Wikivoyage:Previous collaborations Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

This page lists previous collaborations.

A collaboration to improve region articles by making sure that the most interesting places in each region are mentioned in each region article, with links to full listings in the relevant local guides. Adding other missing information, such as "Understand ", "Get in" and Get around" is helpful too. When you've done as much as you can on an article, move it to the "Improved articles" section further down the page.

• Abov - Only 2 blue links, let alone information about individual sights.
• Achaea - Almost no content. Should it be merged and redirected to Patras?
• Adygea - nothing in "See," one thing in "Do". Only two blue links. I will propose a merge and redirect to Krasnodar Krai, which should be renamed Krasnodar Krai and Adygea. However, that article has blank "See" and "Do" sections. Redirected to the new article, but still needs more work.
• Agreste (Pernambuco) – no content outside Cities/OD
• Ahal Province and all other region articles in Turkmenistan totally suck. I'm proposing merging and redirecting them all to the country article. – partially improved. I've filled out the See section of this specific article, "Do", "Eat" and "Drink" are still empty, though I don't consider the latter two crucial for a region article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ambala Division – minimal content outside "Cities" section
• Ancona (province) – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Antequera Region – 1 blue link, empty past "Get in"
• Bahr el Ghazal – minimal content in most sections
• Baraboo River Valley – empty past "Cities" section
• Bekaa – mostly empty past "Cities"
• Belluno (province) – 3 blue links in "Cities", minimal content otherwise
• Bhopal-Narmadapuram Division – 6 blue links, minimal get in info; all other sections are empty
• Bikaner Division – 3 blue links, minimal content otherwise
• Carabobo – 1 blue link, many sections empty
• Caspian Basin – minimal content past "Cities" section
• Central Angola – 3 blue links, no content elsewhere
• Central Bosnia – 3 blue links, no content elsewhere
• Central Croatia – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Understand" sections
• Central East (Rio Grande do Sul) – has 3 blue links, an awful amount of red links and that's about it
• Central Idaho – empty Get in and See sections
• Central Isaan – empty See/Do sections
• Central Leningrad Oblast – 1 blue link, no content elsewhere
• Central Plains (Liaoning) – no content outside "Cities" section
• Central São Paulo (state) – minimal content
• Central South (Bahia) – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Central Sudan – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Central Tanzania – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Central Uganda – many sections empty
• Central Yunnan – minimal content outside "Cities" section
• Chaco (Argentina) – empty after "Get around"
• Crete Senese – minimal content
• Cumberland County (Maine) – 3 blue links, contains mapshape; all other sections are empty
• Deep East Texas – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Dohuk Governorate – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Eastern Cambodia minimal content outside the "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Eastern Madhya Pradesh – as above
• Eastern Plantations – 2 blue links, minimal get in info, all other sections are empty
• Eastern Uganda – no content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations"
• Essex County (New Jersey) – no content outside "Cities" section
• Foggia (province) – no content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations"
• Greater Geelong – most sections past "Get in" are empty
• Greater Hobart – has see listings which should be moved to the relevant city article
• Grundy County (Illinois) – 1 blue link, empty elsewhere
• Inner Eastern Thailand – 5 blue links with all other sections empty
• Kalahari – 3 blue links with all other sections empty
• Loyalty Islands – one blue link, limited content in other sections. Could Ouvéa possibly be merged with the current region article to form a rural area article?
• Massa-Carrara (province) – only contains 3 blue links and a few images
• Northeastern Bosnia – only contains 3 blue links
• Northeastern Tamil Nadu – 2 blue links, otherwise abysmal in content
• Northern Sierra (Peru) – no content outside "Regions" and "Cities" section. Partly done, except for "Get in".
• Northwest (Espírito Santo) – 2 blue links, otherwise abysmal in content
• Pistoia (province) – 3 blue links, no content outside "Cities" section
• Sagadahoc County – 4 blue links, little to no content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Sertão (Pernambuco) – 2 blue links, no content outside "Cities" section
• Sikasso (region) – 1 blue link, no content outside "Cities" section
• South Sichuan – 2 blue links, minimal get in info; all other sections are empty
• Val di Elsa
• Verona (province)
• Western Coal Fields – 3 blue links, no content outside "Cities" section
• Western Highlands (Liaoning)
• Yazd (province) – 1 blue link, minimal understand and get in info
• Yemeni Coastal Plains
• Yemeni Highlands – minimal content overall

• Abia State has substantial information in "See" and "Do" but needs more of the attractions to be linked to local articles.
• Abruzzo - "See" and "Do" need links.
• Acadiana - Pretty good region article, but "Do" needs links to city articles.
• Aceh - See and Do need more links. See has what's arguably an overly long list, but what's most important is to say what cities each attraction is in, with relevant links.

• Acadia is an extra-region with individual listings that have markers instead of links to city articles.
• The boundaries between Andean Northwest (Argentina) and Chaco (Argentina) is not well-defined, both on the map and in our region structure – see Talk:Argentina
• East Estonia is a region with plenty of travel content, but it contains many listings for places that do not have articles.

• 24 Parganas - Empty "See and Do" section.
• Aba (prefecture) - Nothing in "See."
• Abitibi-Témiscamingue - "See" and "Do" need links. -- Done. Ground Zero (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Abu Dhabi (emirate) - Nothing in "See."
• Acadian Coast - See" and "Do" need links. Improved. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Acre (Brazil) - Very little content: every section after "Get in" is empty. Should that, Rondônia and Roraima, also almost contentless articles, be combined with Amazonas (Brazil), so that that article is about four states?
• Adams County (Pennsylvania) – region article with only one blue link; "See" section contains listings -- merged into higher-level region. Ground Zero (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Adelaide Region - nothing specific in "See" or "Do". Improved --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Agrigento (province) - virtually no content.
• Ajmer Division and all other region articles of Rajasthan have virtually no content. Rajasthan is very large in area, so I'm concerned about the ramifications of merging and redirecting all region articles, but we will have to consider the possibility. I (Ikan Kekek) don't want to write up another deregionalization proposal right now and add it to requests for comment, so I'll come back to this.
• Altai (Kazakhstan) – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections; potential Wikivoyage:Image policy violations, too. Improved. Ground Zero (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Amapá - Almost no content. Should it and the slightly less sparse Tocantins article be merged with Pará (Brazil) to form a 3-state article that will still need a bit more fleshing out?
• Antananarivo Province – 2 blue links, minimal information in see, abysmal elsewhere -- Improved. Ground Zero (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Barletta-Andria-Trani – empty outside "Cities" section
• Blaauwberg Coast – no content outside "Cities" section
• Broome County – minimal content
• Capiz – minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Central Greece - subregion articles merged.
• Cagliari (province) – contains a single link and no content elsewhere. Redirect to Cagliari?
• Cape Karoo – 2 blue links, minimal content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections — merged into Western Cape Karoo
• Central Senegal – only contains 7 blue links in "Cities" section
• Central Zambia – minimal content outside "Cities", "Other destinations" and "Talk" sections. Improved Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Cornwall County – 3 blue links, a few points about the county's parishes, no content elsewhere. Ground Zero (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Cuvette – minimal content. Merger proposed at Talk:Republic of the Congo
• Eastern Kenya – 4 blue links, 1 red-linked OD; all other sections are empty Improved Ground Zero (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Entre Rios – content is abysmal beyond "Other destinations" Improved. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Eritrea has two region articles that absolutely suck – merged with Eritrea --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Evrytania – merged
• Gemer – many empty sections. Improved. Ground Zero (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Great Lakes (South Dakota) – 2 blue links, minimal get in info; all other sections are empty -- proposal made to turn this into a rural area and merge in four towns.
• Isfahan (province) – 7 blue links with most other sections empty
• Lara (Venezuela) – only contains one blue link -- merger proposed at Talk:Northwest (Venezuela)
• All of Maranhão's subregions are abysmal, many of which have minimal to no content outside the "Cities" or "Other destinations" sections: Central Maranhão, Eastern Maranhão, Northern Maranhão, Western Maranhão and Southern Maranhão. Southern Maranhão has 1 blue link, 6 red links, no content outside "Cities" section -- merged. Ground Zero (talk)
• North Aegean Islands – no content outside "Regions" section. -- Improved. Ground Zero (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• North Central Wisconsin – 9 blue links; empty otherwise
• North (Minas Gerais) and Northwest (Minas Gerais) – both are abysmal. The latter has 0 blue links and no content outside lede -- reorganization proposed at Talk:Northwest (Venezuela)
• North (Paraná) – only contains 1 blue link
• Northern Senegal – 2 blue links, limited content in the "See" section, no content in other sections
• North Western Province (Sri Lanka) – minimal information in "Understand", 4 blue links, and a bunch of spurious empty section headers in "Do"
• Nuoro (province) – little to no content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Pando – 0 blue links, no content outside "Understand" and "Cities" section -- Improved, as much as is feasible from Wiki sources. Ground Zero (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Phocis – 3 blue links, no content outside "Cities" section – merged
• Pisa (province) – 5 blue links, no content outside "Cities" section
• San Juan (province, Argentina) – little to no content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections Improved –SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Many of Tajikistan's regions suck – I've (SHB2000) made a proposal to revise the region structure on Talk:Tajikistan
• Tambacounda Region – 4 blue links, a little bit of content in "See", but otherwise empty - Improved Ground Zero (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tarn-et-Garonne – 2 blue links, no content outside "Cities" section - Improved Ground Zero (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Toliara Province – little to no content outside "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections- Improved Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Val di Chiana - Improved Ground Zero (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Volta Delta – 3 blue links, no content outside of the "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections
• Yaracuy – 0 blue links, minimal content in Understand-- merger proposed at Talk:Northwest (Venezuela)

As of 05 November 2024 there were (7165 articles — down 7.6% from 7758) articles marked with 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 "dead link" warning. Verify whether the link is 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 it is a listing, and you cannot find any recent reviews of the listing (say last two years) or another site states that the place is 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.

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)[reply]

• Support – always an important task, and a good one for doing in bite-sized chunks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – improves the quality of site for readers and SEO--Traveler100 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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
• Square feet or metres, as opposed to linear measures
• Temperature ranges and differences (as opposed to temperatures themselves)

Progress so far (as of 30 June)

• To do Kilometers to miles (2391 articles — down 1.5% from 2427)
• To do Miles to kilometers (311 articles — down 1.9% from 317)
• To do Meters to feet (1086 articles — down -0.2% from 1084)
• To do Feet to meters (132 articles — down 6.4% from 141)
• To do Fahrenheit and Celsius (1437 articles — down -0.8% from 1426)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also temperatures could use conversion templates. [1]. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've noticed that the above search brings results that are more complicated. For example, in Udupi it talks about "40,000 sq ft". The conversion from square feet to square metres is different from feet to metres. These should not be changed unless there's a specific conversion template for area. Gizza ^(roam) 03:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least {{m2}}, {{sqft}}, {{km2}} and {{mi2}}. --LPfi (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in difficult cases where a template isn't available, the conversion can be added manually. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of 31 May:

• To do Articles with the category. (259 articles — down 2.6% from 266)

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)[reply]
• Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gizza ^(roam) 04:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continue with task by moving on to usable articles. Moving information into listings to provide better functionality, such as click on number to phone, and provide more presentable and consistent formatting. (as of 30 April)

• Web links that are shown as number, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference move some text into the link brackets.
  • To do links shown as numbers (831 usable articles — down 34.2% from 1262).
    • Example inline text link
    • To find on the page look at the results of the search or put in your browser in page search field "[1]".
    • There is a good chance there is more than one link on the page not containing link text.
• Email address that are hard coded in article, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference change to use {{email}}.
  • To do mailto: used (1 usable articles — down 94.1% from 17).
  • To do email: used (58 usable articles — down 24.7% from 77).
  • To do e-mail: used (29 usable articles — down 27.5% from 40).
  • Done email icon ✉ used currently in 0 usable articles.
• Identify if phone numbers and associated business information can be changed to a listing entry, if not use {{phone}}. At same time, if needed, edit number to standard International phone format. (Some search results give false positives).
  • To do phone icon ☎ used (1 usable articles — down 98% from 50).
  • Done phone icon ☏ used currently in 0 usable articles.
  • To do Tel: used (150 usable articles — down 22.7% from 194).
  • To do Tel. used (128 usable articles — down 19% from 158).
  • Done (Tel. used (0 usable articles — down from 58).
  • To do Tel: used no space (231 usable articles — down 16.6% from 277).
  • To do Tel 0-9 (26 usable articles — down 18.8% from 32).
  • To do phone: (204 usable articles — down 16% from 243).
  • To do phone 0-9 (6 usable articles — down 90.2% from 61).
  • Done Ph: used (0 usable articles — down from 33).
  • To do Mobile: used (14 usable articles — down 41.7% from 24).
  • To do (+0-9 (58 usable articles — down 27.5% from 80).
  • To do : + (391 usable articles — down 20.4% from 491).
  • To do ''+ (142 usable articles — down 17.4% from 172).
  • To do phoneextra= used (11 usable articles — down 83.3% from 66).
    • Example listify phone number

Cleaning up guide status articles was very successful, next step will need a little more effort, maybe more than one month project. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support making it a two-month effort if that will be more helpful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• For guide status cities with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 1 January 2020, 124 articles).
  • Tips
    • For tips on finding lat/long values see Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition#Sub-expedition: Fill all the latitudes!
    • Also check if there is a Wikidata entry for the location (maybe via Wikipedia). Adding Wikidata number using Listing editor can add coordinates.
      • Either search directly at wikidata.org or go to the city's Wikipedia article then the city's category, usually POI sub-categories with articles.
    • If coordinates are not relevant for a listing (has no single location, or is sub-listing of POI that has coordinates) enter NA in both the lat and long parameter fields.
    • Can see which listing do not have coordinates by lack of number at start of line. (Although if wikidata number added without updating the listing data it may have number)
    • If preference switched on, can also see at bottom of article categories for See, Eat, Do, Buy and Sleep missing coordinate.
    • In edit mode can find searching with "| lat= |"
• Also take the chance to add addition information to the listing
  • Update website, phone number
  • Delete closed businesses
• If article appears to be out of date and incomplete consider for changing status to usable.
• If time also address guide status districts with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 9 May 2019, 62 articles).

Add coordinates to See listings of cities that are at guide status. Markers for POIs were made a requirement for Guide and Star article, see Wikivoyage talk:City guide status#Proposed additional text, a grace period was given until June 2019 before existing articles will start to be downgraded. (as of 9 May 2019, 126 articles). --Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of 16 January guide status cities with See listings with no coordinates - 100

Month	COTM
December 2019	Custom banners - park articles
November 2019	Orphaned articles
October 2019	Custom banners - usable articles
September 2019	Articles with formerly dead external links - second round
August 2019	Link and phone formatting - phase 2
July 2019	Articles Geo different to Wikidata
June 2019	Beirut
May 2019	Link and phone formatting
April 2019	Rio de Janeiro
March 2019	Custom banners - regions
February 2019	Shanghai
January 2019	Listings coordinates — phase 2

• Add custom banner to park articles with the standard banner. As of 1 December 2019 there were 285 articles with default banner.
  • Locate a good image that is at least 1800 pixels wide. (The Wikimedia Commons link in sidebar is a start point. Better still, upload some of your own photos to Commons. For page banner images, 3000+ pixels wide is ideal.)
    • If the article is not showing a Commons link on the sidebar, check to see of there is one on Commons and add to the Wikidata page.
  • Crop to 7:1 ratio and upload to commons (with different name) (CropTool at Commons a good tip). On Commons, add it to a subcategory of commons:Category:Wikivoyage banners.
  • Edit {{pagebanner}} on the article
  • Also good to add page banner entry in Wikidata (all the steps are included at Category:Banner missing from Wikidata)
  • Tips on locating and cropping images can be found at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition#How do I help?

• To do As of 31 December 2019 there were 234 park articles with no custom banner.

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

343 park articles with the standard banner at time of nomination.

Remove orphaned articles, pages that have no links to them from other main pages.

• If a city or extraregion article add to a region page.
• For travel topic, itineraries and phrasebooks add to the article level above.
• Add to any other relevant pages
  • Use the Wikivoyage SEO Query Tool to find articles that mention the orphan target page and add those missing links.
  • Consider adding to a few relevant Go next sections.
• Then remove {{Orphan}} from the former orphaned page

As of 16 November 2019 there are 0 orphaned articles. Done

There are currently over 120 orphaned articles, that is articles that may have links from Wikivoyage project or talk pages but not from other main space articles, so cannot be reached by a reader clicking through links. Most of these just need to be added to the relevant region article, but there are probably a few that are not valid destination articles and the information should be merges into another article. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support. I'm concerned that some of these may require local knowledge to fix, and others are extra-hierarachical regions that should probably stay as-is, but the more straightforward ones can be fixed as part of the collaboration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Question for User:Traveler100: Would it be possible to create a category or list of articles that are not linked to from the article they're breadcrumbed to? For instance, Yixing is breadcrumbed under Jiangsu, but until a few minutes ago it wasn't linked from the Jiangsu article. That might be a more useful collaboration, as it would probably give us more articles to work with, and it would exclude some false positives like extra-hierarchical regions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good suggestion. Not sure how to do it yet but I will look into it. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Add custom banner to usable articles with see listings but with no custom banner. As of 1 October 2019 there were 1465 articles with default banner.
  • Locate a good image that is at least 1800 pixels wide. (The Wikimedia Commons link in sidebar is a start point. Better still, upload some of your own photos to Commons. For page banner images, 3000+ pixels wide is ideal.)
    • If the article is not showing a Commons link on the sidebar, check to see of there is one on Commons and add to the Wikidata page.
  • Crop to 7:1 ratio and upload to commons (with different name) (CropTool at Commons a good tip). On Commons, add it to a subcategory of commons:Category:Wikivoyage banners.
  • Edit {{pagebanner}} on the article
  • Also good to add page banner entry in Wikidata (all the steps are included at Category:Banner missing from Wikidata)
  • Tips on locating and cropping images can be found at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition#How do I help?

• To do As of 1 November 2019 there are 1397 usable articles with see listings but with no custom banner.

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

At time of entering this text there are 1450 usable articles with listings that have no customer banner --Traveler100 (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, maybe as our second custom banner collaboration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of 31 August 2019 there were 924 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.

• Partly done. As of 1 October 2019 there was 684 articles marked with formerly dead external links.
  • We made a dint but still a task to do. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support for reasons stated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continue with task on guide articles and possibly start on usable articles. Moving information into listings to provide better functionality, such as click on number to phone, and provide more presentable and consistent formatting.

• Web links that are shown as number, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference move some text into the link brackets.
  • Done links shown as numbers currently in 0 guide articles, (start of month 111).
    • Example inline text link
    • To find on the page look at the results of the search or put in your browser in page search field "[1]".
    • There is a good chance there is more than one link on the page not containing link text.
• Email address that are hard coded in article, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference change to use {{email}}.
  • Done mailto: used currently in 0 guide articles, (start of month 0).
  • Done email: used currently in 0 guide article, (start of month 7).
  • Done e-mail: used currently in 0 guide article, (start of month 2).
• Identify if phone numbers and associated business information can be changed to a listing entry, if not use {{phone}}. At same time, if needed, edit number to standard International phone format. (Some search results give false positives).
  • Done phone icon ☎ used currently in 0 guide articles, (start of month 1).
  • Done phone icon ☏ used currently in 0 guide articles, (start of month 0).
  • Done Tel: used currently in 0 guide articles, (start of month 7).
  • Done Tel. used currently in 0 guide articles.
  • Done (Tel. used currently in 0 guide articles.
  • Done Tel: used no space currently in 1 guide articles, (start of month 13).
  • Done Tel 0-9 which gives 0 in guide articles, (start of month 2).
  • Done phone: which gives 0 in guide articles, (start of month 0).
  • Done phone 0-9 which gives 0 in guide articles, (start of month 12).
  • Done Ph: used currently in 0 guide articles.
  • Done Mobile: used currently in 0 guide articles.
  • Done (+0-9 which gives 0 in guide articles.
  • Done : + which gives 1 in guide articles, (start of month 43).
  • Done ''+ which gives 10 in guide articles, (start of month 21).
  • Done phoneextra= used currently in 0 guide articles, (start of month 23).
    • Example listify phone number
• Start on usable articles
  • Partly done phone icon ☎ used in 52 usable articles, (start of month 121).

Quite a lot of progress has been made today. It looks like this has been a fairly successful collaboration so far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very successful COTM, all guide article formatting issues addressed. Good contributions from a number of people, special mention to RogueScholar. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

As of 1 July 2019, 523 articles in Category:Articles Geo different to Wikidata, showing distance of more than 50 km (31 mi) difference between Wikivoyage and Wikidata coordinates.

• Done city articles. (30 at start of month), 0 at end of month
• To do park articles. (33 at start of month), 2 at end of month
• Done airport articles. (0 at start of month), 0 at end of month
• Done district articles. (0 at start of month), 0 at end of month
• To do country articles. (40 at start of month), 12 at end of month
• Done continent articles. (3 at start of month), 1 at end of month(Antarctica does not make sense to change)
• Done topic articles. (4 at start of month), 0 at end of month
• Done itineraries articles. (3 at start of month), 0 at end of month
• Done dive guide articles. (0 at start of month), 0 at end of month
• To do region articles. (411 at start of month), 388 at end of month
  • To do outline regions. (343 at start of month), 336 at end of month
  • To do usable regions. (42 at start of month), 35 at end of month
  • Done guide regions. (2 at start of month), 0 at end of month
  • Done star regions. (0 at start of month), 0 at end of month
  • To do extra regions articles. (24 at start of month), 17 at end of month

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

• Generally, we don't need to worry about regions for this one. For example, if a country like the USA has different coordinates on Wikidata than Wikivoyage, as long as both are in the country, it is fine. But yes, city and park articles are good. I think I'll support this one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems like a good choice for a collaboration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On Wikivoyage it is good if two articles don't have exactly the same coordinates, as it gets confusing when viewing articles on a map ("Nearby Articles" in a mapframe, "Destinations" on a full page map), but 1km or less separation is fine. This may not be a factor on other project. AlasdairW (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

End of the month down to 403 articles with difference. A good result. All cities corrected and most parks and a good number of counties. Some were articles connected to the wrong wikidata other just positioning mistakes others interpretation corrections. --Traveler100 (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beirut is a huge city in Wikivoyage terminology and an important one in the real world. Main city article and the districts, there is room for improvement.

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

Beirut is a huge city in Wikivoyage terminology and an important one in the real world. However, the article has a lot of listings that need to go into district articles. So here are the tasks I (User:traveler100) suggest:

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

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

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

A little improvement but activity was not taken up by editors. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Identify if phone numbers and associated business information can be changed to a listing entry. At same time, if needed, edit number to standard International phone format.n
  • Done phone icon ☎ used currently in 0 guide articles. (Was 69 at start of month)
  • Partly done Tel: used currently in 7 guide articles. (Was 67 at start of month)
  • Done phone: which gives 0 in guide articles. (Was 35 at start of month)
  • Partly done : + which gives 45 in guide articles. (Was 102 at start of month)
  • Partly done ''+ which gives 22 in guide articles. (Was 44 when added)
    • Example listify phone number
• Web links that are shown as number, either change information to a listing entry or if best staying as an inline reference move some text into the link brackets.
  • Partly done links shown as numbers currently in 110 guide articles. (Was 220 at start of month)
    • Example inline text link

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

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

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

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

More than half of issues fixed. Turned out to be a large task as many formatting changes needed in each page highlighted as issue. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the main city article and its districts and get the city article (and therefore at least one district article) to guide status

• To do Move all listings from huge city article to correct districts
  • Add coordinates to listings on city page, if not clear where it is.
  • Move/Merge to correct district
  • If a major attraction create some text about the POI on the city page and link using wikidata Q number
• Improve district articles
  • Improve listings
    • Done Fix dead links
    • To do Add coordinates if missing
    • To do Add additional information such as web url, address, phone number, content text

Obviously a huge city and a huge tourist destination, but unfortunately the main article includes a lot of listings which could be moved into the district articles. Selfie City (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion is either October 2018 or April 2019 if this one is supported, since this is more visited than Bermuda or Antarctica. Selfie City (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Lots of listings to update. Gizza ^(roam) 04:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A very important tourist destination. In addition to moving listings from the main article to the districts, many of the listings already in the districts need updating, coordinates, etc. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks Traveler100 for making the list of tasks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although started off well and improvements have be made to main page and all districts interest was lost in this. Appears to be a challenge with city collaborations. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aim is to have a good custom banner on all non-city (regions, parks, travel topics, gallery pages, itineraries, phrasebooks, dive guides) articles.

As of 31 March; change compared to this revision

Partly done: A total of 623 non-city (district) articles with the standard banner (down 347 pages — 36% decrease this month)

To do: 348 park articles with the standard banner (down 47 — 12% decrease)

To do: 81 itineraries with the standard banner (down 6 — 7% decrease)

To do: 75 phrasebooks with the standard banner (down 53 — 41% decrease)

Partly done: 67 region articles with the standard banner (down 159 — 70% decrease)

To do: 52 dive guide articles with the standard banner (down 2 — 4% decrease)

Done: no travel topics with the standard banner (down 78 — 100% decrease)

Done: no gallery pages with the standard banner (no change)

Statistics on this page are updated manually; they may lag behind actual statistics

• Locate a good image that is at least 1800 pixels wide. (The Wikimedia Commons link in sidebar is a start point. For page banner images, 3000+ pixels wide is ideal.)
  • If the article is not showing a Commons link on the sidebar, check to see of there is one on Commons and add to the Wikidata page.
• Crop to 7:1 ratio and upload to commons (with different name) (CropTool at Commons a good tip). On Commons, add it to a subcategory of commons:Category:Wikivoyage banners.
• Edit {{pagebanner}} on the article
• Also good to add page banner entry in Wikidata (all the steps are included at Category:Banner missing from Wikidata)
• Some articles marked as regions may be incorrectly tagged, assess if they need to be changed to city articles. Particularly if article in Category:Regions with no category

Tips on locating and cropping images can be found at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition#How do I help?

Right now there are 11,613 articles with default banners that should one day get custom banners. The number is going down over time but a COTM drive could push it down to zero much faster. If there are too many to do in one month, we could focus on putting custom banners on every non-city article (1327 articles according to Petscan). Gizza ^(roam) 06:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good idea, always makes the pages look more professional. Maybe goal should be all region articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this would be a helpful project for WV. Selfie City (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems like a good idea to me. Limiting ourselves to non-city articles for the first round sounds reasonable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are currently about 1000 pages that need this work. Since there are ~30 days in March, if we do 30 a day (that's a little over 1 per hour), we'll knock out almost all of them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  but I think we can make a big dint in this. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not quite on course for eliminating them all, but we're not yet two-thirds of the way through the month and we're already down 18%. IMO that's pretty good and shows how well we can do on these collaborations. Full stats are provided above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• An impressive impact made to this task. As well as many pagebanner images being added a number of articles fixed in terms of type and content. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aim is to bring Shanghai huge city article to Guide status

• Not done: Get all Shanghai district articles that are currently outline to usable. (7 as of 1st February 2019).
  • At least two or three See, Eat and Sleep listings in article
  • A couple of good images
• Not done: Improve usable articles
  • Coordinates on all listings. Add coordinated to district Listings without coordinates
  • Check links of listings
    • remove closed businesses
    • update broken links. Done
• To do: Get one district to Guide status

If the Shanghai article were at Guide status, it would be an obvious candidate for DotM, one of the world's largest & most visited cities. The main obstacle to this is that many of its district articles are still at outline so the main article cannot be promoted. Discussion and a (possibly out-of-date) scorecard at Talk:Shanghai#Getting_to_guide?. I suggest a CotM mainly aimed at getting the main article to guide by bringing lagging districts up to usable; if we can also improve the main article and other districts, so much the better.

There is no rush at all on this; Shanghai would not be a good DotM candidate until 2020 or so. After discussion starting at Talk:Shanghai#Districts_-_Oh_what_a_mess! I created a Downtown Shanghai article which had fewer districts & could be promoted to Guide; it was DotM for May 2018. Shanghai should therefore not be considered soon.

Shanghai districts are a hard problem because the place is huge & complex. Creating Downtown Shanghai was, I think, the third attempt at getting them right. Various people objected because that made the structure more complex & less like other articles, and made breadcrumb trails longer. There was a lot more discussion, ending with Talk:Shanghai#Decision_on_Downtown_Shanghai and the fourth attempt at a good district structure, turning the Downtown article into a redirect into the main Shanghai article. I think the district structure is now (finally!) OK, but this should be reviewed by others before Shanghai could be DotM. Pashley (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Shanghai article as it stands doesn't look too bad, and we'd be spending loads of precious time correcting all kinds of little errors on this one to make it work. It would either be nothing or a monster project — let's put it that way. I have a feeling it would be the latter.

Also, the fact that the Shanghai article is a complex problem means, by CotM rules, it's not a good choice for CotM. A city article as big as Shanghai will never be far from a mess because it's so large, so I think it would be better to focus on articles without enough content instead of too much, like Shanghai. As a result I'll have to vote oppose on this one for now. Selfie City (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could & should "focus on articles without enough content" here; as I wrote above "I suggest a CotM mainly aimed at getting the main article to guide by bringing lagging districts up to usable". Pashley (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing all outlines to usable I think is a good goal. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that makes sense. Then I'll support. Selfie City (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current CotM aims at getting Outline district articles across the site up to Usable. Several on its list are in Shanghai, so probably we should review Shanghai after the CotM ands. Pashley (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the Chinese tend to alter GPS coordinates and major map sites such as Google tend to be incorrect, and difficult to correct. Any one know how to do the adjustment or which sites give reliable coordinates?--Traveler100 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStreetMap gives correct coordinates, but its coverage of China is comparatively weak. I usually use Google Maps or Baidu Maps to find the place I'm looking for, then open OpenStreetMap in another tab, zoom and scroll to the right place, and find the coordinates that way. Some discussion and links about this issue can be found at Talk:China#GPS coordinates in China. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eat- I personally only know a couple of areas of the city and tended to drift into restaurants I see or someone local takes me somewhere. For the district articles that are currently outline can anyone recommend some web sites (apart from Google and TripAdvisor) where we can do some internet research to find places to eat?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so successful or popular a project, a few sleep listing added and dead links removed. Would appear researching some suburbs not easy. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• For guide status cities with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 1 January 2019, 285 articles).
  • Tips
    • For tips on finding lat/long values see Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition#Sub-expedition: Fill all the latitudes!
    • Also check if there is a Wikidata entry for the location (maybe via Wikipedia). Adding Wikidata number using Listing editor can add coordinates.
      • Either search directly at wikidata.org or go to the city's Wikipedia article then the city's category, usually POI sub-categories with articles.
    • If coordinates are not relevant for a listing (has no single location, or is sub-listing of POI that has coordinates) enter NA in both the lat and long parameter fields.
    • Can see which listing do not have coordinates by lack of number at start of line. (Although if wikidata number added without updating the listing data it may have number)
    • If preference switched on, can also see at bottom of article categories for See, Eat, Do, Buy and Sleep missing coordinate.
    • In edit mode can find searching with "| lat= |"
• Also take the chance to add addition information to the listing
  • Update website, phone number
  • Delete closed businesses
• If article appears to be out of date and incomplete consider for changing status to usable.
• If time also address guide status districts with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 1 January 2019, 68 articles).

Add coordinates to See listings of cities that are at guide status.

As of 20 June 2018: 297 guide status cities with See listings with no coordinates. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Another good listing-related collaboration of the month. Selfie City (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markers for POIs were made a requirement for Guide and Star article, see Wikivoyage talk:City guide status, a grace period was given until June 2019 before existing articles will start to be downgraded. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem right, though, that a really good article at guide status might have 1 pair of coordinates missing and therefore be downgraded. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it's not that strict a requirement. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If only a few listing coords missing hopefully is not much more effort to add and improve the article than reduce the status. We saw this with the star article, what is left are the ones needing a lot of work. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says at Wikivoyage:Dynamic_maps_Expedition#Sub-expedition:_Fill_all_the_latitudes! to not use Google Maps (which I just discovered, and it surprises me); however, I use it all the time and I am sure others do as well. Just checking. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be said but who is to know where the numbers come from. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do would be to sweep this discussion somewhere else and hide these revisions. Just say you agree and I'll find a place and move it there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are typing in an address and then seeing what coordinates are brought back for that address, then you don't necessarily need to use those extract coordinates. Switch on the satellite picture and then select a point yourself. I use a combination of Google Maps and Bing Maps to locate a place (but don't use their shown coordinates). I then use Bing to get some coords in the area as you can just right click and the coords are shown straight away without any additional configuration. You can then use those coords on the maps in WikiVoyage as a starting point to look for the coordiates that you eventually use in the listing. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I do, basically, except that I do it all on Google Maps, not using Bing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To do: For guide status cities with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 5 January 2019, 240 articles).Half way there! (as of 26 January 2019, 142 articles).
• To do: For guide status districts with See listings with no coordinates, add coordinates (as of 5 January 2019, 66 articles).

Partly done: On 1 February number of guide city articles still needing See coordinates is 124, guide districts 63. About half of articles completed, a few articles downgraded to usable and a number of the remaining at least improved. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Month	COTM
December 2018	Austin
November 2018	Listing coordinates - phase 1
October 2018	Bermuda
September 2018	Outline districts
August 2018	Atlanta
July 2018	#Most frequently visited outline articles to usable status
June 2018	#Metro Cebu
May 2018	#Related sites
April 2018	#Category:Articles with formerly dead external links
March 2018	#Mauritius
February 2018	#Category:Articles with dead external links - phase 2
January 2018	#Buenos Aires

(Suggested order)

• Remove or merge duplicate listing in city page that are in district articles
• Add coordinated to listings in main city page (help identify which district they are in)
• Move listings in main city page to correct district
  • See Done, Do Not done, Buy Done, Eat Done, Drink Done, Sleep Done
• Check for closed POIs and delete
• Add coordinates to listings on district pages
• Add contact and other information to listings, check web links
• In text form add main attractions to main city page. Possibly also eat and do highlights.
• Details on how to get in to districts
• Page banner images for districts

A city that has been districtified but still has lots of listings left in the main article.

• Move listings to districts.
• Add geocoordinates and contact info
• Remove closed POIs

—Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a lot to do, I'll support. Selfie City (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good candidate, support. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• we sorta kinda mention Austin in United States without a car but I don't think the article itself does carfreedom justice... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work was done. Closed businesses removed; coordinates, phone numbers and addresses added; and See, Eat, Buy, Drink and Sleep listings moved to districts or nearby city articles. Still some work to do though, the Do section not completed and districts could do with some work. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For star status articles with listings without coordinates, add coordinates to all listings. (as of 1 November 2018, 53 articles)
  • Tips
    • For tips on finding lat/long values see Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition#Sub-expedition: Fill all the latitudes!
    • Also check if there is a Wikidata entry for the location (maybe via Wikipedia). Adding Wikidata number using Listing editor can add coordinates.
    • If coordinates are not relevant for a listing (has no single location) enter NA in both the lat and long parameter fields.
    • Can see which listing do not have coordinates by lack of number at start of line.
    • If preference switched on, can also see at bottom of article categories for See, Eat, Do, Buy and Sleep missing coordinate.
    • In edit mode can find searching with "| lat= |"
• Also take the chance to add addition information to the listing
  • Update website, phone number
  • Delete closed businesses
• If article appears to be out of date and incomplete consider for Nominations to remove Star status

As of 17 June 2018 there are 657 guide or star articles that have listings without coordinates. See Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition/ListingCoordStats. Need to improve articles previously raised to guide or star status. Maybe month task would be fix all Star article listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great choice, Traveler100. I always like to see plenty of coordinates on an article, and I think this would be a good month's project. Selfie City (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 June 2018 there are 53 star status articles with listings without coordinates --Traveler100 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Selfie City (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markers for POIs were made a requirement for Guide and Star article, see Wikivoyage talk:City guide status, a grace period was given until June 2019 before existing articles will start to be downgraded. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Star status articles with listings without coordinates down to 25, that is 27 kept as star with improved listings and one de-stared to guide. Also remaining article have also been improved with a number of closed businesses removed and broken links fixed. This activity does however show what a a task is ahead to get coordinates in all listings of guide article before the deadline. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve content of listings
  • fix dead links
  • expand description
  • add coordinates, address, phone number
• Move listings to correct city article from region article. If key POI add some text in region article about it.
• Add understand section to city article
• Improve city articles to get them all to usable status
  • Adding See, Sleep and Eat listings were possible.

And Hamilton (Bermuda) — I've just looked at this article and it has quite a few listings and a little information, but looks like it could be a great opportunity for article improvement. Also, we could probably copy a lot of information from the Bermuda article to the Hamilton one. Selfie City (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll add a list of improvements necessary to this article:

• Add an Understand section
• Expand Get in/Get around sections
• Add information to listings of attractions, and possibly move some of these to Do section
• Add information to business listings
• Add to list of hotels
• Add list of places to go next

Another option, though, would be to do the whole Bermuda article, which would be a somewhat larger task, and is mentioned as an alternative nomination below. Selfie City (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a small place, but even so as a capital should be in a better state than it is. Support the proposal. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other choice is to do the whole Bermuda region article, which would be a bit more to do, but would definitely be possible. There's many problems to solve in this article, including the fact that none of the parishes have separate articles and the other destinations are both outlines. Also, work would need to be done on the cities, including Hamilton (see above). The Bermuda article could definitely be promoted to guide status, and considering Bermuda has a static map already, perhaps even star status. Selfie City (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a rethink. Does not need sub-regions but could make some of the parishes an article if no city article for the area. Need to move listing in to city article. This may be a better idea than just tackling Hamilton. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to oppose this for now. Tasks like writing new articles, reorganizing the city/subregion structure of a region, and expanding outline-level "other destinations" are better suited for people who know the place and are willing to put in a significant time commitment, not for a cotm. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you are coming from. Probably best for one person to reorganise first. I will look at doing this over the next week, creating a better structure. CotM can then be moving listings to the right pages (if this does not get done) and improving quality of listings and articles in general. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified the structure of the page and moved a couple of city articles. Could now do activity similar to what is being dome for Metro Cebu. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Traveler100. Granger, do you support now reflecting Traveler100's changes? Selfie City (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moving listings to cities and fleshing out the listings sound like good cotm tasks. Support. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Very successful project. The main article improved and all city (parish) articles now at usable status.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the month there are 159 Outline district articles, goal is to reduce this number with an aim to getting the city articles to usable. For example, 78 districts currently have no sleep listing

• As a minimum:
  • Check and if necessary improve Get in section.
  • Make sure there is at least one see or do listing.
  • Make sure at least one, but preferably two, eat and sleep listings exist.
  • Add coordinates to listings.
  • Fix broken links. 39 outline district articles that have broken links. (enable the "ErrorHighlighter" gadget from your user preferences) Done
    • Check, correct or add web link url to listings
  • Add, if missing, address and description to listings.
• To make a quality article on the way to guide status
  • See other suggestions for improving a city article.

Then replace {{outlinedistrict}} template with {{usabledistrict}}.

If not possible to get to usable, consider starting discussion on new district boundaries.

Articles lacking listings (Last updated September 15 UTC)

Districts	sleep	eat	see	do	buy	any
needs only	21	31	5	10		22
has no	52	64	20	53	65	0

So I have had it as a pet-peeve on and off for some time trying to promote outline districts to usable and have already advanced a bit in that. I think given that it is less than 200 pages, the rest should not be all that hard. In some cases we might need to redraw district borders. If and when we are done, I propose to enable some mechanism that reduces the potential for outline districts to be created in the first place. I don't think it'd be such a huge thing to ask that district schemes be created in such a way that each district have at least one eat and one sleep listing or a good explanation why there is none. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll support this. Another idea I had adding content to very short outline articles. Right now there are 1535 outline cities that are 1000 bytes or less. These are the articles that are usually up for deletion or merger discussions. Adding an "eat" or "sleep" listing would make them usable but even adding other types of listings will make the articles useful and beneficial to the traveller. Gizza ^(roam) 23:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about this one. We're talking about well over 100 pages, which is a lot, and I'm not sure that in every case we can improve the districts unless we know the area. I'd probably give it a weak support but I would like to hear the opinions of others on whether or not this is too much or whether this is a good project. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outline districts has 159 members. However this is made up of the districts of about 50 cities. There are a few cities that have only one outline district, but several that have quite a few, like Brussels with 9. They range from districts with only one listing to those that need only minor work. I think that we would have to regard success in this case as reducing the list by a quarter by making about 40 articles usable. (Wellington should probably be ignored at the moment as it has only recently become a huge city.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be more reasonable. A district with only one listing will probably not be at star status as the result of a collaboration. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I don't quite follow the logic behind ignoring Wellington. Surely if the district layout was only recently created there should be no reason for any district to be so bereft of listings as to be an outline. In my opinion outline districts can be a sign of lack of coverage, but more often they are a sign of badly drawn district boundaries. In my opinion, if district boundaries are newly drawn they shouldn't produce outlines and if they do, there should be a damned good explanation, or better yet work to add the necessary listings asap. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it out on Google Maps and their satellite coverage and I wouldn't say Wellington should be a huge city at all. I think Porirua and the other "districts" should be separate city articles. But that's just my opinion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested ignoring Wellington because it was getting quite a few edits by editors familiar with the city, and would be likely to become usable shortly without any extra help. I think that Porirua is part of the same destination for most travellers - somewhere that they might visit for a few hours whilst staying in Wellington City. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think I've edited the Wellington City itself, but I did add some listings to the Porirua article. If there are any local editors, there's still plenty of information that could be added. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the result was positive, since over 50 articles were removed from outline status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and clean-up the district reorganization. There are 7 districts defined in the city article but at start of collaboration month 11 articles in the district category, but not all the districts referenced in the article. It is also no clear to the reader (as well as difficult to understand in talk pages) what is included in the city and districts.

• In the district pages of the city.
  • Clear definition of area covered by the city. State in understand which city administrative each district article covers.
  • Listings to use listings template
  • Remove duplicate (in more than one section of an article, or more than one article.) listings
  • Add lat/long geo-coordinates and contact info to listings
  • Fix dead links and remove closed POIs
  • Organize listings by price, alphabetical order, or type (See, Do, ...) as needed
  • Move listings to the correct district
  • Dynamic map with mapshape for the district
• On the city page
  • Remove listings to districts but make sure some pros about major attractions mentioned on the page.
  • Clarity on scope of article.

Another city article whose districts have recently been reorganized. I think a bit of work, especially on the listings in the district articles, will really improve our coverage of this city.

• Templatize listings
• Make sure listings are in the right section - some of the "See"s and "Do"s in particular seem to be misplaced, and some POIs seem to be listed in more than one section
• Add geocoordinates and contact info
• Fix dead links and remove closed POIs
• Organize listings by price, alphabetical order, or type as needed

The map also needs to be adjusted or replaced to exclude Decatur and Hapeville, if someone has the time and relevant skills. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked at the downtown district and I can already see that this will be a pretty large project because these articles are pretty long. However, I think we may as well go ahead and do it in the future. Selfie City (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A definite improvement. Number of closet listings removed, web links fixed and more listings have coordinates. However still work to be done here. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To take the 606 outline city articles that are frequently visited to usable status. Of which 163 have enough listings to be moved from Category:Outline cities to Category:Usable cities. (Tip: add a region to the category field to concentrate on a specific area). Another subgroup to tackle would be the 155 outline city articles that have broken links. Fixing these broken links would be a good start.

• As a minimum:
  • Check and if necessary improve Get in section.
  • Make sure there is at least one see or do listing.
  • Make sure at least one, but preferably two, eat and sleep listings exist.
  • Add coordinates to listings.
  • Check, correct or add web link url to listings
  • Add, if missing, address and description to listings.
• To make a quality article on the way to guide status
  • See other suggestions for improving a city article.

Then replace {{outlinecity}} template with {{usablecity}}.

• Update: There are currently 564 frequently visited outline cities. The number has come down but it has been a challenging CotM. Let's try to bring it down to 500 by the end of the month. Gizza ^(roam) 12:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A while back I asked at the pub if there is any list of outline articles by pageview traffic, and ויקיג'אנקי kindly created this list. I think that it would be a suitable cotm to update the most frequently visited outline articles to usable status. The nomination is rather apparent to its own rationale. These are articles which are low in supply, but high in demand.

However, the most visited decile alone contains some 2000 articles, way too many to handle in a single month. Further, many of these are major regions or countries. The task of updating these to usable status is large enough to be cotms in their own right. There is currently 636 outline city articles in the top decile. One option is to try to update as many as possible of these. We can further thin out the list by focusing on the largest articles, which are most likely to be near to usable status. For example, there are 136 articles which contain 15000 bytes of information or more, which should be doable in a month. MartinJacobson (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like the idea, could even start with the 165 outline city articles with listings. These probably would just need some tidy up of listings and checking of the get in section. —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talk • contribs)

• Support – I like it too. It's a well-targeted way to provide a lot of value for our readers. It also looks like editors can easily filter those links to just show articles within a particular country or region, which seems useful for this kind of collaboration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't mind this but it is important to note that some of the most vital of articles don't get high page views because they are killed in SEO rather than lacking in significance or popularity. If the content of an article hasn't changed much post-fork, it won't get any hits from Google but only from internal links via other WV articles, other Wikimedia sites such as Wikipedia and possibly social media shares (but that itself would be rarer because it doesn't get as many clicks in the first place). Some of the most popular articles are niche topics like Bikol phrasebook but are popular because there is no WT equivalent [2]. Gizza ^(roam) 21:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point. Maybe we can somehow come up with a list of important articles that haven't changed much since the fork, and turn that into a future collaboration too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good idea. Selfie City (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An ambitious task, good dint in the list made that has increased the quality of a number of articles. At end of month, of the 606 frequently visited outline articles, there are now 536, so 70 made usable. Of the 155 with broken links at the start, now only 28. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aim is to get the region article to guide status.

Fix location of listings in the region's city articles, and improve the articles of the region.

Get the main city articles to guide status and the remaining to usable status.

List of city articles in region

• The main cities, Cebu (city) & Lapu-Lapu, need quite a bit of copy editing & various other fixes.
  • Coordinated for all listings
• Some things are still listed in the wrong place; for example, the Cebu article discusses sights located on Mactan Island, some distance away.
  • Move to correct city article.
• There are a dozen or so smaller cities in Metro Cebu. Nearly all those articles are currently quite weak
  • Add enough listings of different types to make them usable.

I added this article a year or so ago; see discussion at Talk:Cebu_(city)#Re-organize_some_things.3F. I think this top-level article is now mostly OK, but there are still problems. Worth fixing; this is the country's 2nd largest urban area, a major transport hub & a major tourist destination.

• The main cities, Cebu (city) & Lapu-Lapu, need quite a bit of copy editing & various other fixes.
• Some things are still listed in the wrong place; for example, the Cebu article discusses sights located on Mactan Island, some distance away.
• There are a dozen or so smaller cities in Metro Cebu. Nearly all those articles are currently quite weak

If we are still doing CotM (Are we?), this might be a good one. Pashley (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Metro_Cebu#Guide.3F_DotM.3F Pashley (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some edits & see others doing quite a lot. Bravo. Pashley (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Region Metro Cebu at guide status, Cebu (city) at guide status, the other articles in the region at usable status. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aim is to remove the {{RelatedWikipedia}}, {{RelatedCommons}} and {{RelatedCommonsCat}} templates when they reference the same links as shown via wikidata in the In other projects sidebar (directly or via redirect in the other project). If there is no direct equivalent page but a reference is desired then the rel=y parameter can be used in RelatedWikipedia and RelatedCommonsCat which will create an info box at the bottom of the page. (Once clean-up complete the extra parameter can be made default and removed). See Template talk:RelatedWikipedia for additional information.

• Category:Articles with Wikipedia links different to Wikidata, (on 2018.01.26 was 3350), (on 2018.05.01 was 2148). Currently - 2
  • Action: Investigate why different. Edit to be same or fix other issues. Often just a move of Wikipedia page, and pointing at redirect, in whch case just remove template.
  • If different but related (and relevant) reference add rel=y parameter, or change to a listing.
• Category:Articles with Commons category links different to Wikidata, (on 2018.01.26 was 624), (on 2018.05.01 was 154). Currently - 1
  • Action: Investigate reason and fix. This maybe just a move and redirect of the commons category, in which case just remove the template.
  • Look at adding Commons Category as entry to the existing Wikidata object, then remove the template.
  • Or could be a case of adding the Wikipedia reference as a listing.
  • If different but related (and relevant) reference add rel=y parameter.
  • Done
• Category:Articles with Wikipedia links and none on Wikidata (on 2018.01.26 was included in category above), (on 2018.05.01 was 412). Currently - 7
  • Action: Identify issue, probably edit or merge of Wikidata.
  • Or could be a case of adding the Wikipedia reference as a listing.
  • If related (and relevant) reference consider adding rel=y parameter.
  • Done
• Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, (on 2018.04.29 was 360), (on 2018.05.01 was 377). Currently - 2593
  • Can Wikidata point to another Wikivoyage article, if not delete Wikidata entry referencing Wikivoyage.

Refresh

The RelatedSites extension (which creates the links in the "Related sites" sidebar section) will be disabled sometime in the next few months. In most cases, this won't cause any problems since these links are now automatically created by the Wikibase client extension (under the "In other projects" sidebar section).

See Template talk:RelatedWikipedia. Main task is to align {{RelatedWikipedia}} and {{RelatedCommonsCat}} with the same name as in the WikiData entry when appropriate. This may be just a retyping of format but could involve changing to Wikidata or referencing another Wikipedia page. If there is no match on Wikipedia then consider changing template to include the rel=y parameter to change sidebar reference to text box at bottom of page.

Fix entries so removal of function will have no impact. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All differences between Wikidata and Related links fixed. Thanks to the efforts of @Mx. Granger: who edited hundreds of pages, @WOSlinker: who did a couple of hundred at least and a few other editors I noticed making changes and apologies for not noting their names. Also a number of errors between Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata fixed and disambiguous naming made a little clearer. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! Thank you all very much for taking care of this so we can sunset the old extension. — TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 April 2018 there are 812 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.

The category Category:Articles with formerly dead external links contains a subset of Category:Articles with dead external links and is used for articles that contain at least one link that was previously flagged as dead that has since come back to life, often as a result of domain sniping.

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.

To concentrate on cleaning up a particular region or country use Petscan. (substitute the first line of the category field for the area you wish to work on).

See statistics by article type and continent

As of 1 November 2017 there are 1086 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) 08:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Important for the same reasons as fixing dead links, and additionally because some of these links may actively mislead readers into thinking they've found the right site when they haven't. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that formerly dead links are at least as important as dead links. However, during "Articles with dead links - Phase 1" we also managed to remove all formerly dead links from our guide and star cities. There are currently no articles which has formerly dead links, but lack dead links. I would say that correcting dead links and formerly dead links from e.g. non-city guide articles (Articles with dead links - Phase 2) is a higher priority than removing formerly dead links from outline articles. Consequently I believe that this should not be a collaboration in its own right, but rather should be considered part of the collaboration to remove all dead links. MartinJacobson (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serious reduction in suspect links. Down to only 174. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reorganising and fixing the whole set of articles for the island
• Add locations where there are gaps in coverage. But keep as bottom level region.
• Move listings from regions article into existing and where appropriate new city articles.
• Get all city articles to at least usable status
  • Improve See, Eat and Sleep listings
• Get Mauritius article to usable status
  • Clean up article.
  • After/during de-listifying need some pros on main sites to see and things to do.

The country article has been COTM before but still has a large number of See listings. There are 9 articles for the country but some big geographical gaps and some pages with little information. Could we look at reorganising and fixing the whole set of articles for the island? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely a country that could use some attention. What would the tasks be, besides moving See listings to the city articles? —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet. While I agree that improving Mauritius (and perhaps making it Africa's 6th usable country?) is a worthwhile goal, I believe that we should put this on hold. In order for this COTM to be really useful Mauritius should first be divided into 7±2 mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive cities. Otherwise we may have to duplicate our work and move the content again once a proper division is implemented. The task of dividing the region requires significant local knowledge, and is thus not suitable for a COTM. Once this division is in place we can look at how to improve the articles. MartinJacobson (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it need regions? If the listing are moved to city articles the current 9 article could maybe increase by a few more. I do not see a problem with a bottom level region having 14 or 15 articles, better than some arbitrary split like north and south or east and west. I basically think an article is need for Flacq and one for Savanne will probably solve it.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Mauritius is too small to need regions. Rather I got the impression that the city list might need an update. There are currently 12 listed cities, but according to policy we ought to list 9 or fewer. Which cities can be merged or removed? Or could any of them be considered 'other destinations'? Or should we make an exception in this case? I know very little about Mauritius and can't answer these questions, but I think that they should be resolved before we make Mauritius a cotm. Otherwise we may have to move a lot of content again, once a proper city-structure is in place. MartinJacobson (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 7+2 guideline does not apply the bottom-level regions. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That seems reasonable. Then my objection was based on a misunderstanding, and I upgrade my vote to support. MartinJacobson (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the 7+2 rule is mainly about making the page visually attractive and easy to read. If there are e.g. 14 cities, we can split the list into two columns of seven cities each or group the cities into five headings with three cities linked in each heading. It is just meant to avoid a long list of 14 cities which readers will gloss over. Gizza ^(roam) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought that bottom-level regions should be further subdivided if they contained more than 9 cities. To avoid excessive subdivision of Mauritius I thought it would then be better to create a list of 9 city articles which mutually exhausted all of the island, but now I see that this worry was unwarranted. Thanks for clarifying! MartinJacobson (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result - the main article is better organized, listing details moved to city articles, and although not at usable status the city articles are in a better state. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 February 2018 there are 5,676 Articles with dead external links. There are no city articles of guide or star status with dead link but there are 76 guide articles and 7 star articles with dead links. Mainly district articles but also parks, airports and travel topics. Removing these would increase the quality of this site and help with search engine rankings. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Category talk:Articles with dead external links#Statistics

As of 31 October 2017 there are 6216 Articles with dead external links. There are no city articles of guide or star status with dead link but there are 140 guide articles and 13 star articles with dead links. Mainly district articles but also parks, airports and travel topics. Removing these would increase the quality of this site and help with search engine rankings. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A lot of good arguments has been made in favor of this collaboration. Considering the fact the we managed some 500 articles during the first phase I believe that we may be even more ambitious than targeting these 153 articles. If we also include all usable airports, parks, countries, itineraries and topics, as well as all huge cities, the number of articles grow to 332, which should still be achievable in a month. MartinJacobson (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I agree that we can and should be more ambitious. I was originally going to suggest trying to tackle all district articles with dead links as a collaboration (I don't know, maybe that would be a little too ambitious). MartinJacobson's idea sounds good. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Traveler100 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the district reorganization has been completed, we can give this article and its districts some badly needed TLC. Buenos Aires is a popular destination, so our coverage of it is important, but the articles are a little messy and parts are out of date (one listing in Buenos Aires/Centro gives advice for 2010!). They do have a lot of information, though, and with some work they will become much more useful.

• Move "Learn", "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" listings to districts
• Within the districts:
  • Fix dead links and remove closed POIs
  • Listingify, add coordinates
  • Alphabetize listings and organize them into subsections by price or by type, as needed
• Copyedit
• Maybe expand the list of embassies

—Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lots of work to do for one South America's biggest cities. Gizza ^(roam) 12:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links fixed. City article no longer has listing, are not in districts. Listings in districts updated and expanded. General content improvements. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Month	COTM
December 2017	#Template:Geo and Wikivoyage:Geocoding
November 2017	#Cape Town
October 2017	#Category:Articles with dead external links : phase 1 - guide cities
September 2017	#Chennai
August 2017	Category:Listing with phone missing country code

As of 1 December 2017 there are 1232 articles without geo template

• Find articles without geo template. For example City articles in Asia or change the entries under categories to region and type of article you are interested in.
• Place {{geo}} using the format {{geo|45.5|-73.6|zoom=13}}
  • number of decimal places should reflect the accuracy needed for the location (less for regions, more for small settlements) and the zoom factor the area covered by the article.
• Best method to obtain coordinates is to use GeoMap
  • Type location into search (top right)
  • Make sure select correct location from list, as often number of places with same or similar names
  • Zoom to match area covered by the article.
  • Select the Geo option from Copy template list
  • Click on center of map to get template text. Triple click to highlight and Ctrl C to copy the geo template information.
  • At the bottom of the article Ctrl V to paste template.
• Alternatively coordinates can be obtained from Wikipedia article. Also good to check they are showing the same location (sometimes Wikipedia can be wrong!). If unsure double check with another internet map site such as Google Maps and Bing Maps.
  • If the article is a city article and no page listed under In other projects, check if a Wikipedia page exists (in language of location) and if there is a duplicate Wikidata entry that needs merging.
  • If multiple places with the same name look at expanding or create a disambiguation page.
• Once the article is saved click on map (top right) and check if map area matches the listing markers in the article in a reasonable way (check with fit all markers button to see if any listings have incorrect location). For region articles switch on Destinations in the map to see if covers area correctly.

Currently about 23800 out of 24970 destination articles have geo coordinates (95.314%). From this PetScan search, there are 1253 articles that still need to have the geo template added.

I think geocoding every destination on WV, and therefore providing the latitude and longitude on every place we have is a basic and achievable goal. Gizza ^(roam) 01:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems useful and accomplishable, and it's a task that users can help with a little at a time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Same reasons as Granger stated. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am finding many of the city article that have no Geo template are very small places, most do not have Wikipedia pages in English or even the language of the country. Should consider for some of them, if no listings, to merge into other pages. Others are because the location is unclear, or in one case so far the wrong country, because there are a number of places with the same name. Would suggest in these cases spending time on a disambiguation page. Have also found that article that have a Wikidata only referencing English Wikivoyage have a duplicate Wikidata page referencing the location in other languages. Also found a few spelling mistakes or alternative spellings. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to @StellarD: for pointing out Fuzzy Gazetteer, helps with various spellings of places.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We had a slow start but I think the geocoding will nearly be complete by the end of the month which is good news. A few articles that appear in the PetScan search (Moon and Space) cannot obviously have geocoordinates. Also I'm finding it quite hard to find the locations of the remaining dive sites. Maybe we should ask some of the dive experts on Wikivoyage? Gizza ^(roam) 13:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 January 2018 there are now only 14 articles without geo template, 2 are off planet so do not count, the rest are diving articles. Amazing piece of work by a few people adding coordinates to over 1200 cities and regions as well as a few duplicate articles (different spelling) merged, and quite a few Wikidata pages fixed and merged. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's improve this article in time for travellers to start making plans for Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town. Maybe it could even end up being DotM in July 2018, the month of the conference.

• Add geocoordinates
• Remove closed listings, fix dead links, and general updating
• More details in the "Work" section

—Granger (talk · contribs) 11:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cape Town is in most years the third most visited city in Africa, behind only Johannesburg and Cairo. A very important article. Gizza ^(roam) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Work section was not expanded but apart from that a notable improvement to the article. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 October 2017 there are 5220 Articles with dead external links.

The goal for this phase is to fix the 254 city articles at guide status and the 5 city articles at star status that have broken links.

To correct articles, enable the "ErrorHighlighter" gadget from your user preferences. After enabling the gadget, invalid links will display followed by a very noticeable "dead link" warning. Verify whether the link has changed, whether the target is invalid, or whether the link was incorrectly flagged and perform the appropriate fix:

1. If the link is for a domain that no longer exists it should be replaced with a correct link or removed from the article. If the link is contained within a listing for a business that is no longer in operation then the listing should be removed from the article. In either case the {{dead link}} tag should also be removed.
2. If the link is for a valid domain but the link path has changed - for example from http://www.example.com/old_link.html to http://www.example.com/new_link.html - update the link and remove the {{dead link}} tag.
3. If the link is valid and was incorrectly tagged then remove the {{dead link}} tag and use the "edit summary" field to note that the link is valid. Please also report the error on the talk page for the bot that flagged the link (currently User:Wrh2Bot).

The number of articles in this category is below 5000 for the first time in at least a year, if I'm not mistaken. Can we get it lower? Fixing dead links (whether by updating, removing them, or removing the listing) is a good way to keep our site up to date. Users who are familiar with a particular language or country can use Petscan (as described at the category page) to find links to work on within that country (or within a particular region). —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although it would be a good idea to get Wrh2Bot to flag links that have become dead in the last 6 months (last used in January this year). Ryan is on hiatus but hopefully somebody else can run the bot/create a similar script. I'm not a bot expert and wouldn't know how to do this. Gizza ^(roam) 22:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Pinging User:Wrh2 just in case he's still checking in. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The bot will take several days to run, during which you can follow progress via Special:Contributions/Wrh2Bot (it processes articles in alphabetical order). -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've shut down the bot per User talk:Wrh2#Wrh2Bot errors. If anyone would like the code to the bot in order to make the requested changes I can make it available. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support improves the usefulness of the site for readers as well as search engine rankings. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe start by addressing Guide Cities with broken links. Fixing 236 articles should be achievable in a month. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds like a good idea to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress is further that it appears. Number of guide articles with dead external links has been reduced by about 100 in the first 10 days but a new check of articles as been run over the site which has found a lot more. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After rerun of bot lots more to do, as of this point with totals of 6817 articles with dead external links, 1211 articles with formerly dead external links giving 301 city articles at guide status with dead links and an additional 62 city articles at guide status former dead links to check. As well as now 10 city articles at star status with broken links. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of October 25, we've made a lot of progress—we're down to 65 guide-status cities and 2 star-status cities with dead links, and just 1 (Sochi) with former dead links. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! goal achieved with a day to go. No guide or star city articles with dead links. Kudos to all, particularly @Mx. Granger:, @DaGizza: and @MartinJacobson: (have I missed anyone?). Over 500 articles, many with multiple dead links, have been fixed. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Add additional information to See listing
• Verify, expand or delete Buy, Eat and Sleep listings

Largest usable city article that needs a clean-up. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Large article with lots to do, including plenty of listing improvements that can be made by people unfamiliar with the destination. Let's do it! —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Progress
  • All See listing have been verified but some still need content and a few need coordinated (missing in Wikidata too)
  • Sleep listings validated and coordinates and web links added. Additional hotels added.
  • Introduction text has been improved
  • Shopping malls done but other Buy listings need validating and coordinates

I have noticed an improvement in SEO too. On Startpage it was around the 12th to 14th search result at the start of the month and now it is 9th (and therefore should be on the front page on Google for most people). Gizza ^(roam) 12:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good amount of work done. Wording has improved, most listings have been verified. Is now a usable article but is still plenty of room for improvement. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing country codes would be good for the CotM: Removing ambiguity and making phone numbers auto-dial from smart phones makes this site more attractive to readers to use. After 4 years of having the smart phone format in listings the number of incomplete or unclear phone numbers are down from over 3000 to just over 200. Lets complete the task and make it zero. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Check if number is correct (go to listing web page or look on search engine or Google Maps).
• If standard phone number add country code to these numbers
• If special number add the appropriate comment in brackets after the number (if can change premium and extra change number for standard region code even better).
• Additional information and instructions on Category page.

First time number of articles with error code down to zero ! --Traveler100 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Month	COTM
September 2014 - August 2017	Wikivoyage:India Expedition

Month	COTM
March 2013	Wikivoyage:Cleanup
April-October 2013	#Continents

• 2014
• 2013
• 2012
• 2011
• 2010
• 2009
• 2008
• 2007
• 2006