Wikivoyage talk:Featured collaboration/Archive 2012-2018

New start?

The Collaboration of the month is hopeless outdated (most tasks are from 2009!).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)

CotM

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Outdated, again

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 A ▪ talk 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 A ▪ talk 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 A ▪ talk 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?

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

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

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

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:

• Africa (1)
• Asia (159)
• Europe (3)
• North America (8)
• South America (8)

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

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 might 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

@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

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.

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

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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(?)

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). Andree.sk (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 Andree.sk, 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). 94.119.64.18 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gallery for main sights

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... Andree.sk (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?

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

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)