewhere down the line, with the best mentioned first and the one with most work still to do last:
 * 1) rail travel in Germany (already nominated, without any pressing timeframe)
 * 2) Intercity buses in Germany
 * 3) Breweries in Franconia

Please be as ruthless as you can be in pointing out their flaws (you can also use their talk pages), as I want them to only go life when they're as good as they're gonna get and not in a "yeah, I guess...." state. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

We're in real trouble
Okay, so perhaps this page isn't precisely the right venue for these remarks, because the ultimate root cause of the problem I'm about to describe is the editor retention crisis we've been experiencing lately (inter alia: Ypsilon having disappeared in January; Ryan's account being inactive for a month and counting in the wake of his resignation both as Bureaucrat and as administrator of Wikivoyage's Facebook page, which has incidentally left me as the only remaining active admin of any of our social media accounts; Hobbitschuster's well-noted "leave of less presence", which at least came with an explanation and with the door left open to a resumption of activity at some future time). But the immediate factor that led me to write this is its impact on dotm, so I guess here is as good a place as any.

I'll cut right to the chase. I'm really happy to play a role - even the leading role - in DotM, and I'm flattered that the community feels confident enough in me to leave the feature in my hands month in and month out. But, to be perfectly plain about it, I have too much going on both on- and off-wiki to be solely responsible for changing out the features three times a month and making all the banners and proposing all the nominees and fixing all the minor deficiencies in the articles before they go on the Main Page. It used to be that you could count on Ypsi to do cleanup duty on the slightly-irregular nominees, you could count on Hobbitschuster to bring a new article up for nomination or at least provide some vigorous debate about the worthiness or unworthiness of a particular nominee (which, while I disagreed with him as often as not, always had the end result of making our articles better, and thus was always a net positive contribution). But nowadays this page is a ghost town - the only time it ever gets edited by anyone other than me is when I ping someone, and sometimes not even then. And yes, the contributions of the departed editors are missed, but the other side of the coin is there's plenty of new blood that's stepped up to the plate to fill the void in their absence, at least in terms of editing articles (I'm not going to name names because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being called before the Spanish Inquisition - as much as the idea of that does tempt me - but look at Recent Changes on any given day and you'll see who I'm talking about). But none of this new crop, with the commendable exception of ButteBag, has shown even the slightest inclination to get involved in the DotM process in any way. Nowadays it's an open question whether there's even a four-vote quorum to provide "strong consensus" to any of our nominees that hadn't been already voted on by folks like Ypsi or Hobbit before their departure. In short, DotM is not a one-person job, and the current situation is unsustainable.

So there we have it, then. This is a volunteer project, and I can't force any of you to participate in this if you absolutely don't want to. The best I can do is beg, plead, and cajole, which I have done many times in the past, and which never results in anything more than, at best, a short-term uptick in participation. So now the future of DotM is in doubt, because it is no longer possible for me to shoulder the entire load alone (nor, frankly, was it fair for me to be expected to do so in the first place). So which is it going to be: at long last, are we going to have enough people participating in DotM on a consistent basis to keep it going into the future, or are we going to figure out what else to do with the prime Main Page real estate currently taken up by the rotating banner?

If anyone has any ideas how to move forward, by all means let's hear them, because I've exhausted my own supply.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's finals and graduation season in the states. That's why I haven't been contributing as much as I would like, and I'd take a guess that some others are in the same boat. I think that the only real solution is to keep plugging the DotM page. I didn't know about the voting stuff until it was mentioned in the pub. Maybe even a little blurb on the front page: want to help contribute to the content of this page? Vote for or submit an article! Of interest, I got started on wikivoyage via the India expedition on the front page. I edited a bunch anonymously and finally made an account to do so more efficiently. Then I saw the town I grew up in was lacking content (it's almost to the point where I want to submit it for an off-the-beaten path) and I liked snooping on the recent changes page and doing little copy-edits. So I definitely agree that the content on the front page is important and there's a lot of value in having DotM/feature articles. Helping to make banners is something I can do, but things are so crazy on my side that it's difficult to commit to a set schedule and I am ridiculously terrible with deadlines. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

These are not ideal however, it's a very valid point that the community is in no position to take strong opposition when those who oppose are not willing/able to do what is required to keep things as they are. To oppose without offering to take on some portion of the burden would be hugely unfair to AndreCarrotflower. We are a community of volunteers. We cannot have ambitions beyond what we are willing or able to maintain... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some more drastic options would be:
 * Start refeaturing articles. I know this is not a popular idea, but if someone is going to argue against it, are they willing to do enough of the work to maintain the current way? A lot of these articles don't have banners, though, since they were featured prior to the introduction of banners, so this would mostly only relieve the finding articles issue.
 * Go back to featuring with just images. Probably also hugely unpopular, but it's easier for people to contribute when the entire thing can be done within WV and with the Wiki-format.
 * Feature only 1 or 2 features per month. There are currently 3 schedules that make it difficult to keep up with and requires a near-constant changing of one of the features. Featuring less would relieve things a little bit on each front.


 * Hello! My idea would be to combine "off the beaten path" with "destination of the month". It seems like articles can often float between the two anyway. "Featured travel topic" is not using "month" language, so we could shift it to like a quarterly thing? That would remove the burden of generating 20 featureable articles a month! We'd have to update the homepage a bit. I do have a skillset in that area, and could help out with that if people are interested. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually like the idea of refeaturing articles. DotM has been around for almost 13 years now, and in that time plenty of the early features have seen substantial improvement, but are disqualified by virtue of being featured before. Instead of straining to constantly find new pages to put on the front page, having a set of rotating "community favorites" would involve less work but still highlight the best Wikivoyage has to offer. The Star articles and previous DotM features gives us a good base to work with, and we can add more at our own pace. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK to refeature an article, as long as it was featured some time ago. The figure of at least 5 years ago is what comes into my mind. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I would not mind a re-feature of star articles which used to be featured on The Old Site. /Yvwv (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really to do with the thread above, but I am concerned about the haemorrhaging of admins here as well. I was hoping Ryan's absence was going to be temporary, but perhaps it will be long term after all. As a community we should be resilient against the loss of admin's but our active Admin count is steadily decreasing.
 * If the little I can do to keep momentum in the community is to help out more with DOTM then by all means please count me in. I'll certainly do more going forward. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the interest taken in this issue. That's a good first step.

Addressing some of the comments above: DethDestroyerOfWords - first off, I owe you an apology for not citing your name alongside ButteBag's as an example of a new(er) contributor who has participated from time to time in DotM. Secondly, it should be emphasized that this is a decidedly chronic problem whose roots stretch back long before the beginning of finals season, and indeed long before the departure of Ypsilon, Hobbitschuster, et al. It's only marginally less problematic for two or three people to shoulder the burden of DotM than only one. Moreover, while I'm loath to put words in anyone's mouth, in many of the comments Ypsi made on the dotm page immediately before his departure, one can read between the lines and detect a certain resentment at having been the only one to regularly take on the task of correcting the problems in nominees required to turn Not Yet votes into Support votes - an understandable sentiment.

Moving forward, I don't think we're at a point yet where the "more drastic options" ChubbyWimbus outlines are necessary, though we certainly should keep them in mind if it comes down to it. I would prefer to tackle the problem from the angle of getting more people involved. It's not a matter of lack of DotM-worthy articles, and as I said before, it's also not really a lack of manpower - the problem is a lack of participation. I remember when I first joined the community in December 2011, I knew the featured articles existed simply from having seen the Main Page so many times, but had no awareness of the process behind it - I had the vague idea that there was someone somewhere on the site who chose which articles would go up next, but I assumed the whole process was handled by Wikivoyage bigwigs and that it was something closed off to me as a newbie. Perhaps the same is true of others, and what we're dealing with actually boils down to a lack of awareness. What if we could impress upon people that not only is this process not closed off to them, but that we need as many hands on deck as possible? I like DDOW's idea of a blurb on the Main Page, and I also think it might be worthwhile to reach out directly to some of the more active new editors who've yet to show their face on the DotM page. We should emphasize to these people that many of the tasks involved are actually quite simple - identifying Guide-level or better articles they feel are good enough to be featured, and doing the same minor copyedits and other Wikignoming stuff that a lot of these folks are already doing anyway. (Incidentally, while any contribution in any field is always appreciated, I wouldn't be brokenhearted if no one but me ever came up with DotM banners - as an amateur photographer, it's something I look forward to, and would kind of miss doing it if someone else took it over!) We're lucky in that the next few months are going to be a bit of a lull in the storm - as I think I mentioned elsewhere, the only article between now and August that needs extensive attention before being featured is Ulaanbaatar, so I'll temporarily be back to the old routine of just making banners and soliciting votes for nominees. I think it would be optimistic but not unrealistic to suggest that if we throw ourselves into awareness-raising among prolific but relatively DotM-unaware new editors, this problem might be already solved by that time.

I also want to say that I am still not a fan of the idea of refeaturing articles, though again, it is a possible solution if push comes to shove. But I think a counterargument lies with articles like Nauru, Baltimore, and Wernigerode - recent or upcoming featured articles that were imperfect, and which we worked together to improve before their time on the Main Page. Even after their term as DotM or OtBP is up, those improvements will remain, and the articles will be more useful to travellers than before, and our site is improved. Refeaturing old articles, I feel, strikes me rather as a lazy cop-out and a disincentive to improving new articles in that way.

Finally, Andrewssi2 makes a very good side point about admins. Just off the top of my head, I already have a few candidates in mind whose talk pages I'll probably leave messages on, asking if they're interested in the sysop tools.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot this one. Regarding ButteBag's idea of merging features with each other: that's another solution that I think is a bit unnecessarily drastic at the moment, but should be kept in mind for later in case less drastic ones fail. But if we were to go that route, I think the obvious answer would be folding FTT into both DotM and OtBP, drawing distinctions between how prominent or how wide an appeal the would-be FTTs have (Route 66 would be DotM, for example, while Kimono buying guide would be OtBP). That would also, albeit temporarily, solve the still-ongoing problem of having fewer good articles for the FTT category than DotM or OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No disputes from me on anything you said, but I'd like to point out that there is also a benefit in refeaturing good articles: It's an incentive to update them. Moreover, we could have any kind of limit we like, such as that there could be no more than one refeatured article every 3 months or every 6 months. Just things to consider later if we need to do them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize to me AndreCarrotflower, I wasn't the slightest bit put-out at not being mentioned (didn't even realize I should have been offended until you mentioned it). Reading through all the suggestions, I think we have some good stuff to go off of. I like the idea of re-featuring some of our previously featured articles, within limits as Ikan Kekek mentioned. A good point was made on the DOTM nomination page (by whom, I can't remember) that we can use the nominations to draw attention to and improve articles that might not have as many editors under other circumstances. The idea of merging FTT into DotM and OtBP would have my support, if the situation reaches a point where it warrants it. Also, on the hompage's "Get Involved" section I think we could switch out the expedition of the month (which hasn't changed since I've started editing here) to something like "Vote for our next featured articles", i.e. make DotM our expedition of the month (quarter / year / thing). That little expedition is what made me create an account, after all, so we at least can assume that it can draw in editors (and in some cases, keep them [at least for now, barring any further offensive omissions from a certain carrotflower, haha!). DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

AndreCarrotflower, thanks for all you hard work on this page. I am sorry that I only have time to contribute occasionally - I prefer to comment when I know a little of the background to a destination (e.g. I have been to the same country). If more comments are needed on a particular article, it might be worth posting on the talk page of the relevant country or on the WP article for the city. I am in favour of re-featuring articles where appropriate (maybe with a minimum of five years since last appearance), particularly when a place is going to be topical (during a major event). AlasdairW (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up
Several days after sounding the alarm, I'm very happy to see some new faces and new activity on the DotM page. Thank you to everyone who's lent a hand. Of course, I said essentially the same thing in the wake of the last DotM call to action, so here's hoping that this time around we can keep the momentum going long-term. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * above has a pretty good collection of potential FTTs. ϒpsilon (talk)

Vancouver district articles for Dotm?
Vancouver was featured in June, 2005. Untold millions of people have been born since then, and I believe Wikivoyage didn't even exist then (the feature of course was on Wikitravel). I have yet to have the pleasure of visiting that city, but there are some district articles that seem nice to me. Vancouver/City Centre, Vancouver/West End, Vancouver/Gastown-Chinatown and Vancouver/UBC-Point Grey are all Guide-level articles. I'd suggest that someone who knows the city well (User:Shaundd, perhaps?) choose their favorite article from among those four to nominate, or improve any of the Usable-level Vancouver district articles to Guide and nominate that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are all good articles to feature, but the content is a bit outdated. My preference is to feature North Vancouver, which I've been working to update with the aim to nominate it for DotM. It's not a district of Vancouver in the Wikivoyage sense, but it's very much a part of many Vancouver itineraries because Grouse Mountain and the Capilano Suspension Bridge are often considered "must see" Vancouver attractions. I've just been holding off on nominating until I finished redoing the Buy and Get out sections. -Shaundd (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article, North Vancouver seems ripe to be featured. However, if it's nominated, it should be with the understanding that the odds don't favor it being run earlier than 2019. The schedule for this year's Northern Hemisphere summer is pretty much set, and between Bozeman, Brownsville, Gaspé Peninsula, Boston, and Bronzeville, 2018 is already shaping up to be an extraordinarily North America-heavy year in terms of DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, it gives me lots of time to fix it up further. May-Sept is probably the nicest time to visit, but I think it could be featured in winter or spring if there's a gap in the schedule (the attractions are open year-round, snow sports in winter get swapped for kayaking in summer, and hiking can be done year-round albeit with fewer options in winter). -Shaundd (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
...to Andrewssi2, Ground Zero, and Iceandsnow for lending a hand over the past day with the eleventh-hour issue that came up with the Groningen article. I just looked it over before slotting it in as OtBP, and it looks great. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That said, it's probably worthwhile to continue to monitor this article closely, as the contributor in question continues to add content that, while good, is generally in dire need of proofreading from native English speakers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Lijiang
This was nominated a while ago & slushed. Talk:Lijiang starts a discussion of what might be needed before re-nomination. Pashley (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Gulangyu
This island was put on the UNESCO world heritage list this year & has been a major tourist draw for some time. It is part of the city of Xiamen which was DotM some time back Destination of the month candidates/Archive/2012-2015 but we have a separate article for the island.

Would the Gulangyu article be an appropriate nominee? If so, would it be DotM or OtBP? Pashley (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pashley - The usual procedure has been to leave at least two years between featured articles that are two districts of the same city, or the parent city and one of its districts. Gulangyu seems to function de facto as a district article under Xiamen in the breadcrumb hierarchy; as Xiamen was DotM in 2013, it's fine to feature Gulangyu. As for the eternal question of DotM vs. OtBP, that's a question that someone more familiar with China than myself would be better equipped to answer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion of updates it may need at Talk:Gulangyu. Pashley (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This is just a hypothetical, but...
The recent terrorist attack in previous OtBP Turku has got me to thinking. There have been a few instances in the past where we've discussed postponing upcoming featured articles due to an increased possibility of troubles for tourists during their time on the Main Page (i.e. a spike in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that occurred a few months before Mitzpe Ramon was due up to bat as OtBP; volcanic activity and mudslides that threatened to keep Mount Rinjani National Park closed through its April 2016 OtBP term). My question is, what if anything do we do if there's an unforeseen incident that occurs while a particular place is already on the Main Page? For instance, the Bataclan terrorist attacks occurred on November 13th; if Paris had been due up as DotM in December we'd obviously have postponed it, but what if it were November's DotM and it were already on the Main Page? Should we replace it with something else? Put up a warning box? Edit the Main Page so the carousel only displays the other two features? Nothing at all? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. It would be embarrassing to feature a destination that no-one wants to go to at the moment. Could be an earthquake, could be an attack. What about reverting to the previous featured topic in such an emergency situation? Ground Zero (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the simplest solution would be to display only the two other features, at least until such time as consensus feels it's appropriate to put the affected article back up. That eliminates the need to come up with new banners for a replacement feature, etc. But I also think that to simply make the thing disappear and not acknowledge why seems somehow like a cop-out, as if we're trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend it isn't happening. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well in the case of terror attacks you're damned if you do doomed if you don't... In a sense doing nothing may be seen as callous and endangering visitors, while removing the feature may be seen as "capitulating" in the face of terrorism. No easy solution there. Let's just hope against hope that we never have to answer the question... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The King's Road (Finland), actually FTT right now, starts in Turku. We could revert to the previous article, or if it's just a matter of days before the next article of the same kind will come up, feature that one right away (ie. earlier). Moreover, in the case we need to urgently remove a currently featured article, the article should by definition get a warning box. However, I'm not sure we absolutely have to do anything this time — fortunately. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The connection between the King's Road and Turku completely flew over my head! Yes, I think in the case of that, the fact that Turku is only one point on an itinerary that stretches the entire width of the country, combined with the rather small scale of the attack (it's terrible that it's come down to saying "two people killed in an isolated incident of mass stabbing is not as bad as 130 killed in a coordinated attack at six different locations in Paris", but the fact remains), combined with the fact that the King's Road's term as FTT is over in two days anyway, means it's probably safe to maintain the status quo. As Hobbitschuster said, hopefully this is something we'll never have to actually do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict]I think the very best thing to do if we have to pull a feature is to post a message saying something like: "[Name of Place] was being featured when [type of disaster] occurred. As we cannot recommend for people to visit [Name of Place] now, we are postponing this feature, to resume at an appropriate later date. We send our deepest sympathies to [Name of Place] and all who are affected by [type of disaster], and we extend our best wishes for the recovery of [Name of Place] and to the survivors." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't know which diaboli I am now the advocatus (pro bono, as it were, always pro bono for such a client), but is there - or should there be - a difference between our reaction to a) several unrelated acts of violence up to and including murder b) a rampage or spree style killing event with no discernible political religious or other motive besides the personal c) something that could in some sense be classified as terrorism? And where and how does the "scale" - for lack of a better term - of the event figure into this? I know this is a really dicey topic and there are no right answers here... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are a lot more variables to consider than death toll when considering the "scale" of a terrorist attack, way too many in fact to plan ahead for. It seems to me that this would have to be a case where we fall back on consensus, and consider things on a case-by-case basis. I do, however, think it would be good to have a predetermined procedure to follow once we do make the decision to pull the plug on a DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that in such cases, we should plan on re-running the Dotm/Otbp/Ftt for a full month at a suitable time in the future, as determined by a new discussion? Would you also agree that some message of condolence should appear on the main page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm ready to definitively say that my preferred procedure would be to replace (either until its successor's term is due to start or consensus determines it's appropriate to reinstate) the banner of whatever featured article is at issue with a plain text banner that reads along the lines of what Ikan Kekek wrote above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the question of whether to rerun the feature, I think it would depend on timing. If there are only a few days left until the affected article was due to be replaced anyway, I wouldn't see the point of a rerun, but if it had only been on the Main Page for a short time, then I'd say it would be appropriate to do so. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support rerunning regardless of how much time was taken off its initial run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit worried about overdoing it. In Turku the murderer was caught soon after the police got the alarm. The town might be in shock and all police in the country engaged, but a traveller is no less safe now than last year (unless there's something in the last updates). Avoiding the city is an odd way to show your sympathy.

I'd prefer putting a warning banner in the article over having it withdrawn, until we know whether the event has a larger bearing. The warning could be replaced by condolences when we feel confident the danger is over. Only in the case where the place remains dangerous for a longer period do I think we should withdraw the feature.

--LPfi (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is proposing to delay or cancel the feature for King's Road. Instead, we're discussing the hypothetical case in which a feature might have to be postponed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. I was mainly worried about what we are going to do before we really know what happened. We probably want to react immediately. A warning box in the article may be suitable immediately and condolences on the main page quite soon, while I think withdrawal should be done only when we have enough facts at hand. --LPfi (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Pending fixes"
While it's looking like relatively smooth sailing in DotM-land through the autumn, in very late 2017 and very early 2018 we're looking at a crunch of nominees with the dreaded "pending fixes" caveat: American football, Iguaçu Falls, Bozeman, European Union, Christchurch, and Ukulhas.

At this point, while this all is still a fair bit off in the future, I think it would be a good idea for us to get on the same page and figure out how we're going to divide all this work up, as it's unlikely that I'll be able to take it all on myself, and I think we also need to be sensitive not to dump all of this work into the capable but already quite busy hands of Ypsilon, as we were once in the habit of, and which (understandably) was one of the factors behind his Wikibreak a few months ago.

In terms of DotM, my priorities for the upcoming months are the following, in chronological order: finishing up the last of the work expanding blurbs in Fast food in the United States and Canada, helping out with whatever is needed to bring American Football up to Guide status (though it looks like we're finally coming to a clearer picture of what exactly the deficiencies of that article are), and then probably the rather substantial work required at Iguaçu Falls.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I should probably know by now not to underestimate you guys. Thanks once again to the cooperation of this community of editors, Bozeman and Jakarta have already been knocked off the above list, with American football to follow once I get in there and make a few minor copyedits. Great work, everyone! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Phoenix-like
User:AndreCarrotflower recently reverted an edit, which had changed "phoenixlike" to "phoenix-like", by User:Ikan Kekek. Both are regular contributors who usually make excellent edits, so that is quite unusual. I'd say Ikan was obviously correct, but do not want to edit war so I am raising the question here rather than just reverting Andre. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a subjective style point that one shouldn't read too much into. But I would challenge Pashley, and anyone else who's a native speaker, to name a scenario where the "like" suffix takes a hyphen, at least when appended to a single word as opposed to a multiword phrase. We don't say "lady-like", "statesman-like", or "God-like", do we? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Either version is fine. As far as I can tell, for common N+like combinations such as ladylike a hyphen is unlikely to be used, whereas for less common combinations such as spaghetti-like a hyphen becomes more common. In answer to AndreCarrotflower's challenge, there are plenty of published uses of (for instance) Norway-like, table-like, and, yes, phoenix-like. (There are also published uses of phoenixlike.) I think our time would probably be better spent improving Wikivoyage in other ways rather than discussing these two commonly used typographical options. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I attempted to apply the Google test but the results were inconclusive; results for "phoenix like" (space, no hyphen) turn up even in Boolean searches for the hyphenated form, etc. However, in terms of which form is more commonly used, I think it's telling that Wiktionary has an entry for "phoenixlike", without one for "phoenix-like" and without even mentioning the hyphenated form as a variant in the above-linked entry. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary does not generally have entries for sum-of-parts hyphenated words at all, though this is somewhat controversial and an occasional topic of debate there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely there's some potential wording that sidesteps the issue entirely? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Ladylike" is a common enough expression that it became a single word. Would you not hyphenate "gorilla-like" or "medusa-like"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Merriam-Webster acknowledges "phoenixlike" as the adjectival form of "phoenix", though I admit I'd never seen the word before. I admit the hyphenated version of any of those words would not give me even a second's pause. Powers (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll concede the existence of hyphenated "like" suffixes, but I'd also note that all the examples gives thus far are of words that end in vowels, in which scenario mispronunciation is more likely than when the root word ends in a consonant, like "phoenix". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, what about "elephant-like", "tiger-like", "clarinet-like"? However, if Merriam-Webster accepts an unhyphenated compound word for "phoenixlike", so be it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfeatured regions
Balkan was the last region in Europe from where we haven't featured anything at all yet, but this will be fixed once Sarajevo hits the Main Page (next summer or early fall). Just for the fun of it I checked out from which continental regions we haven't shown anything on the Main Page yet and came up with Central Africa, East African Islands and Melanesia, plus Greenland and Papua New Guinea that are shown as regions in the continental articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would be great to feature some articles from these regions at some point. I used Petscan to look for possible candidates. None of the regions have any guide or star articles as far as I can tell, but here's what I found in terms of usable articles:
 * Central Africa - 12 usable articles. Kinshasa is probably the closest to guide status, and Luanda and Brazzaville are in decent shape too, though all would require some work before featuring on the main page, I think.
 * East African Islands - seven usable articles. The only ones at all close to guide status are Antananarivo and Saint-Denis.
 * Melanesia - nine usable articles, of which Nadi is probably the closest to guide status.
 * Greenland - four usable articles, of which Nuuk and Ilulissat look reasonably close to guide status.
 * Papua New Guinea - five usable articles. Port Moresby looks like the closest to guide status, followed by Bougainville.
 * —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yup, guide (let alone Star articles) are pretty scarce in Africa and Oceania outside AUS and NZ (to some extent Latin America as well). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The lack of featurable articles is the only thing keeping destinations in those regions from being featured. I think everyone would be quite happy to suddenly see Antananarivo, Yaoundé, and Port-Vila nominated as viable candidates. If you know anyone familiar with any cities in any of these regions, please encourage them to edit. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm fully in support of anything we might do to bring more articles from underfeatured regions up to Guide level. I would love to see somewhere in Greenland on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Some island-nation articles in the East African Islands (such as Mauritius and Réunion) are well-developed. However, we have no precedents for featured countries. /Yvwv (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would think that countries, like other articles, would need to be at guide or star status to be featured. Réunion and Mauritius, unfortunately, don't seem to be close to guide status, because they both have several redlinked cities and other destinations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The East African Islands article was created only this year. Still, the region has a strong tourist appeal. /Yvwv (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would be great if we can get Mauritius or Réunion up to guide status, but I think Antananarivo and Saint-Denis may be lower-hanging fruit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that countries should be featured as ftt and possibly under a "our coverage of..." similar to what we did with "flying" way back when. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yvwv: strictly speaking, "we have no precedents for featured countries" is not true; we ran Singapore as DotM in November 2006 and Nauru as OtBP earlier this year. To Hobbitschuster's comment above, I thought the latter case in particular was the once-and-for-all resolution of whether to treat countries as destination articles or travel topics for the purposes of DotM. Also, we never actually ran Flying on the Main Page: it was Fundamentals of flying that was FTT, an article that no longer exists (it redirects to Flying) and looked very different and much more like a "normal" travel topic article when it did. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ilulissat isn't IMO that far from guide status and other language versions actually have a surprising number of good articles from parts of the world where our coverage is weak. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If Nauru were a rural area, it would be consolidated into a single city article. It's basically a city. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If an article is tolerably close but not ready for a DotM or OtBP nominationOn, an approach that, at least sometimes, works well is to nominate it for Collaboration of the month & hope that can bring it up to the right level. e.g. see Previous_collaborations & Destination_of_the_month_candidates Pashley (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfeatured U.S. states
And likewise for the lulz, here are the U.S. states without featured articles or articles nominated for feature (if an itinerary, like Oregon Trail, passes through the state I count the state as featured) and guide articles in these states according to catscan:
 * Connecticut: no guides
 * Maine: Waterville (Maine)
 * New Hampshire: no guides
 * Rhode Island: Narragansett, Newport (Rhode Island), Portsmouth (Rhode Island)
 * Vermont: no guides
 * Arkansas: Buffalo National River, Little Rock
 * Georgia (state): Decatur (Georgia), Valdosta
 * North Carolina: Asheville, Atlantic Beach, Chapel Hill, Charlotte/Myers Park, Charlotte/South End, Wilmington (North Carolina), and as a bonus Charlotte with children as FTT
 * South Carolina: Rock Hill
 * Indiana: Indianapolis
 * Minnesota: no guides, though Minneapolis is probably not that far from guide status
 * North Dakota: Minot
 * South Dakota: no guides

Interestingly, while I always had a feeling that places from the northeastern quarter of the US (together with southeastern Canada) has been comparatively often featured on the Main Page, we have to this day not featured one single destination or travel topic from New England; this will only change when Boston becomes DotM sometime next year.

Also a full 4 states from the South (United States of America) have never been represented on the Main Page. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What are the EU member states without featured articles? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the latter, Valletta is already at Guide status and would need only a minimal amount of work before featuring (geo coordinates, mostly). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, Valletta is a good guide and unlike most of the rest of Europe we can run it almost any time of the year (the same with Nicosia, a strong usable). And from the countries above I've also had my eyes on Ljubljana and Kaunas. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No more U.S. nominees for the time being, please
It's great that we're starting to look at under-featured regions of the U.S., but there are already so many American nominees on the waiting list that the schedule is fully booked through spring 2019. Rather than nominating new U.S. destinations for the Main Page only to make them wait more than a year to actually be featured, let's hold off (while of course keeping the above discussion in our back pocket for later). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The list above is just for future planning (it may come in handy e.g. in six months or a year), and I do agree we have too many U.S. nominations right now. It's frustrating because we on one hand have many good potential FTT candidates from the US that have to wait (Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Avoiding travel through the United States and Charlotte with children immediatelly come to my mind) while on the other hand it's a bit challenging finding new suitable FTTs. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't a travel guide specifically about not going to the US be fair game? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would. In fact, even though we do try to schedule country-specific FTTs the same way as DotMs and OtBPs (i.e. to avoid being on the Main Page at the same time as another feature from the same country, and to avoid having two or more consecutive features from the same country in the same category), I think that in a pinch, we can feel free to be a little less strict when it comes to FTTs since it's more of a challenge in general to find good ones. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

South America
While we're at it, here (I think) are the countries in South America with no featured articles:


 * Ecuador – Quito is at guide status
 * French Guiana – no guide articles; only Cayenne and Kourou are usable
 * Guyana – no guide articles; Georgetown (Guyana) is the closest
 * Peru – no guide articles; Arequipa, Cuzco, Inca Trail, and Machu Picchu look reasonably close.
 * Venezuela – no guide articles; Caracas and Maracaibo look like the closest

Edit: Bolivia removed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * La Paz was featured as DotM in 2006 (notice the green symbol in the banner), but otherwise I agree that we could have more articles from South America. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right—it didn't show up in my Petscan search because Previous Destinations of the month links to the redirect La Paz (Bolivia) instead of directly to La Paz. I removed Bolivia from the list, though I still think we should consider trying to feature Salar de Uyuni or Sucre in the near future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Venezuela is still not good to feature until the political and economic situation is resolved. And that may take years, unfortunately. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Canada and Australia
Unfeatured regions from the two huge English speaking countries other than the US:


 * New Brunswick - no guide articles, strongest usable is Fredericton
 * PEI - no guides, strongest usable is Charlottetown
 * Quebec - Gaspé Peninsula is here, no need to think of any other articles :)
 * Saskatchewan: (Across Canada by train was featured as FTT, should we count it), no guides but Humboldt, Regina and Saskatoon are the best usables
 * Northwest Territories: no guides, Inuvik is the strongest usable
 * Yukon: no guides, and generally pretty weak coverage, Whitehorse is a decent usable but sure needs considerable expansion

--ϒpsilon (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NSW: Sydney Airport (FTT in a few months, but if we don't count FTTs...), Newcastle (New South Wales), Norfolk Island, Sydney/Parramatta, Sydney/Darling Harbour
 * South Australia: no guides, but Adelaide might already be, Kangaroo Island?

Just a little question
There's one thing I've been thinking about when it comes to DotM.

First off, I think once an article is nominated it should be featured sooner rather than later — after all we nominate articles because we want to present them on the Main Page. I'm not suggesting we should nominate articles a couple of weeks before they're featured or anything like that, but over the last few years the time articles spend on the nominations page has creeped upwards and nowadays probably more than half of the articles stay there for more than a year, in many cases closer to two years.

This means that articles need to be checked through a second time a few weeks before they go on the Main Page (at the very least all external links) to make sure the article is still up to date. And yes, it's good to have enough time to improve an article, but if it's guaranteed it will take "a small eternity" (as one would say in Finnish) before the article is featured, people probably don't feel motivated working on the article unless they've just been at the destination or are about to travel there soon.

Am I the only one who thinks it's a problem having articles sitting around for a long time? Or is there even some benefit having them nominated for long periods that I haven't come to think of? ϒpsilon (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you, though short of placing a formal temporary ban on new nominations, I don't know of any way to solve this problem. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, too. One way of handling the backlog would be to speed up the rotation for a while, i.e., feature Destinations-of-the-month for three weeks. That would have the side-effect of making our landing page even fresher for occasional visitors. When we get to having DOTM candidates presented just a couple of months after nomination, then we could revert to a more standard month of being featured. Ground Zero (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Or maybe a little infobox saying what kind of articles we're looking for at the moment (e.g. right now the upcoming Northern Hemisphere summer and most of the autumn is full, and we're looking for articles suitable to feature in the last couple of months of the year, and perhaps early 2019). ϒpsilon (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we could encourage people to submit nominations for Discover instead. That's a way to get Main Page coverage for articles, albeit for a shorter period of time, and it also does not disqualify them from being featured as DotM/OtBP/FTT later (which is the main problem I have with Ground Zero's proposal: if an article can only be featured as DotM once, wouldn't it be unfair to the author(s) who worked on it to reduce the length of its stint on the Main Page relative to past DotMs that, in theory, were equally as worthy?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But since DOTM selections ate prestigious, as you suggest, will encouraging people to submit to Discover instead work? Seems unlikely to me, but you never know. My proposal would actually work, and contributors to DOTM selections still get the satisfaction of know that the articles they've worked hard to improve were selected. DOTM articles are rarely the work of one contributor in any case. Ground Zero (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. At the present moment, we're almost fully stocked with DotMs and OtBPs through the end of 2018, with a few shagging over into 2019 (primarily U.S. destinations, of which we have an overabundance). That's a level of backlog that we can be comfortable with, though I wouldn't want to see much more. In my estimation, so long as the relatively few of us who are responsible for the bulk of DotM nominations (myself, Ypsilon, Hobbitschuster, Yvwv, and somewhat less frequently Traveler100, Granger, and Ikan Kekek) get on the same page regarding the need to hold off on any new nominees for a while, that in itself should solve the problem nicely. And I'd even keep the door open to new FTT nominees, since (as usual) we have relatively fewer of those in the offing than the other two categories. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well of my nominations, one is a place I currently reside in (which really leads to me asking what precisely I could fix by getting on my bike and having a look) and another is one where I have family... I'm not sure there are many places I would put up for featuring in the near term at any rate... Maybe some FTTs though currently there is - always - a dearth of that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at this page in a while, but typically some nominations are scouted/found by someone who was not a major contributor while others are nominated by someone who wrote all, most, or a significant part of the article. Perhaps simply prioritizing articles nominated by major contributors over those scouted by third parties would help. No one should be too upset about their nomination being put on hold if their nomination was not an article they put much (or any) time into. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Temporary featuring of Valentine's Day, Olympics, etc?
Many holidays and planned events draw attention around the world; such as Valentine's Day, Christmas, Ramadan and the Olympics. Could the front page be more interesting, if we had a fourth category of featured articles, up for just a day or a week? The Pyeongchang 2018 is mentioned at the front page; future sport events could also be candidates. As these article would typically be featured for short time, timing would be more important than quality; though they should at least have usable status.
 * Suggested Conceptual schedule for 2018:
 * 25 March: Formula One
 * 12-17 May, 10-13 June: Travelling during Ramadan
 * 14 June: Moscow (FIFA World Cup)
 * 30 June: Roskilde (opening of Roskilde Festival)
 * 26 Aug: Black Rock City (opening of Burning Man)
 * ?? Oct: Ice hockey in North America (opening of NHL season)
 * 10 Dec: Stockholm (Nobel Prize)
 * 21-31 Dec: Christmas and New Year travel

The process for nominating this would be a bit simplified. /Yvwv (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a good list. I've started a similar discussion at Talk:Main Page. Should we move this there, or that discussion here? Ground Zero (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support this as long as they go where the PyeongChang notification is now, rather than on the banner carousel. Coming up with 12 banner suggestions every month for the current three categories of featured article is already enough of a time suck. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, Travelling during Ramadan, Black Rock City, and Stockholm are all previous DotMs/FTTs; is that a problem? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If we can get some of these articles up to guide status, they could be regular FTTs, DOTMs, or OTBPs. Otherwise they could be included in "Discover" facts. Do we need an additional option beyond those two? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we need to distinguish between two different types of events. Some events like Pyeonchang 2018 are a one-off and will never be on the main page once the event has passed. The other events like the Nobel Prize, are annual events in the same destination which means they can be posted the following year. I understand the former having to be posted quickly and we can compromise on quality somewhat (accepting a good usable rather than guide) though that isn't necessarily the case with the latter. Gizza ( roam ) 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I would expect that few readers would be thinking of going to Stockholm for the Nobel Prize ceremony. While it is late to plan a trip to Pyeongchang, I think a lot of people wish they could, so the article would be of interest. Here are some other ideas: Ground Zero (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pyeongchang 2018 for winter Olympics until 25 Feb 2018, and for winter Paralympics until 18 Mar 2018 (event runs 9-18 Mar)
 * Russia for FIFA World Cup (event runs 14 June to 15 July 2018) -- venues are spread through European Russia. We do not have a World Cup 2018 article yet.
 * Cape Town for Wikimania 2018. (event runs 18-22 July 2018)
 * Jakarta and Palembang for the 2018 Asian Games (event runs 18 August to 2 September 2018)
 * Lima for the 2019 Panam-Parapan Games (event runs 26 Jul-11 Aug, and 23 Aug-1 Sep 2019)


 * I like the idea of temporary features like we are currently running for Pyeonchang 2018. To reduce the extra workload these could perhaps be changed at the same time as the main page is changed, three times per month. Another possibility is:


 * Lisbon 8-12 May 2018 for Eurovision Song Contest 2018.
 * AlasdairW (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're gonna have articles for the Olympic Games of a specific year at all, why not highlight them in some fashion if they're good. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The Gold Coast is hosting the Commonwealth Games from 4 April to 15 April 2018 too. Not sure if there is enough time to improve it though. Gizza ( roam ) 00:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a general "what's up in the world" category (similar to WP's "on this day") with links to relevant articles... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Revised list
Combining the suggestions above:

Revised conceptual schedule for 2018: I'm not sure about the Roskilde and Burning Man festivals, especially as they overlap with multi-national events. I would drop them from this list, and add them to the "Discover" topics. Travelling during Ramadan has a very long run because of the absence of other events. We could give more profile to Wikimania, for example, by profiling it from 26 Apr-14 May as a "plan ahead" feature. Ground Zero (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pyeongchang 2018 for winter Olympics until 25 Feb, and for winter Paralympics until 18 Mar (event runs 9-18 Mar)
 * 18-25 Mar: Formula One (event on 25 March)
 * 27 Mar-15 Apr: Gold Coast for the Commonwealth Games (event runs 4-15 Apr)
 * 16 Apr-13 June: Travelling during Ramadan (runs 15 May-14 June)
 * 14 June-15 July: Moscow for FIFA World Cup (event runs 14 June to 15 July) -- venues are spread through European Russia. We do not have a World Cup 2018 article yet.
 * 30 June: Roskilde (opening of Roskilde Festival)
 * 16-22 July: Cape Town for Wikimania 2018 (event runs 18-22 July)
 * 23 July-2 Sept: Jakarta and Palembang for the 2018 Asian Games (event runs 18 August to 2 September 2018)
 * 26 Aug: Black Rock City (opening of Burning Man)
 * ?? Oct: Ice hockey in North America (opening of NHL season)
 * 21-31 Dec: Christmas and New Year travel
 * I have expand the Pyeongchang article to include the Paralympics, but it will have to be edited again after 25 Feb to strip out the Olympic stuff.
 * Unless someone is willing to update the Formula One article, which lists all of the events for 2016, I think we have to drop that and start Gold Coast as the featured article earlier. Also, it seems to be a series of events through the year, so may not be appropriate anyway. Ground Zero (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replaced Olympics by Paralympics on the main page. Gold Coast isn't in bad shape - edits would be welcome, and help in getting a working version of the logo. The Main Page should be updated on March 18 or so to change it to Gold Coast. Ground Zero (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * During periods where there aren't specific events to profile, e.g. 16 Apr-14 May we could feature the European Capitals of Culture for 2018, Leeuwarden in the northern Netherlands and Malta's capital Valletta since this is a year-long event. Ground Zero (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Valletta will likely be a DotM next year, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there is a lot of merit in featuring timely destinations on the main page. The temporary feature we are using now for Pyeongchang is less prominent than DOTM. Putting Valletta and Leeuwarden together under a "European Capitals of Culture" heading shouldn't stop Valletta from having its proper full profiling in DOTM in 2019. Ground Zero (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

List of temporarily featured events
The Paralympics are over, so I have replaced that feature with the Commonwealth Games. Here are the events that have been featured (♦) and the intended schedule for future events (→), for comment:

♦20 Mar-15 Apr: Gold Coast for the Commonwealth Games (event runs 4-15 Apr) ♦16 Apr-12 May - Lisbon for the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (event runs 8-12 May 2018) ♦13 May-13 June: Travelling during Ramadan (runs 15 May-14 June) ♦14 June-15 July: World Cup 2018 in 11 Russian cities (event runs 14 June to 15 July) ♦ 16-22 July: Wikimania 2018 Cape Town Guidebook (event runs 18-22 July) ♦ 23 July-2 Sept: Jakarta and Palembang for the 2018 Asian Games (event runs 18 August to 2 September 2018) ♦ 3 Sept-30 Sept: Leeuwarden in the northern Netherlands and Malta's capital Valletta, the European Capitals of Culture for 2018 (year-long event) → 1-27 Oct: Invictus Games in Sydney, Australia (event runs Oct 20-27) → 28 Oct-15 Nov: World War I, in recognition of the centenary on 11 Nov of the end of the war → 16 Nov-15 Dec: Christmas markets → 16 Dec-31 Dec: Christmas and New Year travel Ground Zero (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We now have an article for the World Cup 2018 in Russia. Contributions are welcome. Ground Zero Ground Zero (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I like this feature, but I assume it's OK that some of these topics have already been FTTs or might be in the future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be okay. Is there any reason for them not to be? Ground Zero (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, no, no reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be hesitant to feature Valletta as OtBP and as a "temporarily featured event" at the same time, though. I had envisioned it for October 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it's featured as OtBP in October, we wouldn't want it as TFE at the same time. Let's see how OtBP plays out then. There's still time to find something else. Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited the list to add the Invictus Games in October, which avoids doubling up with OtBP. I think that an international multisport event is more appropriate for the main page than Ice Hockey in North America, which is limited to one sport two countries. And with that, my Canadian citizenship has been revoked. Do you see the sacrifices I make for Wikivoyage? Ground Zero (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to come up something for November. Any suggestions? Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe World War I for 11 November, which will be 100 years since the armistice. AlasdairW (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion! Pashley (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

European capitals of culture
In future, would it make sense to feature ECCs as early as possible in the year? I know it's a juggling act, and the feature was only invented in the spring, but featuring the cities in January or February, rather than near the end of their run, would be ideal.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. ECC really only appears now because I couldn't find anything else significant going on at this time. Towards the end of the year, I'll ask whether we want to continue this feature, and if so, I'll be looking for suggestions. Ground Zero (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The "Oppose" vote
Our policy about voting for DotM candidate articles, as written, speaks exclusively in the rather black-and-white terms of "support" and "oppose" votes. However, in practice, a custom has evolved whereby, in cases where a nominee article has issues that are comparatively easily addressed, we phrase our votes in language such as "Not yet", "Needs work", "Almost", etc., reserving "Oppose" votes for truly egregious problems. In light of several different instances of editors employing "Oppose" votes in violation of this custom, I'd like to propose we insert language into our policy obliging those voting on DotM candidates to distinguish between issues of greater and lesser severity and between those that would be more and less difficult and time-consuming to resolve, and specifically circumscribing "Oppose" votes for scenarios where a candidate article has major deficiencies that are unlikely to be resolved before the article's proposed term on the Main Page. Importantly, this would not represent some radical shift in the way we conduct DotM voting; it would merely be a codification of what we already do in practice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm new to this page, so don't have an appreciation for the customs and finer points of the etiquette. But when it boils down to it, why does it matter what language is used? The point that the user thinks the article in its current iteration isn't suitable is the same no matter whether the word is "oppose", "not yet" or something else. In my case, the oppose is temporary, pending necessary changes to the article in question. "Not yet" means the same thing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), "not yet" etc. is for a article that isn't ready to be featured but can realistically be cleaned up in the near future in order to feature it. Whereas "oppose" is for an article with such serious problems that it's better to slush it and give up on the nomination for the time being. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I support AndreCarrotflower's suggestion. I don't think this is really much of a change for the reasons he mentioned above and adding this new voting category could also potentially make discussions less confusing. Selfie City (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If I write that "I oppose a feature unless x is taken care of", that isn't wrong or inaccurate - I did that with Indonesian phrasebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also have to say oppose. Even if it is something which you have already been doing in practice, "oppose" is what I meant, and that wouldn't have changed even if I had shrouded it in platitudes. I'd rather we were free to communicate our opinions directly, in the manner each of us choose, than have our language restricted by committee. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If one thinks there are some serious issues with a nominated article then it'd be prefectly OK to say "oppose". ϒpsilon (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even if the issues are less serious, I think we should be able to say "oppose, until the problems I've highlighted are dealt with" without ruffling any feathers. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

In the rail travel case I voted oppose due to the rapid approaching date of featuring and my serious concern that the issue might not be fixed in time. I would have opposed the article going life without that info updated and integrated. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know there has been concern in recent years that "oppose" is "too harsh" and may make nominators "feel bad", but I think people should be free to judge as they see fit and "Not yet" is still an oppositional vote that will not produce different results than "oppose" if the overall sentiment is "not yet". I'd rather put the onus on the nominator to accept the critique and opposition rather than berating someone for saying "oppose" instead of "not yet"/"Needs improvement"/etc. which I think would discourage voting. ANY article can be featured if given proper attention, so an "oppose" vote can be changed just like a "not yet" vote. Also, ANY opposition votes are potentially disheartening if the user really feels confident or excited about featuring the article, so there is a level of maturity required by the nominator to understand that nominating is more than just a formality. In terms of voting issues, I'm much less a fan of the practice of writing "support" and then adding stipulations, because a vote of support should mean you support as is. The existence of stipulations should always mean "Not yet/Oppose". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That last point is a good one. I will try to follow that suggestion from now on.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not so much about avoiding hurting the nominator's feelings, but rather a way to more accurately gauge consensus. A recurring assumption I've seen in this thread is that "oppose" and "not yet" are two ways to convey exactly the same information, which I don't agree with. It's a matter of degree. In my ideal scenario, a nominee accruing a lot of "Not yet" votes would be taken as a rallying cry to get to work correcting the article's flaws; while a nominee accruing a lot of "Oppose" votes would be a signal that the problems are probably insurmountable, and we should consider slushing the nominee and/or demoting it from Guide status. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article with 4 supports and 4 "not yet" votes will not be slushed in the majority of cases, while an article with 4 supports and 4 oppose votes has a pretty high chance of being slushed IMO. I think generally a "not yet" or "needs work" or "almost" vote is not taken as seriously as an "oppose" vote. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we get premature nominations, like Special:Diff/3303328/3321174, where an article is usable but nowhere near feature-worthy. The usual procedure is to open a discussion "To guide and FTT?" on the article's talk page, so that the issues may be fixed before the article is nominated, but occasionally that step gets missed and we end up with "not yet" votes - or, worst case, one user in Buffalo slaving away frantically on the Underground Railroad to rewrite every listing in it days before the feature goes live. Perhaps the premature nominations are being made out of concern that DoTM/OtBP/FTT will underrun, leaving us with one month where no article is actually ready to be featured, but if something needs work before it's ready (such as a nomination for an UGRR itinerary that was missing Boston, Syracuse, the Mississippi River and a few other key listings) we say so. K7L (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Panglao
This is already a fairly important tourist destination and I think is about to boom because a new airport opens this month. See Talk:Panglao for details.

Currently the article is well short of Guide status, though. Would anyone like to pitch in & improve it? Could it be a good candidate for Collaboration of the Month? Pashley (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The article seems to have a lot of potential, since it has a custom banner and a lot of listings &mdash; unfortunately, the number of listings in the sleep section is out of proportion with the rest of the article. But I think with coordinates, etc. it could be a good article. Not so sure about Collaboration of the Month, though. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it would need quite a lot of work to come up to standard, but it might well be worth it. It is already one of the country's main tourist destinations and, since the new airport can handle large international jets, it seems likely to become even more popular. Pashley (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, we don't seem to a bad job in our coverage of the Philippines, and this could be helpful &mdash; much more helpful than improvising article coverage for Mongolia or somewhere of that nature, where few tourists would go. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)