Important: The license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0 has been approved.
Please consider all contributions from this point forward to be made under that license.

From Wikitravel

[edit] OtbP candidates in Japan

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

[edit] Timing of DOTM

When nominating DotM, it states you must say a good time to visit, and this is when the article will be featured. Surely it would make sense to feature it a few months before the best time to go, since it takes time to make travel arangements etc? EG it is good best to visit X in August, so feature the article in May/June, so you can get to X in time for August?

I second this proposal--similar to publications in newspapers/travel magazines, we should feature a destination well in advance, so that if it evokes much interest from the reader, he could enjoy going there this year, not the next year. --DenisYurkin 11:16, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Enhancement

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

Very good idea! Although the full justification looks a little funky? Jpatokal 21:58, 13 November 2006 (EST)

I've played around with it. Does it look better? Whoever updates the DotOTBP next should keep in mind that the div tags should not be copied along with the blurb. — Ravikiran 22:44, 13 November 2006 (EST)

I split the "blurb" section out from the nomination section, so the layout of the blurbs should now be closer to what will actually appear on the Main Page. -- Ryan 16:17, 15 November 2006 (EST)

So I decided to go one step further and actually just copy the code from the Main Page. Feel free to revert if that's not helpful. For my part I think it's helpful to be able to judge exactly what the new DOTM / OTBP will look like, particularly how much space it's going to take up. -- Ryan 16:24, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Agreed on all points; it's useful, and better as a stand-alone section rather than part of the table. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:32, 15 November 2006 (EST)

And I've gone ahead and templatised the blurbs. Behold Template:DotMOTBP! But will someone correct the capitalization for me? — Ravikiran 00:17, 16 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] So where is everybody?

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

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

[edit] Criteria for OTBP v DOTM

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

Yeah, popularity is always a relative concept -- Hoi An is well known among the Indochina backpacker set, but it doesn't (for example) have a single branded chain hotel and gets only a small fraction of Vietnam's tourists, which totaled a piddly 4 million in 2006, while Wales racked up 8 million.

My rule of thumb is that if you say the name to somebody on the other of the planet, and they've heard of it, it's a DOTM, while if they haven't, it's OTBP. For example, "Canton" (=Guangzhou) probably rings bells for most people, while "Hoi An" will draw blank stares. Zion's pretty borderline, and on this scale the Windsor that doesn't have a big royal castle would be OTBP, while Detroit would be DOTM. It would be nice to have a more quantitative measure of popularity, but I'm a little at a loss as to what that might be -- should we really start counting visitors per year? Jpatokal 12:18, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Not a bad metric, although I think it would misclassify Denali National Park (about as off-the-beaten-path as you can get), at least for people who know that Denali = Mount McKinley. But is there really a problem that needs solving here? There will always be a continuum between places that are definitely OTBP (Panmunjeom, Svalbard, to name a couple we've featured) and others that clearly aren't (Paris, New Orleans). Rather than getting too prescriptive, let's just have the discussion when a place seems to fall squarely in the gray area, as is the case with Windsor and Zion. Discussion is never a bad thing -- is it? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:55, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Jani we Americans are little, how do you say... uncivilized. You say Canton and we think Pro Football Hall of Fame. Windsor is an unusual place, because it's not OTbP since well over 20 million people use the border crossing every year and it's easy to get to from within the Continental U.S. This is an indication of cultural experience and values, but if you ask any Midwesterner about Windsor we don't think castles and England we think of Ontario.

I like Bill's proposal and leave it up to a coin toss. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

How about having DotM for places that people will have heard of (the kind of places that are on the country's list of main cities/attractions (i.e. Paris, Kruger National Park, Dubai, Yellowstone National Park), your OtBP places are the ones that your average Joe from the other side of the world would never have heard of. For instance, Berneray is a good OtBP, as no one says, "I'm going to Scotland, we must go to Berneray." Rather they will say, "We're going to Scotland, we have to check out "Edinburgh" or "Loch Ness"... So I guess OtBP is for all the quirky little towns/cities/villages/national parks/islands that no one in the world would think to go to... -- Tim 13:39, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I agree partially with Bill - there is of course a continuity and there will always be room for debate. However, what I was looking for was for us to provide a bit more guidance - after all there is some distance between Jpakotal's perception - "My rule of thumb is that if you say the name to somebody on the other of the planet, and they've heard of it, it's a DOTM, while if they haven't, it's OTBP" and Tim's "So I guess OtBP is for all the quirky little towns/cities/villages/national parks/islands that no one in the world would think to go to." There is also the issue of what we are taking as our baseline - is it that the place is OTBP for the country concerned, or the whole world, or a mixture? However, being a pragmatist I would rather keep the DOTM "category" quite wide as there seems to be less really good city articles around at the moment to choose from compared with small OTBP's which are much easier to sort out in a few edits. -- DanielC 16:42, 7 February 2007 (EST)

These things are cyclic; for quite a time there were many more DOTM candidates than OTBP candidates.

Let me propose an exercise for the reader. Go through the articles appearing on Category:Usable articles and Category:Guide articles (or at least as many as you have patience for -- exclude "travel topics" and phrasebooks) trying to decide whether, in your own mind, they qualify as DOTM candidates, OTBP candidates, or "don't know." You can probably do this just by looking at the names of the places for 90+% of them, without reading the article. Then report back what you find. Are there really that many articles that fit into your personal don't-know category? If so, then maybe we should do as Daniel suggests and solidify the guidance, but I don't expect there to be, and if there aren't, I just don't see this as a thing to spend much time worrying about. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:35, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Surely the point is not whether you can personally put destinations into a DOTM or OTBP pile, but whether your distinction agrees with other people. -- DanielC 17:43, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Well, do the exercise. I just made a fast pass through the Guide articles (also excluding countries and major regions), with the result: 107 DOTM, 79 OTBP, 13 Don't Know. (This took me less than 10 minutes.) If others are coming in at roughly those same numbers, I don't think we have a problem here. If not, let's look for a way to fix it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:52, 7 February 2007 (EST)

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

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

[edit] Berneray's pic, and pics in general

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

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

Sounds like a good idea... and that's a nice image too for Berneray – cacahuate ^talk 19:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't part of the idea behind displaying a DOTM/OTBP preview on the nomination page so that people could tweak the photo and text prior to a destination launching on the main page? Is there anything else that needs to be done to meet your proposal for picture selection? As it stands now we have one month available to determine how the destination will look when it shows up on the main page, and any discussion can happen as it is happening here about the Berneray photo (I vote for the prettier picture - dawn photo - btw). -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it's necessary to propose the photo explicitly as part of the nomination process. With most candidates there's one photo that sorta jumps out at you as the obvious image for the front page; exceptions like Berneray can be dealt with by simply toggling the proposed photo, as I have just done. (That dawn shot is so good that I think it's actually clear in this case too. BTW, the copyright on that one should be updated to our standards; I think it's clear from context that our Scots friend intended to release it, but we should be rigorous about such things.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Tagging former DotM/OtBPs?

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

That sounds good... I would say top of the talk page similar to Template:Pcotw – cacahuate ^talk 00:01, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

See the discussion on Wikitravel talk:Article status#Putting status icons on the title bar. That never really went anywhere, but the comments were all favorable. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:33, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Good idea. It also lets readers know that this is something we consider(ed) a quality article. And if it was a good place to go in June 2006, it's quite possibly a good place to go in June 2008 for the same reasons. Gorilla Jones 23:10, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

This really should be done. What must happen to make it so? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:51, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I (or anybody) can whip up a plain-jane colored box for the Talk page in seconds, but I think the question is whether we should use heavy wizardry like the status icon thing on the destination itself instead. Jpatokal 08:15, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

A good idea and I agree with Gorilla Jones' reasons for adding the tag on the main page, though I don't think it should be too obtrusive. Something like the present tag for announcing that WT won the Webby should be fine. WindHorse 10:05, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Unobtrusive would be good - however, I think the space where we mention things like the Webby and Meet up should be reserved for universal announcements across Wikitravel, so clogging it up with symbols for this that and the other wouldn't be best. I guess we have to figure out whether this is a logo to help us when we are editing, or whether its something to help the average traveller who uses the site but won't get into the nitty gritty of picking DotMs. Whichever we decide its primarily for, will help us figure where it should go... -- Tim (writeme!) 16:19, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Wikpedia has a star in the title bar to reward a featured article. Something like that can be done, but I think that a star should be reserved for Star articles. — Ravikiran 00:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I borrowed from Wikipedia's featured article template and came up with User:Wrh2/Sandbox, which is an example using two 20 pixel icons in the title bar (although it could be done with one, three, ten, whatever). Unfortunately I can't figure out an easy way to make it so that clicking on the image leads to the Wikitravel:Star articles or Previously Off the beaten path pages, but at least the mouseover can explain what the icon is for.

If this is of interest and someone is willing to make appropriate icons it should be easy to throw together a couple of templates that actually implement this - I'm imagining something like {{title icons|{{star}}|{{otbp}}|{{pcotw}}}}, where the "status icons" template handles all of the CSS and the "star", "otbp", etc are their own templates that simply display the image. Feedback much appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:10, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Strip out the extra braces and just do {{title icons|star|otbp}} etc -- you can invoke the templates in Template:Title icons. Jpatokal 02:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've put together a totally-untested and definitely broken suggested template layout on my sandbox page. I'm not a fan of having a lot of disclaimer boxes on articles ("this is a star! and it was a previous destination of the month!") so icons would seem to be an unobtrusive way to easily convey a lot of information about an article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:03, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I've cobbled together some sample templates that actually implement this functionality, and they are implemented on User:Wrh2/Sandbox. The template code still needs to be cleaned up a bit, but I don't want to do too much work until there is some agreement that these sorts of icons are actually something we want to start using. If we do want to add icons for previous DOTM, previous OTBP, previous COTW, and star articles then it would be good to have better icons - I just grabbed a couple from commons, but I don't think that they are iconic enough to make sense to a new user. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:16, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes for DotM/OTBP, Yes for Stars, Maybe for Guides, No for everything else. I particularly don't think that previous collaborations should be tagged in the article page. That is what the talk pages are for. — Ravikiran 01:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

The Italians are sneaky. Clicking on an icon should now go to the appropriate page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:32, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

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

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

Ryan, thanks for efforts. The icons seem fine, and I particular like the global design. WindHorse 01:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

So then should we use a good ol banner for the current DOTM/OTBP's, and icons for the previous's? I agree those icons aren't bad, and if you think you can come up with something more iconic, that would be great too  :) – cacahuate ^talk 02:29, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a banner is necessary, adding to the front page already gives plenty of exposure. Jpatokal 04:15, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm working on some designs for icons. I have a set that are based on the Wikitravel compass-star logo, and some others that are not quite as distinctly Wikitravelly. - Todd VerBeek 09:15, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Very cool. CSS I can do, but icons - not so much. I'll take a stab at simplifying the template code a bit later tonight if I get a chance, although anyone who wants to is obviously welcome to make modifications.

As a side note, there seems to be support for tagging DOTM, OTBP and star articles with an icon in the status bar. Ravi indicated he doesn't want to tag COTW articles, and I don't think guide articles should be tagged since we don't currently have a standardized way of gaining consensus for what is actually at "guide" status. There was also a brief mention of tagging articles with docents - is there anything else that we would or would not want to tag? -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:29, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Docents already have a box in the left margin which I think is sufficient.... agree not to tag guides or COTW... I think it should sort of be an awards section... articles that have been highlighted because of their greatness... which would be stars, dotms and otbps... – cacahuate ^talk 20:41, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

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

• • Hey Todd, thanks for your efforts. Comments: They are all pretty cool. Preferences: DOtM, OtBT line C and D both have a simple design, but clear indication of their meaning. They both get my vote (with no preference for one over the other). WindHorse 23:14, 20 June 2007 (EDT) Whoops, forgot to vote for the star. I'll follow Bill's lead - 2.
  • Agreed, thanks, they're all well thought out. I prefer star #2 (4-pointed star lines up with our master logo) and DotM/OtBP D. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 00:03, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Nice work! I didn't think it was possible to come up with a tiny icon that says dotm or otbp, but you managed a couple good options. I also like C and D... C is more WT style, yet D is slightly more obvious in illustrating the point. I like all of the stars, but would lean towards one of the 5 pointed ones... 1 and 3 are probably my faves... #2 wouldn't make me think "star" immediately. – cacahuate ^talk 01:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I'll add in another vote for C and 1. D is too un-Wikitravely, and 2 onwards are barnstars, not Stars. Jpatokal 02:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Disclaimer: I've got the artistic sense of a rock, so I'm going for what hopefully will pass as constructive criticism; please don't view these comments as anything that would hold up determining that a consensus has been reached. That said, to me E looks the most interesting, but I don't think it passes the obviousness test. Would it be possible to utilize the idea for B (arrows made from the logo elements) and combine them with E (arrows towards or away from a destination)? It seems like that would achieve both the goals of re-using a common icon theme and conveying a message of function to a user. And thanks for putting these together! It's awesome how the varied talents around here lead to a fairly well-rounded guide. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Bump! It would be nice to get this implemented in the near future - any additional comment? We can always change the icons later if desired, so it wouldn't be too terrible to just start marking former DOTM, OTBP and star articles if there is some agreement to do so. The consensus seems to be towards tagging the articles, so any additional comments? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, let's do it! Coming back to it now a few days later I think C and 1 are still the best. – cacahuate ^talk 19:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I like 1 (good fit with the Wikitravel theme) and 4 (simple, like a star-shaped link), and E/G, now that the colors are within our range. I like the map-esque feel and they're intriguing designs. I understand the logic of C/H (and prefer the color scheme of the latter) but there's so much whitespace in the OtBP - I think my first assumption would either be that something hadn't loaded properly or that the OtBP dot was a spot on my screen, not the site trying to tell me something. Gorilla Jones 19:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

So barring further dissent (and I still think E has the most potential) can we start this out shortly using C and 1? Speak now or forever hold your peace... -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

C and 1 are fine with me. WindHorse 23:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Me too. Let's just roll this out, it's easy enough to change the icons if somebody comes up with a killer design later. Jpatokal 04:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

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

Looks nice. Since 1 is more solid-colored (and prestigious among our articles), maybe make that the one on the right? Gorilla Jones 09:17, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

The order they're displayed depends on what order you specify them when you template the article, so we can't impose that with the template. (Counter-intuitively for non-Hebrew-writers, the first one you list goes on the right.) - Todd VerBeek 10:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Can we display the month in which it was OtBP in the onmouseover? "Off the beaten path, June 2006" instead of just "Previously Off the beaten path". I like having the month in there, for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning. Gorilla Jones 11:13, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Todd, the icons look great. Thanks for your efforts. Regarding, Gorilla Jones' idea. Can it be implemented? If so, I think it is worth acting on. WindHorse 12:04, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Adding non-uniform text would require some template changes - instead of writing {{title-icons|star-icon|otbp-icon}} we'd need to do something like {{title-icons|{{star-icon}}|{{otbp-icon|July}}}}. If that's agreeable then I can make the change tonight, or if someone has time during the day then please go ahead. As to the Hebrew (right-to-left) listing of icons, that's a bit more difficult to solve due to the need to use CSS absolute positioning - if someone else wants to try to address please go ahead, but I probably won't have the time to investigate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

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

What do people think about adding image:star-icon.png to the star templates that go at the bottom of the articles? - Todd VerBeek 14:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

That sounds like a good idea. Maybe stick it somewhere on the page that lists the star articles, too, just to make the branding consistent. Also, thanks, Ryan. Gorilla Jones 14:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the suggestion of allowing the month to be specified for previous DOTM and OTBP articles, the approach I suggested above will break all of the title-icons templates that have been added to articles thus far. I'd rather not do that unless there is a clear consensus to do so, so please let me know if specifying icon-specific text is something that's desired, otherwise I'll leave things as they are. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:37, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Agree with Ryan. It's easy to get from the icon to the previous-DotM/OtBP pages, where the specified month can be found. Let's not break anything for the sake of marginal added convenience. As for adding the star to the templates, sure, why not, but not urgent. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:48, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the idea of displaying the month with the icon, I understand Bill's point, but I'm inclined to think that we should set up the best format we can. Also, for both DotM and OtBP, we only have 49 pages to change. That isn't a major operation, and from then on it is one page at a time. As for the template, I have no strong opinion either way. WindHorse 23:25, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, don't let my haste in adding the templates get in the way of new developments ;) And I didn't do the otbp's yet either, just dotm's... – cacahuate ^talk 02:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that adding onmouseover text indicating the month it was featured would be particularly useful. While we try to put them on the main page when they're good to visit, those choices are very arbitrary and usually exclude a half-dozen or more other months when the destination is also good to visit. And more importantly, if a person who's already reading the article for Gotham City can't tell when a good time to visit is, there's something wrong with the article that onmouseover text won't fix. -Todd VerBeek 08:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Good point, and there are also other mitigating factors why a destination is chosen for a particular month (such as, not wanting to run too many articles from the same region in succession). However, in general, the month for which an article features will be one of the most favorable times to visit the place, and therefore I think adding the onmouseover function that indicates the month that the destination featured would be helpful to some degree. Certainly, it is not essential aspect, but it could be a nice bonus. WindHorse 09:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I can't speak to deliberations in the past, but it seems to me we're being very careful with month placements of DoTM and OtBP this fall and winter - there's been plenty of discussion for Albuquerque, Namche, Guinsa, Hiroshima and others to the effect of "that's one month too early / that's one month too late". I think seeing that Article X was DoTM in June would be intriguing for some readers and would lead them to want to find out why. It helps move them from a casual browser to an involved reader. Gorilla Jones 10:44, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I think you may be expecting too much to come from a simple onmouseover event. For that matter, I think debates over whether a destination should be featured this month or that month ascribes more importance to that decision than it warrants. Featuring Swansea next week isn't going to send people scurrying to visit south Wales before July is out. I think the value of picking season-appropriate DOTMs is to avoid looking crazy because we're singing the praises of Iceland in January, and to show people who may be going there around this time of year that we have good info for them. It isn't so we can plan people's vacations for them. - Todd VerBeek 13:19, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Icons into sidebar?

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

Why not (no idea from a technical pov though), it could guide people wishing to translate articles. Tensaibuta 08:38, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me too. Things promoting more interactions among the various language-wikis should be encouraged. How hard would it be? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

According to [1], it seems to be built into Mediawiki. I couldn't get it to work on my homepage though... Jpatokal 00:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

An example – cacahuate ^talk 00:53, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

A trial (css, js, template, result). MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js don't seem to be enabled, so I run it on my local pc. -- Tatata 01:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Nice job Ta! I think that's a great idea – cacahuate ^talk 04:05, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Single district as destination?

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

In this specific case, the coverage of Chicago is getting so good (with every prospect of continuing improvement courtesy of Marc and Peter) that I'd rather just see the whole place featured, the better to show off all their great work and present information holistically. That's the preferred general approach, IMO, but in cases where one district dominates the city from a traveler's perspective (definitely not true of Chicago), I could see an exception. Got anything else in mind? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:02, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

It seems that the preference should be to use the full city as the DOTM, although if there was an example where the coverage of the city wasn't up to the standards required but one district was DOTM-worthy then using the district would make sense. Similarly, if there was some timely reason to highlight the district ("April is the 300th anniversary of Poodoo's founding") that would make sense as well. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify things, I think that the reason this came up was not about making a single district the DotM, but rather the OtBP destination of the month. The district in question was Chicago/Bronzeville, which is very rarely visited, unlike Chicago the city, and actually is not even included in other guidebooks (except Michelin, I think). I'm not commenting either way, though, about whether we should do this—it feels like a conflict of interest since I wrote that article ;) --Peter ^Talk 19:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

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

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

[edit] Boracay Island: DOTM or OTBP?

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

It's definitely a DOTM in my opinion. Jpatokal 23:27, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

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

[edit] Phrasebooks as DotM/OtBP?

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

Chotto muzukashii. I dunno...I always thought of the DotM/OtBP as something you could see and do. Can you visit a phrasebook? Is a phrasebook a "destination" (hence the "Destination" of the Month)? PerryPlanet 13:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Discover might be a better place to feature the phrasebook. It is rather interesting to know that the months don't have unique names, but are simply numbered, while the first 10 days of each month is actually names. --Nick 14:53, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's a suitable DotM (and certainly not OtBP), but I wonder: do we have enough good-to-great itineraries, phrasebooks, travel topics to populate a "Featured Article" front-page item separate from DotM and OtBP? If not, how many more would it take? I like where Jani is going with this, there are equivalents on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the main page has been sorta stagnant for a while now and could use something new and exciting anyway... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:15, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Virgin Gorda

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

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

[edit] Talk

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

People are still thinking about things, and there's no rush. We already have destinations lined out six months in advance, so there's really no need to worry about scheduling these yet. The Disney World article generates discussion because there is obvious controversy, while there isn't anything unusual about a Banff nomination. People will comment in due time, but please remember to keep a long term view of things—that's just how wikis work. --Peter ^Talk 14:16, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the lovely comment Peter. Yeah I know theres no rush, but I'd really like some comments regardless. I am really trying to be patient. Thnkya! Keep smiling, edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 14:31, 18 November 2008 (EST).

[edit] 6mo

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

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

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

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

Anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that there's an unusually high amount of activity in the DotM nomination page now than there's been in previous times. It wasn't too long ago that we were struggling to figure out how to fill out the winter months. Now I'm not saying EE's idea is a bad one; it might even be a great one. I'm just saying we might not want to consider the current state of the nomination page as a setting to make a change that will stay in place forever. Then again, Wikitravel is growing, maybe this high amount of activity will continue? PerryPlanet ^Talk 14:43, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe people didn't find the good articles then or maybe there has been more activity on articles and now they are good-eg Dalton Highway, Edmonton. I think we could do this but if we find shortages, go back. edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:08, 6 December 2008 (EST).

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Scheduling discussion

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

I'm open to the idea, but the immediate problem that comes to mind is that this would clutter the page very quickly. We would also have to have an archiving process (which can be a pain). --Peter ^Talk 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I do think this could work, but what we should do is archive it after discussion is done. edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 14:02, 8 December 2008 (EST).

[edit] Asian

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

We've got ten times more people here in Asia than y'all over in North America, so pipe down and wait for your turn =P

Slightly more seriously, it's common for winter destinations to be in Asia, because (with the exception of a few ski resorts) the vast majority of North America and Europe is rather unpleasant at that time, and we have regrettably few nomination-worthy articles in the southern hemisphere. I've swapped Wake Island into Feb though and suggested Putrajaya for March (instead of Preah Vihear, which would mean two Cambodian destinations in quick succession). Jpatokal 07:10, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, Jpatokal,thank you. North America and Europe aren't bad in winter, it's just depends on what you want and usually it's better in summer, but winters' ok. edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:43, 13 December 2008 (EST).

Asia is quite a big place, and terrain and culture varies wildly across it, I don't see this as a problem at all... it's far different than featuring too many US destinations in succession. Bangladesh and Cambodia couldn't be more different. – cacahuate ^talk 20:11, 13 December 2008 (EST)

[edit] Qualification for DOTM/OTBP

The rules currently say:

• "Any destination, region, itinerary or event that passes the "What is an article?" test is eligible for DotM/OtBP"
• "All objections have to be based on the guidelines above: poor formatting, missing information, etc. Personal opinions, dislikes, etc do not count."

Yet Walt Disney World and, apparently soon, Wake Island are about to be slushed due to fuzzy objections like "it's expensive, very commercial, and lacking in any form of "culture"" (for WDW) and "it isn't open to the general public" (for Wake). I think this is unacceptable: we need to either agree to stick with the stated guidelines, or amend them. Jpatokal 22:26, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Hi Jani. I am still new at this and have a question about the DOTM/OTBP process. The nominations page states these are not valid criticisms:

"Wrong time of year" and "Wrong type of place." It goes on to say, "Articles are supported or opposed based on their content. Timing can be worked out later."

I am curious. Where is the approproate place to discuss timing, sequencing and rotation? This page or the Nominations page? It currently seems like the scheduling gets all wrapped up in the copy editing and manual of style discussion. Regards, WineCountryInn 23:56, 15 January 2009 (EST)

What that bit of the rules (which I wrote) is trying to say is that it's fine to discuss timing, but you should/cannot oppose something just because it should be in January instead of July. Currently scheduling is mixed together with nominations, which is a little messy, but there are no better idea at the moment. Jpatokal 01:28, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I slushed WDW since LtPowers wanted to reorganize, districtify and what not, as far as i'm concerned it was leaning towards a concensus to feature it. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 00:32, 16 January 2009 (EST)

In that case it shouldn't have been slushed, since that implies it was rejected... Jpatokal 01:28, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, where should it go then? Stefan (sertmann) 02:59, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I just thought it was silly to feature it as a DotM while there were still significant concerns about the size and scope of the article (as seen in the star nomination), because then once we did get it fleshed out we wouldn't be able to feature the improved article(s) as a DotM. LtPowers 08:11, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I think WDW is fine to slush, it can be renominated once it's been sorted out, same as a star nom. I do however think that it's time to revise the criteria for dotm, since it's now being taken so literally. At the moment I could kick ass on the Fresno page and nominate it and well, it meets the criteria, so...

For Wake Island, I'm not trying to be ridiculous and say it's the end of the world if we feature it, but I just really don't see how I'm the only one objecting to it. Very difficult to get to, in my world, means you have to apply weeks ahead of time for a permit, travel 19 hours in a bus, hike through a cave, send smoke signals to the village elder, then hop into the village on one leg to avoid offending the women... all that I'm cool with. But if you can only visit Wake Island by emergency landing or getting a job there, I think we've crossed the line of reason, and I think it looks like we're desperate and short on good articles to feature – cacahuate ^talk 13:07, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I think rather than "we're short on good articles to feature", having a place like Wake Island as a featured article instead demonstrates the depth of articles that are on Wikitravel. What other travel guide would include articles about such obscure destinations? As to the quality of the article for an OTBP, it is:

• Interesting.
• Well-written.
• Complete.

To me, that's the type of article we WANT to feature. The fact that it is next-to-impossible (currently) for a non-employee to visit Wake does not make this article any less great - it is an enjoyable read, and perhaps we may inspire someone to visit one day, either as an employee or after it becomes easier to get there. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Obviously we can both be right, but I would like to believe that people would look at the front page and think, "Wake island? what the hell is that" click on it and go "wow, that's pretty amazing information for a place that is off limits" (And in my dreams promptly go update the most obscure place they know of) --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 13:36, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I think those are all arguments for why it qualifies for an article, and why maybe it qualifies for guide or star status... but not why it should be featured as a dotm (which implies that you should go there, when in fact you can't)... but I'm clearly in the minority so I'll bow to consensus :) – cacahuate ^talk 03:39, 18 January 2009 (EST)

At the risk of inflicting further trauma on a long-dead horse, the criteria on the Previously Off the beaten path page are simply "Off the beaten path is a showcase article about a lesser-known or unusual travel destination, selected monthly by Wikitravel's users." My understanding has always been that we aren't necessarily saying "you should go there", but we are saying "this would be a great place to go, and here's a great article about it". If (for example) the South Pole article was updated to guide status (if that's even possible) then I think that would be another great OTBP nomination, despite the fact that you either have to get a job with Raytheon, the NSF, or have hundreds of thousands of dollars to set up an expedition to visit; we don't necessarily have to feature places that are regularly visited, but can instead mix in a few destinations that inspire people with the possibilities for travel, even if those destinations are out of reach for the vast majority. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:29, 18 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] Uh-oh

We're a little short on dotm noms, mkay???? Can someone write up a good article on a large destination this afternoon and nominate it please? Slackers – cacahuate ^talk 12:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

That's because Boracay and Walt Disney World were just pulled out of the queue. Boracay is almost ready to go, the Eat/Sleep sections just need a little TLC... Jpatokal 03:21, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Good job with the map, should we put it back on schedule for feb then?

[edit] Optimal dotm areas

The project page states in the criteria for dotm candidates that, The nominated article should not cover too large a subject (e.g. "India" or even "Indiana"). My suggestion that we feature Northern Territory would violate this criterion. But what is the reasoning behind this policy? If we had a fantastic guide to Indiana (we don't), I think that could make for a perfectly fine dotm/otbp feature. That could apply for countries as well—if we actually had any countries at guide status. This hasn't come up in the past for the simple reason that until Northern Territory, we lacked a single region article at guide status. --Peter ^Talk 11:26, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I think I wrote that way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, but you're right, as long as the article is up to snuff I don't see much reason for it. Jpatokal 11:43, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I think that countries, states, and regions would be fine to feature as long as they meet the other requirements. A lot of people plan trips that way anyway. They first look at the country and then a region of the country and plan all of their travels within that area. Perhaps it will also encourage people to update/add to the broader categories... ChubbyWimbus 00:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] August scheduling

Moving this debate off the main page -- while I have nothing against either Okayama or Hamamatsu, I think having two Japanese DotMs almost back-to-back is a bit too much, and that the steam bath of August is a dreadful time for any Japanese city. Edmonton's flaws are not fatal or unfixable, and August is a good time for it, so I'd be tempted to push for that instead. Jpatokal 07:17, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't have a problem with that timing. There's a month between them, and there won't have been a Japanese DoTM or OtBP for more than a year prior to August. In the overall scheme of things, that's not excessive. We shouldn't get in the habit of scheduling articles until they're ready. Gorilla Jones 09:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Okayama lead pic

IMHO the top pic is superior both photographically and informatively. It's not "dead", it's showing a Japanese garden that still looks quite striking even in winter, while the 2nd could be from any old boring park. Jpatokal 02:55, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I see what you're saying; you won't see a picture like the first one in another guide, and perhaps the one I uploaded is stereotypical... As the lead pic, I felt it should be presented at its best, to look appealing. I don't think the first picture is really any more "Japanese" than the second one (they were taken from exactly the same spot). The only difference in them is that the grass is dead in the first and green in the second. It's not a sand garden. I have a lot of other pictures, but the grass will be green in all of them, as well, because they were all taken the same day. The castle picture looks nicer, but the grass is dead there also, and the Saijo Inari picture is not dead but it is grey and brown. A green garden adds color to the page and makes it appealing. I honestly thought the picture posted prior to the new one was fine. Where did it go? ChubbyWimbus 03:20, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

It's still on Wikitravel Shared, and can still be used. If you go back into the page history, such as here, you'll see it. I strongly prefer the top garden pic. Forget for a moment whether the plants are alive or dead — there's so much dead space in the bottom pic, which is dominated by that pond, and it's barely distinguishable from the trees, so more than two thirds of the photo is an amorphous forest green mass. (It looks a lot better at full size — some good photos just don't work well as thumbnails.) The top pic shows the activity of the gardeners through the interplay of shapes, and has a much broader range of colors. Gorilla Jones 08:27, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Certainly the top one is more dynamic and a better photograph from a compositional point of view, but does it accurately represent the destination to the traveler? LtPowers 09:40, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Certainly, if you go in winter. Jpatokal 10:06, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure that it necessarily does reflect how the garden looks, though. This garden is much more open than most Japanese gardens. Those who visit during the winter will be treated to dead lillies, dead trees, a small barren plot of farming soil, tropical-looking plants that may still look appealing, the buildings, this view, and a sea of dead grass. It's hard for me to overlook all that... People who visit gardens do not really want to see any of that. I agree that the picture IS more dynamic; the angle is good, but I think it is deceptive. I visited Ritsurin Park in Takamatsu in January, which is a lot less open and full of green pines, but even so, there are many places where I thought to myself, "This would look really beautiful in the summer." Deciding to visit Korakuen Garden during this time is a decision that must be weighed against the fact that you will only get to see an outline of how beautiful the garden will be later. I'm not necessarily thrilled with my picture as a thumbnail, either, but I would prefer something a little more appealing. Does anybody else have photos of this garden? ChubbyWimbus 12:21, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I think you're overstating the extent to which the garden is diminished in the winter. It's not a sea of death. I've only been to Korakuen once, in cherry blossom season, and my photos look nothing like either of the above. (They're not worth uploading, though: [2]) The season is part of the experience. I've been to Shukkeien in Hiroshima in every season, and it's no less beautiful in the winter. Hama-Rikyu in Tokyo was also lovely in both seasons I saw it. Gorilla Jones 14:37, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

The top image has much better color contrast, more interesting composition, and does look more unique than the latter, which is overwhelmingly green and static. IMO, questions of representativeness are a lot less important when choosing a DotM photo for the Main Page. That's our portal, not our guide, and style should trump substance (not to say that I think either has more substance than the other)—the point is just to catch a viewers eye and get them to click the link. --Peter ^Talk 16:06, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Oh, for the front page the top pic is far superior, I think. =) LtPowers 16:16, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

For someone who has the chance to see a garden in different seasons, the winter may be interesting and would certainly be easier to appreciate. If it's a one-shot deal, I don't think many people would feel that it looks best in the winter. This picture came from the Japanese version of the Wikitravel Okayama page. What if this picture (the first) is used for the Main Page and a different picture were used on the actual Okayama page? I know I'm putting up quite a fuss, but I don't HATE the first picture; I agree with everything people are saying about the contrasts and such... I would just like something showing the garden at its best. ChubbyWimbus 17:42, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I just created a Flickr account and uploaded some of my nicer photos of the garden (ignore the random museum picture). This way you can browse through the album and say what you like (if anything) rather than me uploading random photos to try out [3]. ChubbyWimbus 18:19, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

How's this for a compromise: we put the winter pic in the lead and the DOTM, but we add a summer pic or two into the park section of the article? Jpatokal 22:58, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't be against that. Although the city has a lot more to offer than just the garden, it is by far the most well known and most popular attraction here so two pictures probably wouldn't be overkill. With that, I have a question (and follow-up): The first being whether or not people think the compromise is necessary or if everyone would prefer that picture stand alone. If the consensus is that the first picture is best without any others, I'll respect the consensus. I don't want people to think they have to add another photo on account of me being difficult; Even when I disagree, I've always respected consensus/policy (once I'm aware of their existence) and I don't want to be unreasonable. If it is agreed to add another picture, what picture do you want to use? ChubbyWimbus 01:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

If adding another photo for the parks section, I'd suggest one that is pretty different from the lead. One of the castle(?) would be good—I like this one best [4] (the other's sky is too bleached). --Peter ^Talk 02:35, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

I've posted the picture you suggested on the page. I wish the quality was a little better, but does it look right on the page? ChubbyWimbus 16:22, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Colorado Wine Country press release

I'm pretty sure this is the first time we've had a press release dedicated to a Wikitravel DOTM:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/07/prweb2684934.htm

Might be worth linking in from "Welcome, business owners" etc as a showcase? Jpatokal 01:22, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

• Thanks, Jani. I do have to ask, has Wikitravel formulated a policy about third party press releases? I looked everywhere on the Web site and found nothing. Is this something that the community needs to address? Looking forward to Aug 1. WineCountryInn 18:12, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

As long as the third party clarifies its relationship to Wikitravel in the press release, I can't see how there would be any concerns. Speaking only for myself, I think yours was terrific, marks a unique highlight in this site's history, and should be held up as a model for anyone else who'd like to do something similar. Gorilla Jones 18:18, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Wow, thanks, Gorilla. I appreciate the feedback! WineCountryInn 18:27, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Require Wikitravel Format

I don't know if this is already a requirement or not, but it is not often mentioned as a reason for not supporting a destination however, I think it would be useful to require articles to use proper formatting before they are featured. Right now Kanazawa, Olomouc, and Frankfurt are all up for nomination and are close, but they are not properly formatted. The issues brought up against these are mostly related to formatting (lacking addresses, etc.), because I think users would add the information in the "Edit"/"Add listing" if it were there, but it is too easy to forget these things when the pages simply mimic Wikitravel format.

DotM/OtBP are often the only place an article receives critique (aside from collaborations) prior to star nomination, so it would be helpful to use this as an opportunity to mold articles into exactly what Wikitravel wants them to be. If formatting were something we looked for when considering a nomination, I think these other problems would also be easier to detect and correct. It would also assure that exemplary articles are being featured and push them all closer to star status at the same time. ChubbyWimbus 22:19, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Whooops, hadn't seen this one. Anyways. While I do see your point, we have many legacy articles written before the new format was introduced, featuring any of those would require a fair bit of work. While this is OK for personal hobby horses like Chicago, Helsinki recent Bali or my own Copenhagen. I can see situations where such a policy would discourage from nominating perfectly good articles, on the basis that you don't really want to spend hours upgrading articles you have no real relation too, other than thinking it's a great article. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 16:18, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I suppose it may, but the nominator is not necessarily obligated to be the one to do it. Nominating a DotM/OtBP does not have as much responsibility accompanying it as nominating a Collaboration of the month, right? After it is nominated, if the biggest issue with the article was formatting, any of us could do it to get it featured. Because I know what a Wikitravel article should look like, when I see these articles that are not formatted properly, they look a bit sloppy to me, but if the formatting is the only problem, then there is no reason why it should have to remain that way... For Niamey, I think you started formatting it already. The consistency is just nice.

Also, featured destinations are a great place for newcomers to get a feel for how we want articles to look before plunging forward themselves. It is tedious work taking all the information and transferring into the boxes, but I think the end result makes the feature shine... ChubbyWimbus 19:52, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

While star articles are clearly designed to be exemplars, I don't think that's the real role of the DotM/OtBP features. Their real purpose is to attract new users—the vast majority of which will be people who read our guides, not write them. Something like listings format is, I think, too minor an issue to block a DotM nomination—what's more important is how interesting the article is. It of course is requisite that the article be good for it to be interesting, but the nitty-gritty of formatting perfection isn't that big of a deal. Whereas a new visitor seeing a cool guide featured to an exotic destination like Niamey is a big deal. --Peter ^Talk 12:00, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I dunno. I definitely looked at the featured articles when I first came to see how things should be, since I assumed if it was good enough to be featured, then it was good enough to copy. If we don't require proper formatting, then what does the "and listings/headers/etc. that match our manual of style." indicate in the requirements? The formatting is part of the manual style. ChubbyWimbus 00:05, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Having listings in the Wikitravel:Listings format isn't required for guide status (only for star status), so I don't see why we should require them here. The bit about "listings/headers/etc. that match our manual of style" was written long before we were using the new listings format (and actually, we still explicitly allow un-templated listings in the manual of style). IMO, it would be nice, though, to feature the star articles a little more prominently on the Main Page, in order to put our best foot forward to the world. I'll suggest this there. --Peter ^Talk 04:20, 1 November 2009 (EST)

[edit] Forbes article

Forbes is running an article on ten of "Europe's Hidden Travel Gems" [5]. Would some of those be good OtBP candidates? Pashley 12:06, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

They would be great if the articles were of a bit higher quality. Stari Grad and Meteora are still at usable. The former's not that far off, though, and would be a great OtBP. --Peter ^Talk 14:57, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Is Africa of the beaten path?

Swept in from Niamey nomination

I sort of feel like each country deserves to at least have some DotM-worthy destinations. Niamey and Agadez appear to have the nation's international airports. Perhaps Agadez is more famous, but that would still only give the nation 2 potential DotM candidates. With Agadez being unsafe (as AHeneen states), that goes back to just this one. Most cities in the world are OtBP, and to be honest, a lot of people in the world would not even be able to match Accra, Nairobi, Abuja, Addis Ababa, or most African capitals with their country. Our current DotM (Hamamatsu) is not really a known city outside of Japan... I know the statistics and facts will all point to Niamey as OtBP, so I guess the argument falls more on principle. If we just use the statistics, I think we sacrifice DotM diversity. There are only 4 African destinations in the top 50 tourism nations, and only one (South Africa) is outside of North Africa [6]. Khartoum would surely be a OtBP, as well. ChubbyWimbus 23:28, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I've added a bit to the see, do, & learn sections. There really isn't a plethora of things to do in Niamey. In response to ChubbyWimbus: I don't think something needs to be in the Top XX destinations in the world or even in a region to qualify as a DotM, i just think it should be a a place which attracts tourists or is well known. What little tourism Niger has attracted has all been near Agadez, and since that's practically ended, Niger is a country with few tourists. Even for Sub-Saharan Africa, most Southern/Eastern African countries, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, & the Gambia (I'm guessing) see more tourists than Niger...I really think it's off the beaten path. Even for W. African, there are far more popular places like Senegal, the Gambia, Mali, Ghana, Cameroon, as well as people mostly passing through countries like Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, even Mauritania (people driving down from Europe) and then Nigeria & Cote d'Ivoire have sizable expat populations and are well-known. Niamey even see less tourists than another OtBP nominee Arusha, which see thousands of tourists annually who are either traveling south into Tanzania from Kenya or are stopping to explore Kilaminjaro or the Sarenghetti(?). Just my opinion.AHeneen 01:48, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I do agree with you... Because Niamey does not actually have that much to do, it certainly reads like at OtBP destination, I admit. I guess my main concern is if the entire nation of Niger is OtBP, how many other nations would we also consider to be completely OtBP and where would they be? I imagine none would be European. Would we do that to Belarus? Or will it be Cameroon, Burundi, Togo, D.R.C., Central African Republic, etc.?

(I do appologize for making this such a long discussion. I'm really happy to see some African destinations that are actually up to standard and ready to be featured!) ChubbyWimbus 02:38, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think the UN data is a good metric for determining this in a neutral kind of way; http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Niger. Belarus nearly has double the number of tourist arrivals Niger has (and this only included organised tours) , and yes AHeenen you are right - every surrounding country except Chad has at least double the number of tourists Niger has (though Chad only has half).

In my view Dakar, Lagos, Acra, Abidjan, Tripoli, Bamako and Algiers are DoTM cities, while Porto-Novo and N'Djamena are OtBP and Ouagadougou is a border line case. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 06:29, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

OK, climate section dictates Nov-Feb, so I shuffled it in in February, not meant as a push to make this as a OtBP, if there is a consensus it's a DoTM we'll just move it over there. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 17:27, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

If we use the "neutral" way of determining what is OtBP versus what is DotM, we shut out a large portion of Black Africa. This is why the "neutral" way doesn't end up looking so neutral. Essentially, we would shut out half of Central Africa, 3/5 of Saharan Africa, 6/14 West Africa, and 4/13 of East Africa (None of Southern Africa would be shut out). Benin was not included in that list, and it is a bigger destination than Belarus, according to that website, yet I imagine we would allow Belarus a DotM. If Burkina Faso is borderline, then that greatly increases the number of nations that cannot have a DotM. This is why I think the argument is a bit beyond statistics and tourism data. Statistically, most of Africa is OtBP, but such limits make the site appear biased, even if the neutral source is used as justification. It seems like a slippery slope, but it's not as if the DotM needs to be so exclusive. Eventually the site will exhaust them, and I assume it would be at a faster rate than OtBP, which most destinations fall under. That's why I don't see why we can't just give each nation the courtesy of being allowed at least one potential DotM destionation. ChubbyWimbus 23:27, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Probably right on all counts, but, what's the problem here? so most African cities are of the tourist trail, isn't that exactly what OtBP is? considering the quality of our African guides I doubt this is going to turn into an issue any time soon anyway. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 00:49, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Sertmann. It's not biased to feature African articles as "off the beaten path" if that's what they really are. I don't understand why "allowing" each nation a destination that could be DotM is somehow courteous; there's nothing pejorative about "Off the Beaten Path". LtPowers 09:26, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

One more "me too". Vast chunks of Africa are OtBP, as are eg. most Pacific island nations and large swathes of Central Asia. Even in congested old Europe you could make a pretty good case for eg. San Marino, Kosovo, Moldova or Liechtenstein as OtBP.

All that said, I don't think classifying nations as OtBP or not is particularly useful, and being "fair" just doesn't come into this at all. Calling a place OtBP doesn't mean "don't go there!", it means "there aren't too many people visiting this place, why not check it out?". Jpatokal 09:48, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

What about the idea that at least the top destination in each country be considered a DotM? In the case of Niger, I think that would be Agadez, so Niamey would remain OtBP. I concur that OtBP is not a negative thing (and for some it may even be more interesting than the DotM), but there is obviously more involved in DotMs than simply not being OtBP, because there is support for Khartoum as a DotM, yet it is not really a major tourist destination. Hamamatsu is now the DotM, but it's not a major travel destination either (although it probably sees more visitors than Khartoum). Discussions have taken place before about whether DotMs should represent the top world destinations versus the top regional destinations. I guess this is a branch of that argument. Would it be so bad to consider the top destination in each country to be DotM-worthy regardless of how popular the country itself may be? What do you think about doing that instead? ChubbyWimbus 16:54, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't see what would be gained from doing that. Again, there is nothing pejorative about "Off the Beaten Path". Any policy that requires the capital of Nauru to be billed as one of the world's major travel destinations isn't serving travellers very well. Gorilla Jones 22:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't think it's a matter of "traveler coming first". I mean, Nauru has an international airport, so it's not as if it's difficult to get there if you want to go. It's not off the beaten path in terms of accessibility. It's just a matter of people not choosing to go there. Hamamatsu is only known within its country, and even then it is nowhere near the most popualar within Japan. I don't even know if it's among the top in the Chubu region. Why would Japan be given the privilege of having a DotM that isn't a major destination in the world, region, or even the country itself while entire countries and regions in Africa "don't fit the bill"? I'm surprised that people are actually opposed to having diverse DotM features. ChubbyWimbus 23:32, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Again, there's this odd idea that having a DotM-worthy city is a "privilege" granted by this site, while others must settle for the lesser honor of OtBP. What makes an article a DotM is the volume of travelers who go there, not that it's better than that month's OtBP. Gorilla Jones 23:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Then why is Khartoum not considered OtBP? Compared to most places, the overall volume of tourists there is... not much. The only stated requirements for DotM are that they must be "Well-known and/or popular destinations", but no statement is made about what a "popular" destination is. There are popular destinations in the world, popular destinations in South America, and popular destinations in the Gambia. We can all formulate our ideas on where that line is drawn. I don't know exactly how broad anyone is thinking, and there doesn't really seem to be any consistency about it either. At what level do we judge what is "popular"? ChubbyWimbus 00:16, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Travellers do not necessarily equal tourists. There are no tourists in Riyadh (since Saudi doesn't do tourist visas), but it was featured as a DOTM because it's a ginormous city and a important business destination.

And oh, regarding anointing the capital of every nation as a DOTM, I'd like to hear some arguments in favor of Melekeok (pop. around 250). Jpatokal 09:05, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

I dropped the capital city idea in favor of the most popular/visited destination in each nation, because it makes more sense and is also consistent with the DotM requirements. ChubbyWimbus 14:27, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] what results a DotM typically brings?

I wonder what value it gives to an article and/or to its key contributors when the article becomes a DotM? I mean, besides "1 month of fame" for the contributors--what else? Are there many previous examples when a featured destination got really a significant contribution during being featured? What other results the previous featuring brought to the respective articles and authors??

For example, I'm thinking on whether it's a right time for Lisbon to be featured. On one hand, it's quite young and immature--and ideally I would nominate it after I find enough time to contribute with my experiences from the recent trip. On the other, it's quite possible that I won't have enough motivation to contribute fast--but if DotM will bring one or two active long-time contributors/local experts, I would definitely vote for "release early" here. --DenisYurkin 14:58, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

I think it depends on the type of work that needs done on the article. If it is a matter of formatting, grammar, or something that can easily be fixed, an article could be a reasonable nomination. If you are looking for help adding content, organizing the page, etc. then it may be a better candidate for the collaboration of the month. DotM nominations are better for receiving critique on an article for you to personally address rather than for receiving help building an article. I imagine if others have been to Lisbon and see potential in the article, it could generate some motivation to make the improvements to get it featured, but I think that's a hit-and-miss sort of thing and not really what DotM nominations are meant for. ChubbyWimbus 17:46, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

DOTM/OTBP are meant for showcase articles, at guide or star level. If it's not at guide level, it shouldn't be even proposed, and I'd set the bar pretty high up for major cities/destinations like Lisbon. Jpatokal 09:25, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Can/Should Any Self-Sustaining Article be DotM/OtBP?

Although it states that disliking a place is not a valid reason for not supporting a nomination, the nomination of Franklin received some reactions that made me wonder: Is every self-sustainable article able to become either DotM/OtBP? Are there instances where an article that has enough content to support a page but should not be featured because it is too boring? ChubbyWimbus 03:05, 14 December 2009 (EST)

I am not sure the initial reactions to Franklin were ones of dislike. Rather that is was not a very interesting article. Surely a DotM/OtBP should involve an article which makes people want to visit that location? --Burmesedays 01:06, 20 December 2009 (EST)

[edit] February scheduling

Why the non-American/Asian stipulation for dotm? We've only had one American DotM in the entire year of 2009, and that was in February. And I agree with what I thought was the rough consensus at #Asian was that Asia is a little too large to discriminate against—a very different case from having lots of features from one country, rather than lots of features from any of 47 countries. --Peter ^Talk 00:41, 20 December 2009 (EST)

I'm European, it's in my nature to discriminate against Americans :o) More to the point, I was a little unsure about this one, central America is a bit of both so I just slapped it all together. But since Tobacco caye is in English Speaking Belize, I guess South American destinations are perfectly fine. --Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 10:15, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Asia is enormous, but if we'd have to split up the world, I certainly think it'd be nice to have DOTM varied across the different continents. As we have Bali, the Gili Islands, Vientiane and Nara in the list, and we had plenty of articles from Japan and the United States before, it'd be nice to have some cultural and geographic variation. I think you could be right about the Middle East though, I wouldn't mind having a DOTM from that region. Globe-trotter 09:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

I guess I'm not too happy with the newly added practice of stating no-X/Y destinations in the schedule. Especially because I think what matters more in scheduling is featuring the destination at a good time—Copenhagen this month made a lot of sense, D.C. makes sense for April, July for Bayreuth, etc, for the reasons we discuss in the respective discussions.

I absolutely agree that it's nice to get geographical diversity from month to month, but I don't think we should be adding definitive "none of this" lines in the scheduling box—we can work that out in a more organic and consensual manner, I think. At any given time, we don't have a very long list of guides that a) haven't been featured before, and b) would make good features, so I don't think we can be too persnickety. Case in point, the box is supposed to be basically full 6 months in advance, and we don't even have a dotm in the second row right now. --Peter ^Talk 15:00, 20 December 2009 (EST)

I think generally everyone has it in mind to diversify the featured articles, and we do as best we can. We have some unique nominations, like Khartoum, but it is not ready yet. I think I agree with Peter that we have to work with what we have. If someone could whip up articles like Tehran, Nairobi, or Montevideo, then I would definitely support them, but we aren't at a point where we can choose anyplace we want to feature... ChubbyWimbus 01:47, 21 December 2009 (EST)

[edit] DC Image

I am just wondering if there are any cherry blossom pictures of DC for the front page image, since that is the reason we are featuring it in April? There is no problem with the current image; I just thought that if we had a nice cherry blossom image, it might be better. I have some with the Washington Monument, but perhaps someone else has more good ones? If not, it's not a big deal! Just thought it'd be nice to coincide the image with the seasonal significance. ChubbyWimbus 00:35, 2 March 2010 (EST)

I've scoured the internet over some 10 times, and there really aren't any worthwhile free pics of D.C.'s cherry blossoms (although this could be perfectionism on my part talking, I suppose). I could try and take some myself, but that would have to wait until, well, we feature it ;) --Peter ^Talk 01:19, 2 March 2010 (EST)