(Redirected from Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the Month)

Collaboration of the month

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Collaboration of the month is a way to get many contributors working on one article at once, often to get it ready for an upcoming event or a nomination for destination of the month. While anyone can edit any article at any time, this provides a way to highlight specific articles allowing many contributors to help improve them together.

Current Collaboration of the month[edit]

Custom banners — park articles[edit]




This would be the third collaboration for custom banners. The success we have already seen with the first one makes me think that we should do more of this sort. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

343 park articles with the standard banner at time of nomination.


Think carefully before making a nomination. A successful collaboration of the month must be more than just an article you would like to see improved. In particular, it's a bad idea to nominate articles that lack enough content—most collaborators won't have intimate knowledge of the destination, although they can do style edits and fill in some of the blanks with very basic research.

Nominations most likely to be collaborative successes are those that have clearly defined areas for improvement, are of interest to a wide range of people, and that are already pretty well developed. Particularly good choices for nomination are articles that could quickly become options for the Destination of the Month, or Off the Beaten Path featured articles.

When nominating, describe exactly what you hope would come of a Collaboration. Explain why you think it would be a successful collaboration. (Not why you would like it improved!) Then leave a list of several bullet points detailing exactly how other contributors can help with the collaboration. The bullet points should be very concrete, and should detail basic tasks that anyone can help with. Collaborative tasks should be geared towards the goal of having a large number of contributors doing a small amount of work. Examples of good collaborative tasks include:

  • Listingify all the listings (A task that anyone can do in small quantities spread out over the month.)
  • Fill in basic details for listings (Anyone can spend five minutes on a given day to look up addresses and phone numbers for a small subsection of listings.)
  • Add images (It is easy enough for an interested collaborator to look up one image on Wikimedia Commons (or find one with a suitable license on Flickr and transfer it to Commons) and add it to an article in about 10 minutes.)
  • Copyediting (A lot of articles have issues with basic grammar, spelling, and style, particularly when written by non-native speakers. This is another good task easy to finish when spread out across a number of contributors, each contributing in small chunks.)

Take pains to avoid listing tasks that require either a significant committal of time or in-depth knowledge of the destination from individual contributors:

  1. research beyond basic information (like contact information for a listing),
  2. original writing,
  3. map making (aside from more simple region maps),
  4. devising new districts.

These are tasks for contributors with a special interest in a particular destination, not for contributors simply interested in devoting a small amount of time in support of the collaboration. If these types of tasks are to work, the nominator will have to volunteer to do them, or find someone beforehand who is willing.

Because a month is a long time, and we can get a lot of work done when many contributors are at work, consider whether the tasks for your nomination will take longer than just one week. Huge city articles can be ideal for nominations, as can regions that already have well developed city articles.

Use the following format for nominations:


This article has a ton of great content, but is poorly formatted, is full of basic errors,
and most listings lack addresses. Chicken will be the host of the 20XX Winter Olympics, so 
it would be useful to get the article into good shape beforehand. There's a lot to be done, 
but the work is basic and can be divided easily over many contributors.

*'''Task 1''' — rationale
*'''Task 2''' — rationale
*'''Task 3''' — rationale
*'''Task 4''' — rationale



We decide which articles to select for the collaboration of the month through discussion. To weigh in, add your argument next to a bullet point below the nomination. It's also appropriate to suggest here when the article should be featured.


This article has a ton of great content, but is poorly formatted, is full of basic errors, 
and most listings lack addresses. Chicken will be the host of the 20XX Winter Olympics, so 
it would be useful to get the article into good shape beforehand. There's a lot to be done, 
but the work is basic and can be divided easily over many contributors.  

*'''Task 1''' — rationale
*'''Task 2''' — rationale
*'''Task 3''' — rationale
*'''Task 4''' — rationale

TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)

* Tasks 2 and 4 are not well suited to collaboration, and the article doesn't have enough 
content yet for us to work on.  ~~~~

Note that objections must relate only to the nomination's potential for success as a collaboration of the month, not to one's own interest in the destination.


If a nomination has the support of the community, it can simply be added to the upcoming queue at a time deemed appropriate in the nomination discussion. Priority will be given to articles based on the strength of the nomination, urgency of the collaboration (with respect to upcoming large international events), and the goal of ensuring that we have a good balance of collaborations on articles from all parts of the world.


After nominated entries have been featured as the collaboration of the month, move the original nomination and other comments to Project:Previous collaborations and add title to tabled list. Accomplished goals mark with {{Done}} or {{Partly done}}, failed goals with {{Not done}} or keep with {{to do}}.

Move unsuccessful nominations to the Project:Collaboration of the month/Slush pile.


Current proposals (subject to change).

Month COTM
December 2019 Custom banners - park articles
January 2020 Population figures
February 2020 Listing coordinates - phase 3
March 2020 Missing geo tag and coordinates
April-May 2020 Link and phone formatting - phase 3


Population figures[edit]

2020 census figures: Many articles include 2010 census information in their "Understand" section. In a couple years, though, this information will be out of date and there will be new census figures. This could be something to work on. By the way, I just want to make sure this gets in the schedules, but I know it won't get on the list for many months yet. Selfie City (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

well obviously have a bit of time with this one, but has got me thinking. We could get latest population figures automatically from Wikdata. Could then have an in-text template or even a pull-down info above the pagebanner. I will make a few tests then could discuss options at the pub. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Official population figures may be meaningful in some places, but aren't in others... Be that due to arbitrary municipal boundaries, dodgy record keeping or other reasons... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, if population statistics are on a page but are in question or inaccurate, we can always remove them altogether. Selfie City (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
if we globally fetch them automatically? I remember adding the 2010 census figures myself to a few US destinations whose articles were otherwise quite bare... Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I am currently thinking of a smart template, can specify specific numbers and year or gets automatically from wikidata. At least that way we can keep a track on how up to date they are. Once I have worked something out we can discuss a task to replace, not just for USA census of 2010 (I assume that was the census being discussed, no Philippines or other country). --Traveler100 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
An experiment at the moment, but take a look at {{populationof}}. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
We need to take into account that different countries hold a census in different years. See w:Population and housing censuses by country. It looks like the most popular year for the next census in 2021. As it often takes a couple of years to crunch the data, we should probably focus on articles with population figures more than 15 years old, but except for a few rapidly changing cities 1990s figures are probably good enough - a traveller just wants a feel for how big a place is, not to forecast how many children will be starting school in 3 years time. AlasdairW (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I think some countries take a census every 5-6 years, more frequently than the US, which takes surveys every 10 years. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It usually takes several years for census figures to be tabulated and published. I wouldn't expect to see the 2020 numbers anytime before 2023. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Have updated {{populationof}} so when using wikidata states the census used. Template can also accept manual input of numbers and text. Suggest using this for all population references, not just for automatic update but also to find articles where population figures are stated for future updates. Task should be to replace all population figure text with this template. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Moved discussion about the template to Template talk:Populationof.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Over a year later, discussion has stalled about how to fix the problems with the template over at Template talk:Populationof; we don't yet have consensus for implementing it widely. The U.S. 2020 census results will obviously not be ready for a while. Should this proposal be slushed for now? Or does anyone have an idea for another direction to take it? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing star articles[edit]

Somewhat as a sequel to the current cotm, this came up in the pub and would require a lot of discussion. However, it would really help us get a very good selection of star articles, which could be better than they are currently.

This seems like a way to deal with the problems with star articles that I brought up in the pub, and therefore I would support reviewing our star articles to make sure they reach the standards they should.

Other related topics that can be brought up which are related include: should we change the star nomination process? Should we change star nomination requirements? These can definitely be taken to the pub as they have been so far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree this is a good task that needs to be done, I am not sure this is a COTM task. This should be an ongoing activity, as with reviewing star nominations, outside of cotm specific short term activities. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing listings for closed businesses, guide articles[edit]

Some articles have a lot of businesses listed that are closed. We ought to go through the articles and check that the businesses are still open. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This task should be covered by next months coordinate task plus the reoccurring removing dead links. That should catch most, otherwise there is no really good way to find these. Maybe this should be request for removing dead links from Guide articles - phase 3 However as COTM appears to have lost support this month, not sure we need any more nominations. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
No offense to contributors from the city, but I think some of it is just because it's Austin. I, for one, really have no interest in the city. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
But is a very active city, number of companies including Google and GM have moved IT development offices there.--Traveler100 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Really? Yeah, that's interesting, but what I mean is that there are no contributors currently on Wikivoyage who have any connection with the city. I just chipped in recently, though, and moved a listing to a district.
Looks like it is fairly successful so far as a COTM, with only the "Do" section "not done". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oklahoma City[edit]

  • Plenty of listings in city article that need moving or merging to district articles. A few district article currently at outline status that could be improved. Also could benefit from general update of listings in all articles and improvement to text on major attritions in the city page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding conversion templates to units — usable city articles[edit]

I propose a COTM to turn text like "25 km" or "3 miles" into conversion templates, like {{km|25}} or {{mi|3}}. For now, the idea is to focus on usable city articles. We might as well put it in the December 2019 slot, even though that means we miss a destination COTM for a few months, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

A good idea but this may be a very large task. Any reason for first attempting usable cities? What about star and guide status articles?--Traveler100 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
km in usablecity - 2106
mile in usablecity 332
You've got a good point, though keep in mind that it takes, probably, less than a minute to make the adjustment(s) unless there are many examples in one article. If we said it took an average of one minute for each edit, then 1 minute x ~2,500 articles = 2,500 minutes. 2,500 divided by 60 (converting minutes to hours) = (according to calculator) a little under 42 hours. Yes, that's rather a long time, I guess. So I agree, we should stick to a narrower category. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Also temperatures could use conversion templates. [1]. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Empty regions[edit]

Often come across articles than need cleaning up or are lacking information that are in this category. Are a number of reasons why a region article has not articles in it. It may be they just need some work doing on them and should be left as is, but often it is a sign of needing attention, either reclassifying as a city or park article or needs merging into another region. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to oppose this one. Rearranging region structures is something that requires a lot of care and caution and is easy to mess up. As you say, many of these articles need further work and should be left as is. Others should be fixed, but the right way to fix them is often not obvious if you don't know the area. Moreover, merging a region is not a trivial task – it requires a lot of cleanup of links, breadcrumbs, and categories, some of which often gets forgotten even by experienced editors. I worry that making this a cotm will encourage sloppiness, where editors who are enthusiastic about making progress in the collaboration may end up further mangling an already imperfect region structure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a really nice idea, but unfortunately, I too must oppose doing this one. Sometimes, region articles are empty for good reason. And more importantly, normally when we do this good task, there's only one or two region structures being adjusted at once; but if we had several different region structures being altered at the same time, it would be hard for us to keep with them all and make sure things were going as they should. Again, it's a really good idea and I think there should be work done on it all the time, but I don't think dealing with empty regions fits the requirements of a COTM well enough. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You both have a point with this, maybe it is too complex a topic for CotM. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Another approach to this is to create articles for some of the red linked cities in these empty regions, particularly when there is another language WV that has an article for the city. In other cases the fix is to alter the ispartof of the blue linked cities, which are often incorrectly part of the parent region. There are also some islands which should be be changed to city pages. So if we tackle this, then it should be on the basis of not altering the region structure. However we would probably waste a lot of time all looking at articles that don't have these straightforward fixes - an expedition page might help. Overall I could only very weakly support this one. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
An expedition page is an interesting idea. That would allow coordination and careful discussion about tricky cases, without making anyone feel pressure to make progress quickly enough that they might get careless. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I like the expedition idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Listing coordinates - phase 3[edit]

To improve articles' quality and usefulness and keep their City guide status, address Guide articles that have See listing with no coordinates.


  • For guide status cities with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 9 May 2019, 126 articles).
    • Tips
      • For tips on finding lat/long values see Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition#Sub-expedition: Fill all the latitudes!
      • Also check if there is a Wikidata entry for the location (maybe via Wikipedia). Adding Wikidata number using Listing editor can add coordinates.
        • Either search directly at wikidata.org or go to the city's Wikipedia article then the city's category, usually POI sub-categories with articles.
      • If coordinates are not relevant for a listing (has no single location, or is sub-listing of POI that has coordinates) enter NA in both the lat and long parameter fields.
      • Can see which listing do not have coordinates by lack of number at start of line. (Although if wikidata number added without updating the listing data it may have number)
      • If preference switched on, can also see at bottom of article categories for See, Eat, Do, Buy and Sleep missing coordinate.
      • In edit mode can find searching with "| lat= |"
  • Also take the chance to add addition information to the listing
    • Update website, phone number
    • Delete closed businesses
  • If article appears to be out of date and incomplete consider for changing status to usable.
  • If time also address guide status districts with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 9 May 2019, 62 articles).


Add coordinates to See listings of cities that are at guide status. Markers for POIs were made a requirement for Guide and Star article, see Wikivoyage talk:City guide status#Proposed additional text, a grace period was given until June 2019 before existing articles will start to be downgraded. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing geo tag and coordinates[edit]


Map icon should be on all destination articles. Also would be a good idea to have them on itineraries, will help with creating itinerary region pages going forward, like United States of America itineraries. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


English language errors in usable park articles[edit]

I think a good collaboration could be made out of fixing misplaced punctuation, rewriting poorly written sentences, etc. Usable park articles would be a good start. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to keep track of how many articles have poor writing and language errors. This makes it hard to create a target (e.g. improved 200 out of 500 articles with errors) and hard to implement in COTM. Maybe just an expedition would be better? Gizza (roam) 05:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Link and phone formatting - phase 3[edit]

Continue with task by moving on to usable articles. Moving information into listings to provide better functionality, such as click on number to phone, and provide more presentable and consistent formatting.

  • Web links that are shown as number, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference move some text into the link brackets.
    • To do links shown as numbers currently in 1262 usable articles.
      • Example inline text link
      • To find on the page look at the results of the search or put in your browser in page search field "[1]".
      • There is a good chance there is more than one link on the page not containing link text.
  • Email address that are hard coded in article, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference change to use {{email}}.
  • Identify if phone numbers and associated business information can be changed to a listing entry, if not use {{phone}}. At same time, if needed, edit number to standard International phone format. (Some search results give false positives).


Cleaning up guide status articles was very successful, next step will need a little more effort, maybe more than one month project. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support making it a two-month effort if that will be more helpful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Style fixes[edit]

There are currently 266 Articles marked as needing style fixes, a number of them guide article.


  • At least the guide and usable article should be addressed. Most of the tasks involve format improvements and do not need knowledge of or research into the location. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportGranger (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Updating the Collaboration of the month[edit]

At the beginning of each month, the Collaboration of the month needs to be updated. Any registered user can do so. To update the current Collaboration of the month you should:

  1. Remove the current collaboration from this page and move the next one up.
  2. Move the current collaboration to the Previous collaborations page.
  3. Remove the Cotm template from the current Collaboration of the month pages and add the pcotm template (for example, {{pcotm|Shanghai}} if the COTM is Shanghai) to their talk pages.
  4. Add the Cotm template to the next collaboration article.
  5. Update the Template:Current collaboration with the new COTM.
  6. Update the Template:Cotmpromote page with the new COTM.
  7. Clear the cache for the Project:Project page by clicking here.
  8. Clear the cache for the Main Page by clicking here.
  9. Schedule some new collaborations. There should be about 4 months worth upcoming in the queue.
  10. Post about the new cotm in the Pub.