Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

differing criteria for inactive status

The Guide defines, "Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more." ([[Category:Defunct WikiProjects]] are also "projects with no activity for a year or more.")

Its inactive projects listing greatly shortens the inactivity period and says: "a project page should have had no directly project-related activity for at least three months. Comments from outside parties left on talk pages without response would not qualify as activity by this definition."

The template's doc not only extends by one month, but it also adds two criteria as follows:

• there are no editors listed as members or
• there have been no significant changes to the main project page for four months or
• there have been no discussions on its talk page for four months.

Minor fiddling with formatting, automatic archiving, and unanswered messages to the WikiProject from outsiders ("Could someone with this project please help me with...") or from bots do not count as signs of project activity.

rootsmusic (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Why are you asking about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out the criteria to change a project's status from semi-active to inactive. I think the Council should have one criterion or a set of criteria to avoid confusion. rootsmusic (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you looking at a single group, or do you want to do this en masse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

someone probably should do it en masse, no one has been maintaining the list of active wikiprojects for a while. this would also be the correct place to discuss doing that. Psychastes (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

For example, WikiProject Linux's last update was someone marking it active in October 2022. The last answer to a message posted on its talk page was in 2020, (ironically, debating whether or not to mark the project as inactive) so I've remarked it as inactive. Psychastes (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps more saliently, the last response to a message posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian literature was over 16 years ago, yet it was marked as active. Psychastes (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What we still lack is an easy way to wrap up such pages while potentially retaining useful tools. CMD (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, but i think there's somewhat of a catch-22 that if anyone was particularly motivated to make use of them, there'd likely be at least a handful of editors to keep the project alive. Marking them inactive or defunct fortunately doesn't make those resources disappear, but it would be nice to have a standard process for porting a wikiproject into a lighterweight generic "info" page without all the higher-maintenance dross of assessment and article alerts and such. Psychastes (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects. We either blank and merge (best for very small, long-dead groups, or "groups" that were only ever one person to begin with) or we convert them to task forces.

I would not be surprised if we could manage well with a quarter of the WikiProjects that we currently have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Just looking at a couple of projects. I mistakenly assumed that the Council's own participants would assess, upon request, a project's recent activity to determine whether its status should be changed. Only a bot can assess en masse. rootsmusic (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If you want to post a link to a specific WikiProject, then I'm sure that someone here would be willing to review it and share an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for a Wikiproject's talk page to go without any discussion for a few months and not be "inactive" - i would think those should be "semi-active." A year makes sense to me for "inactive" Psychastes (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

and we should probably also have an exception for discussions about whether a project is active or not. I don't think it really counts if the only activity on a project someone asking if a project is active every 9 months and getting a generic "it's active" response from an insistent solo maintainer, with no other evidence of collaborative activity. Psychastes (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any status criteria that requires "collaborative activity" or multiple participants. The template's doc has the following criteria for semi-active status:

• there have been some, but relatively few, significant changes to the main project page for several months or
• there have been some, but relatively few, discussions on its talk page for several months.

rootsmusic (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"collaborative activity" is the phrase used in the templates themselves, but I'm acting under the implicit assumption that a discussion inherently requires two or more participants, a person responding to themselves on a talk page isn't a discussion in the same way an automated post or a person making a post and getting no response isn't a discussion. Psychastes (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that [[Category:Defunct WikiProjects]] are also "projects with no activity for a year or more." rootsmusic (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

hmm, that's a good point. It looks like the only meaningful difference between the two is that "Inactive" projects can be reactivated by anyone, but "Defunct" projects shouldn't be re-activated without obtaining consensus from associated wikiprojects first? I suppose a year of no collaborative activity isn't an unreasonable amount of time to expect that. As I understand it we effectively have a pause on new WikiProjects at the moment but maybe that process ought to be used also for renewal of defunct projects, I'm seeing a lot of "active" projects that were marked inactive by someone, then "reactivated" by a drive-by editor, which of course was then followed by no actual activity on the project. Psychastes (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Should be asking yourself what is the best way to promote an inactive projects. Does going around tagging projects as inactive help them or cast them out as useless? Moxy🍁 17:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, I don't really think I have any reason to care about promoting inactive projects, no. The vast majority of them were started and abandoned shortly after, or served their purpose and can now be retired. And helping editors find out which wikiprojects are active areas for collaboration with an accurate indication of their status is more important than whether or not some editors would like to continue to pretend that projects that have had no activity for several years are still somehow "active" Psychastes (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

In the end, after hanging out with this group (i.e., WikiProject Council) since literally before some of our editors were born, my notion of an active group has condensed into a single criterion: Does anyone answer questions, when you ask them?

I strongly object to people creating new WikiProject pages (especially separate templates and categories) unless they've got at least half a dozen experienced editors on board, but if the infrastructure already exists, then the only thing that matters to me is whether this process is functional:

• Editors need help with Example. At the top of Talk:Example, they find a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Example, and they ask their question there.
• Someone sees their question on the WikiProject's talk page and answers it.

I don't care whether the group updates the project page. I don't care if there is a list of participants. I don't really even care if there's just one person active these days. All I really care about is: When you knock on the door, does someone answer?

If there have been no answers at all, the group is either inactive or defunct. A talk page that gets very few replies is probably semi-active. Anything else is active.

In terms of process: Updating the tag with your best guess is a good way to see whether anyone is paying attention. If they revert you, then don't re-revert, even if you firmly believe that your rating is better. Sometimes, marking a group as semi-active or inactive is the spur that the last participant needs to WP:REVIVE the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That all sounds entirely reasonable to me, thanks for explaining! And if marking a project inactive or semi-active sparks more activity all the better :) Psychastes (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Psychastes, I don't think that was really an invitation to go and mark active wikiprojects as inactive just to see if it annoys people. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If there have managed to have been no discussions between editors on a project's talk page for an entire year, regardless of the edits to the main page, can you honestly say that that project itself is still active? A few months here and there is surely reasonable, but after twelve consecutive months of no discussion, there is no collaboration happening there! Even if discussion is happening elsewhere, the wikiproject itself is still inactive.

The vast majority of the projects that I marked as inactive had gone *several* years with only unanswered queries and routine/automated messages like GAR and AfD. I suspect the majority of them will go uncontested, because there probably really is no one watching those pages. Nonetheless, if they're re-marked as active by anyone watching the associated project page, I won't contest them. My goal is not to "annoy" people, please assume good faith. My goal is to accurately gauge which projects are truly active. Psychastes (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can honestly say that many such projects are still active. Like, for example, WP:ELIT, which is the one I noticed, and WP:BHUTAN, which another editor has already complained about on your talk page. There's no real reason to talk on the talk page of many wikiprojects, and that doesn't make them inactive. I have no idea when the last time I wrote on WT:BOOKS was, but I'm certainly an active member of that wikiproject, for example. In WP:ELIT's case, you can see that editors in the project are still actively collaborating by looking at the main wikiproject page. Please be more careful before marking wikiprojects as inactive or semi-active. @WhatamIdoing asked a pretty simple question, which I think is a good one: All I really care about is: When you knock on the door, does someone answer? You're not knocking on the door. You're just sticking up a "closed" sign on it and waiting to see if someone comes to the door and takes it off. -- asilvering (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can't say *I* understand what active is supposed to mean here, but I doubt I'm getting an answer to that other than "some editors say it is active when you ask." Regardless, based on feedback, I will not be modifying the status of any more wikiprojects and I will probably minimize my involvement other than watchlisting a few for subjects I find interesting. I would say that my impression of wikiprojects upon reflection from having reviewed the "active" ones from A-L is that by any metric, wikiprojects are not really much of a thing anymore outside of the hard sciences and transportation. I'm not sure what collaboration between editors can be happening at all without regular discussion. However, since other people feel differently, I fully intend to let them continue to do whatever it is they feel they are doing to contribute to English Wikipedia by participating, which is apparently beyond my ken, without perturbing them any further. Cheers. Psychastes (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You've egregiously missed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history in your impression of active WikiProjects, one of the most (the most?) effective areas of collaboration. CMD (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

milhist is basically a hard science ;). And yes, there are others, WIR and Video games or anime or whatever, I wasn't making an exhaustive list. Previously I've mostly been involved with Philosophy and Classics, neither of which projects are particularly active, I'd probably say they were semi-active, there are really only a few people active in either area and the subject areas are vast. It's mostly jarring to see the definition of "active" is shifted so glacially to the other direction. Psychastes (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, are you working together with other people? Or working solo on articles that happen to fall into the scope of the group? Could you name three other editors that you actually work with? And where is your group coordinating its work, since it's not on the group's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You mean WP:ELIT? All that info's on the main page. There's even an in-person meetup next month. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So your group doesn't use the talk page consistently (and why would you, if you're at an in-person event?). That's going to make rapid assessment more complicated. Still, in the end, if someone sets an incorrect status, it's easy enough to revert it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I suspect it is rare for WikiProjects to be inactive on-wiki but active elsewhere, although I understand activity in places like Discord is increasing. Perhaps we should encourage who at times collaborate elsewhere to post talkpage updates? CMD (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in doing that when the activity is obvious on the main page of the wikiproject. This is an invented problem: if someone doesn't come around and mark a wikiproject as inactive simply because there are no recent talk page posts, there is no need for someone to make periodic talk page posts to ward someone off from marking the wikiproject as inactive for no reason other than a lack of recent talk page posts. -- asilvering (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not an invented problem, talkpage discussions are the traditional area of activity. What we have is a newly invented aspect of collaboration that is harder to track. CMD (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

yeah, WP:OFFWIKI is technically an essay and not WP:PAG but as i understand it, historically there's been pretty strong resistance from the community toward having off-site discussions of content. Personally I would feel intimidated joining a zoom meeting to discuss wiki content with a bunch of people who know each other already in real life, and the lack of any on-wiki documentation of what those conversations were is also a problem for anyone who wants to participate who didn't attend them. And if there are irl meetups where the majority of the discussions take place most editors wouldn't be able to participate at all, which might be fine for a geographical wikiproject but seems concerning for something like WP:ELIT Psychastes (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

As someone who has attended zero of those meetups, I do not feel this is a problem. If you find someone who wants to participate in WP:ELIT and is experiencing the problem you describe, please encourage them to say something about it on the talk page of the wikiproject. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

well, but that's the problem isn't it? if the WP:ELIT talk page doesn't have any seemingly-active discussions with responses in the entire past year, (which I've noticed it now does, which is great!), they never do make a discussion on the talk page, because it doesn't look like it's a place where people talk about the project. but if you have regular updates there, ideally with whatever was discussed off-wiki, that encourages people to participate or comment, and they're more likely to use the talk page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I can tell you what doesn't encourage people to participate or comment - coming to a wikiproject they're interested in and seeing the "inactive" banner. -- asilvering (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That's somewhat part of the point. It's far too common an occurrence for new users to be told to ask a WikiProject, and when they do they receive no help. Inactivity provides a sign that they should look for another WikiProject. CMD (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That's why we should care about only putting the sign up on projects that are actually inactive, which has been my point this entire time. -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a point premised on a possibly unique situation, and others here have been trying to figure that out. There should be some more thinking into how a group operating off-wiki is a WikiProject and how such aspects can be identified amongst the thousands of WikiProjects, rather than assertions of it as a plain fact. CMD (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

In re What we have is a newly invented aspect of collaboration that is harder to track:

Remember Wikipedia:Flow (now abandonware)? One of the motivations for it was because Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft said that talk pages were too awkward for collaboration in 2004. This isn't "new". Off-wiki discussion was normal until about 2006, even for activities that would shock a newer contributor today, like writing core content policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a project choosing another platform for collaboration. But since actual edits are on Wikipedia, such a project still needs to regularly monitor its Talk page for notifications and announcements related to that project. rootsmusic (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• WP:INACTIVEWP says: "To verify that a project is inactive, post on its talk page asking if anyone minds marking it as such. If there are no objections, you can add inactive to the {{WikiProject status}} template at the top of the WikiProject page." That stage has been ignored in the recent mass addition of "Inactive" templates to WikiProjects. I suggest that these should be removed, and the proper process followed. PamD 08:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  That guideline would benefit from having a time frame added: "If there are no objections..." within a week /month/ when? Not all active editors edit regularly or frequently. PamD 08:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  But if there are no editors working on the project who edit for a month, wouldn't that generally be considered an inactive project? Inactive projects still retain all the assessments and article alerts, it's not like an inactive project goes away! It seems to me from the linked description that a project is "inactive" when it is essentially in maintenance mode, where all the existing articles have been correctly rated, there's not much urgency to improve existing articles, and there's little to be done other than respond to the occasional automated AfD or merge notification. Psychastes (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's sort of like wondering when your friend group is inactive: when you haven't met up in a week? a month? a year? or when you try to organize a meeting and it fails to occur? A WikiProject is just a group of editors who have a shared interest in collaborating in a particular area. A lack of new discussion posts doesn't in itself indicate that interest has waned. The main value of an "inactive" indicator is to help editors looking to collaborate in a particular area know that the WikiProject in question might not provide the desired assistance. A courteous inquiry on the WikiProject talk page is a reasonable step to check in with the interested editors. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  well yes, it would be courteous to do so, after a few months, maybe close to a year? but i would think a friend group that had found nothing to talk about for a year would be inactive. if one of my group chats or discord servers had no messages at all for a year I would just call that "inactive" and if it had been more than two or three years, it would be completely absurd to assume otherwise. if there were messages already left there, whether they were asking to hang out or asking if anyone was there and no one had responded to them, I would also automatically call that inactive. it would be courteous to do so if I wasn't sure. It flies in the face of common sense to do so in a ghost town. Psychastes (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  The point is that different groups and different people have different standards. It's not necessary to work out frequency of discussion standards to cover all of them. I do agree that lack of responsiveness to new threads is an indicator of inactivity. This may require a check-in message to verify if there is any available assistance. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I follow a few WikiProjects where I would respond, just so someone is there. They are very much dead though, there's no group that can set a standard. CMD (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I haven't changed any project's status. When I asked question about a project's scope, it's (apparently) sole participant immediately replied and acknowledged that the project is "somewhat inactive". That reply started my research to understand how the Council defines inactive status. Since there's a participant, I asked on his Talk page about whether the project's status should be changed to "inactive" and he replied that he thinks it should be merged instead. So I didn't change anything. rootsmusic (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  that was me. i changed the status of the wikiprojects Psychastes (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  The guideline says "to verify" that a project is inactive, which I believe implies "if you aren't sure." In the majority of the cases, there were never any non-automated messages ever made on the talk pages at all, and in most of the rest, the last messages or updates were made several years ago. I don't think it would be useful to revert any of these just because a process wasn't followed when common sense would indicate that there would be no response.

  Due to the nature of watchlists, if someone is watching the talk page, they are also watching the main page, and will certainly revert the change (as the inactive template instructs them to do) if they disagree. Of the roughly 250 projects whose status I changed to inactive, approximately 10 of them have done so (all within the first few hours of me doing so), which I know because I watchlisted Category:Active WikiProjects. But about 95% of these edits went uncontested, so mass-reverting them solely for process concerns does not seem appropriate to me.

  However, @PamD, I'd also like to know why you're demanding that these changes be mass-reverted, when it seems like you're not sure if the wikiproject you recently posted on is active either? Since it looks like you've been the only one commenting on that talk page for at least a couple years, you're probably in the best position to determine the level of activity, so I'm certainly alright if you want to revert the status on that project back to active until you see if you get any responses, but this seems like the exception. Psychastes (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  An apparently inactive project still has a value, as being a page which editors interested in the topic can watchlist so that they are alerted to AfDs, RMs, as well as general enquiries in the area of interest. This is going to be particularly the case in geographically-based WPs, where local knowledge, as well as a bookshelf of local sources, can be very helpful. Yes, I've posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria#Is anyone here?, and I will be interested to see who replies - not all editors edit every day, or even every week. PamD 16:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this is true, an inactive project still has value. What you are describing with is a page which editors interested in the topic can watchlist so that they are alerted to AfDs, RMs, as well as general enquiries in the area of interest is almost identical to the description of an inactive project. Psychastes (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  As to verifying, I should have quoted two sentences from WP:INACTIVEWP, not just one: "To verify that a project is inactive, post on its talk page asking if anyone minds marking it as such. If there are no objections, you can add inactive to the {{WikiProject status}} template at the top of the WikiProject page." Note the "If there are no objections". I think that makes it crystal clear that a posting on the talk page, and a reasonable delay to allow for response, is expected before you label a WP as "inactive". Please revert your inappropriate labelling of projects without consultation. PamD 16:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't WP:WikiLawyer. If you don't intend to respond except to cite your interpretation of the rules this will not be a productive discussion. Psychastes (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not Wikilawyering: I'm suggesting that you should have done what the Guideline tells you to do. What's the problem with that? PamD 16:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  yes, insisting on the letter of the law in order to win an argument on a technicality is Wikilawyering. if you can't explain why over 95% of the projects I marked inactive without consulting them first haven't reverted my edits, or why you think reverting and consulting them will result in a different outcome in the end, I don't see why I should do so either. Psychastes (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I completely fail to understand how "please follow both the letter and the spirit of the guideline" is an attempt at wikilawyering. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  i fail to understand how you could read my comment that you responded to and come away with the impression that I thought that the spirit of the guideline was any different than what I followed, or how any of the comments above engaged meaningfully with the spirit of the guideline whatsoever. Common sense would suggest that anyone who disagreed with my edits would revert them. Roughly 10 out of 250 wikiprojects have done so, and only one of them in the past 24 hours. "You didn't follow the correct process and 95% of the outcomes were identical to the outcomes that would have occurred if you had followed the correct process to begin with" is not a very compelling argument for going back and following the process! Psychastes (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  If that process had been followed, none of this discussion would have taken place, and you wouldn't have felt it necessary to close off the discussion on your own talk page, either. I think that's pretty compelling, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, my assumption that the vast majority of people wouldn't mind or at most would ask for clarification appears to have been correct, however I distinctly underestimated the amount of back-and-forth discussions that would be pursued by exactly two dedicated editors unwilling to drop the WP:STICK. But I don't find that a compelling reason to mass-revert, it's mostly encouraging me to limit my interactions with those two people in the future. Psychastes (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't see this as a matter of following rules, but of courtesy. I think the courteous approach is to ask a group if they are continuing to provide assistance in collaborating within a given domain. (I appreciate, though, that the specifics of individual situations can play a role in deciding the best approach.) It isn't the end of the world if an abrupt action is taken, but it uses up some of the community's social capital needed to collaborate effectively. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Isaacl Yes, thank you, I think courtesy is key here. I may be somewhat over-reacting to having an "inactive" tag suddenly added to a Wikiproject I am involved in. If someone had followed the method mandated in the guideline - an enquiry on the project talk page, with perhaps some information about how an "inactive" project is defined, that its pages won't summarily be deleted, etc - I would not have felt the same way. Editors here are all volunteers and should be treated with courtesy and respect.

  There's another tag I've sometimes seen, to say that a project is "Semi-active" or some such wording. That doesn't seem to have been considered in the current discussion. PamD 07:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think marking WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria as semi-active makes sense. Sadly there seems to be inconsistent documentation on the different statuses and how or when they can be changed (compare the status descriptions on the template and how they can be changed to the ones we've been discussing here from WP:INACTIVEWP), and, as far as I can tell, what I'm about to propose isn't reflected anywhere yet, but I think that "there might not necessarily be any new discussions from the past year, but there is at least one active editor watching the page who can answer any queries" is the type of message that "semi-active" should reasonably communicate. Even without any updates to documentation that seems like a good solution to me, it's close to what I expect when I see the "semi-active" banner on the top of a wikiproject.

  As far as I can tell, there is no functional difference between "active" and "semi-active" projects in how they're treated by assessments or how they display in Rater or any other way, other than the banner displayed at the top and the category they're in (though someone else please correct me if I'm wrong) Psychastes (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, Pam, for reminding me of this. This should solve the "en masse" automation problem:

  • We can make a list of WikiProjects with no replies to comments on their talk pages during the last year. (Pinging @Cryptic for advance warning about what I'm likely to post at Wikipedia:Request a query)
  • We can post a WP:MassMessage to all groups on the list. The basic message will be "If you are an active participant, you must reply to this message within ____ days, or the bot will mark this group as inactive".
  • We can send a bot around to check for replies, and mark the group as inactive if nobody replied. (This should probably also post a second message, saying that it's okay to revert the bot if you are actively watching the talk page and commit to answering future questions. Also, pinging @Gonnym, who knows about template-editing bots, for advance warning.)

  As with all bot-related tasks, my assumption is that we should start with very generous parameters, to minimize the risk of false positives. So: No replies to anything at all for more than a year (13 months? 18 months?)? I wonder if it would be possible to check archived discussions, too. And ideally, for the third step, it would check for any replies to anything, not just to the status question. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Support - This solution decreases overhead and guarantees that the process will be followed instead of relying on someone proactively maintaining the list of active wikiprojects. I think we likely will want to check the archives; from my experience reviewing the talk pages, there are many wikiprojects with a talk-page archive rate of 3-6 months where the most recent discussion was more than a few months but less than a year ago, where the last active discussion is in the archive, but many other talk pages with the same archive rate where the last discussion was several years ago, so we can't just ignore pages with quick archive rates. I think 18 months will probably be ideal; while I didn't run into many projects in the 12-18 month range, there were many projects that had gone 10-11 months without activity and I'd worry about pestering people on a regular basis. Psychastes (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that pestering people frequently would be a highly undesirable result. I'd be happy with 18 months for the initial bot-based process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Task forces too? The Guide is most generous, because it says "Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more." I assume that changing to inactive status wouldn't prevent a sole participant from merging the inactive project with another one. rootsmusic (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  i'm not sure if this is feasible, because most task forces I've seen redirect their talk page to the main project talk page. i think many task forces don't really function as a separate entity from the main group other than for assessment tracking Psychastes (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know about other task forces, but I believe that Regional and national music task force is inactive based on its own Talk page. rootsmusic (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  My impression is that the trend of redirecting taskforce talkpages to the main WikiProject talkpages is because of this inactivity. Redirecting solves the problem of a lack of presence (assuming the parent WikiProject is active) while maintaining the tools. CMD (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I thought that WP:TF shouldn't redirect to this Talk page, because task forces operate differently from projects. rootsmusic (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The operation of both is much the same, TFs mainly provide an additional bit of depth into the organizational structure of what is otherwise quite a flat system of putting huge topics into one WikiProject. CMD (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  A task force's talk page can be redirected to the main group's page – or not – depending on what those editors want to do. The group may even change its mind periodically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I would not bother with task forces. Individual WikiProjects have control over their task forces.

  Even if we wanted to do this for task forces eventually, I would definitely not do that on the first round. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Should link Wikipedia:Robotic editing somewhere. Moxy🍁 23:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  If someone replies to acknowledge that a project is semi-active or to ask about merging, the bot wouldn't have the capability to understand and respond. rootsmusic (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  i expect most editors will know it's a bot; but we can write the text it posts in a way that makes that clear and refers them here if they have questions. programmatically handling "is there someone who replies to the message at all" and leaving the rest to human judgment seems like the right way forward to me Psychastes (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  MassMessages should normally be signed by the individual who sends the message, not by bots. The messages should provide sufficient information for most cases, and point people to other ways to get help. This is not difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  If projects must have multiple participants, then the bot should wait for more than one participant to reply? By the way, the FAQ's Q7 hasn't been edited. rootsmusic (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  No, I think we want to take the barest sign of life as sufficient. It'd be bad if someone answers the question completely, and then we said "Nobody posted a pointless and redundant reply like 'What he said', so that proves nobody's here". Changes made en masse should be as conservative as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance categories by WikiProject

This query: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/94925 looks at articles in specific categories, and makes a list of WikiProjects that have tagged those articles. I'm using the resulting list to check for active groups and then manually post a request, with the list of articles, on the group's talk page.

It should theoretically be possible to have a message-delivery bot assemble the message, but there are only 178 groups in this list, and some of them are inactive anyway.

This might be a useful model for some backlog drives to adapt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 2 § Template:WikiProject Disambiguation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 2 § Template:WikiProject Disambiguation. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Men in Music

Hello! I want to create a WikiProject called "Men in music" (just like to WikiProject Women in Music). I am currently building the WikiProject for this and this scope for this WikiProject is for all mens composers, singers, mens works related to music and their biographies. I believe this is helpful too since there's a Women in Music, there's for men too to help men's music articles and build it collaboratively like a stub articles, missing sources etc.

I hope you can help me to build this or if you want more to clarify, just ping me. Thanks. ROY is WAR Talk! 08:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not join Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. What is the advantage of separating by gender? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Martin!

I already participating in WikiProject Music. This is not because I just want to, because I want to help editors to easily collaboration to the men's music. This WikiProject was to intended to help coordinate specific cleanup, organization, and quality improvements (especially to BLP) across the numerous of articles about Male musicians.

The goal of Men in Music:

• Numerous articles on male artists (especially new and existing groups or songs created by male musician) are poorly sourced, not in neutral point of view or fan point of view, over promotional or the article are not maintained to updated especially on GA and FA.
• Biographies of Male musicians are more crucial and sometimes sees on Article of Deletion (AfD), so to prevent on AfD, why not to save the article on deletion, right?

This proposal are not intended to mirror or duplicate of Women in Music just because of gender. If you are not confident on my proposal, I should proceed this WikiProject proposal as a task force? I hope you can consider this.

Thanks! ROY is WAR Talk! 14:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii, a WP:WikiProject is a group of editors. Where are the other editors in your group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Please recall the advice you were given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 26 § Creating a WikiProject and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 26 § WikiProject Reviving and Changing the name. Your attempt then to create a new WikiProject appears to have been premature, since you've moved on to a broader topic area. As suggested last time, I feel it would be better to collaborate within an existing wikiProject and re-evaluate after some time to see how well it's working. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

isaacl Where can I gather a member for my proposal? ROY is WAR Talk! 05:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see the discussions to which I linked for advice regarding finding collaborators. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:REVIVE also has some advice on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing if a abandoned WikiProject and if we revive it, can we proceed to Renaming a WikiProject? ROY is WAR Talk! 17:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Once again, it doesn't really feel like you're taking into consideration the advice you've already been given. I'm uncertain, though, on how to reword this advice. Perhaps your mentor (who you can see at Special:Homepage), or some other experienced editor involved with one of the WikiProjects that you've collaborated with might help help explain matters in a different way. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii, who is "we"? About a hundred thousand editors have made 1+ edits this month. Do any of them want to work with you? I am literally asking whether you can ping one (1) single editor who has told you that they'd like to work on articles about male musicians. Have you ever talked to anyone at all about this idea, and had them express positive interest?

If the answer is yes, then please ping that person now.

If the answer is no, then please stop posting here until you have already done enough recruiting work to make the answer yes.

If/when the answer ever becomes yes, ask that other editor to post on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This editor is now engaged in creating a new task force called Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother. I'm sure it will lead to great activity and collaborative editing. Or not ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

And didn't discuss it with the WikiProject. We can take the lot to MFD+CFD+TFD, but having to clean up a mess like this is exactly what we were trying to avoid by creating these rules.

I'll go ask Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines if they're willing to host this group. If we don't get a positive response, then here's the pages to deal with:

• Category:List-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Stub-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Start-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:C-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:B-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:GA-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:A-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:FL-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:FA-Class Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Pinoy Big Brother task force articles by quality
• Category:Unknown-importance Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Top-importance Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:NA-importance Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Mid-importance Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Low-importance Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:High-importance Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Pinoy Big Brother task force articles by importance
• Category:Pinoy Big Brother task force articles
• Category:Pinoy Big Brother task force
• Wikipedia:PBB
• Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother
• Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Task force. It appears that this was first proposed to be part of a different WikiProject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother rejected it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother. This is the first step in unwinding this mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 12#Template:WikiProject Big Brother. This is the second step in unwinding this mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposing a new project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sustainable_Development

Hello, I know that I've acted a bit too fast for this, but I did it because I know that there is interest in this subject, because of my involvement with the WMSDG User Group. Can anyone help me get this going? Thanks. Egezort (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Egezort. please ping the other editors who intend to participate in this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Why a wikiproject sustainable development not a WikiProject:Development with a sustainability task force or something like that? It just seems overly specific and more a buzzword/cliche term than a discrete project area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It could be a WP:TASKFORCE of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations. Or they could just take over and WP:REVIVE the UN project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, It's based on the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals, so it's very broad in scope. There are many other Wikiprojects with similar scopes, but none are explicitly based around this.

There's a user group, meta:Wikimedians for Sustainable Development that I have been active in for quite some time. And I'm trying to get this wikiproject going in parallel with my work in that group. For example, meta:Wikimedians_for_Sustainable_Development/Annual_plan_2025/Progress is directly relevant to what I want to do here. I considered reviving another relevant Wikiproject, but this seemed like the cleanest approach. Egezort (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a discrete wikiproject area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Discrete and/or sensible scopes are not required for WikiProjects; the WP:PROJSCOPE is any articles they volunteer to support.

The requirement is a group of editors who say they want to work together. Waving at the existence of an affiliate is not enough, since those members might not be interested in editing the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That's fair, I'll send the link of the current page to the WMSDG Telegram group, and if I get some interest there, I'll ping you here and let you know. Thanks! Egezort (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what the link says... It says that scope will be formalized and publicized, which means that it must be a discrete area of some kind (there is no way that something can be "tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject" otherwise). Now of course that discrete area can and does change as members join or leave a wikiproject, but it never doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It says: "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support)". There is nothing in there that says it must be "formalized", "publicized", "discrete", or anything else. The group's scope is what the group volunteers to support, full stop. It is allowed to be seemingly random articles (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

And how do you define a non-discrete scope? That seems like an impossibility, if a scope can be defined it is discrete. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, @WhatamIdoing, I think that even if the policy doesn't allow for a non-discrete scope, the Sustainable Development is very clear and discrete in its scope. It's just that there are a lot of different subjects involved at the same time. Otherwise, the 17 Goals of the UN are very clear.

I'm still trying to get new editors involved and will notify you when that happens. Egezort (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I think if you mean to go with the UN goals specifically and not sustainable development in general Sustainable Development Goals would be a better name. I for example am very interested in sustainable development and would participate in such a project but have very little interest in the UN Goals specifically and no real interest in participating in a project about them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Anything related to Sustainable Development is probably in the scope of the 17 goals to begin with. I didn't want to do the latter because there are other similar wikiprojects with this name, and also because it's not an academic work on the goals themselves. I would assume a Wikiproject about "Sustainable Development Goals" would be about maintaining the UN documents and efforts, and not the subjects involved. Egezort (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Then what is the point of making the 17 goals the scope and not just sustainable development? Its its about the subjects involved and not the UN documents and efforts why make it explicitly about the UN documents and efforts and not the subjects involved? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The UN documents provide a framework to approach things with. So, for example, if I contributed a bit about women's rights in a specific country, I would put that under "Goal 5" in the Wikiproject documentation. The documents create a sort of backbone that allows for people to work together on, like I might say "We're doing an edit-a-thon on Goal 6 tomorrow", and the scope would be much more well defined than if I had said "Clean Water and Sanitation". Egezort (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

But isn't the development goal gender equality not women's rights? If you're being that broad wouldn't goal 14 and goal 15 together mean the wikiproject covers all living things on the planet? As for goal 6 we already have a WikiProject Sanitation and a WikiProject Water. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Women's rights are part of gender equality. You cannot have gender equality without women's rights. The apparently intended scope is not "17 articles, each of which align exactly and precisely with the 17 UN goals, and nothing else". The apparently intended scope is "any article, or part of an article, that relates in some way or another with the 17 UN goals".

@Egezort, these UN goals are meant to run until 2030. Then the UN will create a new set of (very similar) goals. What's your group going to do in 2031? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As the user group, we don't yet have a solid plan as the WMSDG for after 2030, we do have a strategy document for what our approach will be until 2030, and also we have an annual plan there. I assume that the UN will have a new set of goals (like the Millennium Development Goals before this one), and then we can continue that effort. I don't know if we'll have to change the name for it, either for the Affiliate, or for the Wikiproject.

You're right about the intended scope here. And also, as @Horse Eye's Back said, there are many WikiProjects for most, if not all of the goals. But this one aims to be a central hub for those too. That's why I also included a related Wikiprojects section.

As for being too broad, "Life on land" technically would include all humans, and therefore one could argue that even biographies are in the scope of this project. But we shouldn't take "Life on land" that literally here. What we would deem within our scope is stuff that you can see here: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal15 Egezort (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

And what I see there is "Biodiversity and ecosystems" "Forests" "Mountains" "National strategies and SDG integration" "Desertification, land degradation and drought" so goal 15 its actually broader than all non-human life on land. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

"any article, or part of an article, that relates in some way or another with the 17 UN goals" would mean that 70-80% of articles on wikipedia are in-scope. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If a group volunteers for 70–80% of articles on Wikipedia, then that's okay. The group decides which articles they support, exactly like individual editors decide which articles they support.

• You cannot force an individual WP:VOLUNTEER to support any article just because you think it makes sense for their interests; in an exactly similar way, you cannot force a group of WP:VOLUNTEERS to support any article just because you think it makes sense for their interests.
• The converse is also true: You cannot stop an individual volunteer from caring about an article just because you think they shouldn't care about it, and you cannot stop a group of volunteers from caring about an article just because you think they shouldn't care about it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

But I will be a member of any WikiProject Sustainable Development. What you can not do is give a wikiproject a false or misleading name, such as naming a wikiproject Sustainable Development when its actually about something else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

There are no rules restricting the names of WikiProjects (aside from the technical rules imposed by the software). They do not even have to include the word "WikiProject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If you want to be technical we have a principle not a rule... The principle of least astonishment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is a least astonishment difference between SDGs and the concepts they are meant to make less diffuse. Diffuseness might harm focus, but if the people involved can overcome that, the group might work. I'm currently working on an article for Wikipedia:WikiProject SDG13. CMD (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a Wikipedia:WikiProject SDG13, that link goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The "principle of least astonishment" is about what readers see. It has nothing to do with how groups of editors self-identify their group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It also applies to the talk page. Are you saying that wikiproject tags don't go on talk pages? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think that the principle of least astonishment, which is imposed on us by foundation:Resolution:Controversial content, applies to talk pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The readers also read our talk pages. I would imagine that the principle of least astonishment has common consensus, so imposition or otherwise why not follow it? Its best practice regardless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Readers rarely stumble across talk pages or other back-end pages.
• There's nothing astonishing about different groups of editors wanting to improve Wikipedia.
• It is a well-established principle, supported by consensus since before you created your previous account, that WikiProjects can tag any article they want. (See, e.g., fights over WP:LGBT in 2008, WP:WPUSA in 2011...), even if this might irritate or surprise readers or editors.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Readers are not as ignorant as you think they are... I've met a lot of non-editors who tell me that reading the talk pages are their favorite part. I never said or suggested that "different groups of editors wanting to improve Wikipedia." would be astonishing, you appear to be mocking me or casting aspersions. We are not talking about whether or not they can tag articles and I don't appreciate the personal attack based on how long I've edited. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe that if you look at the conversation above, you will find that you brought up the subject of WikiProject tags on talk pages, and whether those might astonish readers.

Noting that your previous accounts first edits were in 2018, in the context of decisions made a decade before then, is not a personal attack. If you would like it to be spelled out more concretely, you should interpret my previous sentence as meaning something similar to "I believe it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone to be aware of discussions that happened many years before their first edit." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Michelin Guide task force

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Michelin_Guide_task_force § Should_this_task_force_become_a_WikiProject_on_its_own?

Over at the Michelin Guide task force, we are considering converting the task force into a WikiProject because the scope of the Michelin Guide spans restaurants (WikiProject food and drink) and hotels (WikiProject Hotels, WikiProject Travel and tourism). We are an active project that's been generating a lot of quality content in recent months, including Good articles and Featured lists. If we decide to become a WikiProject, can we be bold and move the page or do we need to go through some sort of process here? Guidance welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Another Believer, How many editors regularly participate in the group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on the task force project and its talk page, I'd say five: me, Expandinglight5, History6042, Dtmich24, and Tbhotch. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a little thin, but you're all experienced editors.

Why not WP:REVIVE WikiProject Travel and tourism instead? That would cover restaurants and hotels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I won't speak for others, but I think there's probably interest in keeping the scope limited to the Michelin Guide and not covering the industry as a whole. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, all travel and tourism seems like a very big expansion. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything inside the scope of that group, that's outside the scope of your group? If not, then you could WP:MOVE your existing task force under that group. This would be a "least effort" way to organize the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Anything not covered by the Michelin Guides and Keys is outside the scope. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if I've explained this clearly.

You're thinking about a separate WikiProject because:

• your group is currently organized under WP:FOOD
• but your scope only partly overlaps with WP:FOOD and partly does not (i.e., the hotel-related content), which is awkward for tagging articles (e.g., Wikipedia:Article alerts would list Michelin-related hotel content for the whole group, which isn't interested in it).

The first solution you have thought of is:

• just be a separate WikiProject.

I'm suggesting that you consider the alternative of:

• continuing to be a task force, but placing your task force under WP:TRAVEL

The identified problem with being part of WP:FOOD is that your group wants to support articles that FOOD doesn't want to support. No such objection can be made to TRAVEL, as TRAVEL's scope already encompasses 100% of the articles your group supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Meh, I don't want to be a task force of WP:Travel. I vote for WikiProject Michelin Guide or we just leave things alone, even though I agree the scope of the task force veers out of WP:Food/drink territory and into the realms of WP:Hotels and WP:Travel. Maybe we should have just been bold instead of asking for permission. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

If you (all) are determined to have a separate group, I won't stop you. Please consider doing a little recruiting, so the group doesn't end up shrinking over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute)

An editor @Ally at Wenard had created Wikipedia:Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute) aiming to convert it into a WikiProject, without any prior discussion. Unfortunately, it did not gain much traction, and Ally remains the only editor who have worked in that space, and even they have been inactive since March 2021. I considered userfying the project page into their userspace, but realised that this page has many incoming links from article via {{Wenard attribution}}. I think there should be a page for Wenard Institution in the projectspace due to their invaluable contributions to Wikipedia, but not a WikiProject. What do others think about it? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are a few ideas:

We could remove the link from the template.

Is the Wenard Institute notable under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) rules? If so, we could create an article and change the link to point to that.

We could move the page to a title such as Wikipedia:Wenard Institute donations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that they are notable enough for an article. Regarding the latter move suggestion, I support it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute)#Requested move 7 July 2025. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Since that didn't work, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute) and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_29#Template:Wenard_attribution. – Joe (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop

There are 3 main project pages for this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip Hop, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hip. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thilio, why did you create these? A WikiProject is a group of people. Who is in your group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop because I think it’s an important and overlooked area on Wikipedia. Am currently the only person working on it but my plan is to start improving related articles and hopefully get others involved over time especially editors interested in African music or hip hop I know WikiProjects are meant to be group efforts and am hoping this one will grow, for now I just wanted to start organizing things and make it easier for others to join in later. Thilio (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bamyers99 thanks so much for pointing that.

I accidentally created a few versions of the project page while setting things up. The one I’d like to keep is Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop.

I’ll go ahead and tag the other two Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip Hop and Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hip  for deletion as duplicates. Thilio (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but a WP:WikiProject is a group of editors, and if you're the only one, then you actually do not have a WikiProject, no matter how important you think the subject area is or how much you hope it will grow in the future. All of these pages need to be deleted or moved to your user space (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop → User:Thilio/Future WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop). You can tag or move them yourself, or I can do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and I understand now. I’ll go ahead and move the pages to my userspace as suggested (e.g., to User:Thilio/Future WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop). Appreciated. I’ll take care of it shortly

Thanks again Thilio (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposing a new WikiProject Speedcubing

Why speedcubing should be a Wikiproject and not a task force

Hey! I'd like to propose a new WikiProject about speedcubing, the sport which involves solving Rubik's Cubes and other similar twisty puzzles as quickly as possible. I have the following reasons for this proposal:

• Wikipedia's coverage of speedcubing is too slim - the topic has enough third party coverage to warrant many new big articles.
• Articles about Rubik's Cubes and speedcubing rely too much on primary sources, mainly from WCA. While the WCA itself is reliable, secondary sources should be added to compliment the primary ones when applicable.
• Many articles on the topic are outdated or plainly erroneous. For example, the article about 7x7x7 cubes is titled 'V-Cube 7'.

The purposes of this proposal could also be achieved with a task force, but my reason for proposing a WikiProject instead is that the topic transcends the boundries of the WikiProjects about toys, games and sports: Rockfighterz M (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rockfighterz M, a WikiProject is a group of Wikipedia editors. Who else is in your group? If the answer is "nobody", then you don't have a WikiProject.

Everything you typed above might be relevant to a discussion of whether there should be a Category:Speedcubing to go along with Category:Rubik's Cube and Category:Speedcubers. But it has nothing to do with whether you have assembled a group of Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

There is one user who has expressed the same interest as me, and there are likely some more at WikiProject Toys, as a few have cited Rubik's Cubes as one of their interests. I don't know if this is enough. Rockfighterz M (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

i think you should make this a part of WikiProject Toys. Sm8900 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#If you have a larger group of editors recommends starting with about 10 editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy article

The Mary Baker Eddy article leans heavily on hostile early sources and underrepresents modern scholarship, so help is needed to rebalance it toward her practical Christianity, emphasis on Love, and non-retaliatory response to critics and her religious, journalistic and literary contributions. Muttikins (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, @Muttikins. I'm not sure how you ended up on this page, but we really can't help you here. I see you've discussed this question on Talk:Mary Baker Eddy, which is a good place to start. If you need additional help, then the newcomer's Wikipedia:Teahouse or one of the Wikipedia:Noticeboards might be the best place to try next. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Muttikins (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

New category for internal reports of WikiProjects

Because I couldn't find one existing already, I just boldly created a category to hold any and all internal reports produced by WikiProjects. See Category:WikiProject-related reports. If such a category already existed, please let me know and I will happily merge. Cheers! Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to set up such a category to hold stuff such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/MostEdited, Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/Recognized content, etc., it's probably worth checking in on the bot pages to see if the categories can be automatically added. CMD (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Of the examples you gave there, the first was created by me using {{Database report}}, so putting it in a category is a one-time manual task, and I don't mind doing it. In the case of some widely dispersed reports based on templates, they already tend to create categories, but they aren't always in the context of reports for WikiProjects. Recognized content goes into Category:Wikipedia lists of recognized content but it's not categorized under WikiProjects. What I'm basically after here is a category that holds categories of reports from various WikiProjects. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 09:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, but it will likely not be very effective unless automated somehow, given how many WikiProjects there are (and how many are dead). CMD (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs to be automated. Just add report pages (or a category of report pages) to Category:WikiProject-related reports the usual way. There's WP:NOHURRY. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Without automation report pages may just wipe the category when they update, depending on how they are generated. No hurry does not seem a reason to not improve such a category. CMD (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The solution for that is usually a manual one. Place the category above or outside where the bot fills in the report. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

If the bot wipes out the whole page with its report with no place to put a category, you should consult with the report bot maintainer and ask them what to do to place a custom category. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

That is what I suggested in the second comment as a way to help the category fulfil its purpose. CMD (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. I don't think that's the usual case, but again, in the examples you gave, I was able to add categories manually without them being overwritten. If you have no way to do that, consult with the report bot maintainer. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Iranian Cities

WikiProject Iranian Cities

I propose the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities to improve and organize articles about cities, towns, and villages in Iran. This project will focus on standardizing city articles, adding reliable sources, and creating missing articles for notable locations. Interested editors are welcome to join! Kamran.h20320 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kamran.h20320, how many people are in your group? A Wikipedia:WikiProject is a group of editors. If you have no editors working with you, then you have no WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting the importance of having a group of editors for a WikiProject. Currently, I am in the early stages of proposing Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities and have not yet formalized a group, but I am actively reaching out to editors who have been involved in articles related to Iranian cities (e.g., Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan) to gauge their interest. I plan to post invitations on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran to attract editors with relevant experience. My goal is to form a group of at least 6–10 active editors, as recommended by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. I would appreciate any advice on how to effectively recruit editors or examples of successful WikiProject proposals. Thanks again for your guidance! Kamran.h20320 (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kamran.h20320 Have you considered reactivating Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran and asking participants in that if they would like to have a special focus or taskforce about Iranian cities? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Stefen Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion! I hadn’t considered creating a taskforce within Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, and I appreciate you bringing it up. I will reach out to the participants of WikiProject Iran to see if there is interest in forming a taskforce focused on Iranian cities. My reason for proposing a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities is to create a dedicated space for standardizing and improving articles specifically about cities, towns, and villages in Iran, as this topic has a broad scope (e.g., population updates, infobox standardization, and creating articles for smaller cities). However, I agree that a taskforce could be a great starting point, especially if WikiProject Iran has active editors who are interested. I’ll post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran to discuss this possibility and report back here with the feedback. Do you have any suggestions for how to structure a taskforce or examples of successful city-focused taskforces? Thanks again for your input! Kamran.h20320 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

=== Update: Iranian Cities Taskforce ===

Thank you for the feedback on my proposal for Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities. Based on suggestions from @WhatamIdoing and @Stefen, I’ve created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran#Iranian Cities Taskforce within Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran. The taskforce focuses on improving articles about Iranian cities, standardizing formats, and adding reliable sources. Interested editors are welcome to join by adding their names to the participants list or sharing feedback on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. Kamran.h20320 (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kamran.h20320, I'll WP:REDIRECT the original page to your new WP:TASKFORCE. This group does not attempt to control task forces at all (though we are willing to share advice, if someone has questions).

What I'd like to know is why you thought creating pages for a WikiProject was a good idea. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#If you have a larger group of editors, I see six numbered rules, of which you obeyed only one:

1. Experienced editor with thousands of edits – you have 34 edits, not 1,000s.
2. Recruit participants before writing a proposal – you didn't.
3. Scope should have "many thousands of articles" – If "city" means a larger place, Iran has maybe 150 proper cities.
4. Work with existing groups – you didn't.
5. Post a proposal – this discussion here.
6. Wait for approval – you didn't.

Did you not find the page until it was too late? Did you think that your idea was too good to follow the usual rules? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you. I have recently started editing Wikipedia pages and have noticed many shortcomings in certain areas. I intend to help improve Persian pages with guidance from more experienced individuals. If you have any suggestions on how to contribute in this regard, I would be very happy to hear them and receive your assistance. Kamran.h20320 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

On #3, cities typically have subarticles, especially the larger ones, and Iran has several sizable cities. For the rest, since this is being done as an effort within an existing WikiProject, I'm not sure there is any harm. It will either take off, or not, and any cleanup would be minimal. In fact, Kamran did not have to ask permission for what is simply a bold move in an existing project marked as inactive. That all said, Kamran.h20320, you should ask existing members of the project if they would like to help, while building your editing skills. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I am doing my best. I hope to achieve a good result from it. Kamran.h20320 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, @Kamran.h20320, I know you're doing your best, and I can see that you are very intelligent and very interested in helping Wikipedia. (I'm even nervous that asking you about our broken process will distract you from improving those articles, which is more important.)

I'm thinking that our instructions are unclear. For example, your 15th edit was to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities. I really, really, really do not want people to create any "WikiProject" pages as their 15th edit, or even as their 150th edit. I want this to be edit #1,500 or even edit #15,000. Was there anything I could write in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals that would have convinced you that creating this page, as edit #15, was a bad idea? I don't even know if you had seen the /Proposals page before you created it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need some kind of balance that is encouraging new editors to want to improve articles first and is lighter on the discouraging part about WikiProjects. Maybe have something like a "wiki knowledge pyramid" and show a new user "You are here" at the bottom and somewhere up past the middle is creating or expanding WikiProjects. We could show new users how to use existing WikiProject infrastructure to identify articles to work on, particularly those that are stubs or have issues to address. Now how new users discover this kind of information is a tricky part, but perhaps we could modify the standard WikiProject front-page banner to have a link "New editors read this first!" and have an optional way to show this for projects that don't use the standard banner. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Announcing two new WikiProject-related reports

I have created two new reports for the WP:Database reports page: WikiProjects by human changes and WikiProjects with no activity. This is effectively a split of "WikiProjects by changes" to have the primary sort be by non-bot (human) edits and to get the most out of SQL performance enhancements. I've also added a few useful columns to the first report to aid in management of WikiProjects across the board. Please let me know of any problems/concerns and if anyone has ideas for further WikiProject-related reports (I already have a few on my to do list that I'm reviewing). Enjoy! Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Goldsztajn (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Template update

With help from an editor who was willing and able to explain what happened, I have sorted out what's confusing editors who are trying to leave WP:APPNOTE notifications and end up here: {{WikiProject status}} is sending people to WP:WikiProject, whose talk page redirects here. Where they want to end up is on the talk page of the subject-specific WikiProject.

With that in mind, I have redrafted the template, so that it will mostly look like this:

The "talk to us" will point to the talk page for the individual WikiProject. I've also taken the opportunity to shift the language away from WikiProjects being "places" and towards being "groups".

If you'd like to see a comparison that includes task forces, inactive WikiProjects, etc., then please look at Template:WikiProject status/testcases.

I'd like to get this change made soon-ish, but it's IMO more important to get it right on the first try, so please let me know if there's anything you'd like to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It all looks workable to me. Thank you for working on this. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I've made the request: Template talk:WikiProject status#Update language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This is  Done, and I've left a barnstar for the editor whose excellent explanation set us on the right path. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2025

Resolved

Add "the" before "two thousand existing articles" Licheris2 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Licheris2: Can you tell us where this text is exactly? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

In the info-box about the proposal process under "Creating and maintaining a project". And I meant "projects" rather than "articles". Oops. Licheris2 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Licheris2. I've fixed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Anyway, is that 2024 process still occurring? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. You can see the current state at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Proposing a WikiProject. The box at Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project could probably be updated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've updated that page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

New at-risk WikiProjects

The history of Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects shows a lot of redirects and deleted pages. It also shows these:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject AMWikicommonsUploadWorkflow – from a museum; might be intended for Commons
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Migrants of Colour Stories Aotearoa – same museum, but has five members listed
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia spoken by AI voice
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD Engagement – four members listed
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Raising Representation – they organize editing parties
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Genocide
7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre Islamic Arabia – two members listed
8. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aram (Suryoye) – four members listed

I am doubtful that any of these will survive. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The one for genocide puzzled me as they didn't even create a way for people to sign up. I imagine this project could attract many participants but they didn't even bother accommodating people coming to them. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I, too, can imagine people being interested, but that would require having an actual group to start with, so that there is someone for the interested people to work with.

The subject overlaps with Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights; perhaps they'll end up merged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Quite a few of these seem to be specific university/museum projects, which may be time-gated. To that extent, they are probably not intended to "survive". I note Wikipedia:WikiProject Raising Representation for example was recently updated to be past tense. It seems valuable to promote transparency and reporting in such a way, perhaps we need a template which can be placed on such projects saying something like "This WikiProject was part of an initiative that ran from XXXX to XXXX. For ongoing similar work, please see WikiProject YYYYYYYY." CMD (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe encourage editing events and museum projects to use a different name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there one? Events can now use the Event:Sandbox space, although I haven't tested it. I don't know what I'd call a time-limited project. CMD (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

In-person events are usually handled as meetups, e.g., Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

First step then should be to add that as an alternative at Wikipedia:WikiProject. Hopefully someone with experience in the Event space can figure out if that needs adding, otherwise I am planning to experiment with it at some point over the next few months. CMD (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

add "to do" list

This Council should have a "to do" list. New members won't know how to help the Council, except the couple of sentences under How can you help? rootsmusic (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The main work of the group here is to provide advice and support when people seek us out for questions. Answering those questions requires knowing how humans behave and being very familiar with Wikipedia's internal workings. Inexperienced editors don't have this combination of skills and therefore can't usually do much to help with this project.

I'm happy to have newer editors hang out here, but there isn't a checklist of tasks to be done. The front page lists the tedious project of updating the manual directory listing. Another task – but one I'd suggest only to a clueful newer person (you might qualify, BTW) – is to look for a couple of inactive content/article-focused WikiProjects that could be merged up into an existing larger, active group. Merging up inactive groups is something we'd like to do, but every step in the path is slow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

WPPG

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines § WPPG

 – voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested in reactivating WP:WPPG for the purposes of condensing and simplifying PAGs without changing their substantive meaning. I inquired on the Discord where @Femke, @Toadspike, and @Chaotic Enby expressed interest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I confirm that I'm absolutely interested! PAGs currently have a lot of bloat which makes them hard for newcomers to read through, and some streamlining is absolutely needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You do not need permission to WP:REVIVE any existing/former group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

When a WikiProject is marked as defunct, the instructions output by the {{WikiProject status}} template state: "If you feel this group may be worth reviving, please discuss with related groups first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error." Should that be removed? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we instead need to ask @Moxy why he linked to "related groups" to this one page. The "related groups" for Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines would be groups like Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what is being asked? The link to here is something that is on all project pages not just for the old policy one. Not sure the template coding right now allows us to have specific links of this nature. On a side note the reason the project was stop was the community felt and created the village pump proposals because many though that the project was a wikiproject cabal of only half a dozen editors with most controversial changes going to the new noticeboards anyways.....and that we now have so many policies that a more authoritative location than just a Wikiproject was need it. At the same time there was also a shift to discussing specific changes to policies on those policy talk pages. I have no recollection of where this RFC type conversation took place. Must remember a Wikiproject has forever been singled out as this place not to dictate policies. That being said with the widespread use of RFC in the past decade... that direction for implementing changes may work with the newer generation of editors..... as in having a project to host these and simply posting notices at the pump and relevant policy talk pages. Best we inform people trying to revive obsolete projects... why they're obsolete and what the normal procedure is now.Moxy🍁 23:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The intent is not to dictate policy or to host RfCs. The point is to re-draft PAGs with the goal of simplifying them (e.g., making them easier to understand) and condensing them (e.g., removing redundancies or consolidating sections/pages). Then, we would put the re-drafted PAGs to the community for comment and eventually an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand the purpose.... I'm just explaining why things were shut down....like Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style(All discussions, development, maintenance of, and other related matters concerning the Manual of Style (MoS) are conducted exclusively on the respective talk pages of individual MoS guidelines. If you believe the community has matured about Wikiprojects or a new generation have a different point of view of where these things should happen I have no objections. I'd be willing to help out either way...just be aware there's going to be some pushback. If I remember correctly it was the medical, dates and history Wikiprojects content editors that had the most concerns in the past. Must realize the project never really ever got going in the first place was closed down was later revived and it was closed down again due to the above concerns..... all that said feel free to give it a try.... there's not too many left from the era when all this happened.Moxy🍁 00:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

WPMOS is inactive because it met its goal (figuring out which pages are/aren't MOS, and giving them name that indicate their status, e.g., redirecting the unvetted "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dermatology-related articles)" page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force) – not because people were worried about any sort of WP:CABAL. The description on the page was inaccurate, and I've removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You did what where? I am talking about two different projects with two very different histories. Policy one never got off the ground. The MOS reach its natural maturity.... but nevertheless had the same outcome. Using the MOS example above to explain where talks generally take place now not that there was a cabal at the MOS project. (I guess I'll try to write more clearly). Moxy🍁 00:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Moxy, you changed what was originally an unlinked sentence, If you feel this project may be worth reviving, please discuss with related projects first, in Template:WikiProject status so that "please discuss with related projects first" now links to "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council" (this page). WikiProject Council is almost always not a "related project" and almost always the wrong place for these discussions. For example, if you wanted to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicinal botany, you should be talking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants; you shouldn't be posting here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to change it.... perhaps it should link to the directory? But I'm not sure directing people to other inactive projects is helpful in the long run. Was thinking that at the time that the council can give better guidance then other inactive projects (as we have here)... If you fill otherwise again feel free to change it. Moxy🍁 00:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe point to WP:REVIVE, and make sure REVIVE has a good description about how to build partnerships with related groups? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a great solution.... Let's make another number point pointing to where editors can find these other projects. ... Oops my bad I skipped right over point number one.Moxy🍁 00:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: -  Done Moxy🍁 09:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Defunct WikiProject Concerns

Relevant discussion at

→ Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 16#Assessment issue with "inactive" WikiProjects

Hello. I've discovered that some articles' WikiProjects have been rendered defunct. That said, I think we need to raise a concern I have on this: should we consider removing any and all defunct WikiProject templates from the article talk page? Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

No, because someone might eventually WP:REVIVE them. But please consider merging defunct groups up to a larger/active one, so these templates can be replaced with an active group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There have been defunct WikiProjects for years now. I remember doing an "inventory" of WikiProjects 10 years ago and there were defunct WikiProjects back then. Why is this suddenly urgent now and requires action? Sometimes these WikiProjects are revived, usually they aren't. But if you try to send them all to WP:MFD, you'll find longtimers have very negative feelings about deleting old content like this, they'd rather have it marked with a "historical tag". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it really has to do with the viability of the page itself (as in.. is it still useful and a record of past things that's still may apply). The lead at Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style maybe something needed for some projects. Moxy🍁 03:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't shy away from fixing issues that are old. The existence of defunct WikiProject pages is probably not a significant issue in itself, but every talkpage banner is a fresh opportunity to mislead a new editor. That said, at least defunct WikiProjects display an "inactive" tag (see Talk:Åland), so better than the inactive WikiProjects with no tag. CMD (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with CMD. I believe the original question is whether banner templates such as {{WikiProject First aid}} should be removed from Talk: pages (not whether Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid should be sent to MFD). I think the banner templates should be left alone, unless/until the defunct group gets merged up (in which case, it should be replaced by the new group's banner template). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's the crux of the issue I'm facing. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Since we editors naturally spend most of our time on the subject/article page rather than the talk page, I don't see what issue there is here. Is some kind of work being hindered by the presence of the defunct project banners? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue is which defunct project the article belongs to.

If a user sees a Wikiproject tag with an inactive project next to it and then click on it, they may find the project defunct on the top of its page. I found out about it myself before opening up the discussion. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Articles don't belong to WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that. I want to clarify my earlier statement: if one checks out an article's discussion page and discovers a banner for a inactive WikiProject that article is a part of and clicked on it (like I did before starting this particular discussion), they may either find it inactive or defunct (and sometimes, the page for a WikiProject and/or a task force is marked as historical).

However, if one wants to make an inactive WikiProject active again, we can retain its banner on that article's discussion page. Just my thoughts about it. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you believe that it is surprising for an editor to click on a banner template that directly says that the group is inactive, and then see that the group really is inactive? I know that, from a logical POV, my question sounds a bit like "Does she really think editors have no reading comprehension skills at all?", but emotions don't follow logical rules. It's possible for people to see "group is inactive" and not quite believe it until they click through. So if it feels surprising, we might be able to change the wording to make it a little more effective, such as "Unfortunately, this group is inactive." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Could be possible. When I clicked on the link to an inactive WikiProject/task force on occasions, I wasn't surprised to find it defunct (for example, see the page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball). I'll also consider merging the defunct task force/WikiProjects to the larger ones as needed. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects. There are multiple steps, but remember that the first one's the hardest, and after that it's more familiar and easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll check into this. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Having just looked into the guide, I think we should consider jumpstarting a mass cleanup project. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

All for this! I'm currently playing around with the idea of a WP:Toolforge app that would make the creation of assessment categories as simple as adding the topic and project names then pressing 'Go'. Aluxosm (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be useful. I've previously made very vague appeals to WMF to create a way to support the various infrastructure that has been built around WikiProjects without directly needing the WikiProjects themselves. Being able to both spin up and spin down projects more easily would be helpful. CMD (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Through the development of various reports and tools, I've been (very) gradually working toward a concept of a WikiProject as an "action center" around a particular topic. But I see no need to eliminate the WikiProject concept itself. I just don't think they ever had much value as "membership clubs". Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Not making any guarantees but this project's been in the back of my head for a while; excited to see if I get it done! Here it goes - User:Aluxosm/WikiProject catalyst. Aluxosm (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to hide defunct WikiProjects in the template? rootsmusic (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The banner templates (e.g., at the top of an article's talk page) for a defunct group say "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Example, a project which is currently considered to be inactive." Isn't that enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I think the banner template should tag inactive WikiProjects as such. I don't know why the inactive tag is being applied to defunct WikiProjects, instead of a defunct tag. Hiding defunct WikiProjects would de-clutter banner templates, especially if the template is long. rootsmusic (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the banner shell generally tames the clutter, and in the rare cases it doesn't, there's an option for hiding all the projects. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It would be preferable to retain some indication of defunct/inactive WikiProjects, so they can be found by those looking and so if undefuncted, they are automatically returned. However, I don't think any of this is possible with the current implementation as it is the WikiProject tags determining the inactive/defunct display, rather than the bannershell template. CMD (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the banner templates control what they look like and say (on one line or expanded). But the shell normally keeps them at one line, and as I said can be instructed to hide them all. I am trying to figure out what the expectation is here, since I believe banners already do tend to show they are inactive/defunct. Is the problem here that some banners don't do this? If that's it, we can fix the banner code. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe that "inactive" is the language chosen for defunct groups because it's gentler and therefore less discouraging to anyone who might want to REVIVE it. A "big fat FAILURE" label is going to discourage some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Templates of defunct WikiProjects without the PROJECT_STATUS parameter

1. Template:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement
2. Template:WikiProject Aerosmith
3. Template:WikiProject Airsoft
4. Template:WikiProject Åland
5. Template:WikiProject Alexandra Stan
6. Template:WikiProject Alien
7. Template:WikiProject Alternate History
8. Template:WikiProject Alternate Reality Gaming
9. Template:WikiProject Alternative education
10. Template:WikiProject American Football League
11. Template:WikiProject Americas
12. Template:WikiProject Animals in media
13. Template:WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference
14. Template:WikiProject Backpacking
15. Template:WikiProject Balzac
16. Template:WikiProject Bangladeshi Universities
17. Template:WikiProject BBC Radio
18. Template:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland
19. Template:WikiProject Birmingham
20. Template:WikiProject Björk
21. Template:WikiProject Black Metal
22. Template:WikiProject Blu-ray
23. Template:WikiProject Bodybuilding
24. Template:WikiProject Brahmoism
25. Template:WikiProject Bush family
26. Template:WikiProject Cacti
27. Template:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona
28. Template:WikiProject Category Suppression
29. Template:WikiProject Chad
30. Template:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity
31. Template:WikiProject Cheryl
32. Template:WikiProject Chicago Bears
33. Template:WikiProject Chinese in New York City
34. Template:WikiProject Chumbawamba
35. Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting
36. Template:WikiProject Classical League
37. Template:WikiProject Collections Care
38. Template:WikiProject Colombian Departments
39. Template:WikiProject Colored Conventions
40. Template:WikiProject Combat Games
41. Template:WikiProject Comoros
42. Template:WikiProject Computer Vision
43. Template:WikiProject Cornell University
44. Template:WikiProject Coventry
45. Template:WikiProject Crowded House
46. Template:WikiProject Database analysis
47. Template:WikiProject Demographics
48. Template:WikiProject Djibouti
49. Template:WikiProject Dominica
50. Template:WikiProject Dravidian civilizations
51. Template:WikiProject Dravidian languages
52. Template:WikiProject Dyslexia
53. Template:WikiProject Edinburgh Festival Fringe
54. Template:WikiProject Editing trends
55. Template:WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom
56. Template:WikiProject Elizabethan theatre
57. Template:WikiProject Elvis Presley
58. Template:WikiProject Emoji
59. Template:WikiProject Entertainment Technology
60. Template:WikiProject Entrepreneurship policies in the Arab world
61. Template:WikiProject Erie
62. Template:WikiProject Essential Oils
63. Template:WikiProject Estonian towns
64. Template:WikiProject European League of Football
65. Template:WikiProject Evanescence
66. Template:WikiProject Extreme sports
67. Template:WikiProject Fire Protection
68. Template:WikiProject Fire Service
69. Template:WikiProject First aid
70. Template:WikiProject Floorball
71. Template:WikiProject Frank Sinatra
72. Template:WikiProject Frank Zappa
73. Template:WikiProject Frisia
74. Template:WikiProject G.I. Joe
75. Template:WikiProject Glossaries
76. Template:WikiProject Green Politics
77. Template:WikiProject Guernsey
78. Template:WikiProject Guinea-Bissau
79. Template:WikiProject Guns N' Roses
80. Template:WikiProject Hebrew languages
81. Template:WikiProject Hello! Project
82. Template:WikiProject Hertfordshire
83. Template:WikiProject Highlander
84. Template:WikiProject Hiking trails
85. Template:WikiProject HIM
86. Template:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
87. Template:WikiProject Homeopathy
88. Template:WikiProject Homeschooling
89. Template:WikiProject Human Genetic History
90. Template:WikiProject Hypericaceae
91. Template:WikiProject Images and Media
92. Template:WikiProject Inca Empire
93. Template:WikiProject Indexes
94. Template:WikiProject Indianapolis Colts
95. Template:WikiProject Indigenous languages of California
96. Template:WikiProject Inna
97. Template:WikiProject Integrity
98. Template:WikiProject Intelligence Agency
99. Template:WikiProject IRC
100. Template:WikiProject IROC
101. Template:WikiProject Jacksonville
102. Template:WikiProject James Bond
103. Template:WikiProject Józef Piłsudski Institute of America
104. Template:WikiProject Kansas City Chiefs
105. Template:WikiProject Karachi
106. Template:WikiProject Kingdom of Naples
107. Template:WikiProject Korn
108. Template:WikiProject Ladakh
109. Template:WikiProject Leaders by year
110. Template:WikiProject Leona Lewis
111. Template:WikiProject Liberia
112. Template:WikiProject Liechtenstein
113. Template:WikiProject Lower Saxony
114. Template:WikiProject Mali
115. Template:WikiProject Malware
116. Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
117. Template:WikiProject Mass spectrometry
118. Template:WikiProject Mesoamerica
119. Template:WikiProject MIT
120. Template:WikiProject Mithila
121. Template:WikiProject Monaco
122. Template:WikiProject Motörhead
123. Template:WikiProject Mozilla
124. Template:WikiProject MTSU
125. Template:WikiProject Munich
126. Template:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom
127. Template:WikiProject National Basketball League of Canada
128. Template:WikiProject National Health Service
129. Template:WikiProject NATO
130. Template:WikiProject NCSLC
131. Template:WikiProject Netball
132. Template:WikiProject New England Patriots
133. Template:WikiProject New England Public Transit
134. Template:WikiProject New Wave music
135. Template:WikiProject Nine Inch Nails
136. Template:WikiProject Niue
137. Template:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods
138. Template:WikiProject Nonviolence
139. Template:WikiProject Normandy
140. Template:WikiProject North Dakota
141. Template:WikiProject Objectivism
142. Template:WikiProject Occupations
143. Template:WikiProject Open
144. Template:WikiProject Optare
145. Template:WikiProject Orienteering
146. Template:WikiProject Osaka University
147. Template:WikiProject Paintball
148. Template:WikiProject Parapsychology
149. Template:WikiProject Parenting
150. Template:WikiProject Perl
151. Template:WikiProject Persian literature
152. Template:WikiProject Phasmatodea
153. Template:WikiProject Pirate Politics
154. Template:WikiProject Plan 9
155. Template:WikiProject Porto
156. Template:WikiProject Powderfinger
157. Template:WikiProject Power in international relations
158. Template:WikiProject Prescott-Russell
159. Template:WikiProject Psychopathic Records
160. Template:WikiProject Pteridophytes
161. Template:WikiProject Queen
162. Template:WikiProject Quran
163. Template:WikiProject Rave
164. Template:WikiProject Ravidassia
165. Template:WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers
166. Template:WikiProject Redwall
167. Template:WikiProject Reenactment
168. Template:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration
169. Template:WikiProject Religious Buildings, Architecture and Monasticism
170. Template:WikiProject River Thames
171. Template:WikiProject Roman Curia
172. Template:WikiProject Rufus Wainwright
173. Template:WikiProject Russian history
174. Template:WikiProject San Marino
175. Template:WikiProject Sea Monsters
176. Template:WikiProject Seamounts
177. Template:WikiProject Secret Societies
178. Template:WikiProject Seton Hall University
179. Template:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church
180. Template:WikiProject Silesia
181. Template:WikiProject Sinhalese Monarchy
182. Template:WikiProject Slipknot
183. Template:WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom
184. Template:WikiProject Solomon Islands
185. Template:WikiProject Spectroscopy
186. Template:WikiProject Stagecraft
187. Template:WikiProject Stamford
188. Template:WikiProject State University System of Florida
189. Template:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda
190. Template:WikiProject Syracuse, New York
191. Template:WikiProject Tamil civilization
192. Template:WikiProject Tamil Eelam
193. Template:WikiProject Tampa Bay
194. Template:WikiProject Taoism
195. Template:WikiProject TCR Series
196. Template:WikiProject Temperance and Prohibition
197. Template:WikiProject Texas Tech University
198. Template:WikiProject The Clash
199. Template:WikiProject The Football League: Season-By-Season
200. Template:WikiProject The KLF
201. Template:WikiProject The Script
202. Template:WikiProject Theology
203. Template:WikiProject Tijuana
204. Template:WikiProject Timeline Tracer
205. Template:WikiProject Tool
206. Template:WikiProject Transwiki
207. Template:WikiProject Turtles
208. Template:WikiProject U2
209. Template:WikiProject UK Trams
210. Template:WikiProject Uniform Polytopes
211. Template:WikiProject Unique Identifiers
212. Template:WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
213. Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy
214. Template:WikiProject University of Arkansas
215. Template:WikiProject University of Belgrade
216. Template:WikiProject University of Central Florida
217. Template:WikiProject University of Connecticut
218. Template:WikiProject University of Florida
219. Template:WikiProject University of Houston
220. Template:WikiProject University of Massachusetts
221. Template:WikiProject University of Southern California
222. Template:WikiProject University of the Philippines
223. Template:WikiProject Unrecognized countries
224. Template:WikiProject Urban Debate
225. Template:WikiProject User Rehab
226. Template:WikiProject Van Halen
227. Template:WikiProject Vandy
228. Template:WikiProject Vanuatu
229. Template:WikiProject Vatican City
230. Template:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000
231. Template:WikiProject Washington Metro
232. Template:WikiProject Watches
233. Template:WikiProject Water Margin
234. Template:WikiProject Water sports
235. Template:WikiProject Western Asia
236. Template:WikiProject WikiAfrica Schools
237. Template:WikiProject Wikipedia Outreach
238. Template:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies
239. Template:WikiProject World's Oldest People
240. Template:WikiProject Wikisource
241. Template:WikiProject WikiWorld
242. Template:WikiProject Winter sports
243. Template:WikiProject Woodworking
244. Template:WikiProject X
245. Template:WikiProject Zoroastrianism

I think the crux of this is that the WikiProjects in Category:Defunct WikiProjects need to have their talk page templates updated to include |PROJECT_STATUS=defunct so that everything is in sync. The problem with that, as I noted in this related discussion, is that all of their assessment categories would be emptied (and eventually deleted) which would currently make the WikiProject a lot harder to revive.

To add my votes: I don't think the templates should be hidden, and I completely disagree that they should be removed. Aluxosm (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Reasonable concerns. So, what do you think the best option in this case? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Working on it, and will try to lay out my thinking shortly. In the meantime, I've just remembered another issue with batch setting |PROJECT_STATUS=defunct on all of the templates listed below; I do a fair bit of work of with the active RNLI task force of the defunct WikiProject Water sports (which is labelled as such on the talk page, but not on the template); if this was "fixed", the RNLI task force would lose all of their classifications. A solution for that particular issue is in the works (new/different parent), but it's worth mentioning in case there are similar relationships in any of the WikiProjects in the list. Aluxosm (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that the argument for "decluttering" by not showing defunct WikiProjects on talk pages doesn't have any strength beyond personal aesthetic taste, unless and until I see a better argument, of course. If the issue boils down to some projects not properly announcing they are defunct in the project listings, that is what needs addressing. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Since a defunct group doesn't have anyone left to make announcements, this is something that we can't expect defunct groups to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you're taking my word 'announcing' a bit too literally. I mean "showing", as in a reader readily seeing a project is defunct by way of the project's banner. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Most projects are dying regardless. With the deletion of most portals (one of the main means of attracting editors in the past) and talk page banners not shown in mobile view (or should I say not visible unless you click a tiny little thing) I believe only the most active projects will continue on in the future. Moxy🍁 22:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems like part of an entirely different discussion. But for what it's worth, I'm on the side of wanting to figure out how to reinvigorate WikiProjects. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Any interested parties should check out this relevant discussion about how we should deal with the defunct WP:ANIME task forces or WikiProjects over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Merging defunct WikiProjects. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Potential cleanup

I'm creating a new section dedicated to the cleanup project. Which project should we consider starting with besides WP:ANIME? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

What cleanup? You have failed to get a consenus that this is actually an issue but seem to have moved on as if you have that consenus. Nor do you have consenus that these projects being unmerged is an issue. Don't remove the innactive wikiprojects or go on some crusade to merge innactive projects, you aren't cleaning up a problem you are the problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue brought before us was defunct projects not showing themselves as defunct in talk page project listings in some cases. That is a minor problem that deserves correction. I don't know where and how that became "let's merge all defunct projects". Defunct projects are not trash (well, most likely are not) - they are historical records of work. Merging them should not be taken lightly, and I don't think anyone has agreed to a formal proposal of a systematic "cleanup". If you are concerned about a specific defunct project that contains work that would be useful to fold into another active one, work through that process and get others' views before proceeding. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to a potential cleanup project to hold discussions amongst other editors on the WikiProjects to have the relevant projects' defunct task forces merged back into their main project page (such as WP:VG, WP:FILM and so on) in general. Nothing is set in stone as of yet.

Taking the above comments into consideration, what should we do without risking any potential disruption? Perhaps get a consensus here or with the other editors on a WikiProject's talk page? Or are there any other ideas? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that the statements in this discussion of "the problem" have been rather murky all along. If you want something done that is systematic, I'd suggest putting together a formal proposal with specifics and eventually having an WP:RFC. You can link to such a proposal at WP:VPR. If you want to do something on a case-by-case basis, consult with the active WikiProject you want to upmerge something to or merge into. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

My apologies I may have misunderstood the scope of the proposed action... I think in general the point being made is to think long term, so focus on adding active ones not removing inactive ones... Especially as that lowers the incentive to get them back up and running. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Good points. I've renamed the section header since, like I said, nothing is set in stone. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this really does have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, even though that takes both time and effort from whoever is going the clean up/merging work.

I also think that it's important to start small, so you can get an idea of how each of the steps in the process works. If you're going to get stuck on step number eleventy-two, then you want to discover that with just one merge hanging in the balance, not with 20, or 200. I therefore recommend starting with WP:ANIME and seeing that process all the way through to the end, without adding the complication of other groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the WP:ANIME effort is exactly what I'm doing at the moment. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry sjones23, when I said "All for it" I thought we were talking about an effort to go through and properly categorise WikiProjects by their status and update things like the WikiProject directory. The first steps here really need to be in identifying where the real problems are, and creating workflows to assist in WikiProject management. Merging a a few together is just a bit of a band-aid at this point and isn't really addressing the core issues; it's a mammoth task that will take up time that's best spent addressing things across the board. Aluxosm (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Some years back, a coder got Wikipedia:WikiProject X funded. Unfortunately, there were no plans made for maintenance, so some of the tools are now useless. But if you're interested in tools, I'd start there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the link and am trying to heed their words of caution about biting off more than you can chew! I'd stumbled upon the story a while ago and it's the primary reason I want to stay within the existing assessment infrastructure. Aluxosm (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Lost importance ratings

In going through Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention, a category that now lists pages where the total of the {{AbQ}} or {{AbI}} templates equal zero, I've come across several WikiProjects and task forces where the importance parameters were removed from their talk page templates (intentionally and unintentionally). This has led to bots like BattyBot and Cewbot removing the importance ratings from the articles because they are now considered deprecated. In the interest of making sure there is some way to WP:REVIVE these projects I'd like to make a plea that if task forces are merged and templates updated, that their importance parameters are carefully considered and transferred regardless. I don't mean to call anyone out, but just to illustrate where some of these problems are so that we watch out for them and can discuss their removal, here are some examples:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 5#Template:WikiProject Bradford - Bradford importance params don't need to be migrated since the WP is defunct (ping)
• Template talk:WikiProject Sikhism#Importance assessments - nearly 800 assessments lost due to a mistaken removal
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Category:U.S. road transport articles by importance - over 400 categories emptied due to a mistaken removal

Aluxosm (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I have long thought that these bot tasks are less than helpful. Unless we are sure that the parameter has never been in use, and will not be useful in the future, these parameters are probably best left alone. Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters has 533 subcategories to track these unknown parameters - do we actually need to track them? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject catalyst

Please see User:Aluxosm/WikiProject catalyst, a web app to help with the management of WikiProject assessment categories. Much like an old WP 1.0 tool (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories) but hopefully a little easier to work with and eventually more fully featured. Very early days so any comments would be appreciated before I inevitably end up down a rabbit hole! Cheers, Aluxosm (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

lol i personaly love going down rabbit holes (on YouTube that is) ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

MFD for a WikiProject

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

what does MDF stand for? ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 06:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

foxes

i really want to start a project on creating an article about foxes but i kinda need some help ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend going to WP:WikiProject Mammals or WP:WikiProject Animals for that. Creating a new WikiProject is not recommended, but you can do so at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 06:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A WikiProject is a group of people. Until you've found those people, there is no point in proposing a WikiProject. The most effective way to find those people is:

• Create a real (non-temporary) account. They're free and do not require an e-mail address.
• Work on improving multiple fox-related articles (e.g., Fox, Kitsune, Fox hunting...) for months (or even years), so that you will find out if anyone else is interested in that subject. Also, you'll learn how to improve articles, and other people will have better articles to read.
• When you have found about 10 people who are also interested in foxes and want to form a group with you, then come back here.

But realistically: you're unlikely to find enough people who are specifically interested in foxes. So try WP:WikiProject Animals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the help ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft WikiProject peace - status template and namespace

User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace has a few people sort of turn up every now and then, but is nowhere near the threshold where it's ready to propose as an official WikiProject.

I'm wondering if having this in my user space discourages people from editing: it risks WP:OWN. On the other hand, the advantage of having it under my name means that people know who is the most likely person to respond.

I also just noticed that there are pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre Islamic Arabia in the Wikipedia: namespace, with the {{WikiProject status}} template set at the value draft.

Should I (now) add {{WikiProject status|draft}} to User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace?

Should I (now) move User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace to Wikipedia:Draft:WikiProject Peace or Wikipedia:WikiProject Peace? Or should I wait until/if the activity looks like it's viable as an official project?

Boud (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried putting a big "welcome sign" on the page?

Have you tried actively recruiting editors, with personal invitations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking for ideas in how to convince or find people interested in the project, though thanks for the suggestions. :) I assume that if/when people are motivated to edit, then they'll find the draft project pages useful and we'll see if a critical mass evolves. I have done a few personal invitations, but I don't want to pressure anyone.

My two specific questions remain unanswered. Boud (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that it makes any difference whether you tag it with {{WikiProject status|draft}}.

Since the Draft: namespace is m:where articles go to die, I wouldn't expect any good to come of moving it to the Draft: namespace, but I'm not aware of any rule against doing so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers.

I now see that the {{WikiProject status}} template was already in the first version of the page with the value |active, when I presumably tried to follow the instructions. That was back when the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine was a suspected possibility, not a WP:RSed fact. The project remains just as valid now, or even more, IMHO. Based on your guess and the instructions at WikiProject status, I might as well leave the template with the current value.

For the second question, m:where articles go to die and your guess are a fair argument against switching to draft space. Boud (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Unauthorized page creation

I check Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects every now and again. Usually, it just contains a couple of redirects. I noticed today a new Wikipedia:WikiProject AI in Korean Wikipedia page. I have inquired with the creator about it on their talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thats good as i am new and have already gotten redirected multiple times today lol ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

(almost week later) WhatamIdoing, looks like the creator took your advice and set up meta:Research:The Impact of WikiVault on Korean Wikipedia. Their last edits were 1 November 2025 on the Korean Wikipedia; the Research page says the study is projected to run until February 2026. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject AI in Korean Wikipedia to Wikipedia:WikiVault. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Priority scale

Importance	Meaning
Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
NA	Subject is not an article and cannot be assigned a priority.

I see that project banners are still linking to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria for the importance/priority scale when a project does not have their own. This is an ancient and obsolete page and it would be good to have a link to somewhere more appropriate. Does anyone have any suggestions or could we start a new page for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I am unaware of a generic page about this. If we create a new one, it should include the note that these are mostly unmanaged/arbitrary. CMD (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I've pasted the summary table from that page. I think the descriptions could be improved ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Many aeons ago, I started some sorting for one WikiProject roughly thinking "Top->Subject could be considered as a chapter title in a single book about the topic", "High->Subject could be a chapter within a book about one of the top-level articles", etc. However following that down further levels required too much keeping track of higher levels than would be viable. CMD (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I used a bit of AI to make an improved scale — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Importance	Meaning
Top	Articles that form the bedrock of human understanding across disciplines. These include fundamental scientific principles, major historical events, essential philosophical concepts, and universally recognized cultural phenomena.
High	Subjects that support or expand upon core knowledge. These may include key figures, landmark studies, influential works, or pivotal technologies that have shaped modern thought.
Mid	Topics that provide depth, nuance, or regional specificity. These include local histories, specialized theories, or cultural practices that enrich broader understanding.
Low	Articles that are tangential, emerging, or of limited scope. These might include niche interests, recent developments, or speculative ideas that contribute to curiosity but are not essential for general literacy.
NA	Subject is not an article and cannot be assigned a priority.

That sort of wording is too weirdly specific and yet generic. Any default wording will have to ambiguously reference the overall topic of a single WikiProject. "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia" might be "Subject is essential to understanding the topic", "Subject contributes a depth of knowledge"->"Subject provides significant additional context to the topic", "Subject fills in more minor details" (works as is). "Subject is mainly of specialist interest" might work as is too, although we may want instead to state that the "Subject is not directly relevant to the overall topic" or similar. CMD (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I like to think of 'Low' as "Connected yet generally tangential to topic". Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer nothing, or a link to the template's /doc page so people can find a list of the standard options.

The point behind these priority/importance scales is that different groups would have different ideas about what was most/least important to them. The top-importance article for an individual pop star will be the BLP about that pop star, and no BLP actually "forms the bedrock of human understanding across disciplines". This version is better suited to Wikipedia:Vital articles than to WikProject ratings.

The standard we've found workable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment is that we keep Category:Top-importance medicine articles to approximately 100 articles, and Category:High-importance medicine articles to about 1,000 articles. Other groups might find that setting a percentage of tagged articles works better for them (e.g., 1–5% can be top-rated). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you are replying to me. I'm just remarking on what the default wording for Low importance should say. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I replied to the last comment on the page, about all the comments above it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, so I won't consider it a reply to my remark. Carry on. :) Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

A list of standard options anywhere seems fine. Happy to make the standard 100, 1,000, 10,0000, the rest. CMD (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The best set of numbers depends on how many articles are within scope. If a group had 2,000 articles, you wouldn't want 100 top-, 1,000 high-, and the remaining 900 mid- WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of projects assessing priority but without a working link to a priority scale. These are listed at Category:WikiProject banners with errors listed under "D". In some cases these might have a priority scale, in which case we can set or update |ASSESSMENT_LINK= in the banner. For the others, I think a info page with some generally accepted principles would be useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there are any generally accepted principles. The original goal of the system was to counter page view bias, by letting editors interested in "niche" subjects identify what's important to them instead of what's popular with the world at large. This system originated with the need to choose a subset of articles for offline Wikipedia releases. Page views were an obvious option, plus prioritizing FAs and other articles in good condition, but how do we find articles that matter to various minority groups? Answer: Just have them tell us that it's important to them that we include these articles. Thus |importance=top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

So what do you think we should do with these projects that purport to assess priority/importance, but do not in fact have their own priority scale? Would it be too harsh to remove this feature from their banner? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at Template:WikiProject Bagpipes on Talk:Pipe band which links to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. Why does that need to be changed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Because it is generic criteria which you opposed, and because it is an obsolete page attached to a historical project. When I suggested to update it and move it somewhere better you said "I'd prefer nothing". Unless I have misunderstood your position — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's basically useless, but why bother making the change now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have added a couple of paragraphs to Wikipedia:Content assessment which is an active page and not marked historical. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Out-of-process page creations

Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects showed two individuals creating "WikiProject" pages without (apparently) having any actual WikiProject.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) was created by a newcomer to support a single article (which I expect will be deleted or WP:BLARd soon, as it looks like a WP:POVFORK of Jammu). I have moved it to the newcomer's User: space and suggested joining existing WikiProjects.
• I left a note for the creator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian diaspora (an experienced editor) to inquire about whether there is an existing group.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Since I got no response from the second creator, I've moved the page to User:SunriseInBrooklyn/WikiProject Asian diaspora and left a link on their talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiProjects with overlap

• Looking at the allegedly active wikiprojects:
• Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography / Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy / Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year / Wikipedia:WikiProject Years
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways / Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads / Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations / Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity / Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism / Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy / Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy / Wikipedia:WikiProject Reformed Christianity
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports / Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing / Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One / Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle racing / Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals / Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology / Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals / Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds / Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes / Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles / Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods / Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects / Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders

Polygnotus (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Replacing membership lists with an automated list of who made the most edits in a particular topic area

I think life would be much simpler if we just switch from humangenerated WikiProject membership lists to softwaregenerated lists of who made the most edits in a particular area that is covered by a WikiProject.

It should be possible to run some code and get a decent list, and filter out gnomes and vandalism reverters.

For inspiration you can look at User:Polygnotus/PAWS/cat2users. The input is a category, the output is a list of users. Another way is to use something like Quarry 96802. Polygnotus (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject X, which had some very cool code, some of which is sadly broken now.

Some people will get mad if you declare them to be a "member" of a group without their consent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Should the Welcome Committee be a WikiProject?

I'm thinking about whether to recommend making the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee a WikiProject. Created in 2003, the WC kind of already seems like a de facto WikiProject to me, because it is a group of editors who are involved in welcoming new users (registered or not) to Wikipedia, usually by means of one of the numerous welcome templates available, as well as maintaining the templates and discussing related issues or projects such as Editor retention, and more recently, WP:Mentorship. The look-and-feel of the pages might be quite different than the way they are organized on other projects, plus this project would be focused on users, not article content, but then so is Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention and perhaps others. Maybe the only reason it isn't a WikiProject already is because it predates the concept. What do you think: should there be a proposal to make the Welcoming Committee a WikiProject? What might be some pro's and con's of making it a project, or issues to consider? If there were support for it, besides a page move, what else should or must happen to make it a WikiProject? Thanks in advance for your feedback. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If it is a group of editors that works together, it is already a WikiProject, no matter what the name is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, I have always thought of it as a kind of subset of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, so maybe we could organize it as a task force under their wing. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If the active participants in the welcoming committee initiative want to do that, sure, but personally I don't see any particular need or advantage. The retention wikiproject doesn't have much active participation, so I don't think there will be any significant cross-pollination benefits. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Bot that keeps track of discussions on talkpages within the topic area of a WikiProject

If we have a bot that generates a page that lists discussions on talkpages within the topic area of the WikiProject, chronologically.

It could post the lists in userspace so it doesn't even need a botflag and can be transcluded on WikiProjects pages.

It could add some basic stats like the amount of participants in the discussion.

This would make keeping track of discussions happening within a specific topic area much easier. Someone who wants to keep an eye on it could just watchlist a single page.

Does something like this exist? Polygnotus (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't know, but if it does, it might have ramifications for the WP:WikiProject Reliability project, in particular, the discussions related to Perennial sources, so if you do discover something, let us know. Meanwhile, I'm subscribed to this discussion and will monitor it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The closest that exists might be WP:Article alerts which tracks RfCs, RMs, and more. WP:Hot articles tracked activity for articles which sounds similar to what you want for talk pages. CMD (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I have something somewhat like this here. It shows the last 100 talk page changes within the WikiProject. And I have something even more sophisticated here (see "ALL PROJECT TALK"). These don't show participant stats, though. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I also just recalled I have a database query I wrote several months ago that lists the top 25 most active article talk pages within a WikiProject over the past 30 days. I haven't built a report about it as of yet. This can be adapted for practically any other WikiProject. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with circumventing the bot policy through transclusion. I think it would be better to get bot approval, which I think should be relatively straightforward for a bot with this scope. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl and StefenTower: So I got Quarry 99780 and User:Polygnotus/PAWS/Astronomical which then outputs User:Polygnotus/testpage. Something like this could run every ~24 hours (if I move it to Toolforge) and then people can watchlist a single page to keep an eye on a huge amount of talkpages.

I'll ping @DreamRimmer: who is a member of the Bot Approvals Group. I don't think its seen as circumvention, bots who post once per ~24 hours in userspace can't really do much damage, but maybe they have ideas how to improve on this proof of concept. I discovered how to do this stuff thanks to them. Polygnotus (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Sorry almost forgot to ping you. If this is something WikiProject Reliability can use let me know. I just picked some WikiProject from the top of the list, but it should be possible to adjust this for other WikiProjects. Polygnotus (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposing a new WikiProject AI Tools

Alongside @LuniZunie, we have been thinking of working on a new project, WikiProject AI Tools, and we would like to see folks who are interested in it!

What's the goal?
Finding out and implementing constructive uses of LLMs and other AI models on Wikipedia! For example, LuniZunie has worked on a great tool to detect UAA-worthy usernames (Wikipedia:WikiShield), while I am working on a similar tool for CTOP flagging.

Will you try to push generative AI?
Absolutely not, don't worry! The goal here is to use AI tools as classifiers and help, to support human editors in repetitive jobs where current tools or edit filters might not be up to the task. And leave more time to human editors for creation!

Does that mean WikiProject AI Cleanup is dead?
Not at all, to the contrary! Both might in fact work together, with AI tools being some of our best hope against unrestricted generative AI!

Why isn't this a task force of WPAIC?
WPAIC aims at fighting issues caused by generative AI, while this new project will build and use AI tools for various purposes. Of course, there is overlap, but the two project have different scopes.

Who is interested?
From a WP:DISCORD post: @Chaotic Enby @LuniZunie @Kline @Nullnominal @Grapesurgeon @Jlwoodwa Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@CocaPopsRather: I know you are working on an AI model in combination with VandalHandle, would you be interested? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Definitely! I am interested and give my full support. CocaPopsRather 23:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd support it! Happy to give feedback and ideas grapesurgeon (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Pinging you too, I've seen you in AfC and you clearly have a good eye for LLMs, would you be interested in this project? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm. - Violet (plural; She/They) 22:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards & @pro-anti-air you guys in? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards said they were in, but could not reply to this for some reason. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 01:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Finally logged in.. Yeah, I'm in monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

a great toll to detect UAA-worthy usernames, Luni, I hope you know how I feel about that... --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 00:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair...but are you in..? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If you show me the seahorse emoji --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 00:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, I also want to join on your proposal WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIT#Participants --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Chaotic Enby and LuniZunie, I love the way you've recruited your group before posting here (and especially before creating any categories and templates, because those are such a pain to clean up). This already looks good enough to meet the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Aside from needing to decide on the group's capitalization (Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Tools or Wikipedia:WikiProject AI tools), I think you're ready to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Template:WikiProject/doc, it looks like the capitalized version is more conventional, I'll go for that one (probably with a redirect from the other)! Luni (or anyone else), feel free to move it if there's anything I forgot to consider. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby Looks good =D – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 19:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamil cinema task force

I am expanding this task force, using the template examples on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Silent films task force, but I'm having difficulty with creating the parameters Tamil-cinema-task-force=yes and Tamil=yes. What must be done? Also, Tamil cinema is a part of Indian cinema, but how do I link them? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'linking' them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I meant connecting them. Making it a sub task force or something. But is there a solution to the main question? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Technically, a subpage can only be in one place. You could, with the agreement of any relevant group, create a redirect from other pages. That means:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Tamil cinema task force already exists
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Tamil cinema task force could redirect to it
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilization/Tamil cinema task force could redirect to it

You have to edit Template:WikiProject Film to add new task forces. You'll have to make an Edit request because the page is protected, but for now, click "View source" on that template and search for references to the silent film task force. You want to mimic what's there, except giving it a unique number and using the name of your task force. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on it; will post in a while. Vestrian24Bio 13:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have placed an edit request here. Vestrian24Bio 13:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kailash29792, it's been added now. Vestrian24Bio 16:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio, thank you SO MUCH for everything you've done so far. But it appears major issues remain, such as that under here. It should appear as it does here. You still working on it? Kailash29792 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: All the relevant pages need to be tagged in the talkpage WikiProject template first. After that a bot will create necessary subpages automatically. Vestrian24Bio 02:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Status definitions

According to Category:WikiProjects by status WikiProjects can have the following statuses:

• draft
• active
• semi-active
• inactive
• defunct

What is a reasonable definition for each of these categories?

WP:INACTIVEWP says: Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more. There must be hundreds. I can make a script to find em. Polygnotus (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

 See archived discussion . rootsmusic (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Priority vs importance

See also: Module talk:WikiProject banner § Importance and priority, and Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 10 § Very commendable guideline being virtually ignored

Should we transition to using the wording "low-priority" instead of "low-importance", etc.? The change to "priority" was made to the the priority scale in 2015, but we did not reflect that change in the WikiProject banners — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately, I am open-minded as to the result of this discussion, but I am obliged to say that on the linked historical-marked page with the priority scale, it refers to 'priority' and 'importance' interchangeably ("importance or priority", "priority or importance") while placing only an aesthetic emphasis on 'priority' (i.e. in headings). Also, since this would be quite a fundamental change to WikiProject terminology, triggering changes to explanations and reports in WikiProjects (and I assume some templates), I think that a change like this should require invitations to all the WikiProjects, since this affects nearly all those who participate in WP 1.0 assessments. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I have to point out something pointed out in the first "see also" link: the "guideline of ours" referenced in the second "see also" link is not in current guideline text to my knowledge. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother inviting all the WikiProjects, but a mass message to the ~100 most active (however you want to measure that) is not unreasonable.

That said, I don't think we've ever had a group insist that their talk-page banner needs to display the word "importance" to anyone, and we have had complaints in the reverse (Why are you saying that the article I created is unimportant?!).

I see three components to this:

• Changing the text displayed on the talk page banners: (e.g., "This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale" → "This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale"). I strongly support doing this.
• Renaming categories is a bigger step (e.g., Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles → Category:Unknown-priority medicine articles). I can weakly support that, but only after reaching out to tool maintainers, etc.
• Changing the wikitext (e.g., {{WikiProject Tulips |importance=Mid}} → {{WikiProject Tulips |priority=Mid}}). I oppose doing this at this time. Instead, I think this should be handled slowly over time, whenever other/substantive edits are being made.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with your three points — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

On inviting WikiProjects, we should be inviting all active and semi-active WikiProjects that are doing assessments. If we don't, we stand to be accused of making a consensus decision "behind closed doors".

On "I don't think we've ever had a group insist that their talk-page banner needs to display the word 'importance' to anyone", I think we would want banners to reflect the terminology used in the projects, otherwise we invite confusion. I wouldn't call my position an insistence, but rather a reasonable concern. Also, I'm not sure why any project would feel a need to have an insistence about something that had the appearance of being long-settled.

On the first component, even though a wording change in a display is certainly a minor effort to accomplish, I have seen no evidence of complaints beyond the anecdotal which would underscore why the change needs to be made. I'm also unsure why anyone whose feelings would be hurt by their article being called "low importance" would feel any better by having their article called "low priority". I am of course very open-minded about this, but the open mind needs hard evidence filled into it. Links to any complaints would be helpful.

On the second component, reports/templates/etc. that are based on the naming of categories would all have to be adapted. In late 2024, we saw a change in the naming of some WP 1.0 categories across all/most projects (_articles to _pages in cases where actual articles weren't involved), and I fear a lot of things are still broken due to that. I've run into quite of number of aspects broken in just the few projects I'm significantly involved with.

On the third component, I agree, given a community decision has been made to proceed on the previous components. Tedious template surgery and bot work will be obviously necessary.

In total, I think unless there is serious evidence underscoring a change, the full length and tediousness of the effort to make these changes is quite heavy in comparison to the anecdotes currently being relied upon to make the change. To be clear, unless all relevant WikiProjects are invited to this discussion, and clear serious evidence is linked to supporting the change, my default position will need to be 'Opposed'. With project involvement and good evidence, my position can be flipped. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@StefenTower, about your idea of inviting "all" the WikiProjects: Do you actually see any practical value in posting MassMessages on the talk pages of defunct and inactive groups? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

No, not really. That's why, to quote myself, I said "we should be inviting all active and semi-active WikiProjects".

To this end, though, my suggestion is not as easy as it reads, as I need to figure out all the active and semi-active WikiProjects who also do assessments. My impulse is to create a query that crosses these two thoughts, but not so fast, as I've realized to my horror, Category:WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments isn't fully populated. Therefore, I'm currently trying to figure out, for this exercise and other things I'd like to do (basically, reports), how to completely fill in this category. I don't want this to depend on any project list where self-reporting is involved. My thought as of now is to make a list of projects that receive daily fill-ins of assessment tables, and then add this category to their front pages if it isn't already there. I performed manual category adds to two major projects, to see if there would be an objection, and there hasn't been any.

So, basically, if all goes well, I am going to generate a list of assessed projects that are also active or semi-active. This will give us an upper limit of 888 projects (active / semi-active).

Let's say when I'm done, the total projects to message to will be 800. Is that too many to mass message to, practically speaking? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that the status of active/semi-active is accurate.

The MassMessage tool can handle tens of thousands, so there are no relevant technical restrictions. The question is really whether there are social restrictions. How many people do we want to yell at us, when their watchlists light up with "unimportant" messages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The status I'm going by is the categorization from each project (typically as set in their front page WikiProject banner), as accurate as that would be.

As for the messages, as you suggest, these would go to the WikiProject talk pages and only the watchers of these WikiProject's front pages would be notified in their watchlists. I could also try to figure out how many watchers we're dealing with. But having something pop up in the watchlist isn't quite as invasive as a direct user talk message.

As for how "unimportant" this message would be perceived to be, I'd suggest if we think participants of WikiProjects wouldn't think this is important, maybe the change proposed isn't important enough to make. It's not like we have to do this. On the other hand, I'd hate to see a few people here agree on a change, then surprise all the projects with that decision's implementation. I see us being yelled at for that. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If you could check the talk page (not the main page) for watchers who actually looked at the talk page during the last 30 days, and maybe cut off at a minimum of 10(?), that would probably reduce the list by filtering out largely inactive groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability?action=info has "Number of page watchers who visited in the last 30 days" of 8. This talk page has 33. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting, reasonable-sounding way to winnow the list. However, I would have to see if I can write a query that figures this out. At any rate, wouldn't it be useful to start with the ~800 list I proposed, and then the winnowing query (to be) would be run on that? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the reason my responses to this matter have been sluggish is my watchlist has been brutal since the Louisville plane crash, on top of everything else I've been working on. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is definitely a WP:NODEADLINE situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been quite backlogged with other tasks, but a lot of that is caught up and I am now working toward building this list. I'll let you know when I'm done (hopefully this weekend). Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

After working on this the past few days, as of now, the base number of WikiProjects to consider is 731 (the ~800 list I mentioned before). I did a Massviews analysis on the number of visits to their talk pages in the past 30 days here. I could maybe write a query to rank these WikiProjects by number of watchers (of course not knowing which watchers are active), but I'm not sure how to query the views from said watchers. This information is available on each page as you stated, but I don't know how to generate it for a list of WikiProjects. Maybe we should just go by talk page views (from Massviews) to keep it relatively straightforward? (does it really matter if a watcher is looking at the talk page?) Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a way to get the number of watchers that actually visited the page during the last 30 days, but it probably involves APIs or something similarly complicated.

How do you feel about using 30 page views (1/day) as the cutoff for your Massviews list vs 60 pages views (2/day)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, between what you say here and me confirming at WP:RAQ, it's an API thing and I have next to zero experience with those at this point.

How about we round off to 2/day, and therefore message the top 333 projects in the list. And it wouldn't hurt to post a link to our discussion in WP:VPR as well. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's do that. We'll need a list in the MassMessage format, and then a message to send and a link for people to discuss it (e.g., to this thread, or to a new one?).

I agree with you about the VPR idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Since this is a fairly small number of messages, and if it's all right with you and other editors here, I will volunteer to meatbot-message to the 333 projects (+ VPR) using AWB, so as to avoid any bureaucracy and special formatting of a list and message. I've sent out a WikiProject newsletter this way before.

So, I think we basically need these to proceed:

1. The RfC (or equivalent discussion) started that outlines what needs to be done and the options for editors to !vote or comment on.
2. Heading and message for me to send.
3. List of 333 projects + VPR we're sending the message to (I will build that shortly using the Massviews results)

Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is the list of message recipients per #3 on my list. I had to update a few of them to noticeboards due to redirects. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've updated your list to what I think is the MassMessage format. Just revert if you don't want to take that route (I was testing how quick and easy it would be to convert it, and the answer is "very". But AWB's a good method, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Given we go with AWB, I may have to revert it back - not sure. But it's good to know we can use the list either way. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Revert away! WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

{outdent}

For the message, I suggest something like this:

---

==Discussion about WikiProject banner templates==

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#something-something.

---

Does that sound like it has enough information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That should work as long as we're limiting it to just the banner change for now. In the proposal, we may want to say this is likely a first step toward eventually changing how this is named in categories and other WikiProject-related infrastructure.

As for my edit summary when sending it, how about "Delivering message from the WikiProject Council"? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I was just thinking we may want to wait until Friday (or later) to send it, to avoid the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I should have enough time cleared on Wednesday December 3 to send out the message. To be clear, am I directing people to this specific discussion or a new one? Should we tag it as an RfC? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Let's start a new ==Section==. This one's long enough, and it might be confusing to land here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, as much of our discussion here hasn't been about the core concern. Could you go ahead and start that? As soon as that's there, I can send out the messages. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@StefenTower, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Messages are sent. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Question: I'm relatively new to WikiProjects, so I want to make sure I know what the question is before answering it. Exactly which "banner" is being discussed? Can you post an example? BetsyRogers (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Look at the WPMED banners on any article tagged by that group, e.g., Talk:Common cold. (Expand the collapsed content to see it.) Each banner has a line that says something like "This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale". The question is whether it should say "Mid-importance" or "Mid-priority" or "Mid-something else". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"Inactive" vs "Defunct"?

When there's a notice on a project page that says "this WikiProject is believed to be inactive" or "this WikiProject is defunct", how is (was) this designation decided? BetsyRogers (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Usually by how long it's been since anyone seemed to be 'at home' there. It's usually measured by the activity on the [former] group's talk page. If nobody's answered any questions on the group's talk page for years, then the group is probably defunct.

You can also look up page stats for people actively watching a given talk page. Look for "Number of page watchers who visited in the last 30 days" on "Page info" (make sure you're checking the talk page, not the main page). For example, the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine was checked by just two (2) editors during the last month [and one of them was me]. Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine also had just two editors, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine had 48 checking its talk page.

You are welcome to WP:REVIVE any group at any time. You don't need permission from anyone or to give notice to anyone. Just recruit some editors, change the status tag, and try to improve Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Consensus against. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 06:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Hey, all, we've been talking about a change to the wording on Template:WPBannerMeta that would affect all of the WikiProject banners on talk pages.

What?

The change would use the word priority instead of importance, like this:

−

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

+

This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

The goal is just to change the text displayed on the talk page banners. The change would be automatic and not require any effort or action on your part.

We're not prepared to consider renaming categories (e.g., Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles → Category:Unknown-priority medicine articles) at this time. We're also not interested in flooding people's watchlists by sending a bot around to change the wikitext (e.g., to change {{WikiProject Tulips |importance=Mid}} → {{WikiProject Tulips |priority=Mid}}). Both of those steps would require updates to bots and tools. The intention is that you can keep typing the same wikitext as you/your favorite rating script always have; the only difference is that the displayed wording will be a little different.

Why?

The original idea was that groups were telling the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which articles were most important to include in offline releases. That has had the unintended effect that some editors are unhappy when a group rates an article as |importance=Low. They feel like their work or interest areas are being labeled unimportant. Also, some groups use these ratings to prioritize articles for improvement, such as a goal of having all "Top" rated articles be improved to a certain level.

Some groups, especially Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, do not rate articles for importance/priority, and would not be affected by this change.

When?

Possibly during the next month or so, depending on what people say.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I think you meant to link to Module_talk:WikiProject_banner#Importance_and_priority. Feel free to remove this message after you've added/fixed the link. Polygnotus (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Grammatically, I think it would be better to say something like "medium priority". (I'm undecided so far on the general concept.) isaacl (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the priority wording to the importance wording. I know mass changes (in categories) are controversial, but I would like a consistent system to reduce confusion for newer editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

If I may be so blunt, I think this is a waste of time. Yes, new editors are occasionally discouraged to see the article they created marked as "low importance", but this is only because they haven't figured out that importance and class ratings don't actually matter. Once this is explained to them, it's no longer an issue. Those same people who are confused about importance ratings will also be unhappy about having their article marked as "low priority". Nothing is actually really broken here, so I reckon it's not worth the effort to try to fix it. MediaKyle (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 to MediaKyle above - this seems a bit unnecessary and doesn't seem to solve the underlying issue. Plus, it would desynchronize the categories with the actual wording on the template, so it won't be a good idea unless the categories are renamed too. HurricaneZeta^C 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose HurricaneZeta^C 20:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Re on the project's priority scale, do all the projects that would display this actually have priority scales, indicating which articles need work first? When editors have evaluated articles' relative importance, has it been meant as an indication of what to prioritise? NebY (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if swapped to "Low-priority", it's going to be insulting to some. "What do you mean my favorite article is low-priority"? Therefore, I don't feel there is a large enough effect to justify a sweeping change. Either we get rid of importance statistics entirely, or accept that people will be insulted. Of course, I don't believe that such things should be entirely removed to appease a small few. There really are some articles about more significant topics than others. This also seems to be based on hearsay, as no examples are provided of editors finding "Low-importance" to be rage-worthy. "Some editors" is extremely vague. "Citation needed". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Lean oppose WP:NOTBROKEN, and importance actually conveys the idea better than priority. (t · c) buIdhe 20:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose BAD IDEA, significantly diffrent meanings, oppose per other opposes, and NOT BROKEN. MisawaSakura (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment — how much work would this entail? I do see a benefit, however I agree with other editors that it might well be marginal (from the perspective of a newbie getting this rating), so if this will take more than a marginal amount of effort. I'm sceptical. No objections in principle though. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  About ten minutes of coding time, I think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I was brought here from an announcement on WT:WPM but the mathematics project templates already use "priority", not "importance". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – While I lean towards support, has anyone considered removing the importance/priority rating scale altogether? Do they actually serve a useful function? —Quondum 20:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I can only speak for my work in WikiProjects, and I attest they do serve a useful function, which is for prioritizing what articles get the most attention for improvement, from the perspective of the WikiProject's subject area. It's just basic project management. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Doing this on a Wikiproject subpage might be a better way to do it, or to make it invisible in the template, or at least invisible-by-default (using some custom CSS class). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'd rather keep the current approach as it's already in place and works well. Using a subpage throws away all the advantages of categories and the wiki database to organize and report by importance/priority. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  That might not need custom CSS. So far as I can tell, each project's template (e.g. {{WikiProject Mathematics}}, {{WikiProject Numbers}}, {{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}) selects the wording by setting |importance= to {{{importance|}}} or {{{priority|}}}, and I think (don't trust me on this) can omit the parameter to omit banner display of either. That's how Talk:Pi shows Mathematics Top-priority but Numbers Top-importance. I suspect a lot of Wikiproject participants don't know this. Some might opt to switch to priority and start using it for project management, some might prefer to make it invisible - if they knew. NebY (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. It can be useful to see "oh! We have three high-importance articles that are stubs!" and statistics like that. It isn't perfect, but it can help direct labour. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  They do have a good function imo. Personally, I often go to low-importance articles in smaller wikiprojects (Like WP Dubai or UAE) to give often neglected pages a better treatment, since in my view, the top importance ones have the most eyes on them. However, the bigger the project, the more useless it is as a function. On the converse, it's somehow also difficult to manage with smaller projects as many articles are unrated, or have ratings that don't make sense. I remember a really important royal here was rated as 'low importance'. And there's the fact that things are very subjective... many American pop culture events may be huge there and thus of high-importance, but have hardly any relevance internationally. It's... an eh feature. jolielover♥talk 15:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  It has been helpful to me when looking for a article to edit on. I am not extremely active as I have limited time, but I enjoy editing and looking at the importance levels on the Wikiprojects I follow helps me find where I want to edit next.KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• I think this is fine. Presumably we can have bots do the bulk of the changes, so there's no huge cost? Another thing that could be done in the same vein would be to just drop the note of how anything is low, and just leave it as the unwritten default. --Joy (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed on both counts. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose = describing an article as high-priority could be mistaken for meaning it urgently needs updating rather than it's actual meaning. Also WP:NOTBROKEN as aleready stated above. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - do you have some examples of people getting annoyed over their articles being called low importance? GarethBaloney (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @GarethBaloney, if you were unhappy with something like this, would you want to be singled out as an example, in a discussion where other editors have dismissed you and your concerns as merely another "fragile" editor and said that Wikipedia is "better off without" you?

  I will tell you instead that I've seen this, and that another editor above says that he's seen it. It's real but not common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose we shouldn't give the impression that certain articles within a project's scope always need more attention/edits than others, and if anything, I'd be more inclined to go with the idea Quondum mentioned where we just get rid of importance/priority ratings altogether. Those provide little to no benefit. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Per your last sentence, since this is a project management tool, I would say they have significant benefit to projects interested in such management (for organizing work priorities), and little/no to those who don't. If a project wants to opt out, that's perfectly fine by me, but we shouldn't want to take away a tool that many projects continue to use. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I have four project pages on my watch list, and I don't see any of them paying attention to importance rankings, except to complain that such-and-such article is not given a high enough ranking. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I have three on my watchlist consistently, and I don't recall seeing any complaints like that. People usually just change the setting if they think it's too low. But let's realize that over 1,100 WikiProjects participate in assessments, so we can't pretend to speak for them all. Also, I do actually use these settings in my WikiProject work, and tend to spend more time in articles that are more central/pertinent to the WikiProject's subject area. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a big difference between priority and importance. Priority implies work is needed, whereas important means how critical the article is to the project. Noah, BSBA^Talk 22:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with this explanation. This function isn't about how important an article itself is but if its important to the overall project. Priority does give it a feeling or urgency that is not needed. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Another make-work project that will light up my watchlist for no reason. If there are any fragile "contributors" who think the importance ranking of an article by a project is a personal affront to them, then we are much better off without them. I have not found importance rankings helpful in any case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Ssilvers, the proposed change will be completely invisible to your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. That's a relief. But I don't think the change would be helpful, and, indeed, I agree that "priority" is even worse. So, let's just remove the very subjective and unhelpful "importance" parameter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  What wording would you use instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Just remove the mention of low importance from the talk page banners. --Joy (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Projects typically have standards for deciding the importance (usually, the proximity to their subject area and thus work priority). It is helpful to projects that use it for their project management. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current banner isn’t a problem; although importance/priority is a useless feature in my opinion. I would support removing the option altogether as nobody seems to really use it in any meaningful way in the wikiprojects I am active in.4meter4 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine is organizing a project right now that's focused on Category:Top-importance medicine articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure there are a few exceptions to the rule. In general the high importance tag is placed on articles with high visibility in a subject area (ie lots of page hits) or that is part of a core concept within a WikiProject's scope. These aren't necessarily articles in bad shape needing editing, so I don't necessarily think "importance" ratings help target editing in many cases. I note too that the banners as used right now aren't assessing priority which is not the same thing as importance. Swapping them out isn't just a matter of word choice, it's changing what is fundamentally being measured. This would require reassessing every article. This seems ill advised.4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree with the sentiment that the word change is too dissimilar to the original and that's why it is disqualifying. I'd argue the change aligns better with how the rating system is used; as a project management tool for organizing and tracking effort. Regardless, I think it is a bad idea to have the banner wording be different from the wording used in the tracking categories. If we're being considerate to new editors it is this kind of disconnect we should be avoiding. That stuff is confusing. ⇌ Synpath 22:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support - it's a small but symbolic change. I write about tropical cyclone articles, and in theory, Wikipedia should cover every tropical cyclone, since they're an object of science research, and any single one could become a destructive force of nature. The standard has been to have articles for each season of storms in the body of water that they form in ("2025 Atlantic hurricane season" for example). Some seasons don't have any bad storms, so it's would be listed as low importance. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. It's easy to see "low-importance" as "trivia", but that's not the case. It's just a lower priority compared to a season with a lot of destructive storms. An article being labeled "top priority" does sound even more important than one saying "top importance", which doesn't have a good ring to it. Even "Mid priority" and "High priority" are both linguistic improvements over "mid/high importance". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Both importance and priority are in the eye of the beholder. Editors contribute according to their interests and the sources available to them. Kerry (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Point of clarity: No matter what term we use ('importance' or 'priority'), what I think we're talking about is an article subject's proximity to a WikiProject's subject area, in the range from bulls-eye (Top) down to peripheral (Low). This setting is not to tell any single editor how important an article is to them. This setting is for project management - that is, a group of editors deciding what articles, by way of proximity to their subject area, should get higher priority for development by their group. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. It's an attempt by one group of people (or sometimes just one person) to try to tell other people what to work on. I don't think that's a terribly successful approach to take to active Wikipedians, who are inherently highly self-motivated. Kerry (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's not telling. It is suggesting. Editors are free to work on anything they choose to work on. But from the standpoint of any particular subject area, there are bulls-eye topics and there are peripheral topics. And some editors have a motivation to work on bulls-eye (or close to bulls-eye) topics more than others, so assigning importance/priority will be for their work. Everyone is free to follow their own personal motivation. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll always say that if a person finds an issue with a word, the problem is not the word. Now, regarding disappearing the parameter as mentioned by another person, each WikiProject can discuss it on their own, but we should seriously start encouraging WikiProjects to refrain using them if they are not really using its purpose. In an ideal organized WP, the importance would look like this: Category:Unknown-importance Madonna articles. That WP is relatively small, so it is easy to organize. Then, for example, you have Category:Unknown-importance United States articles listing 95,614 articles as of this comment (a number that increases daily). Is this project seriously taking "importance" as a parameter for something? I can even assert that at least 85,000 to 90,000 of these articles will fall into the Low-importance category and I highly doubt that any of them would be rated Top. WPUS already lists 220 top-priority articles, wouldn't it be better for them to create Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Core like Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies or Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Core and update their vital-to-the-project articles rather than having four other categories listing 525,456 no-that-vital-to-the-project articles? This of course in the case of that WP, but many projects look the same, as if the importance status was simply inherited from the 1.0 and not integrated into the project's working areas. In my view, we should ask projects whether or not they use importance parameters at all as many other projects don't even use importances and others have ceased their use. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. I think we should ditch the notion of "importance", "priority", "proximity" etc. An article is within the topic space of a project or itisn't; I don't think it needs a scale for that purpose. And I would suggest that projects might like to consider having automated ORES quality ratings. I already use the Rater tool for that purpose. I figure whether it is right or wrong with its assessment, it is at least impartial (some editors seem to think everything they work on is high quality!). Kerry (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I would be much more enthused about updating "unknown importance" article categories to "unspecified importance" than changing "importance" to "priority" TBH. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 00:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Good idea, although currently we show nothing in the banner if it's 'unknown'. So, we're just potentially upsetting talk-page banner editors or those who look at WikiProject categories with the current practice. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 00:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think there's a compromise possible here, too - in the condensed banner shell view, we could just drop the light pink "Low-importance" label, and in the expanded view we could remove the bolding on "Low" and "Low-importance". It's just not a piece of information that requires any sort of emphasis. --Joy (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  For that matter, maybe just make "Low" or "Low-importance" invisible. Only display if it's Mid or above. Would this work as well for you? Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's okay to show it in the expanded view, as long as it's not emphasized. But removing it from that view, and have it be visible only through categories, is also fine. --Joy (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Hmmm... maybe something like what we're discussing might work as an alternative proposal. Thank you for your thoughts! Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Some WikiProjects are too big for importance to be of any use. US is one of them. I think such WikiProjects should consider ditching it altogether, like how LGBTQ+ & Biography have. jolielover♥talk 15:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I worry that the amount of experienced editor time it would take to properly transition to the new system, especially if category renamings are involved, is more expensive than the benefit of changing the wording. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose like what @Hurricane Noah stated, importance != priority. A topic may be important to the project but it may not be a priority. I.e. the founding fathers of a nation. These articles are important but are likely developed to the point where it is no longer a priority of the project to continue active content development and structuring in the foreseeable future. These are two separate measures, albeit subjective, and if implemented would require editors to reassess every single article there. I may have no qualms with it being an additional measure, but this as an alternative is not being discussed here. – robertsky (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. I do not like the idea of getting rid of the importance tag at all, as it would be have a major impact on WikiProjects that use that feature to organize, and the people who don't use WikiProjects largely don't even know what the feature was/is used for in the first place. I am very active in WikiProject Toys and WikiProject Museums, both of which use the Importance scale. WP:NOTBROKEN as well. ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, the proposal is not about getting rid of 'importance' but simply renaming it. There is another suggested proposal in comments about chucking it all, but that's not what we're deciding for this proposal. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 00:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I am also aware and just didn't articulate this very well, my apologies. When I said I didn't want it gotten "rid of," what I mean to say that in any capacity I don't want it changed at all; not removed or changed. I also agree with the idea others in the thread have said that the word Importance is more clear than priority, but that does not actually matter to me as much as just having it be left alone. It being changed in any way just seems like a waste of time and manpower to implement this or any of the other proposed ideas from the comment thread when WP:NOTBROKEN. ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is no need to worry about such semantic perceived issues. Some WikiProjects use "priority" whereas others use "importance" for tagging, but both effectively convey the same point. This proposed change would not yield the intended changes that OP thinks it would. It is not our duty to adjust to misconceptions about technical aspects. The goal is to monitor and track articles with these tags. Let's not get carried away with essentially minute changes. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This reminds me a bit of discussion about AFC "decline" debate a little while back: in both cases the occasional bruised feelings come from the underlying assessment (draft deemed not ready for mainspace, or article as not central to a WikiProject) than from the specific word choice. I don’t think we can nomenclature our way out of the potential for perfectly valid disappointment. And fwiw, I’ve seen (minor) conflict about class (below GA level) but never any about importance. Zzz plant (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: Based on pre-discussion, this discussion, and my own project experience, I do understand it would be helpful to have a term that is more clear (not just for some users' feelings but for clarity itself), but for a couple reasons, I don't think 'priority' is it. For one, there are projects, including one I'm involved in, that already use 'priority' (in addition to 'importance') to mean something else. Secondly, neither term convey what is meant in apparently most cases – proximity to the WikiProject's subject area. But to use a different term would require more technical work to implement, and I begin to wonder more about cost vs. benefit. Perhaps the ultimate solution should be to hide the importance setting altogether in the banner, and have the importance categories be hidden on the talk page (so only users wanting to see hidden categories will see them). But to do even that would require significant technical surgery. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 01:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I forgot the third reason I had in mind why 'priority' is not the best term, and I brought this up in pre-discussion (and I see others have brought it up here)... 'low-priority' doesn't seem to be a term that would salve the feelings of someone upset over the use of 'low-importance'. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 01:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't mean to supplant the proposal, but I just went through the exercise of searching for better terms, I come up with 'pertinence' and 'relevance'. Would "Low-pertinence" or "Low-relevance" be any less potentially upsetting than "Low-importance"? Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  The term that came to my mind is significance (of the topic). In wikispeak perhaps notability. (How much does WP-notability differ from generic notability?) One could distinguish between core and peripheral topics for a project - but I'm not coming up with a 3-word ranking. But weak oppose on grounds of WP:NOTBROKEN.

  (I think that the importance scale is compounding two axes - the relevance to a field, and a generic/specific distinction. Articles on genera are more important than articles on species, but they're equally relevant - similarly articles on higher taxa at principle ranks are more important than either; but with complications for economic or cultural significance, so an article on rice is more important than an article on a liverwort family.) Lavateraguy (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think "pertinence" seems to best capture the intent, combining a sense of relevance and significance. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  The term is growing on me as well, and I think it's now my most favored choice, if we end up changing the term. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 21:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hurricane Noah, "priority" and "importance" have different meanings and marking a high-quality article as Top-Priority would falsely imply that it was sorely in need of improvement. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Mild support, but it doesn't seem this is going to be accepted. All projects should use the same term, whichever it is. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:NOTBROKEN. This is a big confusion for the normal readers who doesn't edit here or to newcomers. Is anything big difference to 'Importance' and 'Priority'? And what does it mean to 'Priority' of the assessment of an article? I also suggest if this is wanting to use this 'Priority' assessment, it should be at least relevant to the WikiProject. As a member of Tambayan Philippines, I don't think we need this. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Please also note that this is good idea of 'Priority' assessment, but I think it should be discussed this more and where should put that assessment. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:NOTBROKEN and Trailblazer101's thoughts on the matter. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• This is a bit of bike shedding but I'm vaguely in support of it. The very few times I can recall these rankings ever being looked at, I would say priority fit what they were being used for a bit better than importance. CMD (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I personally don't care about the wording, but I will oppose creating a mismatch between the wording and the parameter and category. I won't support partial work. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support. The "importance" scale is very useful for WikiProjects, but I don't like the term "importance". Many deadly events are marked "low importance". I can understand why that wouldn't sit right with people. I also agree, though, that "priority" doesn't exactly capture what we're going for, as that implies judgement on the current state of the article. Maybe "relevance" is better? That emphasizes that different WikiProjects can have different ratings for the same article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Good thinking, I like relevance better than importance. Although, we might still want to avoid making it sound like a value judgement on the article and/or its topic. Thinking about how likely it is someone might react with: "What do you mean this article isn't relevant in this field?!"

  Maybe a better word could be "focus"? That might convey the intent better, that it's more about the way the article is understood from the perspective of the WikiProject.

  I imagine there would be far fewer people who would think "What do you mean this article isn't in the focus of this field?!", compared to the situation with 'importance' or 'relevance' or 'priority'. --Joy (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  "Centrality"?

  That concept might not make sense for non-subject-area groups (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyediting or Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup), but they might not be rating articles anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I like centrality a lot. The most important articles for a topic are also the most central; there are no unimportant articles, just more peripheral ones; subjects that have less influence and aren't core tenets or influential events or [insert topic-appropriate thing here]. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  I came across 'proximity' when looking at alternative words, but 'centrality' seems better than that. The only issue I see with using either is with geographic WikiProjects. For example, WikiProject Louisville covers the metropolitan area, but a high-importance subject in the area, Fort Knox, isn't exactly central, spatially speaking. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 05:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose that's also fine, but it does seem like a bit of a niche word in comparison. I checked a Flesch-Kincaid calculator, and centrality has a grade level of 32, as does proximity, while relevance and importance have 20, and focus has 8. --Joy (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Which is to say: centrality and proximity have four syllables each, relevance and importance have three, and focus has two. That's all that calculator was counting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I sense you're not impressed by that poor man's measure :) regardless, it's still reasonable to ponder whether we're using too specialized a term, given that the reason we're here is a risk of people not understanding something. --Joy (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'd rather a precise term that most people will understand than an imprecise term that anyone can misunderstand. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Well, that's exactly the problem - we don't really know that most people would understand what we mean by it, especially in phrases like 'top centrality' or 'mid centrality'. --Joy (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  See also Wikipedia:Readability tools. :-D WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  As the discussion has gone on, I think my current favorite is 'pertinence' (3 syllables) but we could decide to shorten that to a 2-syllable 'pertain', and have settings like 'top-pertain' -> 'low-pertain'. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  From a grammar perspective, I don't agree with using something like "low-pertain". I think it's confusing to use a verb in this way. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I completed my thought. The setting would be something like "pertain=low" (less typing, easier to spell) but show as "Low Pertinence". Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I still think it's confusing, even if only for those reading the source using the template (it doesn't make sense to assign a rating to a verb). If someone needs to save keystrokes, they can use the keyboard macro/shortcut abilities provided by their operating system, or copy from a reference file. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think most rating is done with a script, so key strokes aren't very relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fine as well with "pertinence=Low" but I was just trying to make it more editor-friendly. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Importance is handled by WP:VITAL. :_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose not broken as per others, so doesn't need this "fix". Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Priority" implies that it indicates how immediate of attention an article needs, while "importance" is dependent on the project (like how American Motors Corporation is High-importance for WikiProject Automobiles, but Mid-importance for WikiProject Wisconsin, as it looms larger in the former topic area than the latter). --Sable232 (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Per several comments above, priority is not the same as importance. George Washington is top-importance, but it is not high-priority as it is already at FA. Scolaire (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per other opposes. NOTBROKEN, different meaning, may lead to confusion. 'Low-priority' sounds as negative as 'Low-importance' to me, aside from the meaning. Electorus (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Priority != importance, and far from being a quiet change that wouldn't flood watchlists, this would trigger much confusion and editing, as editors first went to correct the newly displayed priority but found only an |importance= parameter, then worked it out and edited the rating on large numbers of articles. NebY (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support. Calling it "importance" was wrong from the beginning. We should not be making value judgments in Wikivoice. --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:WIKIVOICE applies to content within an article, not the talk page or a subpage within a WikiProject. Besides, changing the term to "priority" wouldn't extinguish that concern. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  You two might be interested in Wikipedia:Notability and due weight, in which @Aquillion proposes that editors could sometimes be just a little less pedantic about which words/links are used to wave at a general concept. (Naturally, I have not agreed with them, but more reasonable editors might appreciate what they've written.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as importance and priority are two different things. Priority would apply if the page was linked from the main page, or it was a current event or there was some urgent need to edit the page. Vital ratings would have looked at importance values to help determine what to include. It is not independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Lean Oppose – Like someone mentioned above, priority could change how the current system is utilized. Once an article reaches a particular state (e.g. Featured Article), a WP member might determine that it's priority needs to be lowered. But in the current system, its importance wouldn't change. Now is that a good thing? Perhaps, which is why I'm only leaning against. I think it needs to be understood that the intended functionality is likely to change before !voting to change it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  This is a great example. This change could indeed change the the functionality of this tool to those that don't know the history/purpose. Priority gives a sense of urgency, so an important article to a project could very well be lowered for loosing urgency on the article. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I understand and support the criticism of "Low Importance", I do not support the use of "Low Priority". It makes it sound like it is a "priority" of Wikipedia, and not an assessment of the topic's centrality to the greater nexus of ideas it fits into. (oh, what jargon I've got today!) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Hurricane Noah. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, as others have said, Importance and Priority have different meanings.--DavidCane (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)--DavidCane (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• On the one hand, I appreciate the advantage of aligning terminology, so experience gained with one wikiproject can be useful when participating in another. On the other hand, English Wikipedia has a long tradition of letting wikiprojects manage their own internal matters themselves. Thus I think wikiprojects should be able to use the nomenclature they prefer. If they choose to use a different word, more power to them! isaacl (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose not a very significant change. Priority doesn't sound any less 'negative' than importance. I think any problems with this importance system comes not from the wording of it, but the system itself being useless when a WikiProject is too large. jolielover♥talk 15:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose this is a solution, but to what problem? I don't think many people will be offended by working on articles labelled low-importance, most people that I've met don't. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 02:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Support this could really help bring new editors along and is a much more [[WP:Precise]] term than ‘importance' ~2025-39521-77 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose After reading through this discussion I am opposed to this change. On surface level I thought it was a good idea, but the change in vocabulary could create a change in the overall function of the tool. This change is proposed to help editors that don't understand this tool, if editors that don't understand the reason for this tool and go off or priority level, they could see it as a ranking for how urgently an article needs help rather than the intended importance level of an article to an overall project. For those that understand the use of this tool it wouldn't make much a difference, but those that don't understand it could be more confused. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Support. I think that priority works better than importance--low priority sounds more relative, while low importance is meant to be relative but doesn't convey that as clearly. But I do think that the categories should be changed as well if we implement this change. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not enough of an improvement to make up for the potential confusion having both terms in circulation would create. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another single-person group

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 6#Template:WikiProject Corgis. I've already moved the page to the editor's userspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Making English city districts coextensive with their namesake cities

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See Wikipedia:Help desk#Making English city districts coextensive with their namesake cities – Please don't start multiple discussions on the same subject.

---

On the City of Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Doncaster, Wakefield, and Salford districts’ pages, it states that they consist of their namesake cities and other places, when actually those places became part of the namesake cities when the districts were formed, just like when Greater London was formed, many areas outside London became part of it. Because of this, I believe it would be a good idea to make these districts coextensive with their namesake cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this about WikiProject coverage for these districts? WikiProjects is what we discuss here. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject Runology

Blockhaj recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Runology, Category:WikiProject Runology, and Template:User WP:Runology. Ingwina signed up as a participant after a discussion at User talk:Ingwina#Renovating the rune-articles > Naming convention.

They are both long-time editors, so this is different from the usual newbie trying to find some fellow fans. But two-person WikiProjects still have a long history of failure, so we've been adjusting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals process to discourage this. My question for all of you is: Do you think we could find half a dozen editors who might be interested in this niche subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The project is still in its infancy and i personally havent advertised it to anyone beyond Ingwina yet. I believe we could fairly easily find half a dozen editors who would be interested in the project, but i also dont think we need more than maybe 3-4 active people in practice. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 00:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Our experience over the years is that most groups need 6 to 10 editors, because half of them will lose interest (6 to 10 now becomes 3 or 4 a year from now). There's no deadline here, but please give some thought to recruiting editors when you can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

tagging inactive task force

If a task force's banner warns that it "is believed to be inactive", should I not tag it on a Talk page (for assessment of the article) and instead tag only its parent WikiProject? rootsmusic (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

We have no requirements. Do whatever you think is best. Tag one, both, or neither if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)