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

Style fixesEdit


As of 28 May:

Note: during the month of May the Lede Paragraphs Expedition was founded; it was the main collaboration during this month.


  • At least the guide and usable article should be addressed. Most of the tasks involve format improvements and do not need knowledge of or research into the location. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportGranger (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Always a worthy set of tasks. However, the several articles that I looked at require more complicated fixes than small tweaks, so be prepared. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Gizza (roam) 04:49, 28 December 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
June 2020 Conversion templates
July 2020 Articles with dead external links - phase 3
August 2020 Pages linking to disambiguation pages
September 2020 Articles Geo different to Wikidata - pass 2
October 2020 Articles with formerly dead external links - third round
November 2020 Pagebanner view on mobile
December 2020 Missing geo tag and coordinates
January 2021 Adding currency templates to pages
February 2021 Page banners usable articles — second round


June 2020: Adding conversion templates to units — usable city articlesEdit


Convert distance and temperature units in usable city articles. You can do this with templates like {{km|}}, {{mi|}} and {{convert|}}, or with regular text.

The following situations require special care:

  • Rounded values. Example: 100°F (40°C)
  • Values that include fractions
  • Temperature ranges and differences (as opposed to temperatures themselves)

Progress so far (as of 30 April)

This is by no means every single conversion, but it is enough work for a month's collaboration and will be a step forward. There are likely false positives and not every instance is included.

Per Wikivoyage talk:Measurements#Using digits instead of words, where fractions are used, give the conversion in plain text rather than a conversion template, as the templates cannot handle fractions.


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)

We may want to postpone this collaboration, pending consensus in the pub discussion and greater clarity on the scope of this change. We can do a different collaboration with well-established consensus in May 2020 and postpone this one to June. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If we do have this collaboration in May, I suggest we clarify that in cases where the conversion is already given in plain text, there's no need to change it to a template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course, the proposal does not include cases where conversion is already provided, so the argument in the pub is a red herring. But if it gets us past that diversion, clarify it. There may be other things that the proposal does not include that will have to be specifically listed as exclusions so this worthwhile idea doesn't get shot down. Maybe we have to say that we won't use templates to convert all calendar dates to the Julian calendar. Yes, I'm venting. Forgive me, but too often when I propose something I find red herrings being raised as reasons not to proceed. Ground Zero (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tried to rewrite the task description to clarify, and I agree that it's a worthwhile proposal. The important thing isn't whether or not we use a template, but rather that the information is provided to readers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: I agree, but I think, in this case, however, it's fair enough to change the month's COTM, as I never clarified initially on the issue. I think this month's collaboration has the opportunity to go really well! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This task feels like something that can be done by a bot. I don't know how to create bots but maybe we can request one of the tech-savvy editors here to write the script. Gizza (roam) 06:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mx. Granger: Do we have consensus to do this collaboration next month? Or should we once again adjust the schedule. I don't mind either way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know, have User:LPfi's concerns in the pub been addressed? I'm not entirely sure how we'll measure progress in this collaboration, because the searches linked above seem to include articles where the units are already converted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we should probably remove this nomination to avoid controversy, as cotm isn't large enough that it can be afforded. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] In the linked discussion, GZ says "I don't think LPfi is ever going to get on board with this, which is okay". So what should I say? I just hope you add conversions where conversions are needed, and leave them out where the flow of the prose is more important (and do the rounding sensibly also where the templates fail in doing that). Perhaps there should be a way to mark an article as done, to avoid the next one converting what the first one deemed unnecessary. --LPfi (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Addition: I think this project is good per se, but caution is needed, and I think the advice in the nomination is insufficient. I feel there was not too much interest in analysing the concerns, so do as you will; as GZ said, not everyone needs to be happy and I won't be feeling bad about it. --LPfi (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@LPfi: I don't mean it to sound like I'm dismissing your concerns, only that consensus does not require unanimity. I've been on that side of discussions here (when I like to think of myself as the lone voice of reason), but I move on, and like you, I don't feel bad about it. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, then I guess there is a consensus to continue with this nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:52, 27 May 2020 (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)

Over a year later, discussion has stalled about how to fix the problems with the template over at Template talk:Populationof; we don't yet have consensus for implementing it widely. The U.S. 2020 census results will obviously not be ready for a while. Should this proposal be slushed for now? Or does anyone have an idea for another direction to take it? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with slushing it or at least postponing it until the census results are available (which will be a few more years). Gizza (roam) 00:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have updated {{Populationof}}. If others are fine with the format then the task can be done at anytime. When wikidata is updated with the latest census information it will update the text automatically. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adjusting the template. I would prefer showing two significant digits instead of three for populations greater than one million, but I don't feel strongly about that.
So, what is the proposal we need to consider now? Adding this template to the "Understand" section of all city articles? All city articles in the United States? Or what? —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
That seems like the obvious next step in this process. It seems like a COTM activity, as it's just copying a template into articles to replace information. However, we need support for that idea first, as any support mentioned above should not count for this idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
One just has to be careful. I suppose we often link to wikidata items with other definitions on the boundaries, so the "text" parameter should be used quite often ("the metropolitan area/the city itself has ..."). I think we agreed on digits except for values over a million, and two significant digits. I am not sure about the wikidata icon, which gives access to the source. Were there other concerns? --LPfi (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing geo tag and coordinatesEdit


Map icon should be on all destination articles. Also would be a good idea to have them on itineraries, will help with creating itinerary region pages going forward, like United States of America itineraries. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Category:Articles with dead external links - phase 3Edit

As of 16 December 2019 there are 4592 articles with dead external links. Another run of the Wrh2Bot will push this number up. As always, we can focus on the stars and guides first. Gizza (roam) 01:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – always an important task, and a good one for doing in bite-sized chunks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – improves the quality of site for readers and SEO--Traveler100 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles Geo different to Wikidata - pass 2Edit

Correction of coordinates so Wikivoyage and Wikidata have same or similar values.

As of 26 December 2019, 204 articles in Category:Articles Geo different to Wikidata, showing distance of more than 100 km (62 mi) difference between Wikivoyage and Wikidata coordinates.


Methods and tipsEdit

  • Click (RMB to open new tab) on Wikipedia link in side bar (if exists) and wikidata link to check if Wikivoyage article is connected to the correct pages.
    • If not connect to correct articles remove the Wikivoyage entry from Wikidata page and add to correct one.
  • Compare current coordinate values on Wikivoyage and Wikidata, and possibly also Wikipedia.
    • If you have the ErrorHighlighter gadget preference enabled you will see at the bottom of articles the difference between the Wikivoyage and Wikidata values and can open up both in map pages.
  • Identify which is correct, or work out a common new value.
    • Can use GeoMap to calculate new value, or right mouse button on a map page to get a coordinate, or manually try values in open map page by editing values in url line (often a good visual methods to get better coord and zoom values).
    • If still challenged to identify correct location try looking on Google Maps, Bing Maps or JRC Fuzzy Gazetteer.
    • If no listings have coordinates consider adding to one or two. This will also confirm the location of the article.
    • Also avoid coordinate of two Wikivoyage articles being too close to one another.
    • For destinations in China, read this first, as many websites (including Google Maps) use nonstandard coordinates for the country.
  • Update values on Wikidata (coordinate location, P625 or coordinates of geographic center, P5140) and/or Wikivoyage ( in {{geo}} )
    • Consider rounding up coordinates, only really need two decimal places for cities, less for regions.
    • If update Wikivoyage geo coords, consider a better zoom value.
    • If update Wikidata may want to remove or edit reference value.


Currently 204 articles in Category:Articles Geo different to Wikidata. The template is currently showing anything with a distance of more than 100 km (62 mi) difference between Wikivoyage and Wikidata coordinates. Would like to get this down so nothing over 10 km (6.2 mi) difference.--Traveler100 (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Also those distances can be normal for regions and parks. I have seen warnings for some, where Wikidata gives the administrative centre while we give the geographical, or something similar. There is no need to have the same coordinates in these cases. We could of course add a second pair of coordinates to the Wikidata item, I am not sure how that is best done (and don't know whether the template knows how to handle double coords – aha! there is already at least two properties in Wikidata). --LPfi (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles with formerly dead external links - third roundEdit


As of 26 December 2019 there were 652 articles marked with formerly dead external links.

To correct articles appearing in this category, enable the "ErrorHighlighter" gadget from your user preferences. After enabling the gadget, invalid links will display followed by a very noticeable "formerly dead link" warning. Verify whether the link is still valid and perform the appropriate fix:

  1. If the link goes to spam or to a site that is otherwise incorrect then the link should either be replaced with a correct link or else removed from the article. In either case the {{dead link}} tag should also be removed.
  2. If cannot find any recent reviews of the listing (say last two years) or other sites stated closed, then delete the listing.
  3. If the link is valid then remove the {{dead link}} tag and use the "edit summary" field to note that the link is both valid and no longer dead.


We got this down to 1 article, but now the check bot has been rerun. As of 26 December 2019 there are 652 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) 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Pages linking to disambiguation pagesEdit


As of 25 December 2019 there were 1993 Special:DisambiguationPageLinks.

  1. Ignore lines where name linking to → name (disambiguation). Redirects of place name to same place name with (disambiguation), or link from main place with name to others with same name.
  2. On page with link edit to a specific link
e.g. change [[Limburg]] to [[Limburg (Netherlands)|Limburg]]


Although not all of the nearly 2000 links are invalid there are a good number of articles linking to a location which is not precisely defined. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Is there a way to filter out cases where XYZ links to XYZ (disambiguation)? I notice many of the articles in the list have links like this, and they usually don't need to be changed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I cannot see a way with Search or PetScan syntax. They will be all redirect pages. Could export out to Excel then filter but that would be out of date very quickly. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, they're not all redirects. For instance, Aberdeen links to Aberdeen (disambiguation). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah good point, that is also valid, having a disambig= in the page banner pointing to other places with the same name. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding currency templates to pagesEdit


There are a number of pages that mention currency values. We could use currency templates to show the values in other currencies. WOSlinker (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. I had to look at a previous nomination example to see where I should vote here! However, yes, I support this nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


Page banners to usable articles — second roundEdit


Continue with this past collaboration, see Wikivoyage:Previous collaborations#Custom banners - usable articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wellington + Colorado and Wyoming ArticlesEdit


I'm announcing my nomination for (mainly) Wellington (Colorado) to become COTM with the intent of making several corrections to style, information, and list format in order to tie it up. This can be for anytime, preferably soon. Additionally, I would like help fixing up potential syntax errors in Cheyenne, Greeley, and in Buford and Torrington.


@SelfieCity: Thank you for the response, and oh. I was kind of curious the path COTM was taking. Also, did I nominate in the correct spot? Zanygenius2 (WV-en) (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I've as of lately got so many other things going on here on Wikivoyage that I haven't had time to get too much involved with the Collaboration of the Month. But it's of course always good that articles get improved. One thing though, particularly on the OtBP side we have quite a lot of American nominees waiting already. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Zanygenius2 (WV-en): Yes, this is the correct place. But as Ypsilon says, if your goal is to make the article OTBP worthy, it is one of many American nominees. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @SelfieCity, Ypsilon:. Yes, I'm intending to have this go up next year as opposed to now. But in the meantime, I want to make it the best I can (particularily since this is more of my knowledge area compared to Horse racing), and ensure the time is there to improve the article before a nomination.Zanygenius2 (WV-en) (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It may be necessary to wait two years for it to be featured. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


A: Wellington

  • 1. Check the listing and format, test compatibility with the 7+2 rule, and that each section is filled out to best of ability.
  • 2.Pictures: Is there enough, are they (the photo, the caption, and the placement) helpful enough? Same with maps.
  • 3.Continue to get article ready for Otbp nomination.

B: Wyoming

  • Note: Several Wyoming articles are not up to par at this time.
  • 1. Turn outlines and useable into guides, by filling up with listings, photos, destinations, and descriptions.
  • 2. Link necessary articles, and make sure none are skipped in the route box.

IS this a good idea? Thank you, Zanygenius2 (WV-en) (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Pagebanner view on mobileEdit

On mobile devices some pagebanners do not show correctly due to the fact that mobile devices do not show the full width of the picture. The part that is shown can be adjusted using the "origin" parameter of the pagebanner templates (for example, see Voyages of Zheng He). This was suggested at Talk:Voyages of Zheng He and I agree with Mx. Granger that it's a good collaboration of the month idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. I think it's a good way to improve the appearance of the site on mobile. We might want to start with star articles, country articles, guide cities, or some other manageable chunk. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
True. Guide city articles might be a good start? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:03, 16 May 2020 (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.