Talk:Previous Destinations of the month Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Any comments on the graphical format? Should the calendar run in reverse so the latest destination is up top? One thing I'd like to fix is the excess whitespace to the left of each thumb... (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:08, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Looks good. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 10:03, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I like it. -- (WT-en) Colin 12:23, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)

One more thing I don't like is that a new user is likely to click on the picture to get to the article, but will just get a big picture instead. Any way to edit where a thumbnail links to? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:15, 18 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Tweaked the formatting a little more, but for the life of me I can't get Kathmandu's picture to align center or right -- it's firmly fixed to the left side, ignoring the align=center directive (while valign=top works just fine). Sigh. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:15, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)

Figured it out! This does the trick:

|| valign="top" align="center" | [[Image:Paris-eiffel-tower.jpg|thumb|none|120px|caption]]

Not exactly intuitive, but at least it works... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:20, 15 Dec 2004 (EST)

You should really change it so the most recent is at the top, it's more intuitive that way IMO. -- 193.24.32.39 04:49, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)

Erm, I mean, within each year section. -- 193.24.32.36 04:50, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)

Done. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:40, 1 Feb 2005 (EST)

The left-to-right, bottom-to-top chronological order seems counterintuitive to me. Since the top/bottom direction is backwards, it would seem more natural for the left/right direction to be backwards as well. That is, if I skim the page in standard western reading order (left-to-right, top-to-bottom) I'd expect them to go in reverse chronological order, with the most recent item being in the top left corner. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:19, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Is this page at the correct namespace? Shouldn't it be on Wikivoyage: instead? --(WT-en) Rmx 21:10, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)

Depends on whether you think this is 'another way of seeing travel' (ie. a list of interesting places with good Wikivoyage articles) or just an administrative page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:47, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)

I agree that it could be seen as another way of seeing travel, but since Project:Destination of the Month candidates and Project:Previous collaborations of the week are already in the Wikivoyage namespace, it seems like it would also make sense to move this page to that namespace. I wouldn't cry if it stayed where it was, but for consistency sake it would seem to make sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:56, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)

I agree, Wikivoyage: should be in front of it, so it matches with the other pages. The same goes for Previously Off the beaten path. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:37, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

I strongly disagree. The candidates page is in the Wikivoyage namespace because it's an internal process; this page is a travel topic that archives data from our main page. Collaborations are also an internal process -- though that one could go either way since we do list the collaborations on the main page. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:06, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

This is not a travel topic, it does not have the {{traveltopic}} and {{outlinetopic}} tags. I also don't see how this page could ever be developed as a usable, guide or star travel topic. Now this article has the name of a destination article. Project:Star articles is also on the frontpage, has a similar function and is in the Wikivoyage namespace. But well, never mind it, as it's not such an important discussion anyway. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:16, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

I think one could make a strong argument for Project:Star articles to move to mainspace as well. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:48, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

I think you need to make a case for having a different type of mainspace article then. As (WT-en) globe-trotter says, this isn't an travel article, travel topic, or itinerary. Personally, I think this is way out of place in the main namespace. Any travel site, guide, person, book can use our main namespace guides. They contain travel specific info. However, this is a list of Wikivoyage chosen articles, it is specific to the Wikivoyage site - so it doesn't belong in the main namespace. Wikipedia doesn't place its "good articles" list in the main namespace. --(WT-en) Inas 22:48, 16 November 2011 (EST)

I'm not saying it has to be, but I also don't see why it couldn't be a travel topic. Main Page is in mainspace but is specific to the Wikivoyage site, after all. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Arguably, some of what is on the main page should be on the Project:Project page, which is somewhat neglected as a result. Still, two wrongs don't make a right, and the splash page is easier to justify as an exception. --(WT-en) Inas 20:29, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Not being a destination, itinerary, phrasebook or travel topic, I still think this should move to the Wikivoyage namespace. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

And I am still unconvinced. Not having the travel topic template doesn't mean it's not a valid travel topic. LtPowers (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

This to me is and has always been a "meta" project page. I never understood why it would be considered anything else (an archive, a travel topic?). --Peter ^Talk 01:26, 20 September 2012 (CEST)

I agree that this is not a travel topic and belongs in the Project: namespace. DotM are part of a wiki process. While they do highlight travel content, it does so through short paragraphs and links so doesn't really offer up any real meat content anyway. Also, a travel topic is meant to cover one topic; this isn't a topic, more like a feature of the wiki. JamesA ^>talk 08:18, 20 September 2012 (CEST)

Yet we link to these pages from the Main Page; it seems odd to me to send new visitors into project-space so easily. LtPowers (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

I am wondering why we omit the descriptions at this page. I think they are a good way of making the featured destinations more lively. They shouldn't be too hard to add, as we have already used descriptions when the items were featured at the frontpage. The only thing is that we must make some changes to the design of this page. I'd like to hear more opinions about this. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:40, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

It's already pretty long. I kinda like the gallery-like format. Maybe you could work on a mockup? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:14, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, I am an idiot and I have no idea why Reykjavik is showing under October instead of November. Can someone please fix the table for me? — Ravikiran (talk)

Fixed it! I've figured out what colspan means! — Ravikiran (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2012 (CET)

A friend of mine who has been looking at the site noted today that it was odd that our lists of star articles, DOTM, and OTBP had clickable images that went to the image page instead of the article page. I think changing that should be uncontroversial, but I also wanted to make sure people were OK with using a template for these pages, which would make similar style issues simpler to fix in the future.

Here's the proposed template in action:

October

November

December

This template hides the somewhat confusing mix of table syntax and CSS, which should make this page easier to update and maintain, although for odd cases (such as London spanning two months) we'll still need to use wiki syntax. Comments? Barring objection I'll start putting this in place soon, and will make a similar template for the star articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

We should definitely do this. We already do on the Main Page for the same reasons. --Peter ^Talk 01:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since Wikivoyage was just launched, the list of features is rather odd. I know why it transferred over, but I wonder if Wikivoyage features should start now (with January 2013)? Even in the articles, those that say they have been featured have technically not been featured here. Start over with features? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This occurred to me as well. I think that at the very least, the tags should be removed from the articles. We may want to keep this list though, perhaps on a separate archive page, so we can be aware of what has already been done with these articles and avoid too many repeats.Texugo (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Strongly oppose. I think Wikivoyage's previous identity as Wikitravel should remain part and parcel of our project's history. We migrated the text from IB's servers to the WMF's as is, and we acknowledge the contributions of Wikitravel editors in an equivalent way to Wikivoyage editors, so why pretend Wikivoyage is a completely different entity than Wikitravel? Anyway, I don't see Wikitravel lasting much longer under IB's stewardship, given the fact that there's essentially no one left there to clean up after the spambots.

Additionally, I think that taking the tags off the articles would encourage repetition of past featured articles, and merely archiving the destinations featured under Wikitravel in a different place, as Texugo suggested, would not go far enough in counteracting that problem. In my view, re-featuring past featured articles should be absolutely discouraged (January and February 2013 notwithstanding) in order to give contributors an impetus to bring more articles up to Guide or Star status. Furthermore, newbies who may find their way to the Previous DotM, Previously OtBP, etc. pages can enjoy a treasure trove of really excellent articles, that would otherwise be less accessible to them.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Andre on this one. LtPowers (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that Wikivoyage is a fork of Wikitravel only by the literal definition of the term, not really in spirit. In my view—and I'm sure many others would agree, if being honest—Wikivoyage is a far more legitimate heir to pre-fork Wikitravel than post-fork Wikitravel is. In spirit, as I see it, we're not a fork—we're simply the continuation, under a new name.

In discussions like this one, I think it would behoove our community to proceed with that in mind. We are the community who put those Featured Destinations up; Internet Brands had nothing to do with it.

I can only speak for myself here, and feel free to take all of this with a grain of salt because there may be issues related to this that I am unaware of, but that's my take on the issue.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Our very first feature is a repeat and actually what made me think the project was perhaps going to repeat or allow repeats of all past features.

As an aside, if Dar es Salaam is ever improved, I hope it can be refeatured without regard for previous feature status, because by our feature standards, it should never have been featured in the first place. The article is long but the quality is dodgy. It was featured while it's "See" section is barely even a bulleted list, which I think is a shame. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Under ordinary circumstances, I might have opposed Peter's suggestion to refeature past articles for the launch, but I had to agree with him when he said the feature articles upcoming on the schedule at that time were fairly weak (Guadalajara, for example). Notwithstanding that, in my view, the extenuating circumstances would have to be pretty strong to justify refeaturing articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since we've switched to banners on the main page, should we switch to using them here as well? LtPowers (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Probably. Hopefully that won't entail creating new banners for all the previously featured articles that precede the banner era. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No; actually, I think we should start with 2013 and move forward from there. They should stack up nicely. LtPowers (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've put the banners up for 2013. What do you think? LtPowers (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure we'll have a new main page sooner or later, and maybe we won't need to keep creating such banners if that new main page will work differently so I think we should use the images as we were doing before rather than banners on this page to keep the things similar. --Saqib (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

But we can't, because we haven't been selecting main-page images that fit the previous format. LtPowers (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about original image size difference? If so, I can see different sized images have been used pre-2013. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Prior to the Main Page redesign, we used fairly standard 4:3 landscape format images on the front page, usually taken from the article, with a few exceptions here and there; the point being they fit nicely into a 3-wide grid. The wider banners we currently use don't look good in the grid format you suggest we go back to. LtPowers (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my late reply, but actually I haven't noticed your reply. What I'm trying to say is lets use 4:3 ratio images on this archive page rather than putting banners. --Saqib (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that makes more sense than what I thought you were proposing, but the problem is that we don't have 4:3 ratio images for articles that have been featured this year. LtPowers (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

What is ratio of London image displaying here? --Saqib (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

About 2.5:1. LtPowers (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It means images of different ratios have been used previously. Can't we take random images from the articles featured this year? --Saqib (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a good precedent. These banner images were carefully selected for beauty and strikingness; I wouldn't want to lose them. LtPowers (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Andrew, what do you think if we put two banners in a row? Below is the proposal in action but both banners need to be centred though. --Saqib (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

July & August

July & August

Shouldn't the page be at Wikivoyage:Previous Destinations of the month, given that it's not a travel guide? Jc86035 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:Jc8136. Oops! Jc86035, Actually your username is very similar to one of our outstanding editor. See Talk:Previous_Destinations_of_the_month#Namespace. --Saqib (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I seem to be the only one defending its presence in mainspace. I still think its odd to send readers so quickly and without warning out of mainspace and into projectspace, but I'm willing to concede to an alternative consensus. Powers ^(talk) 14:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Tomorrow it's July, and it'll be ten years since we featured an article on the Main Page for the first time. Would it be a good idea to celebrate it somehow? I wish I (or someone else) would've noticed it earlier so everyone interested would have time to think it through.

We could put Geneva, the very first DotM, on the Main Page for one day (just like the April Fools article gets featured for one day) but for that a banner would be needed. Alternatively we could mention the anniversary it in the blurb of the upcoming DotM: e.g. "CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF DOTM" in red letters. Or maybe an additional banner in the carousel with a "birthday cake banner" and a link to the hall of fame. Other ideas? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ypsi, I like your "1 day of Geneva" proposal and if you get broader support, this banner might do. I think it would be nice to mention Geneva as the first DOtM in the blurb, but actually link to the hall of fame. Danapit (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I second Ypsi's idea for one day of Geneva, and also Danapit's banner. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

No objection from me - I think these sorts of special events give a vibrance to the site that we sometimes lack. Please plunge forward. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nice that you like the idea! Dana's banner with the Jet and the lake ferry looks good (it's either that, the UN or the Old town, right?). And the article should be OK to feature (worked on it quite a bit last summer). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm going to take the above to mean that we have consensus behind Geneva as DotM for one day, followed by City of London on 2 July. Would anybody like to write a blurb, or shall we just use the one we used in July 2004? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of run, announcing competitions, having seasonal content and anniversaries content on the mainpage IMO is a good idea. I think it will help grow our contributor base. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Should "10 YEARS OF DOTM" be added to the blurb? Something along the lines: "Wikivoyage celebrates 10 years of Destination of the month. The first DotM ever was Geneva." Without it probably only a couple of people involved in DOtM planning will notice something is special. Danapit (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think we should add it because it's the point of featuring Geneva for a day now. Objections? ϒpsilon (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done ϒpsilon (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Have Tweeted about it too. --Saqib (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I had this notice posted at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations originally, but I'm uncomfortable placing it there because this situation doesn't actually call for a user ban, at least as yet. Nonetheless, it's something that we should keep an eye on.

121.98.129.198 is an anonymous user with no mainspace contribution history and an IP address that traces back to New Zealand, who made his Wikivoyage debut in quite the obscure place: adding pagebanners to Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path and Previous Featured travel topics with no basis in consensus. This bears several of the hallmarks of our old friend 118.93nzp, currently indefbanned.

Also, the registered account User:Axisixa is likely the same user - q.v. the revision history of Previously Off the beaten path.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I see the problem. Those pages are in mainspace and might be the only such pages without banners. Star articles, for instance, has a banner. Powers ^(talk) 18:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat of a tangent, but unless a block is being proposed, it's important that we focus on the edits and not the editor. If someone wants to suggest that an account should be banned because it may belong to a banned user let's present evidence at WV:User ban nominations, but unsubstantiated accusations should always be avoided - we don't want to create a guilty-until-proven-innocent environment. Regarding the edits themselves, I tend to agree with Powers that it makes sense to consider adding banners to those pages since they are in mainspace. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I reject the characterization of my post as an "accusation" - I stated already that there's no grounds for a user ban at this time, and that it's nothing more or less than a situation that merits our continued attention. This thread does not accuse the user of being a sockpuppet any more than the Telstra vandal abuse filter tag ("Possible edit by banned user" or something to that effect) is an accusation against any good-faith Telstra user who the filter catches as a false positive.

Nor is it "unsubstantiated", as these edits fit an unusual pattern that is specific to one user in particular. Perhaps that's not smoking-gun proof, but it's interesting circumstantial evidence nonetheless.

As for applying the pagebanner template to the Previous DotM Pages: if the community wants to do that, fine. The proper procedure for any user who wants to put that into effect is to bring the issue up at the pub or on one of the relevant talk pages, not to insert the template unilaterally without consultation. Furthermore, any edits made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user are regarded as block evasion, so if this anonymous user is, in fact, a sockpuppet of 118.93nzp, then it's irrelevant whether the edits he makes are judged by the community to be productive.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

It didn't occur to me that that user could be 118.93nzp. And for the record, these edits didn't really bother me. Sometimes, old featured articles lose their pagebanners, as they are deleted from Commons. We can watch, but I don't see a problem so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you reckon we could split this into three pages, sorted by era; perhaps 2004-2012 (Wikitravel), 2013-2019, and 2020-current? The rationale for this is everything on the map from March 2014 down has a 99 marker, and that will extend to April 2014 tomorrow. WV:Avoid long lists is a secondary reason.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

We could alternatively use a different colour marker for each year, which would put off the necessity of the above for a while.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I might actually prefer the second idea, as then we can keep all the DOTMs on the one map. The same proposal should be thought to apply to Previously Off the beaten path and Previous Featured travel topics.

Anyway, enough of me talking to myself. What do you think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

As a first step, remove the markers for the unofficial ones. Possibly, we could categorize markers by continent. /Yvwv (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I favour your second proposal. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Yvwv: You mean one colour per continent? That could work too.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

If we implement that suggestion, I don't think Oceania needs a colour of its own; Oceania and Asia can both use the same colour. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

But Asia will need its own colour.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

True – it might need more than one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dividing by continent is not ideal – it conveys no information but on our continent division. Colour coding by year or by five years makes more sense. But what about DotM/OtBT? That distinction seems more important to me than the year. To get down to ca 50 markers per colour we need to divide each (WT/DotM/OtBP) in two. Perhaps have three base colours and a different shade of the colour for about each five years (2013–2015, 2016–2020, 2021–), perhaps with old features light and newer darker, or newer more bright. –LPfi (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

We already have different pages for Previously Off the beaten path and Previous Featured Travel Topics; the latter one with different colours for specific and approximate locations. /Yvwv (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oops, tried to check but missed it somehow. –LPfi (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, so there are several proposals on the table. I'd prefer to keep it simple and don't agree that the colour of the markers needs to convey information (we don't convey any special info with the current markers, and that's okay). One question to pose about colouring by year - so 12 markers per colour - how quickly would we run out of colours? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Module:TypeToColor has a list of all colours, though I'm not sure which ones should be excluded. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Only 17? We'd better not do it by year, then! If chronological, we could consider doing it in blocks of five as LPfi suggested, or else geographically, either by continent, or by large continental region (e.g. Central America, Middle East, East Asia). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

17? I thought there were 21 (${\displaystyle line54-line33=21}$) and ${\displaystyle 21\times 99=2079}$ so we're unlikely to run out of colours and ${\displaystyle 2079 \over 12}$ gives 173.25 so this should last us 173 years. Now it's really up to how we choose to use the colours. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Whether 17 or 21 (I just counted them by sight and got 17), if we use one colour per year with no repetition that only gives us 17 or 21 years, and that's from 2004 or 2013, not from 2022. So the wiser thing is to use each colour for a larger group (e.g. a block of five years, a block on a particular continent/region, or just an arbitrary block of 99 in a row).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Though I suppose there's nothing stopping us from reusing colours once a whole cycle has been completed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

However, it's worth noting that there is nothing stopping us from adding more colours to the module – I'll add more if there's a general consensus to do so. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

We should ask ourselves what purpose the different colours serve. If it is just to overcome the ≤99 limit, then we should try to use as few colours as possible (12·20=240 → 3 colours are enough). If we use more than that they should also have some other function or obvious logic. Having one colour per continent or region is one possible scheme, a hint on how new the features are, such as closer to grey as we approach grey markers of pre 2013, is another, but there is no reason I can think of to have specifically a one-year resolution. The simpler the scheme and the less colours, the easier to grasp and the easier on the eye. –LPfi (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

As the pre-2013 features were selected on Wikitravel, they are not Wikivoyage features, and shall not be recognized as such. /Yvwv (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage at that time was Wikitravel. I assume they were selected by the same editors who do it over here (of course there are new editors also, such as me, but the editor base is changing somewhat all the time). We can forget about the post-2013 Wikitravel, but I don't think it is a good move to deny our history. I assume the threshold for features didn't magically change as hosting changed. Having a different colour for the "unofficial" features is OK, but I don't agree that they shouldn't "be recognised" (they aren't Wikivoyage features, but that's more of a technicality). –LPfi (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Maybe I don't really understand the fade to grey suggestion, but it doesn't seem important to me to declare how long ago articles were featured on the map, when the list already makes that clear. It also seems like it would be bothersome to maintain, as for the scheme to make any sense we'd have to "age" markers as we go (e.g. markers for 2018 features would currently be quite vivid, but as we get further into the 2020s they ought to become less so).

As it stands, I favour Yvwv's colour-by-continent suggestion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion is that we remove all markers from before 2013, as these were not featured on Wikivoyage. As it looks now, they are more highlit than the regular ones, which seems a bit counter-productive. /Yvwv (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I definitely agree with not drawing extra attention to them as we are now, but I'm also with LPfi on "not deny[ing] our history". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply