Wikivoyage talk:Collaboration of the month

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Prehistoric discussion[edit]

(originally from Project:Destination of the Month candidates)

What would people think about putting Athens up as a special DoM, considering that it is the host of the Summer Olympics and lots of people will be looking at it, hopefully? The article currently doesn't meet the exacting standards for DoM proposed elsewhere BUT we could add a caveat that people should "plunge forward" and add information where they see gaps. This would be somewhat closer to Wikipedia's Feature Article of the Week..... so maybe we could introduce this initiative under a slightly different guise? Opinions / suggestions? (WT-en) Pjamescowie 07:26, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)

I wonder if we could instead make some kind of "Stuck in the mud" featured category, for articles that really need a lot of hands pushing on them to get them rolling. Athens is a great example. Like, it should be featured, but it's just not in good shape right now. I should probably move this to Project:Main Page policy... --(WT-en) Evan 10:16, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Unfortunately, having such a feature would make every wiki writer want their choice to show up in that list. The list for that would be far longer than the list for destination of the month. That will become a political nightmare... (WT-en) Chip 11:48, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)
And we already have Project:Articles needing attention precisely for this. No, it's not on the main page, but I'm not sure we need to advertise our worst pages there... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:28, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Actually, I was thinking of just that. Having one or two "let's all work on this page" pages listed on the Main Page. I think it may be useful to get some pages that are real important and topical -- Athens being a great example -- up to some kind of workable speed. --(WT-en) Evan 22:48, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)
It could be the "featured" article equivalent for the wikivoyage community part of the mainpage. Just... make it a much simpler affair than the DoM. Personally I think Project:Articles needing attention would suffice - special drives could be posted to the Pub - but I am not against it either. -- (WT-en) Nils 05:19, 20 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Original discussion[edit]

How would people feel about running a Collaboration of the week project, along the lines of some of the Wikipedia projects (eg Australian collaboration of the week), in which we take a stub and spend a week trying to turn it into an article worthy of the Main Page, or even of Destination of the Month?

I can see plenty of objections, the primary one being that most collaborators in any given week would not be working from first hand knowledge of the destination but would have to work from sources. But that might be enough to bootstrap it to the "70-80%" main page criterion.

I can imagine an informal nomination process rather like the DoM process. A good set of conditions might be something like this:

  1. Destination has relatively poor wikivoyage coverage: perhaps a stub article, or a region article with many of the cities missing.
  2. Destination should in some way be interesting: for example, comparitively undiscovered; earth-shatteringly beautiful; in season; or about to host a major event (Olympics etc etc).
  3. Destination should have relatively easy to find English language sources already, so that a lot of wikivoyagers can contribute (nominator should have at least 3 or 4 links ready to point people at).
  4. Ideally, some wikivoyagers have visited the destination.

Thoughts? I'd be happy to run a three week trial of the idea (making sure the page turned over to a new collaboration each week) if people like. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:34, 17 Dec 2004 (EST)

Another. (WT-en) Hypatia 17:40, 17 Dec 2004 (EST)
  • Ideally, the nominated destination increases the diversity of wikivoyage destinations somehow. Some examples: it's from a continent that's badly represented overall and/or which has seldom had a DoM; it's a city from a different area than those currently appearing on the main page, eg an Eastern European city if the European part of the Main Page is Western heavy; or it's from a different part of the world than the last few collaborations.

Would also be useful for major destinations that need some concentrated effort to upgrade the articles. Eg NY and its districts (Talk:New_York_(city)#To_do_(July_2005)_-_moving_listings_to_district_pages) (WT-en) Nurg 03:32, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

As should be obvious from the dates, this wasn't an idea that garnered a huge amount of response. It's probably still a good one, and if anyone happens across this and thinks so, probably better to just do it than to talk about it more. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:24, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
(WT-en) Ilkirk has requested that people help out with the Turin article due to the upcoming olympics. Since the collaboration of the week thing sounds very similar to what he is trying to do, why not first see how that works out, and if it does then perhaps people could indicate an article in the Project:Travelers' pub every so often that they feel needs attention, along with a reason why it is important. If it goes well we can formalize the process, but I'm hesitant to formalize something that the community may not be quite ready for yet and that doesn't have enough support to guarantee it won't just kind of fizzle out. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 02:48, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Given the amount of response both here and at my orginal request I'm concerned about it's overall success. However it may be due largely to a lack of exposure. If there was a section on the main page or some other very, very often seen page, it should help tremendously. Evan? Any suggestions? -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 13:17, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Yes: let's give the idea more prominence on the Main Page. --(WT-en) Evan 08:56, 31 Oct 2005 (EST)
To back up a ply or two, I am a bit unclear as to what you're hoping people will do to help with this incipient project. I understand the end goal (or at least I think I do), but the mechanics of a collaborative approach to building an article are hazy to me. Are you suggesting a move away from the "insider view" that underlies most of the present contributions, toward more "digesting" of travel information found elsewhere? If so, you'll definitely want to make that clear in whatever enticements you put on the Main Page. Lacking that, Ryan's fizzle-out concern seems almost certain to be a real problem; even with it, I see issues, since (if I do understand your mechanics correctly) most of us random contributors come in from a first-person perspective rather than as abstractors of other web resources. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:26, 31 Oct 2005 (EST)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "most of us random contributors come in from a first-person perspective rather than as abstractors of other web resources", but if you're asking "what would people who have never visited destination X do when destination X was collaboration of the month or week?", there are some possibilities:
  • Move existing entries into Manual of Style format
  • Provide basic listings for major attractions that aren't yet featured but that are pretty obviously candidates (you don't have to live in Sydney to realise that the Opera House rates a mention, and you can find out as much about it from its website as a Sydneysider can)
  • Provide basic listings for hotels that have good web information: Wikivoyage notoriously lacks many Sleep options
  • Search for travel articles on the destination and use them as the basis for listings (obviously not lifting prose wholesale) with additional research
This kind of work is likely to appeal to research-y types who are prepared to do scut-work to make Wikivoyage better, but then... those people are the most likely kind to be regular contributors. (WT-en) Hypatia 01:18, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
So what do we need to do to get this going? I'm all for it. (WT-en) Majnoona 11:39, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
Agreed! This seems like it would work well, and if not, it wouldn't hurt to find out. (WT-en) Jonboy 11:46, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
I'd say we need to spend a little while coming up with more extensive how-tos than the above and, say, a goodly list of candidates. (Either outline or usable articles on cities with web information in English would be ideal candidates, aim to reach guide or star by the end of the week.). I can draft something for discussion, but not for 24 hours at least, so if someone else runs with it, go for it (WT-en) Hypatia 16:26, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
Let's start off on the Project:Collaboration of the week page. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 20:03, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
Yes, I meant "what can you do to help on destination X if you don't live there and have never been there?", as you speculate above. (Thanks for the pithy re-formulation; I know, I get a bit wordy at times ...) And yes, we can plunge ahead. However, I remain concerned as to whether this approach will meet the basic goal articulated on the Project:About page, which I reproduce here: "Wikivoyage is built with the spirit of sharing knowledge that makes travel so enjoyable. Whenever travellers meet each other on the road, they swap info about the places they came from and ask questions about places they're going. We want to make it easy to share that knowledge and let others share it; our copyleft license means that the facts you know can spread far and wide." My emphasis is added in italics, and it's the issue: if you haven't been to the place, why is your knowledge about it (and, hence, its page here) any more valuable than what's in the other on-line travel guides that we try to differentiate ourselves from?
I can at least see a partial answer to my rhetorical question, in terms of simply getting the process going. If we pick a place where our own page is really immature, we can probably get it as far as "Usable" by doing what Hypatia describes above, and that's no small thing; furthermore, featuring a CotW may allow us to find people who have been there and can contribute first-hand info. But I am skeptical of the value of using third-hand, researched-rather-than-experienced information to turn a Usable article into a Guide or Star. Does this clarify my concern? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:40, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)
I think you have it switched around-- it's getting usable articles to guides and stars where the real grunt work comes in. You dont need to know about a place first or second hand to get the phone numbers right, fix the external links, add a map, etc etc. I can think of a lot of guides in India that have plenty of first-hand info but are in dire need of edits (ie Coimbatore, Kochi, Chennai etc). Anyway, looking forward to the first success!(WT-en) Majnoona 10:11, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

What prevents most Guide articles from making Star status is just the lack of a map or/and photograph. With a bit of effort trawling google images, I'm sure that suitable ones that are on free copyright licence could be found. What do you think? (WT-en) WindHorse 16 Feb 06

I'd like to cast a dissenting vote here and say that articles which are already Guides should not be eligible, we should limit the candidates to stub/outline/usable. The idea is to hammer away at a page for a week collaboratively and make it look better. Guide articles should already look pretty good and a map for a place like Taipei is both going to take more than a week and (in practice) cannot be assembled collaboratively, so Project:Guide articles needing attention is the proper place for these. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:47, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
Got it. I'll remove guide standard articles from the nominations. (WT-en) WindHorse 16 Feb 06
Um... I would suggest that if one can find so many things wrong with a "guide" or a "star" that it will take a week of collaborative effort to get it into shape, then we are better off downgrading it to "usable" and nominating it anyway. I think that we are too inconsistent about granting articles guidehood, so it is a shame if this quality improvement process passes by an article mistakenly rated a "guide". --(WT-en) Ravikiran 22:46, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

Start of page[edit]

Feel free to discuss the guidelines and process, of course. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 21:09, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)

Thanks for getting this started! I would like to suggest, however, that it would be better to start with an article that's in Outline or even Stub status, with the goal of at least getting it to a Usable state (and then beyond), rather than starting with something Usable. My basic reason, which I elaborated earlier on the Project:Articles needing attention page, is that I think the information needed to make the Outline->Usable improvement is more amenable to research (as opposed to experience) than what's needed to make the Usable->Guide (or Star) improvement. I may be wrong; let's discuss. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:47, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)

I'd prefer that the guideline be broader: anything in the Stub, Outline or Usable categories. It's easy enough to narrow things later. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:47, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
I wouldn't mind broadening the scope as long as the reason for nominating is more specific than "The whole article needs to be written". It isn't much fun collaborating on an almost empty article. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 22:38, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
I don't actually agree that writing an article from scratch isn't much fun, at least if there are some reasonable web sources. I'm not sure any of this will be hugely collaborative in the sense of lots of chatter on the talk page, it's just that many people will be working on the same article. (WT-en) Hypatia 15:19, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)


Reasons for Chennai:

  1. We havent had many (any?) Indian DotMs.
  2. It's a big city with a lot of tourist draws

Mostly just plunging forward...

So how'd it go? I'm looking at the page from a week ago, and there's definite improvement, although I agree that's it's only at guide and not star. I thought it was very useful to have Wikivoyageers all working on the same article, not only for the sake of Chennai, but to give a "best practices" example for editing an article. How do others feel? (WT-en) Jonboy 21:58, 26 February 2006 (EST)
After two CotWs, we have learnt either that a CotW isn't very good when there is not much in the article and not much to find on the web, or that people lost interest after the first successful CotW. I think that it was the former. Lesse how Toronto goes. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 19:33, 5 March 2006 (EST)


Can someone do a template for us to add to the talk page of the current collaboration of the week announcing that it is the current CoTW and referring to Project:Collaboration of the week for reference. (WT-en) Hypatia 15:17, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)

Template:Cotw --(WT-en) Ravikiran 07:06, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)


Is the collaboration of the week being promoted anywhere on the site? I didn't realize that Chennai was the COTW until I saw the talk page for that article. Can something prominent be added to the front page, or have I missed it? -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:52, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

How about something similar to the Template:Cotw that could be displayed at the top of the front page? The text could be something like "This week Example is the collaboration of the week. Help out by plunging forward to make it into a star article." -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:11, 22 Feb 2006 (EST)
I think we should put it on the main page of the article also. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:28, 22 Feb 2006 (EST)
I've added a blurb to the main page, although I'm terrible with design so anyone who can think of a way to do this that is more eye-pleasing, please do so. It also makes sense to me that Chennai would have a COTW banner on it for now. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:09, 22 Feb 2006 (EST)
I assume the banner leaves Chennai at the end of the week. Should it stay on Talk:Chennai? -- (WT-en) Jonboy 14:42, 22 Feb 2006 (EST)
We need to come up with a banner saying it was a collaboration of the week and see how it has improved, etc.. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 22:44, 22 Feb 2006 (EST)

Late update[edit]

The COTW has not yet been updated, so you know. 2/27/06 - again, why?

I updated as much as I could to make the transition from Mexico City to Copenhagen, but someone with proper authority needs to do the rest... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 08:38, 4 March 2009 (EST)
No one has any additional authority on Wikivoyage, and anyone who is logged in can update the CotM. I think the only step you missed was to update Template:Current collaboration. Thanks, by the way—the lackluster results of our collaborations tend to depress work on keeping things current. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:53, 4 March 2009 (EST)


I'm not wild about having Jerusalem as a CotM, at least not yet. Yes, the existing article is a mess, and yes, the city deserves better. However, until the CotM idea becomes widely accepted and used -- a condition that I don't think exists yet, although it will -- it might be better to avoid CotMs that are controversial. Raising the profile of this article runs the risk of simply increasing the intensity of the politically-motivated modifications that so easily turn into vandalism. Is that a goal? A good thing? I think not. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:04, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I don't think this is a valid argument for not CotWing it, as we're going to have to learn to deal with politically-motivation modifications sooner or later, and I'd prefer sooner. (To a limited extent, we already are, but true Wikipedia-style edit wars have, so far, been mercifully absent.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:55, 8 March 2006 (EST)
OK, so I've taken the liberty of scheduling it for 10 April 2006 - 16 April 2006. I hope you're right... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:36, 29 March 2006 (EST)

Turin, Italy[edit]

Swept in from the Pub:

Seems like the article for the site of the 2006 Winter Olympics Turin, or Turino, would look a little sharper than it does now. I'll try to do my part to get it into shape seeing as how hundreds of thousands of people should be getting ready to crush the place! I just trying to stir up a little help... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 11:03, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

See also the discussion at Project:Articles needing attention#Collaboration of the week?. I think the efforts with the Turin article would be a good barometer of whether something like a collaboration of the week/month/whatever would work out. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:47, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)


Swept in from the Pub:

My fellow Wikivoyageers,

I would like to bring attention my latest project and ask for your help.

I've been looking for large destinations (just to start off with) that do not have any images and have listed these articles on The Requests for Images page, however, I'm afraid that few people actually visit this page. Could you please visit this page and see if you have any images for the articles I've found that are without images.

I've only begun this crusade so please check back every now and again, because in the coming weeks this will probably be my biggest mission.

Thank you,

(WT-en) Sapphire 01:56, 23 Jan 2006 (EST)

My photo archives are free to plunder (low-res versions only though, please), although they're pretty heavily biased towards Asia these days. Also, I'd suggest uploading new pics to the the Shared site, and contributing to the discussion there so we can get it fully up and running. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:03, 23 Jan 2006 (EST)
I'm going to try not to mess with this whole "Share" thing. I don't know the technical terms, but it seems I have to register with the "share site" despite having an account on this "site." Additionally, I don't understand how to link from /wiki/shared to wiki/en/ (WT-en) Sapphire 02:24, 23 Jan 2006 (EST)
Yes, you need to create an account. The process is the same as in en-Wikivoyage and takes about 5 seconds. Images can be used in exactly the same way, just enter [[Image:image.jpg]] and the software will look for your image both locally and on the Shared site.
And one of the things that needs to be done is to make the Shared site easy to use, so people will actually use it... if you find something confusing, complain about it and we'll try to fix it up. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:36, 23 Jan 2006 (EST)
Just out of interest, if there are exactly named files on both the en and shared sites, which one does it take? -- (WT-en) Brendio 15:02, 23 Jan 2006 (EST)
If the filename is the same, the local (in this case, en:) image has precedence. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 19:13, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

Long weeks[edit]

Just as a reminder: When a destination is "scheduled," if you put it in for, say, 5 June-12 June (which looks like you're scheduling it for a week), you're actually scheduling it for eight days, not seven. That's because the dates are inclusive on both ends. This minor goof has been propagating through the schedule, with the result that the start days for a CotW no longer have anything to do with the week's end as they once did. I've changed the dates on things currently in the queue, but when doing this for new CotWs, please make sure that (last date) minus (first date) equals 6, not 7. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:41, 6 May 2006 (EDT)

Volunteers needed to update[edit]

I will not have access to the net for the next 4 days. I'd appreciate if someone marked their calendars and changed the next collaboration of the week on the 27th June. Basically, you need to: 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 Cotw template from the current Cotw page and add the Pcotw template to its talk page. 4) Add the Cotw template to the next collaboration article. 5) Replace the Cotw on the project home page.

While you are at it, it would be great if you could write up this process on the Cotw page. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 23:39, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Due to some recent changes, the update process is now:
  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 Cotw template from the current Cotw page and add the Pcotw template to its talk page.
  4. Add the Cotw template to the next collaboration article.
  5. Update the Template:Current COTW with the current COTW.
  6. You may also need to clear the cache for the Project:Project page by clicking on the URL OR by editing the project page.
-- (WT-en) Ryan 19:09, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Is this working?[edit]

I'm getting concerned as to whether CotW is working. The number of edits on Dili was pitifully small, and half way through its week, there are zero, none, Nichts, nada on Budapest either, apart from just installing the CotW banner -- this despite the fact that Budapest is a DotM candidate and should be in the Wikivoyageer's eye (and is easier to find stuff on than Dili). There has only been one CotW since April that has had as many as 25 edits. That's worrisome.

Nothing is proven, but I conjecture that part of the problem is that fewer people read the Project page than the Main Page. Should we consider moving the CotW box back to the Main Page to try to attract more editors? Is there something else that would be better? Or is it OK to have as few as 5 or so edits on a CotM? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:17, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

I've never participated (beyond a quick edit or two) in the CotW, mostly because it's just not the sort of activity that interests me. I prefer to work on my own, on destinations that interest me, without having to worry about edit conflicts or to research a place that's not really on my radar. I suspect that kind of thinking contributes more to the lack of participation than the visibility of the project. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:52, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
I don't think there's an easy solution for this, we can't just cram everything onto the Main Page. I think the correct answer is not raising the visibility of the CotW page alone, but raising the visibility (and utility) of the entire Project:Project page instead. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:18, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
No, I don't think it is working, and I was about to ask the same question myself. I don't think that giving it visibility is going to help. Putting it on the Main Page will probably attract a few drive-by edits, not many. This initiative requires a different sort of user - I think that this is one of the challenges for Wikivoyage, not just for CotW. We have a lot of random, good quality edits; we have a significant number of users like Todd, who will edit and maintain destinations they love, we are short of people who are interested in the boring task of researching and MoSing. Having said that, I think we should continue this, because building places where people can participate is likely to attract such users. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:18, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
The CotW worked well for Cologne I believe it was usable and then promoted to guide. I made nearly 50 edits on the article and I wasn't the person that added it to the COTW page (That was BotH). I normally don't work on the CotW unless I know something about the destination, but I will work on the CotW even if I never been to the destination simply because I'm interested in going. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:17, 3 July 2006 (EDT)

Suggestion: Article Improvment Drive[edit]

Swept in from the Pub:

I would support an Article Improvment Drive like the one in Wikipedia. We already have the cotw thing for usable articles, but I would suggest AID would be for Guide and Star articles that need to be perfected. Would anyone like this???????? --(WT-en) Worldtraveller 14:20, 22 March 2006 (EST)

Project:Collaboration of the week -- (WT-en) Colin 16:42, 22 March 2006 (EST)
Could be an option because the response is rather low on the CotW. Like in the discussion above, the problem is the visiblity of the CotW. Only insiders look at the project page. (WT-en) Jan 03:59, 12 July 2006 (EST)
What if we move CoW on the Main Page higher so it appear on the first screen? For example, can we place it right under "Off the beaten path" ? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:09, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Why did Warsaw get so many edits as Collaboration of the Week?[edit]

Warsaw's turn is almost over as the CotW, and the number of edits on it have been huge compared to any of the recent CotWs. Thought it might be very useful for us to figure out reasons for why it got so many edits, and to think about how we can work to ensure as many edits are made for future CotWs. (WT-en) Tim 13:52, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

A travel topic can be nominated?[edit]

I haven't seen examples in the past when a travel topic was nominated for CoW. Is it generally possible?

For Renting a car, how can I determine what needs to be improved before it can be rated as usable? Against what guidelines can I check how mature it is?

The reason for CoWing it is mostly to invite attention of people who rented cars frequently and have something to share, but aren't aware we need their help here. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:03, 15 November 2006 (EST).

Anything can be scheduled for the CotW. The CotW isn't just for destinations, although it's most often used for destination articles. -- Andrew (Sapphire)
Support travel topics as CotW. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 23:52, 15 November 2006 (EST)
Support. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:59, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Recent changes[edit]

I haven't edited any CotWs for at least three months or so because I never use the project page. I had been thinking about how I might be able to get myself to become more active with the CotW when I realized the page that I probably visit most often is Special:Recentchanges. I think we should add a CotW notice to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, which will make the CotW slightly more noticed. I know this will certainly increase my awareness regarding the CotW and participating in bettering articles. I don't have any figures but I imagine this has proven to be a great success for Wikipedia [1]. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 15:48, 15 November 2006 (EST)

I would also place the link to my watchlist for those who only look after the pages they contributed to. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 23:51, 15 November 2006 (EST)

What's up with the dates?[edit]

Isn't today Dec 2nd?? (WT-en) Cacahuate 06:13, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Bagladesh and new additions[edit]

i moved bangladesh out of the schedule for now since I already fixed a lot of the major problems and well, pretty much nobody has been there (here, i'm here now).

I see that the question has been posed a few times above about the lack of edits, i've been watching it for a while too, and it seems to only draw people that have been there or have a particular interest in that place, for the most part. but also having more to do may help as well... i scheduled Madrid and Rome since they both have a lot of obvious stuff to fix.

So far people don't seem to really jump at the opportunity to make maps or do intensive research for new info, just mess around slightly with what's already there.

Anyway, we'll see how those 2 go, but until more people start participating more I vote for nominating articles that have similar problems that people might actually work on, otherwise it's almost a waste of a week. (WT-en) Cacahuate 04:14, 26 December 2006 (EST)

St Petersberg still CotW?!?![edit]

Surely this should have been changed by now??? 12:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Guys, it should be changed already! How can this be done?(WT-en) Cupcakecommander 07:31, 24 September 2007 (EDT)


I cannot recall the CotW actually producing great results. I realized that while editing various Berlin guides this morning that it requires a lot of persistence and patience to actually get good results. Forget descriptions and MoS, but the thing that is really important it seems to me are the small details of phone numbers, addresses, business hours, emails, etc. Is there anyway to actually encourage someone to hunt down this information? Even though I do it, I understand how annoying it can be. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 01:45, 29 December 2007 (EST)


CotW has not IMO been effective. Occasionally it will attract regular attention from 1-2 editors (which is enough to have an impact), but eventually having such small numbers working together (or alone) on it is just demoralizing. At other times the CotW merely languishes.

Having tried to participate in the past, my feeling is that the week-long period is simply too short—I'll be interested in a particular CotW, but before I know it, it's already moved on to another destination. I'm more than happy to stop by when the mood hits me and mos a subsection, but not if I feel like the article is going to leave the collaboration slot before anything really gets done—again that's demoralizing.

Would other people support a move to a CotM format, where we pick an article per the sorts of criteria already established for CotW, but then leave it in the Collaboration slot for a full month? I think the kinds of useful collaborative work (i.e., high-volume users, low-volume research/mos-oriented edits) work best when we can all stop by and mos one subsection, or add phone №s and addresses for one subsection. Over a month, those sorts of high-volume but low-dedication edits could add up to serious improvements to articles that wouldn't have otherwise received them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I think that makes sense. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:29, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Sounds good to me. A week might be a bit short --(WT-en) Nick 01:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't know...Given the sheer amount of articles we have that qualify for the CoTW (or CoTM), someone who nominates an article under CoTM could wind up waiting over a year for their thing to become the collaboration, and at that point I'm worried that the collaboration would have even less effectiveness than it does now. From what I can see, people nominate articles due to the fact that they are interested in the destination, and those articles happen to need attention right at that moment, so why would we make people wait over a year for them to become the collaboration? Even a lazy contributor could make a fair number of edits over the course of an entire year if it's a destination they're interested in (which is probably the case, seeing as they'd take the time to nominate it to the CoTW). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Run multiple collaborations at the same time? Maybe one per continent? That way we actually increase the turnover and broaden the base of users that might participate. --(WT-en) Nick 16:06, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
That might work. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 17:08, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I like that idea, and I think it would help promote work on continents that have underdeveloped coverage, like Oceania, South America, and Africa. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:58, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Although, that would actually increase the load on the CotW/M process, with 7 articles per month. Maybe we could run the continents bi-monthly (e.g., Month A: North America, Africa, Asia; Month B: South America, Europe, Australia/Oceania)? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, we definitely will need to simplify the process. It's complex and time-consuming to update even just the one CotW we have now and that is probably the reason it does not get done on a regular basis. Who wrote the bot script to automate the the DotM and OtBP? Can the same be done to update CotW/M? That way all we need to do is schedule them. --(WT-en) Nick 01:09, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
The DotM and OTBP aren't automated, maybe you're thinking of User:(WT-en) DiscoverBot, (WT-en) Jani created that. I don't know what to do about CotW, it has definitely languished recently – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:33, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Looks like this discussion petered out. I would back (WT-en) Peter's idea, and would get involved. (Though writing templates and/or bots is not in my repertoire!) (WT-en) Tarr3n 11:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I'd support any new ideas and those willing to implement them, but keep in mind that this sounds like a lot more work, and as it is we can hardly find someone to bump up the next article in the queue once a week.. but if you're volunteering, then have at it! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
As I've noted at the bottom of the page I'm happy to commit to doing the necessary work once a month ( or per week, for now) to update the cotw/m and pcotw/m. I've only discovered Wikivoyage over the last few months but it's a project I've really bought into, and I think these "collaborations" have the potential to add a lot of value to it, and to encourage "buy-in" from Wikivoyagers who might not otherwise get involved. I successfully made the switch from Kathmandu to Edmonton, and I'm sure that if the necessary new templates and procedures were set up I could comfortably make 3 switches per month. I'm not so confident that I could make the necessary changes to the actual templates or to the layout of the main page and Project Home page though - so I would appreciate some help and guidance there from someone who knows what they are doing.
At the moment, nothing is actually scheduled, though there are a number of nominations. If we started COTM as of September, and made that Month A as in (WT-en) Peter's plan, we'd be looking for destinations in North America, Africa and Asia. Based on what has been nominated. How about Little Rock for N. America, Beijing for Asia (I know we've missed the boat on the Olympics but hopefully there might be some people just returning home from the Olympics, with valuable information to add), and Calabar for Africa? (WT-en) Tarr3n 06:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
If we move to CotM's instead, we could pretty easily stick to the main page layout we already have, how about something like this for layout? If it's agreeable to everyone I'll help you with everything that needs changing to make it happen – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:09, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I'd be thrilled if you took this up! I'd also be happy to help set it up for the first month, but wouldn't be too helpful after that (I've got other projects). The cotw has languished and just needs someone to take charge to get working again. And that does look like a good layout. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:20, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
That layout for the main page looks ideal, thanks Cacahuate. Do we need to do something similar for the Project Home page? Also should we rename the relevant cotw and pcotw pages to cotm and pcotm, or should we leave them as they are and start new pages? (WT-en) Tarr3n 13:30, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

CoTW not updated[edit]

I deleted tombstone - It was listed as "upcoming" but for the week ending July 16th, which was 6 days ago. But, that wasn't why I deleted it. I deleted it because it was still an outline, and because the user didn't mention any ways in which it could be improved. It seems like a good place that needs improving, but I've never been there and I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'd love to see it back, just with more of a plan (WT-en) Kire1975 22:46, 22 July 2008 (EDT) (let me know if I'm wrong about anything, I'm pretty new, thanks)

Um - what's actually happening with the COTW? I came to investigate because I noticed Kathmandu had been listed as COTW on the Main Page for some while. Looks like (at least) 2 subsequent scheduled destinations never got listed on the main page at all. The only destination listed in Upcoming is Edmonton - which should have ended almost a month ago. I'm going to follow the instructions on the article page, amend the dates, and make Edmonton CoTW for week ending 13th August. (WT-en) Tarr3n 11:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
OK so I think I've done all that successfully. I also flagged it up on the Canada discussion page in the hope of attracting the attention of some people with some knowledge of the place. I noticed above the suggestion of moving to a COTM, with perhaps 2 or 3 running simultaneously. Sounds like a good idea to me and might be more successful? (WT-en) Tarr3n 11:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
At the moment we're sort of in between cotw updaters, and could use a new one... if you feel like devoting a few minutes to it once a week, please do! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:34, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
I am certainly happy to commit to updating the cotw every Wednesday, or if we do switch over to cotm as per the above discussion, I'm happy to commit to updating that on the 15th of every month, or whatever regular date is agreed upon. (WT-en) Tarr3n 06:10, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

CotM format[edit]

Month A

Month Africa Asia North America
September 2008 Calabar Beijing Little Rock
November 2008
January 2009
March 2009

Month B

Month Australia/Island nations Europe South America
October 2008
December 2008
February 2009
April 2009

I think keeping 4 months filled in advance would be pretty ideal. If this seems like we run through too many destinations (3/month), we could move to an ABC plan. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:33, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

That looks like a good plan... just to clarify, this is the queue that would be for use on the CotM page, not the main page, similar to how we do on the dotm page – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:51, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Looks great, except that "Month A" should run Sept 08, Nov 08, Jan 09, Mar 09. And Month B should run Oct 08, Dec 08, Feb 09, Apr 09. I looked at it 3 times before I noticed! (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

So Tarr3n, you seem pretty set to go with this, when it's time to update it for September you can update Template:Current COTW to read:

We're here if you have any other questions :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:11, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Move to CotM[edit]

I'm happy to see this happen, and I hope it works! Anything to keep us from moving the project page to Project:Collaboration of the Month? (I'm thinking bot-related or template-related issues.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Makes sense to me. I would have done it yesterday when updating the destinations but I was pretty strapped for time due to day job related stuff! Now I'm glad I didn't having read (WT-en) Peter's question. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:33, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
This project page isn't a problem to move, it's more the templates like "currentcotw" that are a bit more involved if we want them to change to "currentcotm", but not that big a deal if we decide to stick with the new format – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:55, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Azerbaijani Cities[edit]

About half a dozen cities in Azerbaijan were on the list of noimnations. Looking at the articles for each of them Zaqatala seems to be the article that has a decent amount of information already there that could be improved by Wikivoyagers not necessarily familiar with the place (I can't imagine many of us have actually been there). It doesn't seem to make sense to have an Azerbaijani city featured every other month, so I've deleted the rest of them from the nominations list and copied them in below. (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:16, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

  • Qabala city - located in the Sheki region of Azerbaijan, with friendly people:
    • The page need's a MoS clean up
    • The get out section should have more ideas for possible options for trips after Qabala
    • More resorts should be placed on the site
    • More resturants should be place on the site
    • The page would benefit from the creation of foreign language pages
    • Fill out the Sheki area in Azerbaijan! (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 02:44, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Quba city - located in the northwest region of Azerbaijan with unique minority groups and tasty food:
    • The page need's a MoS clean up
    • The get out section should have the possible options expanded for trips after Quba
    • More hotels should be placed on the site
    • More resturants should be place on the site
    • The page would benefit from the creation of foreign language pages
    • Fill out the northeast area in Azerbaijan! (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 02:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Qusar city - located in the northwest region of Azerbaijan with beautiful landscape:
    • The page need's a MoS clean up
    • The get out section should have the possible options expanded for trips after Qusar
    • More hotels should be placed on the site
    • Hiking should be included
    • More resturants should be place on the site
    • The page would benefit from the creation of foreign language pages
    • Fill out the northeast area in Azerbaijan! (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 02:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Khinalig city - located in the northwest region of Azerbaijan with beautiful landscape, a unique culture, and a special way of life:
    • The page need's a MoS clean up
    • The get out section should have the possible options expanded for trips after Khinalig
    • More options for staying the night should be placed on the site
    • Hiking should be included
    • More eating options
    • The page would benefit from the creation of foreign language pages
    • Fill out the northeast area in Azerbaijan! (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 02:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Beylaqan city - located in southern Azerbaijan, with friendly people:
    • The page need's a MoS clean up
    • The get out section should have more ideas for possible options post-Beylaqan(e.g. going to Barda, exploring the rest of southern Azerbaijan, oil sanatoriums in Naftalan, etc.)
    • The page would benefit from the creation of foreign language pages
    • There should be more things to do in Beylaqan
    • Fill out the Southern area in Azerbaijan!

(WT-en) Cupcakecommander 08:17, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Reffering to Edmonton CotM. We have no consensus to use this type of procedure to select cotms. Moreover, we would have the voting process on the project page, not on the talk page. Please stop creating ad hoc procedures—we change procedures only via discussion and consensus. You are being disruptive. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry I was confused. I saw for Copenhagen that comments should be moved here so I assumed that these should. Calm down. I didn't know and I am sorry if you really want to just delete it this is getting out of hand. I am obviously confused-if you want, you can help me to understand-but my God-don't accuse me of anything. Thats all, (WT-en) ee talk 14:17, 10 November 2008 (EST).
Also, why the hell are you getting on me about the Sole Collaboration thing? User:(WT-en) Sertmann originally proposed it. I just thought it was a fantastic idea and decided to do that for these. If you really have a problem with that, discuss it with him.
Why are you dragging me into anything? I made it clear i was proposing what i did as a test, and then we should have a discussion afterwards to reach a concensus for a permanent change. I was corrected, changed the nomination text, and the discussion was moved here. No big deal. (WT-en) Sertmann 16:40, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I'm "dragging you into it" because you suggested it. I thought it was a fantastic idea-sheesh! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 17:31, 10 November 2008 (EST).
To add, I must be really hated by all of you. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 17:32, 10 November 2008 (EST).

Revamp, round 2[edit]

Well, Antarctica benefited from that last cotm, but I'm not sure that anything else has. But at least it does appear that more users are becoming interested in the cotm. Per Sertmann's suggestion that we move to a single collaboration of the month, and per the reality that people have started treating this page as a nomination + voting selection, I think it's time to take another look at how best to make the collaborations work.

I think that the idea of having a singular collaboration of the month is a good idea. We discussed this above, and were worried that we'd get too many nominations and not have the slots to fill them, but if we move to a dotm style voting and scheduling system, this should be less of a problem. It's going to be really important, though, to make sure we are selecting articles that multiple users are going to be interested in working on, or else the collaboration won't work, the article will go neglected for the entire month, and people will again lose interest in this project.

So I'm making two proposals here: 1) we move to a singular CotM format, and 2) have a rigorous selection process akin to the DotM nominations and voting process.

I've got more ideas as to how to make this work well, but first I'd like to make sure that we have broad support for these two proposals. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)

As this is much in line with what I suggested myself in the previous Copenhagen nomination text - I ofcourse, support both suggestions - I'd really like to get this thing up and working. (WT-en) Sertmann 12:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I'd also like to make a suggestion for something different. Now you can hate it-it's just a suggestion. What if we did something like January 09 is a sole collaboration, then Feb is 3, March has a sole collaboration, April has 3 collaboration, May has a sole collaboration, and so on? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 18:31, 10 November 2008 (EST).
My only concern with moving to a single CotM is the same that PerryPlanet voiced during the first revamp -- that there will be too many nominations and some articles will wait a long time. A rigorous selection process will help, but if there are 12 good articles, one of them is going to have to wait a year. On the other hand, a singular CotM focuses attention better than three and if the list gets too long, we can always do revamp #3 to address it. And I think #2 is a good idea regardless. EE's idea is interesting, but I think it would be simpler to have the same number of collaborations each month, plus we'd have to come up with some guidelines for which articles deserve a singular CotM versus the threesome CotM (which could be tricky). Sooo, I guess to summarize my ramblings (it's late here, I'm tired!), I support Peter/Sertmann's proposal. (WT-en) Shaund 03:11, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Exactly, And I don't think it's too much of a concern, since very few people are participating at the moment, we've even basically run out of "nominations" for certain regions at the moment - and as you said, we could always do another revamp Also I think that (s)elected articles have a much greater chance of seeing an actual difference, since people will obviously already taken an interest in them. And may I just add that I really apologize for all this mess, guess it could be considered a side effect of the plunging forward mentality. (WT-en) Sertmann 03:20, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Well I was just looking at the CotM's right now-so brutal. Like 5 edits, wow! This thing should be a celebration-something all kinds of people getinvolved in and it changes an article forever! Personally what I think is that we shouldn't get too too many proposals-but I think we should leave it to--oh---the first five that get nominated. That way you dont have to choose between a large amount. I would also be in support of 2 collaborations, not 1. That being said-if this goes ahead, I think we should maybe hold off nominations and look at the one's that haven't gone already by that time. I support. Happy first snow day in Edmonton, (WT-en) ee talk 11:31, 11 November 2008 (EST).
I'm not a regular contributor to the CotM, so I'm not really familiar with the level of participation, but what about having a variable timeframe (e.g. if the article gets so many edits the first week, extend it for another week etc.)? That way, if you do happen to pick a lemon, it's not like the article sits neglected for the entire month. (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)
My main concern is still the same as it was last time, which has already been stated by Shaund. Still, I'm willing to go along with the idea if it will really improve the project. I gotta say, I really like JYolkowski's idea; I'm just not sure how such a system will work. But if we could implement it, that would solve a lot of problems. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 23:59, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Well i'm not entirely sure it's a good idea - but it could be implemented on a "keep it simple stupid" basis. We rename the whole shabang to current collaboration, if an article don't get any edit's for a week (starting Monday - ending Sunday) we move to the next item on a list, which would be determined by a DOTM/Star style nomination system?
It might be a good idea to have a max number of weeks (4?) so busy articles don't clog up the system. /edit: reading through my own suggestion, I actually really like that concept. (WT-en) Sertmann 00:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
How about this: we use a nomination system to set a list of articles, but we don't schedule when they become the collaboration. We just say that ___ will come after ___, which will follow ____, etc. Then we have what you were just talking about, where we have one article up for a week and if it gets a certain number of edits (or at least a couple of really big ones) it stays longer, up to 4 weeks. I say "up to" because we could cut it out sooner, at 2 or 3 weeks if we wish. Actually, hold on. I just remembered one of the main reasons we got rid of the CotW system, was because a week was considered not long enough by some of us. How about we set it at 2 weeks before deciding whether it's a dud or if we should keep it for another one or two weeks?
Then we get rid of the names "Collaboration of the Week" and "Collaboration of the Month" and just call it "Wikivoyage:Collaborations". (WT-en) PerryPlanet 00:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm up for that, but i don't like the term deciding, it all needs to be fairly automatic. If one week is to short, then we could just go about it like this (again keep it simple stupid)
1) Collaborations are nominated per DOTM nomination process and added to a "upcoming collaborations" section (nothing about time of year or anything)
2) The item at the top of the list get's moved from the upcoming section to current section (with info on what's needs to be done)
3) It stays for two weeks, and if there haven't been any edits in the last week - it goes out
3½) If there have been edits in the last week - it stays on for another two weeks - and goes out
4) Next item get's moved up as current collaboration
Another 2 cent's from me. (WT-en) Sertmann 01:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I like P.P.'s idea! keep Smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 14:08, 12 November 2008 (EST).
The above sounds good to me. I might set the threshold a little higher than no edits. If an article only gets one or two edits, does it really deserve to be kept around for another two weeks? Some articles might get that many edits without a CoTM (I think Vancouver would be one, even without me editing it). (WT-en) Shaund 21:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Good point, Shaund, maybe if we don't have more than 5 edits. Then again, I think the people would ask for CotM maybe should rally up some people that would for sure edit (atleast some). Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 21:55, 14 November 2008 (EST).

Hmm. This is a much more complex and very management-intensive proposal than what I was initially putting forth. I'd still prefer the simpler monthly collaboration, but I'll go along. We will, however, need someone who's really dedicated to managing the scheduling. Voting will also be much more difficult, since we won't be able to plan ahead by month, and therefore probably won't be able to determine schedule by voting (unless someone has an idea).

Anyway, Stefan's comment above points to how we can work the scheduling, but we should think how the selection process will work. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:02, 14 November 2008 (EST)

What if we kept stuff the way they are. The thing I find is that there is a lack of contributers to current CotMs. Heck, without looking at hte front page, I wouldn't know thw CotMs...there's no edits! I think we need to add another ruel, maybe I should put this in a different one. Anyways. I think we should have something where you'd have to get at least 2 people who would help the collaboration regularily...instead of just granting collaboration but no body says they'll edit so the chances of edits are QUITE low . OR we could have it like at least 2 big contrinbuters or 5 small contributers...and those people would have to say themselves that they would help it! I think it'd be the best way to ensure the Cotm goes to veyr good use! The person who asks the collaboration doesn't have to ask specific people, but people need to say they'd contribute. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 23:07, 14 November 2008 (EST).

bump, more comments?

Yeah this thread wandered in too many directions at once. I'd like to return to the single CotM idea, coupled with DotM-style voting/scheduling. It would be way more easy to get up and running than the latter suggestion. And if it doesn't work well for the reasons brought up above, we can simply try a different method for the following month. Anyone object? If not, I'll draft a process. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Good idea, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:56, 1 December 2008 (EST).
Go right ahead sir, anything would seem an improvement :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Fine with me. :) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

OK, I'm going to roll out a new CotM format early next week, and will do it at Project:Collaboration of the month. I'll then treat this page as an archive for the first month before turning it into a redirect. That way it will be simple to move over previous nominations to the new format (which will look like that Mexico City nom I just put up). The main objectives: 1) strict criteria about what types of tasks we want to see in nominations, since CotMs always fail when they have tasks that people aren't going to participate in, 2) voting process, 3) scheduling process. The 3rd objective is the only one for which I don't have any particularly good ideas. We'll certainly want to have a geographic balance throughout the year, as we do for the DotM scheduling. But seasonality will not be relevant for our purposes. I'd like to hear ideas, but I suppose it will be easier to see how it might work once I actually set up the new page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:07, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Round three[edit]

I've now rolled out my ideas. First, I'd invite others to bring over old nominations and put them (or rewrite them) into the new format. Second, I'm curious what people think of these changes. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:17, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Sydney CotM[edit]

This should not have been scheduled, even though we have no other Australia nominations, because the nomination did not fulfill the basic requirements for a nominations detailed here. It lacks even a basic list of tasks that need addressing. If no one is ready to create such a list, and to bring the nom in line with the requirements, I think it should be removed from the current CotM. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:18, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Fair point. Perhaps we should move Gold Coast (which does have a suitable list) up to December and remove Sydney until such time as a suitable nomination is made? (WT-en) Tarr3n 09:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)

OK. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST).

Sounds good to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I've just done a quick districting of Gold Coast into the two major centres of Surfers Paradise and Tweed Heads, and everything else in the high level article. Previously it didn't seem to know whwther it was a districted area or not. Hopefully this will make it easier to add stuff if it is CotM. --(WT-en) Inas 21:34, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I've made the amendment. Gold Coast is now COTM. (WT-en) Tarr3n 11:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

GEtting People involved[edit]

One major problem I see with CotMs is lack of participation. Look at the ones today, eeck! They are rarely being edited by users. So then I think , how do we get people to participate? I have thought of this and brought it up before and it is great timing with the new system next week. I think what we need is more voting on Cotms, and for the next while, at least two comments (aside from those already Cotms, etc.) on thoughts before a decision is made for Cotm. What we also need is within a time frame perhaps 14 days? Is for the person who nominated to recrute 3-5 people AT LEAST that say they will contribute as that way we actually know that the user cares about the CotM and that there will be definitely people editing. The people chosen for recuitioning should be chosen by the person who nominated unless they said someone else. I think the good thing about recruiting is that there is definitely people that will actually contribute and people seeing it in recent changes will perhaps feel like editing it themselves as that happens lots. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:13, 18 December 2008 (EST).

Updating process[edit]

The updating process seems overly convoluted to me. In particular, I don't understand the purpose of the previous collaborations archives (and together with it, the Template:Pcotm). Is there a need to keep track of which articles have been cotms? Wouldn't it be simpler to just add a talk section to the article's talk page under the header "Previous collaboration"? That way we'd keep the archiving process down to just two steps: remove the cotm template and add it to the new collaboration, add the old nomination text (with accomplished objectives striked) to the article's talk page. Slushing failed nominations would be a separate process. Does this sound reasonable? Or is there a compelling reason to keep the pcotm archive bureaucracy? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:35, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, that would work. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 13:02, 21 December 2008 (EST).
Are we interested in monitoring the success of the CotM? Knowing what destinations have been successful and which haven't, may give us guidance as to what is required for a successful CotM in the future. Removing the CotM archive will make it harder to review. I'd even like to see additional archival information, like what was CotM, what were the aims, and how many were fully met, partly met, or not at all met. --(WT-en) Inas 19:59, 22 December 2008 (EST)
I agree, that would be helpful. We should put stuff as how many people helped and how many of the things wanted were fufilled. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 20:10, 22 December 2008 (EST).
That's definitely a fair point. I've also realized that, since we are using a review process, it would be best to archive that directly through the CotM page. I'll scrap this idea. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:53, 23 December 2008 (EST)


Mostly, I think, due to the holidays, we didn't get this new format ready on time for January. I'm fine with letting the collaboration project languish throughout January, to come back new and improved (with lots more nominations) for February. In the meantime, I could throw together a basic Washington, D.C. nomination, since we have a ton of work going on for it already, and because it should be in better shape for the Jan. 20th Inauguration. I'll see what I can do, but it won't be an ideal nomination—just one to tide us over until February. Does that sound reasonable? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, sounds good to me--(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:37, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Archived old nomination from CotMs/CotWs[edit]

I've tossed those old nominations, which don't match the current format for nomination into Project:Collaborations of the month (archive). I've archived them to make it easy for someone to rescue and reformat an old nomination. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:43, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Non-destination collaborations[edit]

I've been thinking that we might be able to have collaborations towards a specific goal, in addition to collaborations towards improving a specific article. The one that's on my mind is the goal of pushing the United States to guide status. It's almost there, and just needs to have a couple linked region articles filled out and pushed to usable status. Other collaborations could be something like "define regional boundaries for all countries in Central Asia." Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:36, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I've been working to improve the photo quality on the U.S., as well as some of the regional articles. I could take a stab at deepening the Rocky Mountains, as well as the Great Plains. Let's collaborate on both. I also need some help on improving the Colorado sub-regions. I'm trying to get them all to usable. I would really appreciate some input. Thanks! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 19:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I don't see any problems with that, I also think that highlighting some of our expeditions like the Region map expedition (e.g. let's do a region map for the Baltic States, and country maps of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this month) the World Heritage Expedition (e.g. let's try to get usable guides for all world heritage sites in Norway this month) or getting Routeboxes done in a single state or region for a month, would make great collaborations of the month, and a worthy attempt on engaging more users in both this project, and the expeditions. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:45, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Emergency plan for April[edit]

Since we're hanging by a thread here, one of the best options as I see it, is Barcelona. It have similar problems (and strengths - one of the worlds top tourism cities) to Rome - which was highly successful, taking a final decision on the already ongoing districts discussion, and making the map - like we did for Rome, could probably do wonders for the guide. But it does require getting that map done. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:45, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Two things about that idea: 1) would you mind writing up a nomination so we can see better how it would work as a cotm; 2) I'd like to hear (WT-en) Denis' thoughts on this, especially on where the districts discussion is—is it ready for a final decision + map?
The other practical options from our nominations would be two ideas that also have not been written into a formal nomination: Disney World & Ghana. I'll take a closer look at those and try to write up nominations tonight.
One last suggestion is that we could use a stopgap collaboration for the first week, or even a couple days, then switch to a more long-term collaboration for the last 3 weeks of the month? The Yangshuo or Durban nominations could work, with the former requiring less time than the latter. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:06, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Will try to write up a nomination later. And there is also the other option, that we could stick with Rome, it's actually still getting a steady stream of edits, though not as massive as the first two weeks. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:22, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I have put in WDW as our cotm for April, despite lack of much discussion, since we didn't really have any other nominations that are ready. Seeing as it already has such well defined tasks (from the failed star nomination and ensuing discussion), and because it has a districts map, and because it needs districting, I think this has the potential to be a very successful collaboration—provided enough contributors are interested. Unfortunately I will not be able to help out myself for about a week (going to be very busy). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:17, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Sorry for being late, and huge thanks to Stefan for the push to the story of Barcelona.

I completely support idea for COTMing Barcelona. Some thoughts:

  • there are still no single local expert on Barcelona who is regular enough to push to completion the task of districtifying from traveller's perspective. I think it's OK for now to start with official districts set (as defined in Talk:Barcelona#districts_proposal), and if consensus changes at some point later, we can fix that (and re-organize listings respectfully).
  • so far I've made only a MyMaps mashup for Google Maps; it can't serve as a source of district map for the article, but at least can help in deciding which district each individual listing should belong to. I can check whether it reflects the latest consensus, but I think it should. Unfortunately, I can't help with creating our licenses-friendly map.
  • don't we really have an answer yet: whether for listings giving lat-long coordinates derived from Google Maps or other proprietary maps engine is legal and risk-free for Wikivoyage?
  • as for tasks for COTM, some ideas:
    • I think an article-local blacklist of apartment agencies would be helpful--those who repeatedly add themselves. We can create one in a subpage of Talk:Barcelona, and add every new agency that doesn't fit our criteria (to easier prune it our in case repeated adds)
    • judging by COTM on Rome, it makes sense to split "Manual of Style proofreading" task into sub-tasks, as it's make each sub-task much more do-able
    • from experience with Rome, ideally we'd better start COTM when both district borders defined and districts map is already in place. Otherwise we loose most of the contributors who consider to help in the first days of cotm, and bumping the no-borders-yet, some of they never return
    • I would dream of reaching some consensus on at least part of topics in Talk:, but looks like it will need a local expertise which we don't expect much in COTMs
    • Stay Safe looks like over-inflated, judging merely by size of the section. Most likely it's overloaded with details of well-known scams (not sure if we really need that much detail)
    • even trivial advice for mobile services would be great--for those coming to Bcn outside of Europe
    • will add as I give a second thought to the idea of COTMing Barcelona

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:58, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Project:Collaboration of the month#Barcelona. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:15, 28 May 2009 (EDT)


There appears to be talk about Barcelona, but unless someone writes a Honey-do List, it can't be featured, and no one is talking about Ghana, the proposed June CotM or anything else. Kyoto needs to be set into districts, so it's not quite ready. There doesn't seem to be much support for any of the current nominations. Although I understand what was done with Disneyland, I also think it's important to choose based on nominations and discussions, so what should be next? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:54, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Recycling failed CotMs[edit]

There are a few cotms that didn't take off, but which I still think have good potential. Tokyo is definitely such a cotm—for various reasons we didn't really get anywhere with it, but with more "coaching/bothering" of potential contributors I think we could have had more success. Perhaps we could bring it back to the nominate section and maybe add/tweak tasks to repackage it a bit. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:47, 1 December 2009 (EST)


Here's an oddball idea: maybe it would be useful to take the occasional month off? Following the enormous work done on the London cotm, I can speak for myself when I say I'm a little burnt out and not really ready to plunge into the next collaboration—I have other things I'd like to work on. Does anyone else think this might be a good idea? If so, should we just leave the old cotm on the main page? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:20, 1 January 2010 (EST)

After the Kyoto collaboration, I was also rather burnt out from the collaboration, so I think that feeling must be common, at least for those who feel obligated to make certain collaborations successful. This issue seems to be tied into the lack of participation. Ideally, after a collaboration that you proposed and worked on was finished, someone else's should be featured, which would give you a break, but that is unlikely to be successful at the moment, because the few people who work on collaborations are also the only nominators...
As much as I've tried to keep the collaborations monthly, it seems to have turned out bad collaborations, like Tokyo, which had a lot of potential to be a great one. If we do this, I think leaving the last collaboration up seems like the best way to do it. We wouldn't want the collaboration to appear and disappear every other month. We could also consider putting up some past nominations with a lot of unfinished work. If no one works on it, there is still really no loss, but if someone does pick it up, that would be great. With London, I think leaving it up would be the better option, but if this continues into the future, featuring a past failure might be a good way of keeping it "monthly" without putting out current collaborations that people are too burnt out to work on. I am curious to see more opinions... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:55, 1 January 2010 (EST)
Full support for those ideas. I certainly feel the same way and would prefer time to work on my own projects (some of which are related to the London cotm).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:08, 1 January 2010 (EST)
I agree, I think if we'd rush into a new collaboration it's not going to get the love it deserves. Many people worked on London, so I think many people are a bit burnt out to jump into a new project. (WT-en) globe-trotter 15:49, 6 January 2010 (EST)


I'm not positive that Barcelona has a lot of momentum behind it, and I'm kind of chomping at the bit to try a non-destination collaboration: housekeeping, World Heritage Expedition, or country see/do sections. Does anyone else feel the same way? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:59, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

I definitely prefer to have real destinations as collaborations, but I wonder how many of the other nominations really have any greater support than Barcelona either. A couple articles that I have seen that could possibly make good collaborations are Las Vegas (from the DotM nomination) and Niagara Falls (both American and Canadian are surprisingly weak). Although I know these are extremely popular destinations, I don't know if the regulars have gone here or if anyone would be interested in working on them as collaborations. The Rio de Janeiro and Istanbul nominations would be great to see improved, but I hate always adding support when I can only do work that does not require much knowledge about the city, because it is clear that collaborations work best when there are at least a few people who know the city are working on it. Perhaps my old Accra nomination should be slushed. I nominated it back when I was fairly new to the site based on the type of article that I would like to see improved rather than one that I can personally contribute a lot to (although I have added information to the article). Even the proposed Ghana collaboration has pretty much fallen on deaf ears... :( (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:44, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
I would get right behind a country see and do cotm. I suggest it is expanded to include Cities and ODs (adding descriptions, adding them period, culling or starting culling discussions on talk pages). That would all seem to go hand in hand.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:05, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
I've been to Niagara Falls many times and would be happy to help if others do the actual travel writing. I'm all travel-writinged out on Disney and Rochester. =) (WT-en) LtPowers 08:39, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
Any other thoughts on the idea of a country See and Do/City and OD descriptions CotM? I would be very keen to get this in place for April 2010, but it needs some thought about how we present it, list countries etc. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:22, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
For the list, I think we'd need every country and at least a column for "see" and a column for "Do". I don't know if we want other information or not. I would like to know if these should be categories, like "Historic Sites", "Shrines and Temples", "Mountains", etc. or if we want it to be a short bulleted list? Look at Africa as opposed to Asia on the continental levels for "See" and "Do" (I'll add that you'll probably have to imagine that Asia's bullets were less general and listed specific sites). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:33, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
I don't know when I'll get to it, but hopefully sometime I'll be able to look over the two Niagara Falls pages and at least come up with the minimum number of tasks and others can add to it. Of course, if someone else feels inspired to do it, I wouldn't be offended! ;) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:39, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
On Niagara Falls by the way, I think it is way too small a project for a CotM. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:42, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

Guidelines for Supporting and Contacting Those Who Do[edit]

I think we should add to the guidelines that those who pledge support should also state how much they are willing to contribute. I think sometimes people support an article because they'd like to see it improved but have never been there and have no intentions to help make those improvements themselves.

I also think it would be good to contact all users who pledged support for a collaboration (including the nominator, if someone else is updating the collaboration) as a reminder. It may make users feel a small obligation to contribute something. At the very least, since we haven't had a collaboration in months, it's a good way to get this project back on its feet and to get people involved in the discussions. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:51, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

I think DotMs should be set up in a way that everyone can participate. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:45, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
But can participate is different than will participate, and nearly all of the nominations contain at least one task that requires more in-depth knowledge about the locations. Pledging support because "someone" could do it doesn't really help the collaboration, because it gives us a false sense of how many people are truly interested in the collaboration and the collaboration fails. That's why I think it would be helpful for supporters to give some indication of their familiarity with the city and how willing they would be to personally contribute. The current collaboration is almost solely for regulars who are familiar with Wikivoyage rather than a destination, but it seems to be starting off quite successful, because there are enough people willing to do things. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:16, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

how main page links to current collaboration[edit]

Currently main page links to:

  • this article with no particular section
  • the article we're aiming to improve

But there's no link to the list of things to do (which we have under Project:Collaboration_of_the_month#Current_collaboration_of_the_month. Could we lower this barrier by making one of the above links following to #Current_collaboration_of_the_month (or adding one more link to this sole purpose maybe?) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:51, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Agreed, and done [2]. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:41, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Collaboration of the Month?[edit]


Hi, I'm still very new here but I wanted to know what happened to collaboration of the month. It seems like it has been Mauritius for 3 months already. (WT-en) Sumone10154 18:20, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Just waiting for someone to update it. Some collaborations take off, but others just languish as people focus on other areas. Feel free to plunge forward and be the driver of the next one. --(WT-en) inas 18:30, 17 January 2011 (EST)
I was changing the collaborations, but we haven't had a successful one for a long time, and talk on the page itself has virtually halted, so I stopped pushing them through in hopes of getting one that someone would actually be willing to contribute to. Mauritius is listed as being "too easy" for a collaboration on the page, but none of the "easy" work has been completed in three months (when I tried to complete tasks, I found it was not so easy...). It would be great to revive the collaborations! It's one part of Wikivoyage with great potential but has waned over the last year. Niagara Falls is probably the best candidate at the moment. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)
Ok, I followed the instructions at Project:Collaboration_of_the_month#Updating the Collaboration of the Month, but it won't let me do number 5 (Update the Template:Current collaboration with the current COTM). Can someone help me?? Thanks! (WT-en) Sumone10154 12:26, 18 January 2011 (EST)
Done. The file requires autoconfirmed, so you will be able to edit it in a week or so. Scared (because of formatting concerns) to put two cities in there, though. --(WT-en) inas 17:24, 18 January 2011 (EST)
We could just link Niagara Falls or use piped links (as in "Niagara Falls (Ontario and New York)"). (WT-en) LtPowers 11:58, 19 January 2011 (EST)
The second option looks good. --(WT-en) inas 20:51, 19 January 2011 (EST)

New start?[edit]

The Collaboration of the month is hopeless outdated (most tasks are from 2009!). Shall we delete and start new? I think that's the best idea. Jc8136 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Berlin, WHE, Tokyo, Istanbul, and actually the current country surgeon expedition all still seem like excellent choices for a CotM, but I think it would be fair to slush the rest.
I would positively love to get the CotM back up and running, especially as those five collaborations would be so useful. We need enough people to commit to them, though. Five volunteers to get one started? --Peter Talk 15:22, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
An idea for a CotM in this time of transition could just be dealing with the issues at Wikivoyage:Cleanup. ie, removing logos, removing leftover spam and some others that have escaped my memory for now. But just general distinguishing our site from WT and preparing for the major launch when we move to the WMF. JamesA >talk 15:52, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
In practice, this already is our Collaboration of the Month. Maybe we could make it official? --Globe-trotter (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
I think the switch to cleanup would be a good start! The other five can be listed for 2013. Does this sound like consensus? Jc8136 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
Yes! --Peter Talk 01:19, 20 September 2012 (CEST)


Swept in from the pub

I'd love to get started on a new CotM, and have proposed one that I think makes a lot of sense: Cotm#Continents. If you have any interest in the collaboration (for next month, or to start mid-month?), please speak up so that we know there is interest. Right now it looks like we have three editors interested, but a couple more would make a big difference once we start. --Peter Talk 18:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to join in. --Nick (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Outdated, again[edit]

Unfortunately, the CotM continues to be neglected. After months of sitting around on Wikivoyage:Cleanup, the CotM changed to Continents back in April. But two and a half months later, the CotM was the same, and must disappointingly, there has been hardly any improvement. North America#See is still a "list", which the original proposal specifically attacked, and it doesn't even have a Do section. A user has gone ahead and archived the Continents from the current CotM, but there's nothing to replace it with. At this stage, I think it may be best to temporarily suspend the CotM until the numerous other projects we're working on are up to scratch and we have some more contributors around to help. We can put the CotM templates back on the continents to be consistent with the Main Page, possible listing it as the collaboration for "2013". James Atalk 14:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. It's largely my fault that the Continents CotM didn't take off, because I suggested it, but then didn't lead the charge. Or perhaps its the fault of us having too much creativity in other exciting projects lately ;) But it would be good to return to that CotM, because the work would be very valuable. I like the idea of leaving it up as a vague "2013 CotM," so I can revitalize it later when we've burnt out a bit on making banners! --Peter Talk 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of other potential collaborations. Current nominations include major cities like Berlin, Tokyo and Shanghai. Taking the top ten from w:List_of_urban_areas_by_population, I see three — Tokyo, Delhi and New York City — at Guide, and seven — Jakarta, Seoul, Shanghai, Manila, Karachi, São Paulo and Mexico City — at Usable. It seems to me any of those is a possible CotM. Pashley (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
They are some great potential CotMs, but I think the serious issue is that no one is collaborating on the Collaborations. It's all well and good to stick a label at the top of the pages, but there's no point if no one is bothering to help (or a too busy to do so!). So maybe we should revisit this in a few months. James Atalk 02:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I made a table at Wikivoyage:World cities/Large of the fifty largest urban areas based on w:List_of_urban_areas_by_population and, with help from User:Saqib, got it filled out. Many do not have banners, several need help with districting, two are only at Outline and many, including eight of the twelve largest, are at Usable. Quite a few potential CotMs there, though JamesA makes a good point just above. Pashley (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a great table, and would be useful as CotMs in the future if there was more interest. James Atalk 02:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That table now has more columns including one that shows a list of the world's 20 most visited cities according to Forbes magazine. Sorting on that column (labelled 'F'), you see that only one of the top five (#4, Singapore) has Star status. The others — #1, 2 3 Bangkok, London & Paris and #5 New York — are all at Guide. Getting those to Star would be obvious CotM candidates if we had some participation. Pashley (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Or bringing the 9 of the top 20 that are only Usable up to Guide. Highest ranked of those is #8, Kuala Lumpur. Pashley (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
IMHO there are still too few editors and too much to do. Most of Wikivoyage is in its infancy, still, so if you have time and are willing to commit, there are many brilliant choices to choose from, no need for a CotM to suggest it to you. There are also only five hundred or so active editors, so chances to find more than one or two interested in the same topic at the same time are slim. I believe this project could be restarted when we reach 5-10 000 active editors. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice to start CotMing again?[edit]

Hello everyone! Do you still remember that we have this Collaboration section? There's not very much going on here, and as you can see from earlier posts on this talk page it's not the first time it has to be defibrillated back to life.

Maybe we should change something about the CotM itself to make it more interesting and attractive. As Prince highlighted above, we do not have that many contributors yet and there's no article that absolutely everyone here would be able (interested?) to contribute to. Therefore there are not very many people involved in each collaboration. And as the month ends there's a new article of a new destination that not necessarily any of the former articles' collaborators is familiar with.

Instead of collaborating to make specific articles better, we could highlight a certain issue each month (entries by touts that have gone undiscovered, lack of photos, perhaps something from Category:Articles needing attention etc. etc.) and try to fix it on as many articles as possible. Or why not make CotM part of the DotM/OtBP/FTT somehow, like having those articles as collaborations the month before they are featured? Other suggestions? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

One other possibility is to do the kind of work on "History" sections that we're doing in Germany#History, but I think we need to finish reconstructing that section before going on to other countries' and regions' History sections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I like the idea of concentrated effort. I believe it can be rather productive. Something I can imagine is for example improving articles of UNESCO sites on one continent, so that they are all usable or better... But also concentrating on more generic issues ϒpsilon suggested above is a good plan. Danapit (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
As YPSI suggested, collaboratively working on upcoming featured articles would be a good idea. --Saqib (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion of having a inter-lingual Wikivoyage feature of Milan. Right now, it's at Usable status, so currently ineligible for a front-page feature. We should probably make it a CotM within 5 months or so, to bring it up to Guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month update Oct. 2017[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Re-energising of this project is going well. August fixed all phone number errors on the site! September, 386 edits from 12 different contributors, has improved the Chennai article. This month's goal is to have no city articles at guide status with broken external links. With help from all this should be achievable. So please join the effort. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding content to sparse Outline articles[edit]

This is an area that needs work on this site, but any kind of proposal I could make in this regard would go against the advice at Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month#Nominate. My feeling, though, is that we could do this in bite-sized chunks. So, for example, we could start with something like "Add 2 listings to every listingless Outline article in North America" and do the same thing for South America, Australia, Europe, different regions of Asia. I doubt we'd complete the task in a month, but we could put a big dent into it. We could even go for smaller regions, such as working on Canada one month, the U.S. west of the Mississippi the next, the rest of the U.S., then Mexico and Central America, the Caribbean, etc., etc. But is this a reasonable Cotm task? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a really good suggestion. We can split the task up in stages, just like we did with fixing broken external links. We could split it by geography or by article type (maybe districts and parks first, then cities). I guess making every outline article usable isn't necessarily the goal but just useful. Having two listings, even if they're See/Do or something else and not Eat/Sleep, is a helluva lot better than nothing at all. Gizza (roam) 02:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You're right - we wouldn't want to add listings to region articles, only bottom-level ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month - December 2017[edit]

Swept from Pub:

As of today now only 1000 articles without geo templates, down 232 from the start on this month. Will a little more assistance with the task it could be completed by the end of the year. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's some links to city articles that are missing the {{geo}} template:

It should be possible to switch the search to a different type of article in the Category:Articles by type if you want to work on non-city articles; just take out "City articles" in the search box and replace it with a different category name, such as "Airport articles" and click the "Do it!" button (note that all of the airport articles already have the geo template, so there will be none in that list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I fixed a few ones, mostly by copying existing coordinates from the linked Wikidata item. That made me think: How about using the coordinates of the Wikidata item when a geo template is not available? In the rare cases where the touristic center is far from the administrative center, all we would need is to add the template. That could save us some energy to deploy it elsewhere :-) Syced (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that Wikidata and Wikipedia are often wrong in the articles that do not have geo on Wikivoyage. Often the reason they currently do not have geo tags is because of wrong spelling or more than one place with the same name. I have spent as much time correcting (mainly merging or redirecting) Wikidata entries as I have adding geo tags with this project. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As of 31 December 2017 there are now only 18 articles without geo template, 2 are off planet so do not count, the rest are diving articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of order[edit]

We have been alternating between location article and clean-up categories. Should we keep to this or move "Related sites" project to May? If not propose we do "Related sites" in June. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the "Related sites" project is urgent, so I think doing it in May seems fine. It seems fine to adjust the alternating schedule when there's a good reason. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think the ordered pattern is unnecessary and might turn into a problem if we are suddenly flooded with city article nominations, for example. However, since it is working for now, we may as well keep it. Selfie City (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We now have a good list of candidates, I have taken a stab at an order to address them. Just my preference though, and not in any way a strong preference, anyone else care to make comments and suggest an alternative order? --Traveler100 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Page banner[edit]

@Traveler100:Are there any other page banners? The current one doesn't have great quality. Selfie City (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

On a search through Commons this was the best I could find. Maybe at some point will come across something better. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I see. Well, it's the content of the article that really matters, not the picture at the top. Selfie City (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I've updated it to a different image, cropped with Gimp. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thought I'd jump in and say for the record that I think the banner looks fantastic. Hiàn (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming - Discussion of order again[edit]

So we have a really good list of possible activities. I have added them to the Upcoming table but mainly just based on the order they were suggested. Anyone with feedback and preferences on an alternative sequence of addressing the tasks? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it would make sense for tasks with more support to be done sooner and tasks with less support to be postponed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that’s the best way to do it, but there needs to be more participation in the nomination voting if we want to organize the tasks by support votes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Messaging admins for COTM, DOTM, etc.[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Since the beginning of August, there has been very little activity on the COTM page. Even the collaborations themselves do not seem to get the interest of many contributors. The DOTM is working at the moment, but going through the talk page reveals that this has not always been the case.

Well, a few days before the next COTM begins in September, I brought up some potential issues with it, and I even went to WV:Requests for comment and posted my concern there. But still, no response, and September (along with the new collaboration) is getting closer every second. I’ve also put up multiple COTM nominations lately, and there have been no responses.

I think a lot of users, including some admins, do not follow or even know these pages. To keep the COTM and DOTM functions operating, what if we had a system — like a bot, perhaps — that messaged admins when a new COTM was nominated or when the each monthly collaboration begins, so they can help out. The same could be done with the DOTM page and the DOTM banners voting page.

Another option would be to have a template that could be added to the active admins’ talk pages, reminding them about these things.

Any thoughts?

--Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am all for promoting more activity in COTM. It had actually been going well until this month. Maybe people no so interested in the subject. What I do not understand is what this has to do with admins? Admin is about cleaning and patrolling activities, it is not about committing to particular contribution activities.--Traveler100 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Because it's generally the admins who are the most active on the website. But of course, there's also a lot of autopatrollers who are also involved (like Hobbitschuster, K7L, who are just as active as admins) who could get these notifications as well. Maybe a better way to put this would be to message out to active users rather than admins. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I've generally been active on the COTM since its revival in August 2017. This month is one of the few where I haven't really contributed, mainly because this month's collaboration doesn't interest me as much. I've started working on next month's collaboration though, which is improving our outlines districts. Gizza (roam) 22:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't think there was enough to do in Atlanta; it's disappointing that the related nomination I put up on the vfd page did not get any responses. I think there may be more interest in the outline districts, since there is a lot to do there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's still a lot more to do in the Atlanta collaboration if anyone wants to get involved in its last few days. I just glanced through a few districts and saw a bunch of listings with no coordinates, missing basic information, in the wrong section, etc. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I have both CotM and DotM pages on my watchlist but only get involved when something that interests me turns up. I suspect this is fairly typical for regular users & think it is as things should be. Pashley (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

MassMessage extension[edit]

This is a good function for the MassMessage extension. A bot could be written to send out a mass message to all admins or all active users with [x] edits in the past 30 days every 10th of the month, for instance (with the possibility to opt out, of course). —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Koavf, that's a good idea. The only thing is, who would write the code for the bot? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe we could have some kind of questionnaire, asking people what project interests they have, and then the MassMessage will only remind them about things taking place that are related to their project interests. Or perhaps we could start an expedition where we get users interested. Those in the expedition would show their interest in the COTM. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This latest proposal (only getting messages about stuff we indicate an interest in) is okay, but I don't think I'd personally use it. I follow everything I'm interested in on my watchlist. Furthermore, I would oppose any attempt to regularly mass-message anybody about random stuff they may not care about. That would irritate the hell out of me, and I doubt I'd be alone. Remember, WV is supposed to be fun, and coercing people into doing something they don't want to do is not fun. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I do not like this idea at all. You can already reach many people with a post in the pub and/or at Wikivoyage:Requests for comment, and you can tag individuals in posts or post links on their talk pages, so I do not think it is necessary. You don't need the questionnaire either; just trust people to put topics they are interested in on their watchlists.
Who would be trusted to use this appropriately? I think I'd trust most of the admins, but I'm not entirely sure about all of them. Among the other users, there are some I certainly would not want to be able to do this. Pashley (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you think of any other way to increase interest in the COTMs? It feels like a very small number of people actually work on them, but I would like to see that change if possible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Send the contents of your mass message to here (the pub) instead. Personally, I find COTM pointless, because the whole of Wikivoyage is a collaboration. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think COTM finds the weak points of Wikivoyage and tries to make them stronger. I think COTM draws attention to the weak points so they can be fixed. Anyway, posting to the pub is definitely a good idea. The only thing I'd worry about is there being a lot of mass messages, which might get in the way of the pub's actual content. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you about the COTM; I was just offering a reason why it doesn't interest me no matter what sort of messages are sent :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I see; it's actually useful to know that there people not very interested in certain projects, versus those who just did not know about them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the point and would certainly opt out of any mass message. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I also oppose mass messaging. Most active editors here are aware of COTM and the ones that are interested participate in it. Since the 2017 revival, there has been a core group of around 4 editors (Traveler100, Mx. Granger, MartinJacobson and me) that have worked on most COTMs and there have been other editors that have contributed to COTM discussion or helped out occasionally on the tasks if it's a topic of interest for them, like Pashley, Hobbitchuster, Matroc, WOSlinker and others. This month's COTM is a bit less active than usual but the project is far from dead. Even when it was dormant from mid-2013 to mid-2017, it wasn't a big deal as long as editors were still improving Wikivoyage overall. Gizza (roam) 00:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, the most successful COTMs tend to be those that clear maintenance categories. The months where we try to bring an article to guide or star status have seen mixed results. But of course maintenance doesn't appeal to everyone. And in a project reliant exclusively on volunteers, while we can make people aware of the COTM, we can't force anyone to do anything. Gizza (roam) 00:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I like ThunderingTyphoons! idea of posting a note here. That can be done manually by whoever sets up the new collaboration each time. It doesn't have to be fancy. A quick note that says "Hey, there's new COTM. The subject is X" should be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I like that idea too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that’s a good idea, and is a good compromise between showing nothing at all and doing a mass message function. I also think the COTM and DOTM candidates, etc., should be brought up more in pub discussions. That will make them more relevant and inform people about them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Would it be useful to add a line or two at the top of the Wikivoyage:Requests for comment reminding readers that DotM nominees and the CotM always need comment or contributions? I'm inclined to think not very because people who read the RFC page already read CotM and DotM, but it could do no harm. Pashley (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Most-known-sights expedition(?)[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Surprisingly often I find that we are missing iconic sights of even prominent countries. Would it make sense to start an expedition where we would find (e.g. via some "competitor pages" or google) top 30-50 sights per country and check that we have them as well? This could probably increase our google rank a bit too...

Second step, after we put those listings in the destination cities (if they exist), it'd be great to extend regions to look like Paris/Brussels - so that each one of them has some overview of the main sights (at least some) with links to lower levels. Because otherwise we usually only have cities listed in most/many regions, which doesn't help the visitor==traveler to decide where the good stuff is. Of course, this is complicated, since we have some 2k regions, so we'd have to limit the scope somehow here.

Would there be some interest to do such thing? I could probably start doing some ground-work (like prepare some raw POI lists). (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m not crazy on the idea, but I am not against it either. Perhaps we could make it a Cotm. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I've quickly thrown together a list of the fifty 'biggest attractions' of the Netherlands based on some data found online, and I must say that I'm amazed to find some of the listed attractions on the list and some of them not while I did expect them. The Vondelpark in Amsterdam, for example, I would have expected on the list. Many attractions are listed, one of greater relevance to the traveller than the other. I'm not sure what the right way of getting a completer coverage of major attractions is, to be fair, and I'm pretty sure that doing what I've done now, grabbing the fifty or so biggest attractions and checking if we cover them, is not effective and not getting anywhere. Perhaps grabbing a list of museums and other sorts of attractions in X through Wikidata, tossing that in a list of sorts and working through that manually is what we're looking for? In any case, getting a coverage of the major attractions in X, whether that be a city, country or the entire world, requires a lot of effort and a Collaboration may be the way, as SelfieCity pitched above, and I'd hereby like to say that I support such an effort.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with, the layout of the Paris and Brussels articles is a great asset to the traveler. For the most-known sights, I slightly favour the Brussels approach for See and Do sections (following the 7±2 rule to enforce its summary role) in a more traditional travel guide style illustrated with pictures rather than a listing of bullets (approach of the Parisian See section). 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gallery for main sights[edit]

Possible third step of the above and a topic for discussion. In spirit of "A picture is worth a thousand words" - we could introduce some kind of "gallery", where each Country (and/or top-level regions) would have a gallery of these sights. We have the pictures already, but randomly scattered around the articles, and often incomplete. I'm not sure where we would put such stuff - maybe there could be some tiny "banner"/popup icon in the "See" section? Just an idea... This could maybe also be auto-generated from wikidata of the listings.

If/before we do this, it'd probably be best to first prepare some sketch-ups and agree on the new look... I also know we have the rules Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Minimal_use_of_images, but maybe that rule was written 15 years ago on WT and nowadays even the remove areas have 3G usually... (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The <gallery> approach is, in my opinion not an appealing one. I'm all for adding more images in articles, but I'm not a fan of having more pictures stacked above each other than that the page is long. Perhaps we should look at deVoy for this, who have implemented a decent-looking gallery to show more images in the same place (see Amsterdam, for example). It might be an idea to develop the associated template further to add things such as an auto scroll to drag the reader's attention to the multiple images hidden in plain sight. The gallery as it stands isn't very appealing in my opinion, but resembles a regular thumbnail, which is fine by me.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It is also possible to create the gallery at Commons ("Sights is London" or somesuch), cf Commons:Winter driving. The format is free, i.e. Commons admins are unlikely to interfere. --LPfi (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How to handle proof of existence of POI?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Working on November cotm, I am finding a number of restaurant and hotel listings that I cannot find any other information on from the internet. Checking others' views on how to handle this? Not finding anything on a location/business on the internet does not mean it does not exist, it could just simply be off the beaten track or a small establishment. Could however be an old entry of a business that no longer exists. I am tempted to move these entries to the talk page and request someone else to prove their current existence. Example, the eat entries with no lat long coordinates in the Bangkok - Yaowarat and Phahurat article. Where they should be is clear from address given but if they are still there is not. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I just searched for the address of the first sleep listing and found another hostel was at that address. I would suggest searching for the address without the hotel / restaurant name - if a different business comes up then it is reasonable to assume that the listed place has closed (or changed name). There are also often other country specific ways of checking, like directories of safety certificates etc. Google Streetview can also be useful to see what was on the ground when they drove past. AlasdairW (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes I do look at the address itself and search on that. As you say often shows change of name/ownership. But in some cases does not show anything and Street View does not always help. Also check on other travel hotel and restaurant review sites, if contains reviews but non of them in the last couple of years, also assume closed. But when you cannot find anything new or old, then what? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - November 2018[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Halfway through the month, the number of Star status articles without listing coordinates has been reduced from 53 to 40. A good deal of work done but without more input from the community looks like a number of articles will be destared in the next few months. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's only 37 now. I may help out in the near future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
yes but 2 of those I had been working on since the start of the month. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Just added a couple coordinates; Chicago skyline guide seems fairly close. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
So the skyline guide is done, and we're now down to 36. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I have just finished Chicago/Loop. We are now down to 35, including 11 in Chicago. AlasdairW (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I finished Chicago/Pilsen, 23 to go Elgaard (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we're in December now, but definitely that doesn't mean we have to stop improving articles! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - January 2019[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Guide articles should preferably including a map with point-of-interest markers. Currently there are 285 guide status cities having See listings with no coordinates, and 68 guide status districts having See listings with no coordinates. Please help with this month's cotm to improve the quality and usefulness of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Good collaboration; however, the catscan does not take into account that sometimes we don't want coordinates for a listing. Often there are multiple listings for rooms of the same building, or parts of different buildings on the same site. These show up on the catscan as having listings without coordinates, but actually there is nothing wrong with them. Not a major issue, just something to remember while adding coordinates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That is why there is the possibility in a listing to enter "NA" (not applicable) in the lat and long parameters to stop generating a false check. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That's useful to know, thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to stop alternating between destinations and maintenance categories[edit]

Considering the success of the recent COTM, I think we should no longer do destination COTMs every 2 months, if at all. It's becoming clearer and clearer that they don't work as well as maintenance categories. Therefore, I think that starting in late 2019 (when we have spaces) we should do more maintenance categories (if that's an appropriate name for them) as COTMs and fewer destinations. How do other contributors feel about this possible change?

(Maintenance categories are in an above section called "clean-up categories" — that's probably a better word.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am under the same impression and support the suggestion. Perhaps we can make exceptions in special circumstances, such as the November 2017 COTM to get the Cape Town article in shape for Wikimania 2018, but in general I believe that "maintenance-COTMs" are preferable to COTMs focusing one some specific article. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it's fine if we still do some destination COTMs, but I think there should more of the other kind because they are generally more successful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll support this proposal. I used to be involved in destination COTMs early on but like many of the editors have lost interest. I still enjoy improving destination articles generally but not as part of a COTM. This will make COTM more productive overall. Maybe to start things off, for the next 12 months we can aim for 8 maintenance COTMS and 4 destinations. A 2:1 ratio and not an extreme change. Or 9 maintenance and 3 destinations. Gizza (roam) 08:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, this makes sense. I like the idea of destination COTMs, but I have to admit the other kind seem to be more successful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I think either a 2:1 ratio or a 3:1 ratio would be better than the current format. I'll update the cotm chart accordingly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
So now, starting around mid-2019, there's a 2:1 ratio in the schedule. I moved Antarctica to November 2019 to achieve this, and I also added "custom banners - park articles" to the schedule. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It does appear this activity is better suited to small fixes across the site rather than improving a specific destination. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Enthusiasm for location collaboration appears to have stalled. Unless any objections suggest we change the schedule to only cover maintenance category tasks. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed; that seems like the best course to take. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month for July[edit]

Swept in from the pub

cotm to look and fix inconsistencies between Wikivoyage and Wikidata geo coordinates is coming along well. All city article coordinates have been fixed (was a good number in the wrong location) and most of the park article. Could do we a little more input on the region articles though. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - August 2019[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Some help is being requested for cotm. With over 100 guide articles with links shown as numbers it is going to take effort from a number of contributors to make these articles look more presentable. What we are talking about is this type of edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Noticed a number of listings using the phoneextra= parameter that does not work. Numbers when valid should be added to phone= with a comma separator. Have added the search option to this months cotm list. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)