Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month/Slush pile

< Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month

The following pages were nominated for Project:Collaboration of the month, but the consensus was generally against them. If you think it worthwhile to re-nominate one of these articles, be sure to draw up new tasks, and to address the arguments made against the nomination.

Sadly, as to be expected, very few African destinations are above the "usable" status. Although there have been various African destinations in the OtBP position, I believe only 1 has ever made the main feature category.

Because there is a general outline, it doesn't seem like such a difficult task for people who have NOT been there to contribute to, which is nice for the CotM. I think the main problems are:

  • Not enough information in the "Understand" and "History" categories (anyone can look up general information like this)
  • Lacking descriptions of the attractions. (Once again, with attractions listed, descriptions should be easy to add, even for those who don't know the city)
  • Listingify - phone numbers and such need to be added for current listings.
  • Formatting. The listings that are already there need to be properly formatted.
  • Pictures. Even with good information, it's awfully boring with no pictures...

So, what do you think about Accra? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:03, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Don't support. All these tasks are good, but I think the article is too short to support a successful cotm. Now a cotm for the whole country of Ghana, on the other hand, is intriguing. We could revamp the confusing regions hierarchy, and we have enough active members of the Project:Regions map Expedition to produce a region map. Proofing and mosing the rest of the country's articles might be an ideal use of a cotm. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:09, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
A country feature might be interesting. I suppose it could lead people to update Accra, and other cities, as well. I wonder what others think about featuring the nation instead of the city? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:31, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Change for Ghana is a good idea because Accra needs loads of local content. Any objections? (WT-en) jan 10:09, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

China's biggest natural tourist draw, fantastic karst landscape. Also a major stop on the backpacker trail through Asia and a place where quite a few travellers settle down,open bars, etc.

The article needs a fair bit of work:

My major concern with this nomination is that there is not enough work to be done for a collaboration of the month. I think it would turn into a "collaboration of the day," which would not be good for the cotm project. Perhaps work on this article could be combined with something else? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:39, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
It could be combined with nearby Guilin. However, you may be right. There might not be enough work for CotM. (WT-en) Pashley 00:44, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Another Chinese city with a lot of tourism. Good article in many ways, but needs work.

  • Add a city/districts map.
  • Currently has many photos. Some excellent, some should be deleted.
  • Remove repeated text; e.g. same description of BBQ street in "districts" and "eat".
  • General MoS overhaul.


We can start with official districts set (as defined in Talk:Barcelona#districts_proposal), and if consensus changes at some point later, we can fix that (and re-organize listings respectfully).

Before this article can be nominated, we need either:

  • to complete a MyMaps mashup for Google Maps where every district is supposed to be shown--as it helps much in finding a right district for each individual district. Currently, it doesn't fully reflect the current consensus (which is following official borders, except not splitting yet Ciutat Vella into sub-districts.
  • or prepare a static map compliant to our license--which can become an official map at Wikivoyage for the whole city and each of its districts

Another thing to do beforehand is to split "MoS proofreading" into smaller and do-able subtasks.

The tasks for this CoTM are:

  • write up district borders: a street-by-street description of borders for each district, based on the current consensus.
  • Manual of Style proofreading (identifying subtasks here may be a CoTM task in itself)
  • answer questions in Talk: help in reaching consensus on at least part of topics in Talk:Barcelona
  • MoS Stay Safe: it was recently compressed, but not sure the current format is fully MoS-compliant.
  • Contact: even trivial advice on mobile services would be helpful--especially for those coming to Bcn outside of Europe (traveller SIM cards; choosing a right operator and tarif plan etc)
  • create an article-local blacklist of apartment agencies--those who repeatedly add themselves. It can be created as a subpage of Talk:Barcelona. and easily derived from history of reverts in Barcelona. It will make easier to prune frequently re-added agencies that violates our policy.
→ Project:Barcelona/Apartments blacklist (first cut) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:30, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
  • populate blacklist of apartment agencies from the history of previous reverts.
  • fill in missing details on listings: prices, open hours
  • add listings of most famous and best-value-for-money restaurants and hotels, referring to TripAdvisor , 11870 , boo.com , qype ; Michelin red guide; find more sources.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:14, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Support I've proposed Barcelona for next month (August). Is it ready? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:02, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
No, it's not ready yet. We still don't have a districts map; MoS proofreading is not splitted (help anyone?). As for the map of the districts, pitifully I'm not sure I'll find enough time in the nearest 10 days to complete it in GoogleMaps -- but I can give out full control over it if someone is willing to help. Alternatively, fully-compliant static map would be of huge help, as CotM won't make sense without any map at all. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:26, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
I have removed Barcelona from the upcoming collaborations list above however, when things are sorted out and you feel it is ready for the collaboration, put it anywhere you like! There is little support for the other collaborations, so Barcelona should take precedence unless new contributors or nominations arrive with great support. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:21, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
I have to admit that I am giving up creating a precise MyMaps which will show district borders on Google Maps exactly as they are schemed under the links from Talk:Barcelona#districts proposal.
I don't want to remain a stopper for this CotM any more, therefore I'm ready to hand the respective MyMaps to any number of contributors who are willing to complete this step (which still looks most logical thing to start with on CotM). If someone find it helpful, we'd better also complete Talk:Barcelona#street-by-street description of borders--but I don't feel like I'm able to finish it (so feel free to plunge forward).
If someone is interested in completing the maps before proceeding with the rest:
a) please drop me your emails to yurkennis@gmail.com, stating your email (ideally @gmail) and provide a link to your userpage at Wikivoyage so I can associate the former with the latter. I will send an invitation to edit the map in Google MyMaps that I created (but never completed).
b) I can update the CotM tasks as I understand them from the current perspective.
Overall, let me know what you think. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:44, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I've patched up most of the ends addressed in the previous, unsuccessful nomination. Because this is the world's second most visited theme park destination, I think it's deserving of being a guide or even star. (WT-en) Jonathan 784 14:48, 10 November 2009 (EST)

I was appalled when I found France, the most visited country in the world, has such a shamefully messy and poor article. This should be a good candidate for CotM as nearly all tasks do not require local knowledge.

  • Pictures-There is ONE picture in this entire article!!!!!!!!! As colorful and scenic as this country is, I can't believe there's just one picture. I'm sure there's plenty of pictures in various city articles to use here. The challenge is ensuring all regions are represented and it's not all pictures of Paris.
I have started collecting images from other French articles. Have done North west, North East and Ile de France so far. It will probably be a bit excessive, but it will be easy to cut down later. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:28, 21 January 2011 (EST)
  • Cites/Other Destinations-there are 13 cities listed and the "other destinations" section is completely wrong.
  • Get In-By plane: could use a little more info for non-Paris airports (ie. Marseilles has lots of flights to French territories & former colonies, Nice & Lyon have service from US, etc); By train: maybe have a sentence or two about SNCF/Eurostar then sub-headers/paragraphs for "To UK", "To Benelux", "To Germany", "To Italy", & "To Spain" (it seems some of this info is in the Get around/by train section); needs a "By boat" section concerning travel to/from UK and (I think) Corsica as well as Mediterranean cruises; needs "By car" section maybe listing major highways to neighboring countries as well as how to get vehicles across "La Manche" (English Channel). It would also be nice to see this section (as well as the rest of the article) reflect the fact that Reunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique, & French Guiana are as integral a part of France as Hawaii is to the US or Canary Islands to Spain.
  • Get Around-By plane: a list of every airline and destination is unnecessary, needs to list general info about internal flights (perhaps tips on how to get cheap flights); By car: info on car rentals would be nice;
  • Talk & Eat cleanup-These sections need just a little cleaning up
  • See/Do-shamefully nonexistant
  • Learn-Discuss "study abroad" options within France and maybe list places to learn French like Russian in the Russia article.
  • Buy-Vacations: bleong under "understand"; what things should a traveller buy to take home?; Money: remove some non France-specific stuff; expand "stores" section.

06:22, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Our France coverage is pretty weak on all levels. The "Other destinations" seem to make good headers for the Provincial articles. I'd suggest moving those to the provinces they describe. I will support with the disclaimer that I don't know much about France, so I don't know if I will be useful for this one. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:49, 21 December 2009 (EST)
  • Support A bad coverage on one of the greatest destinations in the world.--(WT-en) Tiagox2 07:19, 17 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Strong Support I agree we should add pictures and places to see/do (WT-en) Sumone10154 14:54, 20 January 2011 (EST)

Host to the Olympics in 2016 and, before that, to many World Cup games, including the final, in 2014, so we have some time to get our act together. And despite the fact that it is full of useful information there is still lots to be done:

  • A map. First, we need a good map to make clear the borders of the various zones, apart from anything else.
  • Beaches. Instead of just listing the beaches, say something about them. The list does seem to be in north-south sequence, which is a start.
  • Sights, buildings, museums, parks, etc.. Do these belong on the main page or in the pages on the Zones? At present there is a lot of duplication. Summaries on the main page I think, with more detailed info and links on the Zone pages.
  • Hotels need to be moved to the Zone pages.
  • The zone articles all need to be beefed up. Zona Oeste needs to follow Wikivoyage style.
  • Gaps. There are some gaps. Much more needs to be said about Floresta da Tijuca for example.

With a Carioca wife and a Carioca colleague I can probably help out quite a bit, although I have no immediate plans to visit Rio. (WT-en) Shep 13:42, 4 January 2010 (EST)

(WT-en) Burmesedays has started to organize the regions and is working on the map. I'm trying to put in some new destinations. Can we all have a go at this fascinating but poorly covered (by Wikivoyage) country? (WT-en) Shep 14:53, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

As much as I really want our dreadful PNG coverage to be improved, I am not sure it would work as a broad collaboration. Most of the work required is not routine and will need at least some knowledge of the country. Better I would suggest is you, I and any other interested parties just push on with the work.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:28, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Calgary is a bustling metropolis that needs more attention on this beautiful webpg. This city would have some nice benefit if people got more involved in the city. As of late other than me and a few texugo edits, nothing has really happened. I think Calgary would benefit greatly from districting, and although I could lead it all, I'd need more help than Edmonton so a CotM would be a perfect time. It seems lately Edmonton is the only city in Canada that really hoards the Recent changes , maybe Calgary could take a share. What I would like resulted is DotM material, good districts, and more involvement by community. What Calgary needs:

  • Clean up: make everything mos
  • District - I have an idea of the districts , but we need to do it and make sure that each district is good quality.
  • Pictures - scan WM Commons for photos
  • Participation
  • Listingify
  • Add all the information you can
  • MAPS - districts, downtown Calgary, beltline, and district maps

To me, it just looks kinda messy and I'd like that changed. Hopefully this could be successful. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:14, 21 December 2008 (EST).

i'd prefer if we slushed either Edmonton or Calgary for a while, to get a bit more varied geographically. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:57, 22 December 2008 (EST)
No need to slush nominations over scheduling issues—we can just leave them unscheduled until an appropriate amount of time has passed. There are, however, several problems with this nomination. Districting and mapping are explicitly called out as bad tasks to include in a nomination, because the first requires intimate knowledge of the location, and the latter requires a huge time commitment. Tasks like "participation" and "add all the information you can" are worthless—if a task is not concrete, it's not worth including in the nomination.
MoSing, "listingification," and image hunting could occupy some worthwhile CotM time, but I don't see a very clear rationale to give this article preference over others. Listings are too few for this to become a DotM, and adding listings is not a good task for a CotM. I'd consider slushing this one for lack of a compelling reason to feature it as a collaboration. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:04, 23 December 2008 (EST)
THanks peter, again I will rework it. Stefan, I didn't say they would be month to month of alberta metropolis's. One could be in march the other in december, I never said they'd be close. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:31, 23 December 2008 (EST).
  • Oppose. For the same reasons mentioned above on the Edmonton nomination. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:35, 20 September 2009 (EDT)


Edmonton is a ravishing city that most people don't think of and never look beyond the first glance. Anyways, I think it would be successful because it has definitely caught the attention of the website and I can tell I have changed many people's opinion of the city. They could help so much & I have asked numourous people if they would like to help, tons said yes, others still have no reply, but still. Because of that, I think it could be successful because tons of people will be working and people seeing the work will get involved. Personally, it's biggest fault right now is the grammar and style, I still screw that up sometimes leaving typos all over the place. Not to mention, I think it has been a while since a Canadian place got as much coverage as Edmonton is getting - if at all. I really hope to make this a viable DotM and leave the tracks to what could be some stars (Namely South Central, Central, and Main article pages). I am not asking for actual stars, but begin the path. From that, I believe personally that Edmonton needs:

  • A well written Eat section in the main article - I don't know it just seems blah
  • Make sure everything'smos
  • MAPS MAPS MAPS - we've got a few down/under construction, but we need: LRT Map, South Central Map, East Central Map, North End Map. Each person has to be willing to update it.
  • Create an article for Edmonton International Airport. That means research information and create maps and all that stuff into a new article just on it. We can make it like O Hare or Heathrow, even though Edmonton is smaller. This will solve the Edmonton-Leduc fu ss in every way.
  • Get basic details to empty listings
  • Research info on things and fill in listings (Project:listings )
  • If anyone has good photos - upload them
  • Fill in the Edmonton capital region page because its kinda bony
  • Complete coverage for Sherwood Park, Saint Albert, Leduc, Nisku, Spruce Grove, and Morinville

Ultimately, I think we can do this. Most of it is just researching and grammar. For the maps, I can give all the information as to what to do first so it's not like you won't know. I hope this is the proper format and that people vote for it. Lets do this - a successful COTM! I would like to make it for January. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:59, 21 December 2008 (EST).

Ultimately, I think we can do this. Most of it is just Listingify and grammar. For the maps, I can give all the information as to what to do first so it's not like you won't know, but again, nobody needs to do a map. I hope this is the proper format and that people vote for it. Lets do this - a successful COTM! I would like to make it for January. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:59, 21 December 2008 (EST).

A whole bunch of problems with this nomination. First, several of the tasks are meaningless: "get basic details" (does that mean contact info?), "research info on things," "Fill in the ECR page," "A well written eat section" (what does that mean, what are you looking for, and how can non-Edmontonians help with this?). Several of the tasks also are simply bad tasks for a nomination, as called out above. Asking CotM participants to do original research and writing is rarely productive. That's a big task, and a labor of love—if people don't have an especial interest in the destination, they're not likely to do this work. Ditto maps. Asking participants to "create and article" is a bad idea for the same reason. In this case, creating an article for Edmonton International would be inappropriate, because as a rule we do not create articles for airports unless they are city-sized—only for the largest airports in the world.
As for why we should CotM Edmonton? The fact that it has been getting so much work done and so much attention does incline me to feature it. But it's already up to DotM status (IMO), so we don't need to work on it for that. We could conceivably work on this as a CotM to get it ready for a star nomination, but the articles are still too far from that goal. Once the districts are at guide status, this might be a good article to feature for that purpose. The useful tasks then, I would think, would be updating listings on maps and copyediting. I'm inclined to hold on to this nomination, but hold off on scheduling it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:18, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Thank you Peter, I thought I was doing it okay. I will re work the tasks. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:28, 23 December 2008 (EST).
  • Make sure everything's properlymos
  • Grammar - for the most part, I have terrible grammar and I would like that fixed
  • Put listings in order
  • Make sure everything is in proper district
  • MAPS MAPS MAPS - I understand this is a big task so if people don't want to do any then that is fine. If anyone is interested, they can get a hold of me.
  • Make sure all lisitngs have addresses, websites, etc.
  • If anyone has good photos - upload them
  • Fill in the Edmonton capital region if you know any information on it.
  • coverage for Sherwood Park, Saint Albert, Leduc, Nisku, Spruce Grove, and Morinville. I mean they are quite off the radar, so maybe people could see if they know something or if a listing doesn't have address or, if they feel like it, they can research - but I won't make anyone.
I redid it, I hope it is ok now. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:40, 23 December 2008 (EST).
  • Oppose. This has been up for several months now, and I think it's time to slush it. Edmonton is a fine set of articles, and a lot of the issues stated here seem to have already been managed since this was written. Not to mention that I think Edmontonenthusiast was the only one really dedicated to working on Edmonton, so this might not stir very many contributions if made a CotM. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:35, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

This is the second most visited theme park resort in the world, after Walt Disney World.

(WT-en) Jonathan 784 21:34, 6 February 2009 (EST)

  • Don't support. These tasks do not meet the criteria for a successful cotm—maps are generally out of the scope of small scale contributions (although that might not quite be the case for this article), requests for "more information" usually go unheeded by contributors with little familiarity with the destination. Adding more pictures is a fine task, but this is definitely not enough to last us a month. All that said, districting Walt Disney World, and generally pushing it for a successful dotm nomination or star status could be a very good cotm. The tasks are already lined out on its talk page pretty well. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

From what I hear, it's a nice destination in South Africa and popular amongst backpackers. According to its Wikipedia article it is the 3rd largest city in SA & has several nice places for tourists. Most importantly, however, it will be one of the host cities of the 2010 FIFA World Cup...a very good reason to work and improve this article.

  • Needs a map.
  • The Bus section is quite unsightly.
  • The Eat, Drink, & Sleep sections need a bit to be added: addresses, phone numbers, and more listings.
  • Needs another picture or two.
  • See & Do sections need addresses and many need descriptions.

Essentially, this has the potential to be a very nice article and we should collaborate to fix/improve it in time for the World Cup. (WT-en) AHeneen 19:18, 5 February 2009 (EST)

  • Don't Support We maybe should see if we can revive this project first, and if that be the case, then maybe the World Cup cities is a worthy project, but for now it seems pretty much that taking this on, would be repeating past mistakes, a bit to much local knowledge required for my taste, and I don't see anyone jumping in on this. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:27, 5 February 2009 (EST)
  • Don't Suport It needs some local knowledge as input is missing especially in the Eat section.(WT-en) jan 10:06, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

The overall article is good, but the See, Do, Work and Cope sections could be improved. --2.80.99.39 12:11, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

The main tasks are:

  • Completing the See, Do, Work and Cope sections
  • Making a map
  • Getting addresses - Most of the restaurants and hotels don't have an address.
  • Districts - Lisbon desperatly needs districts to divide the information.
I'm not certain that districtification is necessary. There's a lot of content there, but not quite so much that it needs to be split. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:24, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

There is a lot of information on Volos, but a lot of it needs to be brought into line with the style of Wikivoyage, as well as large parts of it needing rewriting to make it less tourist-information-esque, as well as needing a few more photos. - -- (WT-en) Tim 11:30, 12 July 2012 (EDT)


Berlin would be good for the CotM:

  • The article has more than enough information
  • District and special interest article have been wildly merged which leads to inconsistent district information
  • Formatting is a nightmare
  • There are maps but colour coding is inconsistent
  • Information in the main Berlin article is duplicated or missing in districts
  • Sections are not according to WT standards

(WT-en) jan 09:04, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

To add to the above:
  • we should move all individual listings (except overviews and topic indexes like Breakfasts -- (?)) to respective district articles.
  • ideally we'd provide advice on recommended local GSM packages for a week-long stay. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:51, 14 February 2010 (EST)
Support. Me and jan have mostly boosted up the new districts, but the articles could definitely use some clean up now. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 01:05, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Whipping the world's largest city into shape won't be an easy task, but I've been really impressed by the total transformation at Kyoto and I think we have a fair chance with this team. To-do list, roughly in order of importance:

  • Finally sort out the districting once and for all (this is a biggie, and pending since at least 2007)
  • Draw up an overall map and locator maps for the districts
  • Adding addresses, directions and Japanese names to entries
  • Lots of nitty-gritty formatting work

I'll be in Tokyo again in late Sept and will be able to put in some grunt work if we can get the districts figured out by then. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:08, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Support A well-organized Tokyo guide would do wonders for all of Wikivoyage's Japanese guides! I unfortunately have barely been to Tokyo, so I can't contribute to the districtification discussion. There seem to be many contributors who have been here, though. Hopefully they will offer their support and time to finally getting Tokyo up to standard. This collaboration has a lot of potential, and I do hope people will get on board for this one! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:18, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Support I've been away from Wikivoyage for a long time due to work, but I hope it's not too late to cast another vote in favour of this proposal. Some of the individual district articles need a serious sprucing up, and I'll do what I can to add entries and edit existing ones. --(WT-en) Diego de Manila 18:40, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Support. (How did I miss this the first time around?) Perhaps we should start negotiating the districts well in advance – even considering the very different situation here, I think it helped us a great deal for Kyoto by making that an early task. Also, gaining some momentum should serve to guilt-trip me into finishing my own albatross! — (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:54, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Since we are approaching the next month, I think it's good to get updates: Is Tokyo ready to be the November CotM? It is up for next month, but if you'd like to hold it off, it would be good to say so, and pledge support for a different nomination. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:26, 21 October 2009 (EDT)


Livingstonian rendevouz with the WHE expedition

edit

Rework the World Heritage List, to something more manageable, useful, and easier read. Identify which cities all outstanding sights are in, and create outline pages for those articles.

I like this too. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Nice, although I wonder if we know enough about some of these sites to make the best redirects. Some may be better redlinked until someone familiar with the area is able to place them. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:56, 18 December 2009 (EST)
My experience so far with Wikivoyage tells me that anon. users are more likely to go to the relevant talk and call us idiots for redirecting to a said city, than actually go fix that long list. And I believe for the vast vast majority it should be quite easy (if a bit tedious) to look up that information. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:09, 18 December 2009 (EST)
This expedition moves along only when people are up to doing the research. The research usually isn't too tough, though, and if we have a good cotm going, we can lean on each other when in doubt. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:17, 18 December 2009 (EST)


Istanbul can make a wonderful DotM, I guess (and it's one of the Capitals of Culture of Europe in 2010), but it needs a little bit of cleaning beforehand.

  • Many listings throughout the district articles need to be listingified. Adding missing addresses, contact info, etc would also be nice.
  • Listings in the articles should be alphabetized when appropriate (but I wouldn't want Hagia Sophia, for example, go lost under piles of less important listings just because it doesn't have a name starting with A).
  • Some hotel listings need a mild dose of de-touting.
  • "See" section of main article badly needs some more prose, perhaps with short descriptions of major attractions in the city.
  • "Walking tours" section of "Do" can be re-shaped, moved into respective districts, and replaced with some blurb.
  • Listings at "Buy" section of main article should be moved to districts and replaced with a prose about shopping scene in the city.
  • "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" sections of main article can make use of longer explanations about the general scenes in the city.
  • Some internet cafe listings, which can be searched through the web, should be added to districts (though how reliable the search results are open to debate—they may very well return establishments that are long closed or having crappy connections/computers).
  • Inserting internal wikilinks pointing towards district articles throughout the main article whenever possible/appropriate to avoid problems discussed at Project:Huge city article template#a notice on districts on top of huge city articles.
  • Some districts can benefit from more photos, especially Istanbul/New City, Istanbul/Golden Horn, and Istanbul/Western Suburbs, all of which currently have no pictures.
  • A basic rail transport (metro/tram) map could be created, if any mapmakers take an interest in producing one. Here is a cc-licensed rail system map:
  • A general proofreading/spelling check through the main and district articles, preferably by native English speakers.

I'd also be grateful if anyone else can further elaborate on what can be done during a CotM for Istanbul. —(WT-en) Vidimian 13:09, 28 January 2010 (EST)

  • Support Great destiation that needs some cleaning. --(WT-en) Tiagox2 11:46, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

One of the top tourist destinations in the world and the top tourist destination in the U.S. with roughly 55 million visitors in 2011 (51 million domestic plus 4 million international, ). However, it would be hard to tell that by looking at the Orlando page as it currently stands. Most tourism centers around theme parks & other attractions (eg. water parks & theatrical dinner shows) along with shopping, shopping, and more shopping. There are about 2 dozen hotels and a similar number of restaurant listings. The "See" & "Do" sections are in need of cleanup and expansion. The "climate" & "get in" sections are really the only sections that don't need much change. However, before taking the effort to clean these things up, the geographical hierarchy of the region needs to be straightened out.

  1. Geographical Hierarchy The current structure of it is to use counties, so Orlando is U.S.>Florida>Central Florida>East Central Florida>Orange County (Florida)>Orlando. This starts at the Central Florida level, eliminating the division between East/West. I'll give a detailed/practical solution on one of the talk pages later, but concerning Orlando, the change should be to have a "Greater Orlando" region ( directly below the Central Florida region), which would include Seminole, Orange, & northern Osceola counties. The primary reason for this is that "technically-speaking" the city of Orlando is just a small part of a large, monolithic suburban sprawl that is usually considered (to tourists & most non-locals) "Orlando". By having a "Greater Orlando" page, it would be much easier to deal with listing all the attractions and providing other information to tourists unaware of the political distinctions/boundaries of the city and neighboring towns/communities. A key part of this is having a clear map for the Orlando area. Sub-regions of "Greater Orlando" would include (this isn't comprehensive and will need some discussion): Orlando (proper), Kissimmee, Celebration, Walt Disney World/Lake Buena Vista, Apopka, Seminole County (Sanford, Maitland, Eatonville), Winter Park, East Orlando/University area, and more. The VisitOrlando website isn't very helpful, see here and click on the map in top left. After this is straightened out, the city proper needs to be broken down into districts, such as Downtown, International Drive, etc.
  2. Maps A good map is essential for page. This would include district maps (at least for important districts like Downtown & International Drive) and a map for the "Greater Orlando" region (if created).
  3. MoS Ensure that all listings match our MoS and are complete (at least name, telephone, & address for every listing) and in an appropriate template.
  4. Cleanup listings Create appropriate price ranges for hotel & restaurant listings. The eat section could also be divided into categories by cuisine (as it currently is). Every hotel has a website with useful information and Urbanspoon has hundreds of restaurants in the Orlando area...I think the top-rated restaurants deserve to be added to WV. WV editors have done a good job reducing/eliminating the sterile, generic language used by hotel listing spammers, but now, the listings are really plain. You can look at websites and note anything special/different about the hotels, like free airport transfers or indoor pool.
  5. Add prose Transitioning sections like See, Do, Buy, Eat, Sleep, & Go next to prose will make the page look better...plus, once districts are created, all the listing will be moved, so prose will be necessary.
  6. Expand See & Do In line with adding prose, there is much more that should be added to the See & Do sections. Plus,when district pages are created, there will need to be more content to fill up those pages.
  7. Add good pictures Self-explanatory.
  8. Orlando International Airport Create a page for the airport. Improve article to guide status.

The geographical hierarchy is really out of the scope of a CotM, but this is something that is really important to be handled before improving the Orlando page and getting help from the community to divide up the content and make some good maps would be very useful. Again, with 55 million visitors per year (!!) this is a very high-profile page and should probably be considered a high-priority for improvement by the Wikivoyage community. Now...that said...there's no shortage of information about Orlando on the internet for the Wikivoyage community to pitch in and help improve this page. The official tourism website for the region is VisitOrlando.com and just about every public library in the U.S. (and—given the number of Canadian & British tourists—probably many libraries in Canada & the U.K.) should have a travel guide to Florida (which, by default, will have a large section covering Orlando), if not a travel guide to Orlando itself. Additional websites include: 50+ Ways to have Fun on I-Drive! on Internationaldriveorlando.com, Visitor Info from the City of Orlando, Free Things to Do in Orlando from National Geographic, orlandoattractions.com (commercial website), Orlando Neighborhoods from Hotels.com (commercial website), Top 10 Free Things to Do in Orlando from Hotels.com (commercial website), 40 Free Things to Do in Orlando from mrfreestuff.com (commercial website), What to do in Orlando from travelchannel.com (commercial website). All those websites just listed were found in about 90 seconds searching on Google "things to do in orlando". It took about 15 minutes to glance at each site and copy/paste and list them here. Related searches that are displayed add "...with kids", "...for adults", "...nightlife", "romantic...", "Orlando attractions". You might get the idea that there's plenty of content on the web to improve the Orlando page. In my opinion, this should be CotM after the Cleanup is finished and before or around the time we leave beta. If WV gets mentioned in a travel magazine, major news publication, or otherwise reaches the attention of the hospitality industry in the Orlando area, there'll be a flood of new listings from businesses and having the districts in place will help manage that. Not to mention that great content for a major tourist destination is huge plus for WV. AHeneen (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally settled upon a workable template for airport articles on Wikivoyage, the Airport Expedition is now busy creating and editing articles to provide the site with much better coverage of this important facet of travel. What we really need is a 'big bang' - a large scale collaborative effort to dramatically improve WV's airport coverage.

  • Create articles for the biggest and busiest airports in the world. — Having allowed airport articles for the first time, we really need to make sure that Wikivoyage offers a wide variety of information on specific airports.
  • Improve existing articles with more information, using the new template to its full. — Many articles have already been created, but they still need quite a lot of work in many cases.
  • Consider what criteria should define outline, usable, guide and star airport articles — Pretty essential for the next bullet point, we need to be sure how to rate these articles.
  • Get an airport article to star status — We could really do with an example article that shows this type of article at its best.

Any opinions, offers of help, or ideas for fine-tuning this nomination would be most welcome!

Nick (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very broad subject. How about defining 1-2 airport articles we want to reach star status & which major airports we want to create articles for (and just how much info those articles should have as a minimum). AHeneen (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per the discussion in the Airport Expedition I think I'm going to withdraw this nomination for a few months until we get a bit further down the line with this. --Nick (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of if not the most popular form of getting around the world, Wikivoyage's articles on Flying have plenty of potential, but still need a lot of work. The two long-standing monoliths, Fundamentals of flying and Tips for flying were recently merged and split into four separate, sequential guides, but there is still some redundancy in there and we need these to be as tight as possible. There are other issues too: of the other articles under Flying's banner, many are either out-dated or just irrelevant. It would be nice to have a collaboration on this area to give the topic the boost it needs.

  • Copy-edit and fix the 4 main Flying articles — These are the most general articles in the topic and as such probably the most popular. We need them to be perfect.
  • Decide what to do about airline articles and do it — We now have several airline articles but their use and compatibility with WV's aims is questionable. We need to decide where to put them.
  • Update niche topics — Flying is also home to a number of more specific topics, but lots of these are out of date. We need toto make sure that the info in them is correct.
  • Create any new articles that would have a place there — Flying still has some gaps in its coverage (like Frequent flyer programmes, added only yesterday by PrinceGloria). Let's fill these holes and make this guide as comprehensive (and useful!) as possible.

Nick talk 11:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bump --Nick talk 23:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the largest (23 million, about the same as Australia) cities on Earth and important, with the world's busiest container port and huge business and manufacturing activity (GDP larger than Greece or Malaysia). Also a major tourist draw, a place that almost everyone who comes to China will visit. This would make a fine destination of the month if the articles were good enough, but they are still a long way off that.

In the main article:

  • general copy editing
  • fixing red links.
  • clean up Get in/By Train which is incomplete & badly organised

The districts need more:

  • not enough listings or photos
  • no page banners yet
  • some large gaps to be filled in
    • In Shanghai/French_Concession there is a strip of a dozen restaurants on Hengshan Lu that is fairly popular, but we have no listings
    • Nor do we have the brew pubs, Boxing Cat and Shanghai Brewery, which are major expat hangouts
  • many listings incomplete or badly formatted
  • some broken (obsolete?) links in listings

Some things may need more linking or additional text.

Several huge cities are listed at Category:Star_articles and quite a few more have Guide status. The long-term goal here might be to get Shanghai up to Star, but currently it is not even close to Guide. The main article is close, but many districts are only at Outline status. Pashley (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some progress is being made. See Talk:Shanghai#Getting_to_guide.3F. There is still more than enough work for a CotM, though. Pashley (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley has been doing some great work on Shanghai. I hope there is still some interest for a CotM? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new look of Wikivoyage is short of 32,839 custom page banners out of 32,845. It would be good for the image of the project to get to a stage where the majority of articles have custom page banners, and a big collaborative effort would be a good opportunity for more users to learn the basic skills of working with images.

0 % of all mainspace articles have custom banners.

• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Pashley (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great CotM, but I think it's already the de facto current collaboration ;) --Peter Talk 22:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are a ton of nominations above waiting for their time (some since 2009, apparently...), but I thought Paris would be good for a quick, intensive makeover right now. We are on the verge of having the dynamic maps and associated tools going live in a matter of months or weeks, which could become the breaking point between Wikivoyage being an enthusiast's project nobody heard about to the no.1 go-to place. That said, if people are to stick with Wikivoyage after they learn of our new features, they must find quality content here.

Paris is apparently the no.1 global tourist destination, so there will surely be much interest in this article. For now, we are great at covering the roads less travelled (this is why e.g. articles on minor Japanese cities have so good rankings with Google - because not many other sites cover them), but when it comes to what people look for most often, we often do fail. It would be terrible to find all those less adventurous travellers put off Wikivoyage but a below-par article while the rest of the site is so great.

Paris is pretty much like a hotel is said city - still functional and interesting at first glance, but there is a lot of maintenance work to be done and it has clearly fallen behind the times. The article has been updated in terms of some details, but on the whole, it needs a more

  • Copyedit / rationalize main article — the article, despite districtification, is quite unwieldily long and parts of it are really below par and poorly organized / edited, with large swathes of questionable text with no subsections to help the reader find their way. A copyedit and pruning for best quality content would be well warranted, with perhaps thought given to eventual forking out certain more expansive topics to separate articles, like "Public transit in Paris", perhaps.
  • Brush up districts — even the 1er shows much need for refurbishment, it must have become a Star long ago and both standards have changed and it accumulated loads of residual dirt over the years. Some other district articles even lacked leads (until I started writing them) and are very basic. I am not saying everybody should now jump at researching all there is to do in the 17th arrondissement, but let us at least make compact, nice roundups on even the less exciting districts, while making sure the more important ones have articles that are useful, easy to read, navigate and conform to quality standards.
  • Standardize and update eat/drink/sleep listings — there seems to be no consensus as to the price bands, and a lot of listings miss information, as well as geocoordinates, so no automatic mapping is possible now.
  • Public transportation — there seems to be no consensus and no good way devised on how to cover "get in" and "get around" by public transportation in a useful and informative way. Paris is a great city when it comes to public transportation, so once we're done with it, we could use it as a model for other districtified cities.

It would be great if we decided to make this the COTM for July as the month is still new! BTW, is anybody actually taking care of this process? There are nominations from 2009, and the "current" COTW is still the one from March... PrinceGloria (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small and medium sized airports

edit

Airports that are not large enough to have their own article should have a clear city page where detailed information can be found. Other articles referencing that airport should link to this city page using the {{IATA}} template.

Create the page with the three letter IATA airport code IN CAPITALS.

If there is an airport article then redirect the code to that page
e.g. For FRA IATA, the page FRA contains #REDIRECT[[Frankfurt Airport]]
If there is no airport article the redirect should be to the relevant section of closest city article.
e.g. For STR IATA, the page STR contains #redirect[[Stuttgart#By plane]]

For airports not large enough for their own article:-

  • On the city page closest to the airport create a listing of type=go
    • Use the IATA template in the alt field
    • Use the wikidata function in listing editor to connect to Wikipedia and fill in coordinates and possibly image information.
      • Once Wikidata is added, on the Wikipedia page of the airport you can add the Wikivoyage template linking to city page (it will automatically jump to the listing)
    • Add other information such as web link and telephone number to listing
    • Below listing give additional information such as methods of getting to the airport from city centre and flight destinations.
    • In Sleep section of city list a couple of hotels near the airport.


More consistent documentation of airports helps the reader understand the guide better. Removing of duplicate information on numerous pages reduces effort keeping information up to date. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eat listings for cities in Germany

edit

Currently from 440 cities in Germany 115 do not have an Eat listing. See German city articles needing eat listing. Work has already been done to rationalise (expand or merge) cities and all have at least one See and Sleep listing, so what now exists are valid destination. This would be the next step to get all articles in the country usable. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about this one. It's definitely a worthwhile goal, but I think it's better for a Cotm to be something that any contributor can help with, without needing extensive research or local knowledge of a particular country. I think restaurant listings should ideally be added by someone who has been to the city, or failing that, with significant research to figure out which of the city's restaurants are worth visiting. So I'm not sure we should ask contributors who may not know much about Germany or even be able to read German to add restaurants to articles in that country. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outline cities

edit

By no means could we deal with the currently 12,900 outline city articles there are in a single monthly collaboration, but with the same procedure that we've used for outline districts we could also get some outline cities up to usable status. This project could be done in two different months (phases 1, 2, etc.) so that more work could be done. Also, by improving the city articles, we have a better chance of getting region articles up to a higher status. I'd probably see getting it down by 100 as being pretty successful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This I think is far to big a task as defined. I have spend years trying to get article from outline to usable for just a few countries, so far only done for Wales which has a relatively small number of articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a phase 2 of Outline districts would be a better idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be “Outline cities in Tennessee” or something of that nature, or even a country like you suggested. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more that addressing a bottom-level region is too much for a CotM. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently two out seven continent articles (Africa and South America) are at outline status. It is a little bit awkward that we, after 15 years of editing, haven't managed to get all our continents up to usable status. I think that it is high time to fix that. As far as I can tell the main reason why they are considered outlines is that they link to some 9 outline "other destinations", and our first task should be to upgrade these articles. I think that the justification for this is rather obvious. These are destinations which we consider to be of high interest to travelers, in regions where our coverage is unusually weak.

The outline articles linked from our outline continents are:

The last two articles are regions which have outline sub-articles which would also need to be upgraded to usable status. Galapagos Islands in particular has plenty of outline sub-articles. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually brought up a similar discussion at Talk:Asia#Guide status?, and the response Granger gave me was that Europe would be an easier choice for guide status than Asia would be. Coming back to this collaboration, however, I'm voting for weak support. It's a great task which I'd like to see be finished, but would probably require writing original content, which is a faux pas in a collaboration nomination. It depends, however, on how close these outline destinations are from being at usable status. If they are close, I would be more likely to support than if they were just stubby outlines with practically no content. But I think that, if we are to promote these to usable status, we should consider upgrading some continent articles to guide status as well, if possible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think this is a good choice for a collaboration, as it would mainly involve adding lots of content to articles that have proven themselves to be difficult to improve. As MartinJacobson says, all of these places are important destinations that are still at outline status—which I think is a sign that they're tricky places to cover. At one point I tried working on the Galapagos Islands article with the ultimate aim of getting South America up to usable status, and I gave up because it required too much local knowledge that I didn't have. It would be great to get these continents up to usable status, but I think it's a better task for people with a particular interest in the destinations, rather than a cotm. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Custom banners - guide articles

edit

Guide status articles without custom banners. Something easy to forget about guide articles is that they should have custom pagebanners. If there are there many (or any) guide articles without custom page banners, this would be a good solution. I am also listing a possible alternative below. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At present there are 6 guide articles which don't have a banner. 3 of these are districts in New Orleans. (I find district banners hard if I am not familiar with the city.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AlasdairW, thanks for taking your time to comment on some of these nominations. Referring to your above comment, while 6 doesn't seem like a lot, actually it is considering how much work must be put in to create a custom banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it appears to be 5 guide articles now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What about copy editing? I got quite of information from WP and added it here. Selfie City (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And some more images in some articles perhaps, as well. And listingify this list. Selfie City (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Do not think this is still a candidate after the updates. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

English language errors in usable park articles

edit

I think a good collaboration could be made out of fixing misplaced punctuation, rewriting poorly written sentences, etc. Usable park articles would be a good start. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to keep track of how many articles have poor writing and language errors. This makes it hard to create a target (e.g. improved 200 out of 500 articles with errors) and hard to implement in COTM. Maybe just an expedition would be better? Gizza (roam) 05:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing star articles

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You both have a point with this, maybe it is too complex a topic for CotM. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like the expedition idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing listings for closed businesses, guide articles

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wellington + Colorado and Wyoming Articles

edit

Nomination

edit

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.

Feedback

edit
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Result: slush. Feel free to propose a Colorado expedition. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks

edit

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Collaboration_of_the_month/Slush_pile&oldid=4920949"