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?

[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)

[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)