• 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 22 April 2025 there were (7335 articles — down 5.5% 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. . -- 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]

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]

• 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

• 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]

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]

• 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]

• 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]

• 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]

(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]