Wikivoyage talk:Featured collaboration

Archived discussions Wikivoyage talk:Collaboration of the month/Archive 2004-2011 Wikivoyage talk:Collaboration of the month/Archive 2012-2018

Collaboration of the month - January 2019

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

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

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

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)

2020 Nominations and Upcoming

I have added a number of project to Wikivoyage:Collaboration_of_the_month#Upcoming, only a suggestion, any other ideas or alternative priorities for 2020? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, collaborations aren't going badly at the moment. I'll do some work on finding pagebanners now in the current COTM. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Traveler100 and COTMs

It suddenly occurred to me that we haven't seen much of Traveler100 or COTMs lately. I checked Special:Contributions/Traveler100 and he hasn't edited here since January.

Without Traveler100, we need someone new to manage changing over COTMs each month and the will to do COTMs, which I don't see at the moment. Should we abandon our COTMs? Or do people want to continue them? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't participate in cotm, but have absolutely no problem with others continuing it if they wish to.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can manage any project on this site. SelfieCity, if you'd like to start a Cotm, go ahead! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I’d definitely do it, but I first would want to make sure that there are people willing to participate. Thanks for the mention, though! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've set up the COTM schedule once again, and extended the first one an extra month (late March and April) due to the work required on that COTM in particular. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Restored COTM

Swept in from the pub

Starting in January 2020, our COTM had been abandoned. I have now restored it with the March collaboration. For those of us who do COTM projects, let's work on reducing the number of poorly formatted links on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Volte face time for me. Having said at Talk:COTM that collaboration of the month doesn't do anything for me, making sure all links are frontlinks is of interest to me, so I'll be joining in.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

One question I have is that COTM says "1262 ... articles" — where can we find the information necessary to change this number? If no-one knows, we might as well remove that statistics, since the collaborated effort is reducing the number and therefore making it inaccurate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess we can follow the link and see how many results there are. Currently 1192. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have used that method to find out how much each has decreased since the numbers were added by Traveler100. It's coming along quite well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe Travel Man may have used categories for some of his lists as well (for future months' collabs). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, by categories you mean? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: Special: Categories. So T100 might, for instance use Category: Pages with broken file links to know which pages have links which need fixing, and how many. Make sense? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to see a list of categories at the bottom each page, Go to the Appearances tab in Preferences, and select "Show hidden categories". This can be useful for checking that your edit has fixed the issue. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Swept in from the pub

For those who are interested, this month's collaboration is conversion templates. Statements like "75° Fahrenheit" would be converted to the format 75 °F (24 °C) using {{F|75}}. Per Wikivoyage talk:Measurements#Using digits instead of words fractions should not be converted to the templates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hold up. I certainly appreciate the efforts to keep the fire burning over at cotm, but for accessibility reasons vis-a-vis new editors, Wikivoyage has always preferred to use templates as sparingly as possible, as elucidated at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates#Template overkill? and elsewhere. Any sitewide action that consists of wantonly replacing ordinary prose with templates needs to be cleared through a community-wide consensus at the pub and/or the relevant policy page, not merely a consensus at CotM that consists of three support votes, two of which are from no-longer-active users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. See below. (As a note, only one of the support votes comes from an inactive user.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have often used conversion templates such as Template:Fahrenheit to convert fahrenheit to celsius, etc. Apparently, though these templates are not labeled with the experimental template despite having long been on the website but have only once been approved in consensus — at the cotm nomination. Therefore, it's necessary to decide whether or not we should use these templates. See cotm for more information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As someone who's pretty useless at templates, I find the conversion templates easy to use. I am sympathetic to minimising the use of templates and think that the French Wikivoyage has gone too far down that particular rabbit hole, to the extent where there are indeed templates by the bunny-load. That wiki looks prettier, but it's not as user-friendly as this one. But, I do think the conversion templates are more user-friendly than doing the calculation externally (Google search or calculator). So, while I support the request to have a discussion, I also support the wider use of conversion templates.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's my position on the matter. I'm not opposed to the existence of the conversion template. It should be available for editors who want to use it. I've used it myself in a number of articles. But its use should definitely not be required, nor (this is the clause germane to the proposed CotM) should its use be considered the Wikivoyage default. In the section above, I spelled out the accessibility issues with overuse of templates, but there are also reasons unrelated to accessibility why a user might want to stick with prose; one I can think of off the top of my head is that when a writer is using round numbers to convey the fact that he's approximating, it looks odd to give an exact conversion when the number in the other system is not round. (This happened to me when copyediting the Birmingham (Alabama) article in advance of its DotM stint; I remember writing something like "average high temperatures in summer are around 100°F (40°C)" and it was remarked that the Celsius equivalent to 100°F is actually 38°C. I replied that the operative word in what I wrote is "around"; both of those numbers remain approximately accurate even if the conversion isn't exact.) I'm fine with the conversion template being used where appropriate and even with encouraging its wider use, but I think going back and retroactively changing other editors' prose to templates is a bridge too far in this case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that in cases where no conversion is given, it's useful to add a conversion, whether through a template or through regular text. (Especially for destinations in the United States, whose Fahrenheit system is more unfamiliar to people from Celsius-using countries than vice versa.) In cases where a conversion is given in text, I don't think it does any good to convert it to a template. Doing so carelessly can also introduce issues—AndreCarrotflower gave one example; another more subtle case is where a sentence says something like "Temperatures vary by as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit". —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is specifically:

"a COTM to turn text like "25 km" or "3 miles" into conversion templates, like 25 km (16 mi) or 3 mi (4.8 km)."

This is a win for readers who understand the metric system or Imperial measures but not both. WV:the traveller comes first.

It does not propose to change text where the conversion is provided, such as "around 100°F (40°C)".

Let's stick to discussing the merits of the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have adjusted the language at cotm to clarify your point. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AndreCarrotflower: You can get the same effect with {{convert}}, though: {{convert|100|F|-1}} will give you 100 °F (40 °C). (edit: And to Granger's point, for converting a range or difference in temperature, that's supported too: {{convert|30|F-change}} will give you 30 °F (17 °C).)

There's undoubtedly a balance to be struck between using fewer templates (which makes things easier for unskilled editors) and using more templates (which encourages uniformity, encodes intent in semantic markup, and enables features such as making pages more accessible [e.g. for screen readers]). But isn't this part of the advantage of a wiki, that not every editor needs to be skilled with templates? If you want to write prose, go ahead. If someone else wants to upgrade it to use [approved] templates, they can also do so. On WP I frequently reformat existing prose to use w:Template:Nihongo and similar language templates, and would be doing so here if we had an equivalent template. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize the template was so versatile. That's great. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the clarification Ground Zero provided, I no longer oppose implementation of this CotM, with the caveat that when participants encounter a figure that's round, i.e. one that ends in a 0 or a 5, please first assess whether it's intended as an approximation, and if so, convert in prose to the nearest round number in the other system, rather than with the template.

To Bigpeteb's comment: as ThunderingTyphoons! pointed out, the conversion template in its most straightforward form is simple enough even for those who are otherwise uncomfortable with using templates, but when you add extra arguments whose existence and/or purpose is not immediately obvious, like the "-1" or "-change" business at the end, that's when you venture into user-unfriendly territory. I consider myself pretty handy with templates - I've figured my way around Template:Mapframe, for instance - and much like Granger, I didn't know those capabilities was built into the conversion template until just now. When even experienced editors like Granger and me aren't familiar with the full range of uses of a particular template, that's a problem.

As for "if you want to write prose, go ahead; if someone else wants to upgrade it to use [approved] templates, they can also do so", the operating principle Wikivoyage follows is that when content is converted from newbie-friendly prose to sometimes newbie-unfriendly templates, the chances of that text being edited at any time in the future become correspondingly smaller, even if updates are necessary to maintain accuracy. For instance, in the example you provided, suppose a third user comes along wanting to edit that same content and, thanks to the second user, now has a template to deal with. Is that third user unfamiliar with how to use MediaWiki templates? Will the need to learn put him off editing that content? Could the article potentially be stuck with inaccurate or outdated information as a result? These are all distinct possibilities.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there now a consensus to continue this cotm with explanations added as having been clarified in this discussion? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I will update the page to reflect the above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Done — see cotm. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

[outdent]
That was quick. Consensus 2 hr after the discussion was started! On Walpurgis night! That was just convincing one (or a few) users, not getting a "community-wide consensus".

I am not convinced. The example above on changing 3 mi to "3 mi (4.8 km)" is certainly something that should not be done in one minute, but requires understanding the context. I'd usually make it "3 mi (5 km)". I do use the templates, but I try to consider where they are useful and where they mostly add noise. If the (approximately) same numbers are repeated, I think converting every occurrence is overkill, unless the exact figures are important. Likewise e.g. in some cases where the figure itself is not the point.

I sometimes use {{convert}}, but I have to look it up every single time. Here I agree with AndreCarrotflower: {{km|5}} is obvious, at least if you can see the result, and perhaps {{convert|5|km|sigfig=1}}, but the more complex variants should be used very sparingly.

I might not make further comments for some days.

–LPfi (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean the agreement of every single Wikivoyage editor. This was a sort of "emergency," as we briefly had a cotm that was going against consensus. That seems to be resolved now.

I'm not sure I understand the "context" to which you refer. Sure, some context helps, but surely the editor doesn't need to read whole paragraphs just to know that it's not a rounded conversion or a changing value rather than a temperature. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If one calls for a wider community discussion and it is closed in two hours, that is odd. There are certainly regulars who did not log in tonight. Are you sure this cotm is not still going against consensus? Or rather, that there might not yet be a consensus about doing this – and that it could be done in a better way if we gather some more understanding about the role of the figures in different contexts.

[some too wordy explanations about "context"]

But now I wish you a good night. I hope I got some of my message across, although I am not in the mood of thinking carefully about guidelines for this project and finding good examples. I am still just trying to use the emergency brake. If I am the only one who was not part of a consensus, then do as you might. I really try to keep away from this for some days.

-- LPfi (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The C and F templates are relatively self-explanatory, and are a useful way to present the temperature in both scales. But generally I think we should use only as many templates as needed (and not mimick for example fr-WV where they are using a template for everything that can be put into a template – heure, prix and what have you). Templates, while practical, make wikicode harder to read and edit, particularly for new users. --Ypsilon (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that there was community-wide consensus for this cotm; I just meant that there seemed to be consensus among the people who had participated in the discussion. In the past we haven't usually required community-wide consensus for collaborations, just consensus at the cotm page. (Usually successful cotm proposals don't turn out to be this controversial!) There appears to be community consensus that Template:convert etc. is permissible, based on Wikivoyage:Measurements.

I'll reiterate the suggestion I made at the cotm page, which is that we postpone this collaboration and do something less controversial this month. That'll give us time to see if there's community-wide consensus and solidify exactly what the scope of the collaboration should be. It seems to me there's no harm in swapping this collaboration with a different one in the calendar. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger, LPfi, AndreCarrotflower: Accordingly, I've adjusted the cotm schedule so that this month is "style fixes." I did it, quite conveniently, just after 24:00 UTC, which is when the COTM should be changed anyway. I had to do some rescheduling because the June 2020 collaboration was roughly the same as March/April, but I think this will work well.

It's been an interesting start to the COTM's second (no, third, fourth, fifth?) revival, but hopefully things will become smoother after this. At least we have achieved more interest in the COTM than ever before! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Style fixes

There's a problem with the "task" section of the new cotm: I can't load the links to examples of style tags within articles. Does anyone have an idea what's gone wrong here? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been having trouble with Petscan links lately too. Not sure what the problem is, maybe something to do with the WMF's servers. The alternative is to use the category page, I guess. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit/update articles about article templates?

We're currently working on language for a draft of a Wikivoyage:Rural area article template. However, when I made these edits, I was partly referencing Wikivoyage:Big city article template, which also had some terribly outdated listing formatting and very stilted language. I've already made these edits to the big city template article, but what this exercise has made clear to me is that there is likely to be stilted language and obsolete formatting throughout the suite of articles about article templates.

Would fixing this be a good task for a Cotm? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I’m thinking August might be a good month, as dead links (July’s COTM) are really important as mentioned in the pub. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Cotm to mention places of interest in region articles?

Per discussion at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Articles vs GPT, should we have a Cotm on making sure the most interesting places in each region are mentioned in each region article, with links to full listings in the relevant local guides? We could schedule it for June, since we're already 1/4 of the way into May, but I may get started later today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• This sounds like a really worthwhile collaboration. Is there a way of generating a list of region articles that suck to give editors a list to work on? Ground Zero (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I can start work on that soon and post it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe I'll leave it here. Please help. It will be a big job to look through all the articles in Category:Region articles, even while restricting our attention to the "See" and "Do" sections for the time being. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Do you mind if I add some articles to User:Ikan Kekek/Bad region articles? I'll try and create list similar to User:SHB2000/outline articles, which gives an insight on which articles have a low byte count (which probably has many empty sections). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please! It's a really monumental task to look through all the articles in the region category! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a few – are those the kinds of articles which would be considered problematic? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The last COTM was in June 2020, so I suggest that you just put this on the COTM page, and notify people in the Pub that this is underway. No need to wait until June. Ground Zero (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero: and to anyone else following this discussion.

After one week of adding over 2000 links, I've finally finished User:SHB2000/outline articles/regions. What this allows you to do is to sort articles by byte size – while byte size alone is not indicative of an article's state, a region article with a low byte count is often bound to have many empty sections (if not everything apart from the "Cities" section); that was also how I was able to find some egregious cases of bad region articles like Pando or Northwest (Minas Gerais). Any feedback for improving this will be appreciated! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's really impressive! Thanks for doing all of that! I'm sorry I've gotten off track from that work. I'll try to look more at region articles tomorrow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem, Ikan Kekek, and there's no need to apologize! It wasn't much work, nor did it require a lot of template skills (I carried over the template I used from a previous list of a similar kind) – it was just the many command Cs and command Vs... I hope this does help, though :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've tackled a few from Ikan Kekek's list, and noted this. Which list are we going to use? Ground Zero (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Preferably Ikan's list – my semi-automated list is meant to aid Ikan's list by making it easier to find the more problematic region articles. Thanks for your improvements to Eastern Kenya and Cornwall County, though :-). I'll be sure to join in and expand some of these once I've made User:Ikan Kekek/Bad region articles more comprehensive. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a few more to that list. This is an absolutely huge job. I'm nowhere remotely close to finishing articles starting with the letter "A." And this work requires proposals of merges and deregionalization. It's really a very daunting task. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've proposed to make this the first "Featured collaboration ". See wv:Featured collaboration#Proposed featured collaboration. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Done. It's on the main page. Ground Zero (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-launching this project

The "Collaboration of the month" project has become inactive, with no updates since 2020. I think that focused collaborations are still useful, but it seems unrealistic to expect that they will get completed in a month, and that this page will be update every month.

I propose to replace COTM with "Featured collaboration", under which a collaboration would not have a maximum time limit.

• Any user would be able to propose a featured collaboration, which would be discussed for a minimum of two weeks.
• If after two weeks, there are no major objections, the collaboration would be featured for a minimum of a month.
• After one month, it could be replaced by a new collaboration that has been discussed on the talk page for at least two weeks.
• If a collaboration is completed without a new one being proposed, it would be removed and there would be no Featured collaboration.

Ground Zero (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Now I only actively joined the community in 2021, so I don't know how COTMs used to work, but this works – the collab on abysmal region articles will take several months to complete, if not years. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made this change. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Good to see this returning, as unfortunately there just hasn't been enthusiasm for it in recent years. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-launching the Collaboration of the month project

Swept in from the pub

The "Collaboration of the month" project has become inactive, with no updates since 2020. I think that focused collaborations are still useful, but it seems unrealistic to expect that they will get completed in a month, and that this page will be update every month.

I propose to replace COTM with "Featured collaboration", under which a collaboration would not have a maximum time limit. Please comment at Wikivoyage talk:Collaboration of the month. Ground Zero (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I have had only one response, which isn't much feedback, but I'll interpret that as "no objection" from the community and proceed in a couple of days. Ground Zero (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Editorial assistance in dying

This attempt to restart collaborative projects did not succeed. The featured collaboration did not receive support from other editors. I propose to end this experiment, archive this page, and remove links from the main page, etc. Ground Zero (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We can hopefully inspire writers in other ways. /Yvwv (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Sad, but I guess it is what it is. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Were there attempts to get featured collaboration since the name change? When was the last time? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: -- there were two proposals made on the project page, but neither has been pursued. Ground Zero (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess I still think there may be a basis for reviving this at some point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I am proposing to archive it, so that it can be revived, not to delete it. It should be featured on the Community Portal since it is not an active project page. Ground Zero (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• As someone who is relatively new to this wiki: I do not really feel invited to participate by this page. Quite the contrary: it looks intimidating. Some thoughts:
  • The current featured collaboration is a long, long list that goes over multiple screens. The few comments of people who have been doing things are formatted in the same way as the tasks that still need to be done, so at a glimpse they look like even more work. The improved articles come at the bottom, but with comments like "Empty "See and Do" section" still attached to the list items, that l I know Wikivoyage has a template allergy, but what's wrong with putting a friendly Done next to completed tasks?
  • If it looks dead it will soon be dead. Projects just sitting around with nobody working on them and stale discussion are the opposite of inviting. If a proposed collaboration has not gathered enough momentum for people to start working on it after a few months, better archive the whole section and make space for something new. If a "current featured collaboration" does not actually attract contributions after a while or participation dies down before it's finished, just abort and clear out the space. There doesn't need to be an active collaboration at all times. Don't force it, having no collaboration is more inviting than having a stale one.

TL;DR: Clean out the page, but keep it around so it's ready to go when someone comes up with a good idea. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Wikivoyage:Featured collaboration#Current featured collaboration: improving region articles can seem very alienating. At the very least, removing Wikivoyage:Featured collaboration#Improved articles can help ease things a bit. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I temporarily commented the section out – but it still looks very intimidating. Maybe some added minimalist boxes to make it more appealing and welcoming? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have archived the last featured collaboration, and commented out the link from the Main Page as this project is not active. Ground Zero (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've commented it out from Wikivoyage:Community portal too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)