Open main menu

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

Current Collaboration of the monthEdit

Link and phone formattingEdit


Moving information into listings to provide better functionality, such as click on number to phone, and provide more consistent formatting.

  • Identify if phone numbers and associated business information can be changed to a listing entry. At same time, if needed, edit number to standard International phone format.n
    •   Done phone icon used currently in 1 guide articles. (Was 69 at start of month)
    •   To do Tel: used currently in 55 guide articles. (Was 67 at start of month)
    •   Done phone: which gives 0 in guide articles. (Was 35 at start of month)
    •   To do : + which gives 66 in guide articles. (Was 102 at start of month)
    •   To do ''+ which gives 32 in guide articles. (Was 44 when added)
  • Web links that are shown as number, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference move some text into the link brackets.


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

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

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

  • Support. Seems like a good way to work together to tidy up our articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Here's a couple more searches: phone: which gives 37 and : + which gives 115. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with reservations. There are certain instances where the listing template is unnecessary, i.e. taxi companies for which the only information we include, or need to include, is a phone number. Let's think about context rather than just blindly listingifying everything under the sun. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Taxi is a good reason to add to listing. Key incentive here, apart from asking people to work out how to type a telephone symbol on a page, is that it makes the phone number a click and dial entity. Also makes it easier for people to add web link to the entry if one does not already exist. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Anything which is already written in a bullet point format can easily be converted to a templated listing. But if there is a phone number incorporated within prose, converting it to a listing does not necessarily improve how the information is presented. Gizza (roam) 02:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Agree, although a few are actually better as a list, there are many that do not make sense to be listings. Was thinking once this activity is complete seeing how many of these there are and assessing if we need and inline {{phone}} template so we can have phone number syntax checking. (And this does not mean people have to enter text using the template, can be added later in clean-up tasks). --Traveler100 (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Something like this --Traveler100 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use the following format for nominations:


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

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



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


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

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

TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)

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

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


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


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

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


Current proposals (subject to change).

Month COTM
May 2019 Link and phone formatting
June 2019 Beirut
July 2019 Articles Geo different to Wikidata
August 2019 Oklahoma City
September 2019 Articles with formerly dead external links - second round
October 2019 Custom banners - usable articles
November 2019 Antarctica
December 2019 Custom banners - park articles
January 2020 Population figures
February 2020 Destination COTM
March 2020 Maintenance/category COTM



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

What kinds of tasks would this include? Creating new articles isn't a good cotm task, because it requires knowledge of the area and a significant time investment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Good question. I think filling out lower-level articles with general information would be useful, along with perhaps more listings on some of them. I think mapmaking would also be useful to include but it wouldn't be a necessary part of the CotM, of course. Selfie City (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, adding general information and new listings is also a better task for people who know the place. Cotm tasks should be things that you can spend five minutes helping with, even if you're unfamiliar with the destination. See #Nominate above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What about copy editing? I got quite of information from WP and added it here. Selfie City (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And some more images in some articles perhaps, as well. And listingify this list. Selfie City (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's enough here for a good cotm. To be honest, I think what the Antarctica articles are in need of right now isn't copyediting, it's higher-level cleanup. It would be ideal to get input from someone familiar with the continent to clean up the region structure and make decisions like whether that long list of bases is useful to travellers. Copyediting doesn't hurt, but there are other articles that are more in need of that, and the Antarctica articles are more in need of attention from someone knowledgeable who can make larger-scale changes, rather than casual cotm contributors. Once the more fundamental issues like region structure have been fixed, we can revisit it and see if a cotm makes sense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Population figuresEdit

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

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

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

Custom banners - usable articlesEdit

Usable articles that only need custom page banners to reach guide status: An alternative to the above, but would probably be more work since we have more than 5000 usable articles and well under 1000 guides. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

At time of entering this text there are 1450 usable articles with listings that have no customer banner --Traveler100 (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, maybe as our second custom banner collaboration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Kauai in the Hawaiian IslandsEdit

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

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

After this nomination was made, the article was changed to a city article and the two cities breadcrumbed under it were merged. Is the collaboration still necessary? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Do not think this is still a candidate after the updates. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This collaboration should be slushed because work has been done. However, the article could still be improved by anyone who's interested in working on it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Articles Geo different to WikidataEdit

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

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

Articles with formerly dead external links - second roundEdit

We got this down to 1 article, but now the check bot has been rerun. As of 22 September 2018 there are 1099 Articles with formerly dead external links. Some of these will be good links but many are IP address squatters and will lead readers to unrelated commercial pages or sites with virus risks. This list needs clearing out and the web links fixed or deletion of the listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing star articlesEdit

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

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

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

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

Removing listings for closed businesses, guide articlesEdit

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

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

Oklahoma CityEdit

  • Plenty of listings in city article that need moving or merging to district articles. A few district article currently at outline status that could be improved. Also could benefit from general update of listings in all articles and improvement to text on major attritions in the city page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I was thinking about nominating this too. In addition to what you said, a lot of geocoordinates are needed and listings need to be filled out with additional information. Oklahoma City/Paseo also needs to be merged, but I might get to that before the collaboration starts. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Custom banners — park articlesEdit

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

  To do: 343 park articles with the standard banner

Adding conversion templates to units — usable city articlesEdit

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

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

Category:Empty regionsEdit

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

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

Listing coordinates - phase 3Edit

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


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


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

Updating the Collaboration of the monthEdit

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

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