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]

Outline Districts[edit]


At the start of the month there are 159 Outline district articles, goal is to reduce this number with an aim to getting the city articles to usable. For example, 78 districts currently have no sleep listing

  • As a minimum:
    • Check and if necessary improve Get in section.
    • Make sure there is at least one see or do listing.
    • Make sure at least one, but preferably two, eat and sleep listings exist.
    • Add coordinates to listings.
    • Fix broken links. 39 outline district articles that have broken links. (enable the "ErrorHighlighter" gadget from your user preferences) Done
      • Check, correct or add web link url to listings
    • Add, if missing, address and description to listings.
  • To make a quality article on the way to guide status

Then replace {{outlinedistrict}} template with {{usabledistrict}}.

If not possible to get to usable, consider starting discussion on new district boundaries.

Articles lacking listings (Last updated September 15 UTC)
Districts sleep eat see do buy any
needs only 21 31 5 10 22
has no 52 64 20 53 65 0


So I have had it as a pet-peeve on and off for some time trying to promote outline districts to usable and have already advanced a bit in that. I think given that it is less than 200 pages, the rest should not be all that hard. In some cases we might need to redraw district borders. If and when we are done, I propose to enable some mechanism that reduces the potential for outline districts to be created in the first place. I don't think it'd be such a huge thing to ask that district schemes be created in such a way that each district have at least one eat and one sleep listing or a good explanation why there is none. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll support this. Another idea I had adding content to very short outline articles. Right now there are 1535 outline cities that are 1000 bytes or less. These are the articles that are usually up for deletion or merger discussions. Adding an "eat" or "sleep" listing would make them usable but even adding other types of listings will make the articles useful and beneficial to the traveller. Gizza (roam) 23:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about this one. We're talking about well over 100 pages, which is a lot, and I'm not sure that in every case we can improve the districts unless we know the area. I'd probably give it a weak support but I would like to hear the opinions of others on whether or not this is too much or whether this is a good project. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Category:Outline districts has 159 members. However this is made up of the districts of about 50 cities. There are a few cities that have only one outline district, but several that have quite a few, like Brussels with 9. They range from districts with only one listing to those that need only minor work. I think that we would have to regard success in this case as reducing the list by a quarter by making about 40 articles usable. (Wellington should probably be ignored at the moment as it has only recently become a huge city.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be more reasonable. A district with only one listing will probably not be at star status as the result of a collaboration. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I must say, I don't quite follow the logic behind ignoring Wellington. Surely if the district layout was only recently created there should be no reason for any district to be so bereft of listings as to be an outline. In my opinion outline districts can be a sign of lack of coverage, but more often they are a sign of badly drawn district boundaries. In my opinion, if district boundaries are newly drawn they shouldn't produce outlines and if they do, there should be a damned good explanation, or better yet work to add the necessary listings asap. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've checked it out on Google Maps and their satellite coverage and I wouldn't say Wellington should be a huge city at all. I think Porirua and the other "districts" should be separate city articles. But that's just my opinion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggested ignoring Wellington because it was getting quite a few edits by editors familiar with the city, and would be likely to become usable shortly without any extra help. I think that Porirua is part of the same destination for most travellers - somewhere that they might visit for a few hours whilst staying in Wellington City. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I've edited the Wellington City itself, but I did add some listings to the Porirua article. If there are any local editors, there's still plenty of information that could be added. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


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.


Move the nomination entry for previously featured articles to the article's talk page. Strike goals (using <strike></strike> tags) that were accomplished.

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

After they have been featured as the collaboration of the month, move the original nomination to Project:Previous collaborations.

Month COTM
August 2018 Atlanta
July 2018 Most frequently visited outline articles to usable status
June 2018 Metro Cebu
May 2018 Related sites
April 2018 Articles with formerly dead external links
March 2018 Mauritius
February 2018 Category:Articles with dead external links - phase 2
January 2018 Buenos Aires
December 2017 Template:Geo and Wikivoyage:Geocoding
November 2017 Cape Town
October 2017 Category:Articles with dead external links - phase 1, guide cities
September 2017 Chennai
August 2017 Category:Listing with phone missing country code


Current proposals (subject to change).

Month COTM
September 2018 Outline districts
October 2018 Bermuda
November 2018 Listing coordinates — phase 1
December 2018 Austin
January 2019 Listings coordinates — phase 2
February 2019 Shanghai
March 2019 Custom banners
April 2019 Antarctica
May 2019 Link and phone formatting


Custom banners[edit]

Right now there are 11,613 articles with default banners that should one day get custom banners. The number is going down over time but a COTM drive could push it down to zero much faster. If there are too many to do in one month, we could focus on putting custom banners on every non-city article (1327 articles according to Petscan). Gizza (roam) 06:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - good idea, always makes the pages look more professional. Maybe goal should be all region articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this would be a helpful project for WV. Selfie City (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


And Hamilton (Bermuda) — I've just looked at this article and it has quite a few listings and a little information, but looks like it could be a great opportunity for article improvement. Also, we could probably copy a lot of information from the Bermuda article to the Hamilton one. Selfie City (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'll add a list of improvements necessary to this article:

  • Add an Understand section
  • Expand Get in/Get around sections
  • Add information to listings of attractions, and possibly move some of these to Do section
  • Add information to business listings
  • Add to list of hotels
  • Add list of places to go next

Another option, though, would be to do the whole Bermuda article, which would be a somewhat larger task, and is mentioned as an alternative nomination below. Selfie City (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a small place, but even so as a capital should be in a better state than it is. Support the proposal. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The other choice is to do the whole Bermuda region article, which would be a bit more to do, but would definitely be possible. There's many problems to solve in this article, including the fact that none of the parishes have separate articles and the other destinations are both outlines. Also, work would need to be done on the cities, including Hamilton (see above). The Bermuda article could definitely be promoted to guide status, and considering Bermuda has a static map already, perhaps even star status. Selfie City (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a rethink. Does not need sub-regions but could make some of the parishes an article if no city article for the area. Need to move listing in to city article. This may be a better idea than just tackling Hamilton. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to oppose this for now. Tasks like writing new articles, reorganizing the city/subregion structure of a region, and expanding outline-level "other destinations" are better suited for people who know the place and are willing to put in a significant time commitment, not for a cotm. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I see where you are coming from. Probably best for one person to reorganise first. I will look at doing this over the next week, creating a better structure. CotM can then be moving listings to the right pages (if this does not get done) and improving quality of listings and articles in general. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Modified the structure of the page and moved a couple of city articles. Could now do activity similar to what is being dome for Metro Cebu. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Traveler100. Granger, do you support now reflecting Traveler100's changes? Selfie City (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, moving listings to cities and fleshing out the listings sound like good cotm tasks. Support. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Listing coordinates - phase 1[edit]

As of 17 June 2018 there are 657 guide or star articles that have listings without coordinates. See Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition/ListingCoordStats. Need to improve articles previously raised to guide or star status. Maybe month task would be fix all Star article listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Great choice, Traveler100. I always like to see plenty of coordinates on an article, and I think this would be a good month's project. Selfie City (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
On 20 June 2018 there are 53 star status articles with listings without coordinates --Traveler100 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Selfie City (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


While I have reorganized this continent, the articles within the continent still need quite a lot of work, and some new articles on research stations could definitely be created. Selfie City (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What kinds of tasks would this include? Creating new articles isn't a good cotm task, because it requires knowledge of the area and a significant time investment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Good question. I think filling out lower-level articles with general information would be useful, along with perhaps more listings on some of them. I think mapmaking would also be useful to include but it wouldn't be a necessary part of the CotM, of course. Selfie City (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, adding general information and new listings is also a better task for people who know the place. Cotm tasks should be things that you can spend five minutes helping with, even if you're unfamiliar with the destination. See #Nominate above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What about copy editing? I got quite of information from WP and added it here. Selfie City (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And some more images in some articles perhaps, as well. And listingify this list. Selfie City (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


If the Shanghai article were at Guide status, it would be an obvious candidate for DotM, one of the world's largest & most visited cities. The main obstacle to this is that many of its district articles are still at outline so the main article cannot be promoted. Discussion and a (possibly out-of-date) scorecard at Talk:Shanghai#Getting_to_guide?. I suggest a CotM mainly aimed at getting the main article to guide by bringing lagging districts up to usable; if we can also improve the main article and other districts, so much the better.

There is no rush at all on this; Shanghai would not be a good DotM candidate until 2020 or so. After discussion starting at Talk:Shanghai#Districts_-_Oh_what_a_mess! I created a Downtown Shanghai article which had fewer districts & could be promoted to Guide; it was DotM for May 2018. Shanghai should therefore not be considered soon.

Shanghai districts are a hard problem because the place is huge & complex. Creating Downtown Shanghai was, I think, the third attempt at getting them right. Various people objected because that made the structure more complex & less like other articles, and made breadcrumb trails longer. There was a lot more discussion, ending with Talk:Shanghai#Decision_on_Downtown_Shanghai and the fourth attempt at a good district structure, turning the Downtown article into a redirect into the main Shanghai article. I think the district structure is now (finally!) OK, but this should be reviewed by others before Shanghai could be DotM. Pashley (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the Shanghai article as it stands doesn't look too bad, and we'd be spending loads of precious time correcting all kinds of little errors on this one to make it work. It would either be nothing or a monster project — let's put it that way. I have a feeling it would be the latter.
Also, the fact that the Shanghai article is a complex problem means, by CotM rules, it's not a good choice for CotM. A city article as big as Shanghai will never be far from a mess because it's so large, so I think it would be better to focus on articles without enough content instead of too much, like Shanghai. As a result I'll have to vote oppose on this one for now. Selfie City (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
We could & should "focus on articles without enough content" here; as I wrote above "I suggest a CotM mainly aimed at getting the main article to guide by bringing lagging districts up to usable". Pashley (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Bringing all outlines to usable I think is a good goal. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense. Then I'll support. Selfie City (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The current CotM aims at getting Outline district articles across the site up to Usable. Several on its list are in Shanghai, so probably we should review Shanghai after the CotM ands. Pashley (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing coordinates - phase 2[edit]

Add coordinates to See listings of cities that are at guide status.

As of 20 June 2018: 297 guide status cities with See listings with no coordinates. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Another good listing-related collaboration of the month. Selfie City (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

2020 census figures[edit]

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)


A city that has been districtified but still has lots of listings left in the main article.

  • Move listings to districts.
  • Add geocoordinates and contact info
  • Remove closed POIs

Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a lot to do, I'll support. Selfie City (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good candidate, support. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Link and phone formatting[edit]

External links shown as numbers in an article should be changed to show hyperlinked text. Phone numbers should be formatted so can click and dial.

  • phone icon used currently in 64 guide articles. Tel: used currently in 35 guide articles.
    • Can the information be moved into a listing?
  • links shown as numbers currently in 201 guide articles.
    • If inline then move a word or two inside the link brackets. If on bulleted line change to a listing.

Provides some additional functionality and cleaner looking articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems like a good way to work together to tidy up our articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro[edit]

Obviously a huge city and a huge tourist destination, but unfortunately the main article includes a lot of listings which could be moved into the district articles. Selfie City (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion is either October 2018 or April 2019 if this one is supported, since this is more visited than Bermuda or Antarctica. Selfie City (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Support. Lots of listings to update. Gizza (roam) 04:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. A very important tourist destination. In addition to moving listings from the main article to the districts, many of the listings already in the districts need updating, coordinates, etc. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Guide status articles without custom banners[edit]

Something easy to forget about guide articles is that they should have custom pagebanners. If there are there many (or any) guide articles without custom page banners, this would be a good solution. I am also listing a possible alternative below. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

At present there are 6 guide articles which don't have a banner. 3 of these are districts in New Orleans. (I find district banners hard if I am not familiar with the city.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
AlasdairW, thanks for taking your time to comment on some of these nominations. Referring to your above comment, while 6 doesn't seem like a lot, actually it is considering how much work must be put in to create a custom banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it appears to be 5 guide articles now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Usable articles that only need custom page banners to reach guide status[edit]

An alternative to the above, but would probably be more work since we have more than 5000 usable articles and well under 1000 guides. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands[edit]

In the region article there are about 30 listings total in the eat and sleep sections that need to be moved to city articles. Also, many of the listings in the "eat" section need coordinates, and there are a lot of place names, etc., that need to be turned into markers.

While all the articles we have for places in Hawaii need some work, Kauai is probably the most straightforward fix in a collaboration. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


Beirut is a huge city in Wikivoyage terminology and an important one in the real world. However, the article has a lot of listings that need to go into district articles. So here are the tasks I suggest:

  • Task 1 — move any listings that should be in district articles to the district articles where they belong.
  • Task 2 — clarifying the current safety situation in Beirut and updating the warningbox and related information accordingly (the warning box is 3 years out of date on a news-related topic)
  • Task 3 — formatting issues, which are minor, like semicolons in a listing title, poor external link formatting, and a couple dead links

This seems like another good city to work on to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Don't think we've had a Middle Eastern COTM in recent times. Gizza (roam) 05:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Outline cities[edit]

By no means could we deal with the currently 12,900 outline city articles there are in a single monthly collaboration, but with the same procedure that we've used for outline districts we could also get some outline cities up to usable status. This project could be done in two different months (phases 1, 2, etc.) so that more work could be done. Also, by improving the city articles, we have a better chance of getting region articles up to a higher status. I'd probably see getting it down by 100 as being pretty successful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This I think is far to big a task as defined. I have spend years trying to get article from outline to usable for just a few countries, so far only done for Wales which has a relatively small number of articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a phase 2 of Outline districts would be a better idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Another option would be “Outline cities in Tennessee” or something of that nature, or even a country like you suggested. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles Geo different to Wikidata[edit]

Currently 504 articles in Category:Articles Geo different to Wikidata, 37 of which are city articles and 23 are park articles. The template is currently showing anything with a distance of more than 50 km (31 mi) difference between Wikivoyage and Wikidata coordinates. Would like to get this down so nothing over 10 km (6.2 mi) difference. I have removed many that were over 100 km (62 mi), it showed up many errors both on Wikivoyage and Wikidata. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Generally, we don't need to worry about regions for this one. For example, if a country like the USA has different coordinates on Wikidata than Wikivoyage, as long as both are in the country, it is fine. But yes, city and park articles are good. I think I'll support this one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like a good choice for a collaboration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

All continents to usable article status[edit]

Currently two out seven continent articles (Africa and South America) are at outline status. It is a little bit awkward that we, after 15 years of editing, haven't managed to get all our continents up to usable status. I think that it is high time to fix that. As far as I can tell the main reason why they are considered outlines is that they link to some 9 outline "other destinations", and our first task should be to upgrade these articles. I think that the justification for this is rather obvious. These are destinations which we consider to be of high interest to travelers, in regions where our coverage is unusually weak.

The outline articles linked from our outline continents are:

The last two articles are regions which have outline sub-articles which would also need to be upgraded to usable status. Galapagos Islands in particular has plenty of outline sub-articles. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I actually brought up a similar discussion at Talk:Asia#Guide status?, and the response Granger gave me was that Europe would be an easier choice for guide status than Asia would be. Coming back to this collaboration, however, I'm voting for weak support. It's a great task which I'd like to see be finished, but would probably require writing original content, which is a faux pas in a collaboration nomination. It depends, however, on how close these outline destinations are from being at usable status. If they are close, I would be more likely to support than if they were just stubby outlines with practically no content. But I think that, if we are to promote these to usable status, we should consider upgrading some continent articles to guide status as well, if possible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really think this is a good choice for a collaboration, as it would mainly involve adding lots of content to articles that have proven themselves to be difficult to improve. As MartinJacobson says, all of these places are important destinations that are still at outline status—which I think is a sign that they're tricky places to cover. At one point I tried working on the Galapagos Islands article with the ultimate aim of getting South America up to usable status, and I gave up because it required too much local knowledge that I didn't have. It would be great to get these continents up to usable status, but I think it's a better task for people with a particular interest in the destinations, rather than a cotm. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:08, 15 September 2018 (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 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.