Wikitravel talk:Destination of the Month candidates/Archive

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Selection Process[edit]

Should we attempt to work out some sort of formal algorithm for choosing destinations? Wikipedia's style is that anything uncontested for a week passes, with the caveat that any objections given must be fixable (ie. "need more info on X" and not "j00 are teh sux0r"). Jpatokal 10:11, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

That would work. How to decide "ties"? Add them to The Queue and do them in chronologic order? I would also propose that no country shall have a DoM twice in a row. If the DoM is a country, then this rule applies to continents. This should spread the love around a bit. Do we allow for a special rule for really huge events? For example it would have made some sense to put Portugal up as DoM during that soccer championship (that is assuming the article is "fairly complete" and again nobody objects). I think this makes sense for truly global events (large soccer championships and olympics are the two that come to mind, there may be others). -- Nils 11:00, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Just wanted to say this page is a good idea... and I like the idea of "constructive criticism." Events should be taken into consideration, but it's hard to say what's "global" and there are plenty of places that would come up for the same month-- I'm just thinking of Aug as an example... I wish there were more months in the year! Majnoona 19:06, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

This is all cool, but I have another suggestion... what if we just take all the suggested featured destinations and use them? I mean, a month is a long time... we could use one for a few days, and one for another few days. --Evan 20:04, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Having a "Destination of the Week" was already suggested on Talk:Main Page, but I'm not sure Wikitravel has all that many "showcasable" articles yet... especially since thumbnails still aren't working, making the picture requirement tough. Jpatokal 23:42, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Destination of the week is not feasible yet simply because of the lack of really good articles. It's also a lot of overhead.... also I wager the average visitor does not show up weekly. We can always switch to a weekly schedule later, but for now I'd say monthly is definitely the way to go. -- Nils 01:30, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)
About events: Could be done with a simple "no objections" rule again. But I do think that the number of events of global scope is limited. We only want events that many people travel to, and events that are not repeated at the same location every year (because, frankly, we can really expect people interested in say the carnival in Rio to look up Rio directly). I already mentioned soccer championships and olympics, I haven't yet come up with a third example. -- Nils 01:30, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)


Additional criteria[edit]

Some suggestions for additional guidelines:

  • The article should be featured at a good time to visit
  • The article should cover a destination, not an entire region

Opinions? Jpatokal 02:32, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I agree on both points. "Why this months" is something I think should be considered: New Orleans is a great article right now, for example, but it would be silly not to run it for Mardi Gras...
I disagree on the second one. Regions are destinations, and I see no reason not to have Basque Country or the Ionian Islands be a DotM. --Evan 15:06, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)
How complete do we want the cities in the region to be? Clearly it would be best if a DoM region had at least a few cities with high quality articles so that people can find somewhere to sleep but... should all the city articles be reasonably complete? (I know trying to complete some of the New South Wales regions is proving a big task ;) ) -- Hypatia 15:15, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)
And where is the line (is there a line?) between an acceptable region and a too-large region? Basque Country I can live with, but what about Spain or Europe? Jpatokal 03:39, 31 Oct 2004 (EST)
There's probably a rule-of-thumb, something like "can see a reasonable amount of the destination in two weeks" say. Just a rough guide. I agree that regions should be able to be featured, although there seem to be even fewer really good region articles than there are really good city/attraction articles at this stage. Nevertheless there are definitely regions that are more than the sum of their parts, if you like. -- Hypatia 07:31, 1 Nov 2004 (EST)

I think we all more or less agree on this, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reason why eg. United States and South Africa were considered unsuitable "destinations". One attempt:

  • The nominated article should cover a single destination or manageable region, not entire continents or large countries

I don't like it though. Better ideas? Jpatokal 08:25, 14 May 2005 (EDT)

Procedure[edit]

So, I'd like to suggest the following: let's plan on making the DotM decision a few days ahead of the first of the month. That way, we can spend some time polishing up an article to a high sheen. --Evan 02:46, 1 Dec 2004 (EST)

Agreed. Should the 'deadline' for choosing be fixed at one week (7 days) before the end of the month? Jpatokal 03:30, 1 Dec 2004 (EST)

Smaller places as DotM[edit]

There seems to have been a trend towards the monumental lately: Paris, Bangkok, New Orleans, all huge cities. Isn't it time to showcase some smaller places for a change? One problem though is that it's hard to find small cities that many visit & hence contribute to... Jpatokal 00:52, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)

Requirements for pictures[edit]

Wikitravel's growing, our articles are getting better, and I think we need to raise the bar for DotMs a little too. I've just changed the requirement from "one picture" to "one good picture" — after all, this will be seen by hundreds of thousands on the main page, and it's not very pro if there's some blurry, overexposed picture with a tilted Eiffel Tower and somebody's grandma in front of it. Jpatokal 01:57, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Is that picture in Las Vegas? -- Mark 04:57, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)
Can you take a "good" picture in Las Vegas? An evil picture, I would believe. :-) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:17, 16 Dec 2005 (EST)

Winter destinations?[edit]

We're a little low on wintery/winter-escape-y/southern hemisphere destinations for January and February. Any nominations? Jpatokal 03:19, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)

Innsbruck would be good since there are ski resorts near by. just a few photos added to the page.

One week to go and Santa Fe and Kuala Lumpur seem to be the only viable candidates. Jpatokal 04:44, 21 Dec 2005 (EST)
I assume you mean Santa Fe (New Mexico). How much does it bother people that, as I mention in the root article, this doesn't look like a very good year for skiing there? I honestly think that it's the article of the two that's in the better shape (no pride of authorship here, no really...), but in this particular January, it may be a less interesting destination than KL, although it's still a great place to be a tourist. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:10, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
How about Kuala Lumpur for January, and holding off on Santa Fe (New Mexico) until at least February, by which time the skiing should be better? I don't think there's any doubt that Santa Fe will eventually be featured, the issue just seems to be a matter of getting the timing right. -- Ryan 22:16, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
Possible, I suppose, but I'd recommend the reverse, skiing or no skiing. February skiing at Santa Fe can be a bit slushy, and the switch would give time to populate the "Do" section of KL, which really should have at least something in it for a DotM. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:20, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

Additional Criteria revisited[edit]

Old thread, but something is bothering me about this one:

  • The article should be featured at a good time to visit

Problem is, during the "good time to visit," in many places it may be hard to secure accommodations on the spur of the moment. To use an example not currently being proposed, the most fun time to visit Albuquerque is during October, for the Balloon Fiesta -- but if you don't already have your hotel reservations many weeks before you visit, you may have to find a room at least 50 miles away (literally) and maybe more. It would be far more of a service to readers to put Albuquerque up as a DotM for August or even July so that they have at least some shot of getting hotels when they actually want to be there. This isn't a problem with all DotM candidates (how far in advance must you reserve hotels in the Falklands?), but for those where it is a problem, posting it before the "good time to visit" might be better. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:12, 16 Dec 2005 (EST)

Valid point, but how much before? How do you nail this down into a criterion? And if we're going to feature (say) Turin for the Winter Olympics 2006, then you should have done your reservations about 10 years ago...! Jpatokal 03:32, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
I don't think it hurts to feature a city while a big event is going on, but it also wouldn't hurt to feature it a few months in advance. Thus Turin may not be the best DOTM choice for April 2006, but anything prior and up to the Olympics seems OK to me. Perhaps the criteria could be modified to state that a destination should be featured during a "good month to visit or a few months earlier in cases where advance planning is needed". -- Ryan 17:02, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
If Turin is really booked up right now then there is pretty much no chance that we can feature it. I'm willing to pack the family up and spend a long weekend down there around the end of January to do the research, but if we won't be able to find a place to stay then there's pretty much no way. -- Mark 04:44, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)
If a destination is going to be featured when it is a good time to visit at least it highlights what to see, do, eat and drink even if they cannot get a bed. Besides, if you have to plan to go there, showing the destination on the month that an annual event occurs probably means it is the best time to visit and gives travelers 12 months to plan for the next best time to visit. Perhaps the criteria should be: a good month to visit to see annual events, or several months to a year in advance of a one off event. -- Huttite 05:57, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)

Nominations[edit]

Any reason why my Budapest nomination is getting deleted? This is the 2nd time it happened.

I removed the second listing for Budapest because it is already the third nomination on the list behind Belfast and Oxford.
Also, you can sign your postings by typing four tildes (~~~~) which makes it easier to communicate. -- Ryan 18:13, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

Deadlines[edit]

I see the deadline for the picking of Destination of the Month is a little informal. How about the decision about the destination of the month on the last day or the 2nd last day of the previous month and have a deadline for submition of a Destination of the Month candidate.Kingjeff 21:14, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

There have been several proposals for when to choose DOTM, with the most popular option generally being that choosing at least a week or two in advance is the best because it gives people a chance to finesse the article a bit prior to its being featured. Unfortunately the administrative overhead is sometimes such that it's not possible to narrow down the (often limited) choices within a specified time period, so the reality is that as soon as there seems to be a consensus the DOTM is chosen, and barring consensus a default is chosen if the end of the month arrives. -- Ryan 22:32, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

Special Events[edit]

I suggest that the host city/region/country of special events like a FIFA World Cup or Olympic games should be automatically be destination of the month. Kingjeff 18:40, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)

Well, Germany is hosting the world cup and I think all the major cities on here can improve by then. Even though there will not be a lot of tickets available then, there will be a the odd tickets available at that time. Kingjeff 12:04, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

There are a lot of "special events" going on all the time around the world... we've already had this discussion re: Athens and the previous Olympics, and the consensus was that, if the article is not up to shape, then it should not be showcased. Jpatokal 04:47, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

DOTM Candidates page[edit]

Should the DOTM Candidates page be cleared of at least of the old stuff?? Kingjeff 14:14, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)


I put what i thought was current and futre candidates under the line in the nominations sections. I know it probably isn't the manuel of style. But I thought it would be easier to participate. kingjeff 22:47, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)


The DOTM page looks much more organized. Kingjeff 10:22, 27 February 2006 (EST)

Planning ahead[edit]

It strikes me that we should be able to plan further ahead than just the next month. Simply saying

  • (Current month): Frozen Gopher, Minnesota
  • (Next month): ??

is an expedient, not a plan. There are enough places in the nomination queue now, with emerging clarity as to what they are good for, that we should be able to do better.

A six-month, rolling-but-not-binding proposal might make sense. It would focus some of the discussions, and also would provide enough advance warning to really spruce up sites that need work. At the same time, it would provide enough flexibility to introduce spectacular new pages that didn't exist until a couple of months before their ideal DotM month. Call it the "straw man" that people could comment on, as new, individual DotM candidates for inclusion in the straw man are introduced here. As of today (12 Jan 06) the straw man might look like:

-- which captures the current nominee list, reflecting recommended months for at least some of the articles, and allows the planning to advance well into the future. At the same time, if a super-cool alternative comes along, there'll be time to discuss it.

Would this work? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:15, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)

I'm kind of undecided on this. The good side is that it would reduce the current problem of having to decide a DotM at the last minute; the bad side is that I can foresee the list either a) becoming the subject of debates, or b) becoming carved in stone and the decision threshold is then just pushed 6 months ahead. Jpatokal 01:54, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)
Your first "bad side" isn't bad at all, it's the whole point. DotM candidates should be debated if a debate is necessary en route to consensus. By projecting the planning a little farther into the future, we get the debating done well enough in advance that it doesn't hold up the process of finalizing the chosen articles. Most of the time, however, I don't think a debate will occur; consensus will rapidly appear, as soon as there is a structure within which to achieve it. Maybe I'm wrong... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:29, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)
I think you're right. I've plunged ahead and moved to your system, let's see how it works. Jpatokal 09:53, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)

Right now I think Berlin has the only vote for next month. Kingjeff 21:12, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

I can't support Berlin, for reasons explained in the root article, but in any event, it's the structure that I'm advocating, not the particular places I use in the example (although each has been proposed for the month or time of year I put it in). -- Bill-on-the-Hill 00:19, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)

Was this a good idea? A dead quiet seems to have descended on this page which used to be the most interesting one in all of Wikitravel. People have started satisficing. Once one sees nice looking articles slotted for the next 6 months, he is not motivated to look for a better one. Jpatokal's scenario b) has come to pass.

We should have a two-stage nomination process. In the first stage, we shortlist articles. In the second stage, we choose a destination for the month. We continue to have a rolling selection process, but for the next 3 months instead of 6. The only major difference from the current system is that we have nominations for each month rather than the current strawman list, which, even though that is not the intention, makes it look like it has been cast in stone. We fix the problem of last minute selection by making the 15th a hard deadline for the selection. --Ravikiran 00:50, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're proposing -- are you saying nominations last for only one month, and anything that 'fails' is automatically cast off into the slush pile? Jpatokal 07:17, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
I think the "dead quiet" is a temporary, one-of-a-kind thing, arising from the fact that the existing list of candidates is largely serviced on the straw man. It'll get lively again when the February DotM goes up and we start thinking about the August addition(s) -- which is the whole idea, do the discussing far enough in advance to work out the glitches. Speaking of which, anybody got any ideas for August? :-) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:10, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

Hangzhou[edit]

So the first test case is upon us. Any reason not to go with Hangzhou in three days? The long-term plan seems to have at least quieted the end-of-the-month rumbles, although I'm probably going to regret saying that ... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:02, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)

Discussion Page[edit]

There really needs to be another page for DOTM. The page is starting to get to long and confusing. The current pge should be for the next month and maybe have Future destination of the month. It would make things a lot easier if this is done. Kingjeff 11:37, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

Suggestion[edit]

How about we use

===[[ARTICLE]]===
; '''Reason:'''
; '''Support:'''
# ~~~~

; '''Comments:'''
*
----

It'll help organize the page even more. Kingjeff 21:57, 28 February 2006 (EST)

I think the current system seems to work quite well. It seems a bit churlish to make such a swift decision on the selection of an article possibly 6 months ahead. Perhaps 1 month to make a decision would be better. DanielC 08:08, 2 March 2006 (EST)

If we do continue to select in advance, may be should go to

====April 2006====

====May 2006====

====June 2006====

Before the page was organize the way it is now, it was very disorganized. If we do it the 2 ways I've suggested, then I think it'll be easier to go through all the nominations. Kingjeff 16:21, 3 March 2006 (EST)

I don't see any of this as necessary. Lack of organization isn't a problem with the page as it stands, and adding all this stuff just makes the page cluttered. The current standard is fine. Thanks for thinking about alternatives, though. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:34, 4 March 2006 (EST)

Since DOTM are planned for the next few months how about we have months are the subsections and the actual nominations are the subsections under the designated month that the nominator wants it in?

====April 2006====

====May 2006====

====June 2006====

Kingjeff 14:00, 5 March 2006 (EST)

DOTM volume[edit]

The DOTM queue seems to be getting a bit crowded, with strong nominees jostling for position. This is a good problem to have, of course. But it gets me wondering if there's a good way to feature more than just 12 articles/year. Destination Of The Week is way too much, too quickly. And a Destination Of The Fortnight or Destination Of The Semi-Month wouldn't roll off the tongue very well. :) But what about having two concurrent DOTMs, such as one for each hemisphere (West/East)? That would provide an outlet for the inevitable volume of U.S. destinations (with Latin America and Canada getting slots as well of course) without short-changing Afroeurasialian destination articles. (And there'd be a natural tendency to oscillate between South and North hemispheres over the course of the year.) Doubling up would have the added benefit of making it clearer to first-time visitors that the site features more than just... whatever kind of place the current DOTM is.

For the sake of example, the queue could look like:

Thoughts? - Todd VerBeek 17:50, 2 April 2006 (EDT)

My biggest concern would be that we have lots of summer destinations, but many fewer winter destinations, so I'm not sure we can support two a month just yet. Additionally, as an alternative proposal to an East/West split it might be interesting to do something like "Destination of the Month" for more popular destinations (Paris, Montreal, Munich) and an "Off the Beaten Path" feature for places like Svalbard. I don't think we have enough good articles to suport that yet, but in the future it might be an interesting way to highlight our most useful guides and some of our more interesting guides. -- Ryan 18:18, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
Very interesting idea, Ryan! As I look at the current nominees, they break into the two categories thus:
Seven to six, which (1) suggests that there's already a rough balance between the two and (2) says we already have enough nominees to fill both categories for a while. (Not sure but what Santa Fe and Pattaya should be swapped, but it doesn't change the outcome.) Admittedly there are two or three of these that I don't think are quite in DotM shape yet, but they're not far from it, and the number of high-quality articles is increasing, not decreasing.
From a content perspective, this clearly looks doable, and it's a bone to throw to some of the nabobs who've argued that the front page needs some updating occasionally to avoid looking stagnant. However, it's a fairly substantial change in the way we do business that should be socialized more broadly than just on this talk page before it is implemented. If someone who's more fluent than I am with wiki markup would take a stab at a redesigned front page via the Wikitravel:Graffiti wall, with an "Off The Beaten Path" box added, I'd love to see it, and would help advertise in some of the relevant places. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:18, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
I do like the idea of Off The Beaten Path, and I think candidates for it would be pretty plentiful. A few current DotM candidates would fit, but it could also draw from other kinds of "smaller" destinations (quirky resorts, state parks, interesting towns) that probably wouldn't be considered for DotM, but which take less effort and commitment (and tend to be more fun) to write than the kinds of major destinations that DotM seems geared for. I've done a rough mock-up of the front page on the Wikitravel:Graffiti wall as suggested (with duplicate destination links added to fill out that space a little more).
It sounds like determining the difference between the two features might be a little tricky. Personally, I would consider Oxford and Pattaya pretty beaten-path destinations, the former because it's familiar (at least by name) to most English-speaking people and near London, and the latter because it has so many visitors (even if it's off the radar of most upstanding Western tourists {smile}). Hard and fast criteria might not be practical, but some kind of general agreement of what "OtBP" means might help. - Todd VerBeek 21:28, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
I also like this idea. The easiest split would be just by the size of the destination: if it's using the Large or Huge city template, it's a big place and thus on the beaten path. Small, National Park or Region would be off the beaten path. Common sense can still be applied — eg. in the lists above Yosemite is rather firmly on the beaten path — but this seems to work for the rest of the list (if Pattaya and maybe Oxford are shifted into the beaten path, which to me seems better anyway). Jpatokal 22:06, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
I like the idea of the beaten/unbeated split, but I'm concerned that one of them is going to be too far down the main page to be noticed. Could we have DoTM and OTBTofTM sharing a month? Or something? -- Colin 23:22, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
Todd's way of implementing this seems to address this issue well; check it out.
I don't think it'd make sense for Off The Beaten Path to be too prominently placed. :) - Todd VerBeek 12:04, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
As for what goes where, I pulled the examples above out of some bodily orifice, and they are not binding. The sensible way to proceed is probably for the nominator to give his/her opinion on whether a place is a traditional DotM or OtBP. That strikes me as more reliable than basing things on the template type, etc. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 00:14, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I like this idea. I had been thinking for a while about how to get smaller places as DOTM and this seems to do this rather elegantly. -- DanielC 08:23, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I like the idea, although if we're separating the I'd really love to break up the Main Page so that the "Project" parts are at Wikitravel:Portal or Wikitravel:Project or something. I know it's orthogonal, but it's been a while since we made a major change to the main page. --Evan 11:48, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I like the idea as well, but I took a look at the example and I actually think that both DotMs should be better showcases, either centered or moved to the upper left... I have to agree with Evan that this might be a great excuse to move forward with giving both the Guide and the Project more space on their own pages. This would allow us to highlight not only more than one type of DotM (maybe IofMs & TTothM?) as well as the Collaboration of the week too ... Majnoona 14:00, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
As an aside, I thought that the usual phrase was Off the beaten track rather than path. -- DanielC
An unscientific survey of Google yields 7.6Mhits for "off the beaten path" and 2.7Mhits for "off the beaten track". So both are widely used, but "path" more so. - Todd VerBeek 16:52, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
It all you Yanks!!! I tried it on Google UK and got 480,000 to 76,000 in favour(!) of track. Well, I've learnt a new Americanism now. -- DanielC 17:09, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
I agree with Maj that this could prove to be a good prompt to divide the main page in two, with more space on each resulting page for interesting new things. What would you call the "project" page? Wikitravel:The Project? -- DanielC 17:05, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
Wikipedia's got "Community Portal", which isn't too bad in my opinion. Jpatokal 10:48, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

Are we going to go through with this? If so, is it too late to do at least just the DOTM/OTBP split for May (and save the larger main-page redesign for later)? Part of the reason I ask is that Svalbard would be an ideal inaugural OTBP candidate, but it's scheduled to instead become DOTM in a week. Is Oxford ready to be the next DOTM? (I think so.) - Todd VerBeek 21:19, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

I vote for adding OTBP for May. Not sure that Oxford is really in 100% compliant shape, but it's close enough, and you gotta start somewhere. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:25, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

New Main Page with Dotm/OtbP split[edit]

Without further ado → User:Jpatokal/Main Page. Edit at will. Jpatokal 11:29, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

US-heavy dotmotbpiness coming up[edit]

5 out of the 6 shortlisted DotM/OtbPs for Jun/Jul/Aug are in the United States, which is a wee bit concentrated for my liking. I do realize that many of the national parks in question are best visited in the summer, but could we scrounge up a couple of more European/north Asian destinations? I've just nominated Hanover, which would be good in June thanks to the World Cup in Germany.

And I'd like to claim first dibs on the handy adjective "dotmotbpy" (DOT-mot-PEE). Jpatokal 04:05, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Jani, you perhaps speak Wikiese with an accent; it's obviously "DOT-MOP-pee". Think of it as though it's Welsh, where consonants can be thrown away or included at random. :-) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:14, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Maybe I've been studying too much Thai lately; some romanizations actually use "bp" for the unaspirated bilabial plosive (the 'p'-without-a-puff in English "spot"). Add in the use of a trailing "y" in some hilltribe dialects to flag tones, and "dawt mawt bpee!" in a sing-songy Thai voice sounds perfectly natural. Jpatokal 09:31, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Seriously, the problem isn't quite as severe as you say it is, because Penticton isn't in the US, but rather in Canada. (You were counting it as US, right?) The challenge, if that's still considered too dotmotbpy, is to find OTBP destinations elsewhere. The extensively-developed and -visited US national park system produces a natural "leg up" on those that is exacerbated by the seasonal issues. I don't think this just must be fixed, although it should be observed to make sure it doesn't become a trend.
All of that said, I personally would be agreeable to substituting Hanover for Yosemite. Looking to the future, we need more non-North-American OTBPs; thanks for getting Iya Valley in the queue, and may others go and do likewise. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:14, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Regarding the 51st state, mea maxima culpa (I even looked up the article but somehow entirely managed to miss that). Anyway, I just added South Luangwa NP to the nominations, it's also a summery OtbP destination. Jpatokal 09:31, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Again, I think the correct terminology is "mea screwa-uppa". Would South Luangwa work for October? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:38, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
I'd pip it ahead of Iya Valley into September. Iya should be nice in October, while Zambia's rather painful hot season is starting by then. Jpatokal 09:43, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Our coverage of Australia and New Zealand seems to be pretty good. It would be good if someone who knows these could find a couple of places from there for OTBP during the difficult to fill northern winter. -- DanielC 16:18, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
I'm actually struggling to find really good quality articles about things that are actually off the beaten track: Sydney and Melbourne -- the latter has already been DotM -- are pretty well beaten, as are Cairns and the Barrier Reef islands. I don't know New Zealand well enough. Jervis Bay and the Blue Mountains would be good regions to feature (they're not really off the beaten path for Australians, but might qualify here) during the southern summer, I may be able to get one or both of them to the required standard by the time December rolls around. Hypatia 22:49, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
One option would be Hinchinbrook Island. It's rather short though, but then again, I'm not sure there's all that much more you can write about it -- unless somebody can describe the Thorsborne Trail in detail. Jpatokal 22:59, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
Aw man, I was really looking forward to the Yosemite-vs-Isle Royale matchup. But there's too much Norteamericano stuff even for my tastes. -- Colin 16:41, 4 May 2006 (EDT)

Capitalization[edit]

I know this isn't a major matter, but in an alternate reality I'm a high school English teacher, and MediaWiki is case-sensitive, so I fret over things like capitalization. So, is it "Destination of the Month", "Destination of the month", "Destination Of The Month"? And "Off the Beaten Path", "Off the beaten path", or "Off The Beaten Path"? I don't think it matters much how people abbreviate them ("DOTM", "DotM", "dotmotbpy") because none of that's official, but it'd be nice to settle on an official treatment.

  • My preference is for "Destination of the Month" and "Off the Beaten Path". They're the names of specific features of the site, and this is how they'd be capitalized if they were the names of, say, books, movies, or nation-states. - Todd VerBeek 22:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Breaking ties[edit]

We're heading for a situation for June that's actually rather desirable, but will require some procedures to deal with it: there are two credible alternatives for DotM in the same block of the "Schedule" queue, and as it happens, that block is about to become the current one. This is the first time that that has happened since the inception of the queue. How to deal with this? Just vote? If so, where? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

In my opinion, both Yosemite and Hanover are fine articles, but Hanover pips Yosemite by the double virtues of being timely for World Cup 2006 and not being in the United States (see dotmotbpy discussion above). I thought this was already more or less agreed on and was in fact about to change the list to say so, any objections to doing so? Jpatokal 10:54, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
I don't think there's a clear consensus for that yet: the question of what this means for Munich in September and the desire to pair big Yosemite with quiet Isle Royale are still out there. Maybe we could set up a poll between the two candidates in the "Schedule" section, with a brief comment about why each arguably should be featured that month. Folks can then state "support" under their preferred candidate, with an optional explanation of why. -Todd VerBeek 11:24, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
I agree with Todd: this isn't clear-cut, and I have seen good solid arguments both ways. I personally don't have a strong preference as to which one "wins," but transparency in process is a good thing. The poll sounds right to me, if there's a consensus that the DotM Candidates page is the place for it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:35, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Gradations of "Do not support"[edit]

One unanticipated consequence of going to the 6-month schedule is that recently there have started to be some "Do not support" inputs (e.g. for Yosemite National Park) that may set up a problem in the future. Some people are saying they "do not support" a destination as DotM, when in fact they do not support it for the month for which it is presently nominated. There is a big difference between that statement, which simply implies that one prefers something else for that month and says nothing about the quality of the DotM candidate, and saying that one doesn't support a place as DotM at all because the article is not up to DotM standards. It would be good to qualify a "transient" DNS carefully, to make sure that deserving articles don't wind up in the slush pile. Suggestions on how to deal with this? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Would it make any sense to debate the article ordering right after the provisional schedule, and keep discussion about the articles themselves where it is now? Jpatokal 09:52, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
As long as people explain what they mean by "Do Not Support", I think we can put that phrase into context and ignore it when considering it for another month. But "Not This Month" would definitely be a better way of expressing it. I think we can keep the "this would be good/bad for Quintember" discussion under the article headers, but when/if we get into a direct A vs. B debate for a specific month, a "Quintember" section under "Schedule" might be useful. - Todd VerBeek 10:10, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

-

I am one of those do not support for that particular month people. Thought I implied that with the disclaimer "No real objection, but Hanover should get the nod" or whatever I said. Will rephrase to make my statement clarified. - Sapphire

Staggering DotM/OtBP change to different days?[edit]

Would it make any sense to change the DotM and OtBP at different times? So DotM would still change on the 1st, but the new OtBP would be introduced on the 15th. This would help keep the main page a little more dynamic. Jpatokal 23:18, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

  • I like the idea! I get a little bored of the Main Page since it rarely changes in a monthly period. Having it change every 15 days would be a cool change of scenery. - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:43, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Support, somewhat unenthusiastically. It would indeed be nice to keep the main page fresh, but it'll also increase the work load for the people who tend the page. On balance a plus, but be careful what you wish for; you may get it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:48, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

So, I'm going to implement this today and only change the DotM. Jpatokal 22:37, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

This creates the poetic coincidence that Isle Royale will go Off the Beaten Path the day before I leave for there. I'll probably have some fresh photos and an update or two a couple weeks later. :) - Todd VerBeek 09:42, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Singapore[edit]

Is it time to feature Singapore as DotM yet? To those who are surprised why it hasn't been a DotM yet, the reason is that it was nominated by Jpatokal last year, got unanimous support, but then he withdrew the nomination in August 2005 with the mysterious comment that "I'd like to withdraw my nomination and hold off on having Singapore DotM'd for another 6 months or so. The reasons why will become apparent in due course...". It is almost a year now and I demand that the mystery be revealed. — Ravikiran 08:19, 6 July 2006 (EDT)

I regret to say that the mystery must, yet, stay a mystery. However, thanks to Bill's 6-month queue system, I wouldn't oppose seeing Singapore DotM'd in half a year or so. Jpatokal 08:39, 6 July 2006 (EDT)


DotM for Winter 2006/2007[edit]

Hi

For the Winter 2006/2007 we are at the moment a little short of nomiantions. So if you have an interesting article please nominate it. Thanks, Jan 08:20, 10 August 2006 (EDT)

Eligibility for DotM[edit]

So, some candidates have been objected to on the grounds that "they're not destinations". I'd like to add a point to the rules to explicitly state that...

  • Any destination, region, itinerary or event that passes the "What is an article?" test is eligible for DotM/OtBP.

And there's even precedent for that "event" part of it: Expo 2005. Jpatokal 23:06, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Not to mention Black Rock City, which is more of an event than a place in many regards. However, I'm not sure that I endorse the idea of itineraries or events for DotM, although I certainly do for OTBP. Shouldn't a "Destination of the Month" be a destination? IMO the criteria don't have to be the same for the two categories of featured articles. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:16, 31 October 2006 (EST)
I feel the same way as Bill does. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 23:24, 31 October 2006 (EST)
I don't see the rationale here. A region is an unordered group of destinations; an itinerary is an ordered group of destinations. If regions are allowed, why not allow itineraries? I mean, the fundamental objective of the DotM is to showcase great Wikitravel guides -- if there's a great guide to World 66 or Svalbard (a region), then why not? Jpatokal 01:39, 1 November 2006 (EST)
Personally, I don't disagree, but remember that the Main Page isn't there for the sake of the "regulars" ("addicts"?); it's there to be the project's welcome mat for the new Wikitraveler or casual browser. It should therefore deliver exactly the information that it says it's delivering. Is a DotM a "destination" or not? What conclusion does the casual reader draw from seeing Route 66 as a "Destination" of the Month? Better to be clear about such things, even if it means relegating an occasional itinerary or topic to OTBP. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:04, 1 November 2006 (EST)
I think Black Rock City was a great DOTM, as was Expo 2005 - both are great articles that aren't covered by other guides. Route 66 seems similar to me - if we have a good article on Route 66, I'm not sure that the fact that it's an itinerary is a reason not to feature it. In this context I think of a destination as a "place you can travel to", and all three would meet that criteria. I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that itineraries can only be OTBP, but I don't see the need for it. -- Ryan 23:50, 31 October 2006 (EST)
I retract all of my concerns regarding this and I think a "DOTM" can and should incorporate itineraries or events. -- Sapphire 14:11, 14 November 2006 (EST)
I've plunged forward and added this to the criteria. Jpatokal 21:55, 24 November 2006 (EST)
I still don't like this, but it's not a fall-on-my-sword issue. Let's see what kind of articles Jani's wording attracts and revisit the subject now and then, to see if the outcome looks good. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:17, 24 November 2006 (EST)
The reason I've retracted my concerns is due to the Olympics, World Cups, and the Euro cup attract millions of travellers (Why don't we use the singular "l" form?) and can't be considered Off-the-Beaten-Path, If, however, something like R66 was nominatedas DotM I'd be less inclined to support that as "DotM" rather than OTBP. -- Andrew (Sapphire)

Past DotMs[edit]

As the months and years pass, this page is becoming quite long. Do you think it would be better to put past years into their own folder, like DotmArchive/2007. ChubbyWimbus 22:45, 3 August 2009 (EDT)