PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

    Shortcut

    Shouldn't member lists be deprecated?

    Most of those I've seen around are heavily outdated. Active/inactive project judgement is based mostly on discussion and talk pages. Templates also point towards "joining a WikiProject by talking to us".

    Then, what are member lists for?

    Of course, they could be kept just out of habit. Then they would be condemned either to remain inaccurate, or to occupy some precious time of an editor in charge of keeping them up to date, or automatically maintained by some bot with questionable criteria (someone who edits a lot in Wikipedia but not so much in the project's scope would be considered active? What if they don't ever participate in discussions? What if the scope evolves in time?...)

    The way I see it, we should just get rid of them, so I ask here in case they serve any purpose I've failed to see so far.

    Hathor1719 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    They're sometimes used/were formerly used to find editors individually, e.g., to deliver notices to. Wikipedia:WikiProject X has a system that auto-updates the lists so they only show active editors. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members for an example of this.
    You could talk to Novem Linguae about whether User:Yapperbot/Pruner could update any lists that you happen to care about. It might be nice to have that done more generally, but that would require someone to organize it across ~2,000 pages, and it might be a lot of work due to varying formats, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the bot! I'll try later to set it up.
    And with respect to finding individual members, I think there are already enough help resources for editors, as well as talk pages. Otherwise why would someone want to find a specific individual in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia?
    For news delivering it is useful, but then it wouldn't be a "membership" list. For example, I can be very interested in the output of a project but have no time for contributing to it. And in this case such lists wouldn't require maintainance because of their nature of a newsletter.
    So I still don't see their usefulness, they seem a hindrance. Hathor1719 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if you're going to set up this bot on any particular project and are new to it, it's best to ask on the project's talk page first. Editors can get grouchy if overly bold things are done in their area without any attempt to get talk page responses or a consensus first. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 06:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I also just noticed many changes you've made at WP Environment. It doesn't appear you've joined that project nor have you discussed your changes on their Talk page. That's kind of a "thin ice" situation. You may want to at least describe what you've done so far on the project's Talk page. At least don't be surprised if a participant there decides to revert your work. Best to cover your bases, like in any organization. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 07:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind if someone "from the project" reverts any or all the edits, I don't think anything I edit in Wikipedia is "of my own", I just try to improve what I enjoy or care for and if someone doesn't agreee they're free to revert it. I never engage in "edit wars". In the case of WikiProject Environment, I didn't write in the talk page because I had no doubt, most changes were cosmetic, half of the main page couldn't be read in dark mode, many links and tasks were outdated, there was a lot of repetitive information... and anything controversial I explained in the edit summary.
    It is curious that below you say no one forces another to list themselves in the "member list", but then you say that I have changed the WikiProject "without adding myself" (which was on purpose, since I don't believe in such lists). See what I mean? Such additional bureaucracy tends to make people think they "own" the scope and pages of the WikiProject, to the point where I have to announce I am going to try and improve a page that looks mostly inactive, just for the sake of not upsetting some self given owner rights to the members of an outdated list.
    With respect to the news deliver, I receive for example news from Abstract Wikipedia, but I am not part of the project nor plan to be.
    I am not trying to push all Wikipedia to believe as myself or change how they organise around WikiProjects. However, I came here to ask because, no matter how much I think about it, I still see no real value in those outdated member lists. I was hoping the WikiProject Council would provide a different perspective, and, if not, I just wanted to give you mine, in case you might take it into account in the future.
    It is not a matter of engaging or not, it is a matter of what I believe is better for Wikiepdia's future. Hathor1719 (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While you don't have to list yourself in the project, listing yourself there before making quite a number of changes is a pragmatic choice. You did the equivalent of coming in off the street and changing the face of the organization, as it were. If the participants there like it, they like it, but the issue is assuming they will like it with no communication with them first. A WikiProject is not like an article - they represent groups of people, a community if you will. Respect that, please. Showing courtesy is the norm here.
    I also receive news from Abstract Wikipedia, but I had to sign up first. You have to sign up somewhere - and in a WikiProject, it might as well be the participant list. You can also suggest to a project that has newsletters to maintain a separate list for those deliveries, and maybe they will agree with your suggestion.
    The bottom line is you can have all the ideas you like for the future of Wikipedia (and I have many myself), but you also have to take others' opinions into account as part of your efforts. Nobody gets to steamroll over anyone in the Wikipedia. That approach wouldn't play in any organization or place of employment you may choose to join in your life. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 07:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I understand correctly, what you mean is that WP:bold does not apply to WikiProjects? Because when I see a useful change for an article I don't have to sign up anywhere, or ask for permission in its talk page. Wikipedia wouldn't have grown so much if such was the standard procedure (and backlogs keep growing). Last time I checked, Wikipedia isn't either an organization or employer for its editors, it advertises itself as free to all and able to be edited by all (I know there are pages protected from vandalism, but such protection is not the norm). I don't see the point of comparing a Wikiproject where everyone can (in principle) participate with a company.
    And my point about newsletters, is that the only practical usefulness I see for membership lists are when they work as newsletter lists. I am not saying to add yet another user list. I am saying it would look better globally in all those Wikiprojects with outdated lists if they had a subscription list instead, and also minimize the manual work or bot updates. Hathor1719 (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You can be bold and explain your set of changes to the folks at that WikiProject. It's common courtesy. And it is indeed best to think of a WikiProject as an organization - again, it is a group of people. Making a large swath of changes without discussing it with them is not the best way to go. And I think you may naturally know this. Arguing against this reasonable paradigm isn't quite worth our time here. Arguing against communications and giving head's up when a group of other folks and their opinions is involved falls flat.
    As for your position on newsletters, you may have whatever position you desire, but any changes to a member listing approach should ordinarily have a discussion with the affected WikiProject. "Bold" doesn't mean doing major changes that tear through others' work without discussion. Never has meant that. Please show courtesy to others. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 09:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but I am still confused. Why do I need to post on the discussion page and the edit summary? Why is it not courteous to fix something without discussing it first? As I said, I (at least tried) to explain in the edition summary everything which wasn't a direct fix, or could raise doubts, and the expected readers of such messages are the participants in the project. Again, this seems to prove my point. Member lists seem more an unwritten "official policy" for a most likely outdated list rather than something which is improving the nature of WikiProjects.
    On a side note (and we can continue this in my talk page because this is not really too relevant to the question I posed), I don't agree either with what you claim of viewing Wikipedia as "my organization" or "my employer" as an editor (WP:NOTBURO). Also, when you say "Please be courteous", it seems I am not being, and so far I have just received thanks for the edits in WikiProject Environment. As I said, if someone reverts, I won't start an edit war, and if someone asks me about the changes, I'll reply. That is courtesy for me, duplicating explanaitions and awaiting for consensus on something which isn't a policy, is bureaucracy in my view, not courtesy.
    Regardless, I will wait to see what other participants in this project think about what I asked in my first message. I came to discuss this here - a project without a member list and working perfectly - because I want the input of those involved in the maintainance of WikiProjects. However what I have heard so far doesn't still change my view that member lists are useless and just cause problems, and it is okay, we can disagree and I thank you for the debate. Communication is already achieved via edit summaries or talk pages if that is not enough', newsletter functionality is okay but a different thing...
    I know I am not the only one with such a view, otherwise {{User all WikiProjects}} wouldn't exist. I just would like to hear, if possible, different arguments from those in favour and those against these member lists, as I said, in case there is something I am missing. Hathor1719 (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue with the changes to WP:ENV. But keep in mind that Communication is often required. A policy asks for minimum expectation, but never set the maximum. Even a simple, proactive heads-up will go a long way. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the nomenclature in one wikiproject I originally started. I changed from "members" to "listed participants". Eventually, I may make this change in additional projects. After all, we're not running membership clubs, but rather action centers for editors. At any rate, there can still be usefulness to being on a list within a project, like for providing assistance on subject-area topics, receiving special communications from the project, or just to show you're involved and doing something. Ultimately it is up to the editor to de-list themselves, but pruning the list from time to time of very inactive or indefinitely blocked accounts may be useful. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 22:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, news delivery can be achieved independently from any kind of membership and isn't necessarily related to it. For showing involvement as an editor, we already have individual contributions, recent changes, userboxes, and all the bots which count different statistics. And one can help in a subject area without being on a list, just by adding to the watch list the respective help/content page and being active there.
    So I still believe they should be deprecated, I don't see any kind of usefulness. Nevertheless, hank you for your perspective. I guess people like lists and badges a lot, I am just against any kind of unnecessary bureaucracy. Hathor1719 (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your thoughts. If news delivery can be achieved independently... how? Since the WikiProject already has a list of people, just go off that. No need to reinvent the wheel. Also, membership in a WikiProject is not suggested as the only way to participate - it's just one way. Wikipedians are free to participate in any way that comports with the policies and guidelines of the site. If you are against "unnecessary bureaucracy", nobody is making you get involved in any of that. But for people who enjoy the kind of involvement WikiProjects provide for, we have their needs covered too. Participate the way you want to. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 06:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just a place for editors to show support for WikiProjects they like. I wouldn't worry too much about keeping these up to date. Them being out of date probably doesn't break anything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A general practice to shift actually inactive editors to an inactive list might help direct a new user to an actually active user in rare cases, however this is overall inactivity rather than inactivity within the project (however that might be measured). CMD (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So you mean it is rare that a new user searches for an active user within the project by looking at the member list, right? If that doesn't happen frequently, I guess it doesn't break too much the system overall (moreso if active/inactive projects are measured with respect to discussion pages) and just works as some kind of historical showcase, if I understood correctly what you mean. Hathor1719 (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to know how often it happens, but it is very rare that I've seen evidence of it happening. I have seen more experienced editors try and filter the lists themselves when looking to revive a project a couple of times. CMD (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does happen. Some people are more comfortable contacting individuals than posting for the whole group. Maybe it seems less intimidating to a newcomer? Or perhaps you look through the list and see a familiar name, so you go ask your wiki-friend personally. I do think they should be kept somewhat up to date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a plausible explanation. CMD (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposing a new WikiProject Astrobiology

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no WikiProject on astrobiology. I would like to create it. As you can see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology), WikiProject Biology has several subprojects under its umbrella, but none of them is astrobology or similar. Astrobiology is such a broad topic, from the search of microbial life on the solar system to the search of extraterrestrial life in the galaxy and beyond that I think it deserves its own WikiProject. Astropedian (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC) User:DocWatson42 User:Aldaron User:Viriditas User:Vsmith User:Kalidasa 777 User:Marskell[reply]

    Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. Are all of you planning to work on this together? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you kindly for the invitation, but I decline. Good luck! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would like to be part of WikiProject Astrobiology Grantus4504 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am still busy looking for intelligent life on Earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. I've been to many countries on 5 continents, and I refuse to accept that human beings are the highest form of life in the universe. I'm in. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to avoid the trap of hierarchical thinking, à la scala naturae. There is no higher or lower here. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just know that the highest or lowest life form in the world is due to our point of view and if we change it even slightly we can see that possibly we could possibly be nothing in the scale of many galaxies. That's what makes astronomy and nowadays related games especially Space Engine that interesting. So, I am on no higher or lower side. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see the scientific validity of your opinion; however, IF I were an ET with higher technology, I would definitely want to stay out of the crosshairs of human mentality and weapons. As I myself am one of those humans, I would definitely consider such an ET to be of higher intelligence and wisdom! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Science fiction authors have pursued just about every angle of this problem. In many cases, the idea that such speculative species are of greater intelligence, and let's say even wisdom, does not make them superior, and in many cases presents several flaws that can be exploited. The Borg of Star Trek and the Tet of Oblivion are just two examples. There are hundreds more. Best to be skeptical, and not give in to astonishment. ("What does god need with a starship?") From our position, a more advanced species will likely be perceived as evil, just as an ant perceives a boot stomping on its hive as an enemy. The Vogons destroyed the Earth to make way for a hyperspace route, just as we destroy native habitats every day to make way for roads. I believe it is far more likely that an advanced species will not share our moral compass or ethical concerns. The idea that they would is likely an artifact of 20th century naïveté. Rod Serling famously made this point. Stay vigilant. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that! SF is so, well, restricted is the word, I guess. It's restricted to human imagination, limited to the edges of our minds. Reality lies beyond those edges. We must all stay vigilant, the price we must pay to maintain freedom! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't but i think i going on science fiction but these are my own views:
    But another thing is that the so called aliens could not have that much great luck like use. Like think about our solar system and thing we are lucky that we don't have some of the exotic and monster stars like red supergiant, O-type and B-type stars, etc like within 100 ly and not talking about all other astronomical objects and then think in alien point of view like if they have a similar earth like planet everything almost same but just a thing that in there constellation that blue or red bright star is within like 50 ly and there is a high chance that those can go supernova before there system proper motion etc save them. Then i think there main objectives would be not human not colonisation but those bright stars even if they are ahead of us in everything. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me wrong, I do love the subject of astrobiology. The thing is... it's a science. And as a science it would prefer to use the scientific method to study the prospect of life elsewhere than Earth. As project members who are not necessarily scientists, we would probably be okay with imaginative speculation. There's an entire Universe chock full of black holes and other exotic features. That also includes the possibility that life elsewhere might not be "life as we know it", but instead might be other than carbon-based. Nucleic acids may not be the only biomolecules in the universe capable of coding for life processes. The farther away we look, the longer in the past we see. Such a project has the potential to really have its hands full! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ...prefer to use the scientific method to study the prospect of life elsewhere than Earth... That's called science fiction. You may not like it, but that's what it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is fiction with a prospect of becoming non-fiction. For those of us who support the science of astrobiology, we should recognize the need for skepticism to keep the project grounded. Since the idea of life elsewhere than Earth is as yet unsubstantiated, moving forward will also require an article of faith. It will take more than a strange bit of radio signal data to convince a skeptical populace. See also {{Extraterrestrial life}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To bring this back to a WP:NOTFORUM discussion, the validity of the subject is not at issue when determining whether to OK a new WikiProject. It's basically down to whether there are enough editors willing to participate and whether there is enough coverage in article space to warrant it. The latter part is covered, as far as I can see, when looking at Category:Astrobiology. And it's only a growing field, with governments behind the efforts. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I informed you on your user page, I would like to join this. Normally I'm focused on geographical subjects, but this subject area intrigues me. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work, I will be happy to join. But i it will be better to link it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, where Astronomy WikiProject is the parent WikiProject Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be assumed that WP Astronomy and WP Biology would be parent projects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Task forces can have multiple "parents". The idea of a parent project is strictly informal anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @StefenTower@WhatamIdoingThat what's my objective with Astronomy Working group, a Working group dedicated to unite all regularly work astronomy related things like not only only Astronomy, Spaceflight, Astrobiology, etc. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Astropedian (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, That's a good idea. Hey @StefenTower,I want to know what are the topics, i want to be familiar with them. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perusal of astrobiology should be helpful here. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WhatamIdoing Do we have green light? Astropedian (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Astropedian The approval for a new WikiProject comes from a consensus in the discussion here. As far as I can tell, we have three participants in the new WikiProject, including myself. In my view, that's not quite enough to go with. WikiProjects can peter out, so you probably need around 10 at least to start. Have you asked around on the talk pages of all related WikiProjects? the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - not enough people. Normally new projects start with an energetic phase of article-tagging, then peter out. With a small group you can coordinate things without the need for a project. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just asked in biology, so I will ask in the rest. Astropedian (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The FAQ near the top of this talk page might be helpful. For example,
    Q7: I want to start a WikiProject. Am I required to advertise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and/or have a specific number of editors support it?
    A7: No, there are no requirements. However, new WikiProjects, especially new groups that are proposed by new editors, rarely remain active for longer than a few months unless there are at least six or eight active editors involved at the time of creation.
    So... perhaps WikiProject Astrobiology's time has come? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be much more optimistic about the group's long-term success if there were six interested editors. I'd suggest that the current three start working together in a userspace group or as a WP:TASKFORCE of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy for now, and work on recruiting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd personally prefer a userspace group as the rigmarole surrounding creation of a taskforce in an existing project is more than I care to deal with. It would be like another big round of negotiation/discussion and potential rejection. With a user group, you just do it. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Astropedian @StefenTower,Can you guys help in building and improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astronomy working group/Members, made in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a specific request here? Also, I'm not sure why a working group would have a title or topic coverage that matches the project at-large. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, It is, i mean this Working group can be also helpful for your WikiProject. Sorry for the name, But at the time and till now i have not found a better name. Abdullah1099 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't see how an undefined working group within Astronomy has something to do with eventually creating a WikiProject Astrobiology. You may want to flesh out what the working group is for on its page. I saw in WP Astronomy's project talk that other members don't understand its purpose. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You can WP:MOVE the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astrobiology (or any similar name) if you want. You can also ignore this and round up a few like-minded folks on a User: page of your choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I also prefer to see if more people join the conversation here; I have posted the request in all the related WikiProject talks.
    As soon as WhatamIdoing give us green light here, I will start the WikiProject page. Astropedian (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said before, the guideline is for a consensus in this discussion to make a decision, like in any RfC. Nobody is singularly in charge. the Stefen 𝕋ower 03:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah @StefenTower, That's why i ask as I want to know is there any need of a working group. I made because i see a lack of working group at WikiProject Astronomy Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I just don't understand creating a working group before you know one is needed. I'm a bit befuddled. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Abdullah, all WikiProjects are "working groups". Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together to improve Wikipedia. Therefore we don't need a generic "WikiProject Example/Working group".
    What is sometimes wanted is a "WikiProject Example/_____ working group". This is a sub-group of participants that is focused on a specific sub-part of the whole group's goals. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history has a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force – a smaller subset of the group, working on a smaller subset of articles.
    It might have been useful to create a page for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astrobiology working group. A "working group" for the whole group is not very useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the purpose of the group? Astropedian (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, i read it above. Astropedian (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am noticing some off-topic discussion above. Please think of folks who are watching this page. Please observe WP:NOTFORUM, everyone. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to join. Would it make sense to add 'astrobiology={yes|no}' and 'astrobiology-importance=' options to the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template, rather than adding a separate template? I suspect it's mainly going to be a subset of the astronomy WP articles anyway. Praemonitus (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, That thing i doubt Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleaning up or merging dormant projects

    This came up today in a discussion with Pine and others about the WMF annual plan.

    • How can we clean up and merge dormant projects, while continuing to support Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 article evaluations and categorization?
    • When small wikiprojects are merged, what else has to happen to update the functioning of the whole system?

    – SJ + 17:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, @Sj. This has been discussed several times in the last couple of years, so you might want to start in the archives for this page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects is where we're collecting some of the practical information.
    Overall, I'd say that the problem areas include:
    • The actual process of merging (once you reach the point of clicking buttons) is boring and occasionally fiddly work. Some parts could be semi-automated. Some parts require an admin (e.g., to delete unused 1.0 cats). WP:TASKFORCES can preserve the varying |importance= ratings for 1.0, but mostly I think that blank-and-redirect works out in practice, and based on the experience for WP:MED, I'd particularly recommend that for the talk page even if a task force model is used.
    • WikiProjects are groups of people, which means that merging depends upon social factors. If you "forcibly" merge the groups, the individuals might walk away rather than participate. We need participation.
    • What individual editors want is not what Wikipedia needs. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile is basically inactive, but an editor recently decided to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Chilean Legislatures. Why? The editor only wants to work on Chilean legislators and legislative institutions, not on everything else about Chile. What Wikipedia needs is an active Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and a lively Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile, and if you want to write about politicians in Chile, then you pick one or the other, without making yet another tiny doomed sub-speciality group.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! It feels like our version of Dunbar's Number could be "optimal range (min/max) for effective WikiProjects" and strong guidance to keep projects at a scope that they have a set of active users in that range. (and perhaps layout / template / page design norms that make it easy to refactor where people spend their time w/o lots of fiddly work) Individuals might have a weak preference but not strong enough to say "no I want to start a project that will become inactive within a year" – SJ + 19:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing not sure if there is a better section to ask this, but is there a list of "active" or inactive WikiProjects anywhere? Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Katzrockso The definition is here: WP:INACTIVEWP. 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. it is pretty difficult to determine which are truly dead (it is difficult to filter out routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries using software).
    To get a rough idea of the scope of the problem, Wikipedia:WikiProject says The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects. Category:Active WikiProjects contains ~654 pages. The last time I checked over 200 of those had not been edited for over a year. And I didn't even bother to try to filter out routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries. That means that WikiProjects are basically vestigial at this point.
    The entire system should probably be replaced with something better. I don't know if it worked in the past but its certainly not working now. Polygnotus (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a good number of truly active WikiProjects, but overall, you're in the ballpark. I think WikiProjects basically are the right idea but they need a fresh take. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @StefenTower I think we need to combine:
    and various other things.
    That addresses the flaws of the current system. Polygnotus (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are close to being on the same page. A WikiProject is basically people contributing toward a topic area. And people rightly might want to know the impact of their contributions toward that topic (perhaps even from before they mindfully joined the project - like what my leaderboard does). Also, it would be nice if we can somewhat standardize the presentation of how editors can help without it seeming like a bland to-do list, where editors can easily see what issues need addressing, what voids need filling, what resources are available, what milestones the project is moving toward, etc. I have even mused about what would happen if we took the spirit of portals and fused them with WikiProjects - so they're not just workspaces but also showcases. Various projects are already doing many of these things, but I often get the nagging feeling we have not come anywhere close to optimizing what we can do. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject X, which worked on this kind of stuff some years ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I was around when that was being worked on, and I mused on why it didn't ultimately succeed in the link I gave above ("a fresh take"). Of course, opinions may vary. the Stefen 𝕋ower 07:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @StefenTower I think we should move away from "Stefen has added his name to a list of WikiProject participants" and should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen". Getting people to subscribe is a major hurdle that can be avoided.
    The problem is that the WMF, for various depressing reasons, won't work on stuff like this.
    And since we can't realistically get a substantial subset of the ~40k active editors to install a bunch of JavaScript we do need the WMF to make meaningful changes in this area. Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus That would definitely be a major (and useful) mind flip for the Wikipedia, and beyond the WMF apparently not taking an interest in such, there are such things as inertia and development costs/prioritization. I have been lightly proposing a happy medium that can eventually be done without particular higher-up support – making WikiProjects more like action centers around topic areas (kind of like a portal, but for editing collaboration). But certainly, a key issue around this is getting editors to visit these places, that is, to match their editing interests to a topic's editing needs. How we can better implement these connections is our challenge, even with the current state of WikiProjects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. A lot of Wikipedia editors are really not interested in coordinating with other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Belonging in a group is voluntary. I have not intended to indicate any change to that paradigm. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, it would be useful for editors who do edit heavily in particular subject areas to know there is an option for further concentrating their work. I don't want to nag any editors but gently making them aware somehow may be useful. Relying on editors discovering WikiProjects or WikiProjects occasionally inviting editors seems to not quite be a robust-enough model. the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. That is not what [We] should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen means tho.
    Showing someone a dashboard of stuff that may be relevant to them is not the same as assuming they want to collaborate with others.
    The mantra "A WikiProject is a group of people" is irrelevant here. Polygnotus (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. 1) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by human changes (sort on Status); 2) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects with no activity the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @StefenTower thanks for the reply. Unfortunately the first database report seems to be very generous. WP:WikiProject Religion has solely notices to RfCs, deletion nominations and RMs on the talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not intentionally generous. It's just reporting the status setting. If a status is incorrect, per the guidelines, then they can be changed. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Category:WikiProjects by status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject Articles list

    I recently did some cleanup on the main page of WP:Hinduism main page, and had a quick question about the "Articles" link. I see that there is a link for Articles on the main page which takes it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Articles - which needs some work. I looked at how other similar projects are linking Articles and it seems many are manually maintaining the Articles page - Just wondering if this is the right approach. Seems Hinduism articles by quality and importance sort of gives the "list" and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity has taken that approach to link "Articles". Wondering if there is a best-practice or any suggestions? Asteramellus (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Without knowing why they want this page or how they're using it, it's impossible to make a suggestion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, and sorry for not clarifying - I was also not sure about the goal for that page, and trying to see how best I can update it - So was looking at similar projects, e.g. I saw e.g. this, which seems to maintain possibly all related articles, and also a similar page e.g. a mainspace article link from the Buddhism project page. Both pages seems to be updated regularly and maintained, but can get outdated. So was wondering if that is a common practice. No worries if you don't have further thoughts - I will explore other projects for best practices. Asteramellus (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Most groups use the WP:1.0 team's category system instead (e.g., Category:WikiProject Hinduism articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion is to consolidate anything without a clear purpose (eg. a page specifically updated by one bot). The best use I've found for article lists is the quality one, as that provides access to templates and inspiration for other articles, and this is already on the WP:Hinduism main page. CMD (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Input requested on merge proposal

    A merge discussion is underway regarding Penn Foster-related articles: Talk:Penn Foster College#Proposed merge of Penn Foster-related articles

    Input would be appreciated. DegreeDriven (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, @DegreeDriven. Can you tell me where you found a link to this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @WhatamIdoing, it was at the top of the list when I searched on Google. User error on my part! I was looking for a different talk page. DegreeDriven (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject advice pages

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#RfC: amending project guidelines on infoboxes suggests that the nature of WikiProject advice pages is not as clear to some people as it could be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is every article supposed to be covered by at least one active WikiProject?

    I've noticed some, like Talk:Chambered nautilus, which are not. Because WP:WikiProject Cephalopods is inactive, that page isn't categorized. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I know, this is not a requirement. However, coverage by WikiProjects ideally directs editors dedicated to and skilled with particular topic areas to the article, and that is good for the article and thus Wikipedia. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a clear standard for what makes a WikiProject active. What categories are you looking for? The class/WikiProject ones? CMD (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I assume it doesn't have those categories because the project is marked as inactive. Melozone crissalis (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my understanding, the current tools are tied to WikiProject tags. Ideally we would want all pages to be on active WikiProjects for article alerts, discussion notifications, etc., but even then it would be helpful for the tools to not be tied to this. I don't think we have a current solution at hand. CMD (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we suppressing the cats for inactive groups? Is that a sensible choice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is beyond my current knowledge, although I'm sure I knew once. Ultimately though, a delinkage of the tools and the template in some way would be ideal. CMD (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProjects are groups of editors interested in collaborating in a certain area. So yes, ideally every article would have an associated group of active, interested editors. But since editors work on whatever articles they want, there's no way to ensure this. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If I run across an "unclaimed article", can I tag it as not having been claimed by any WikiProject (when I don't know which WikiProject should make a claim)? rootsmusic (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no tag or category for that purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't think "claim" has the right connotations. Articles aren't claimed by editors, and WikiProjects are just groups of editors. I think it would be more fruitful to collaborate with other editors interested in an area in which you're interested and, in the course of that collaboration, find articles that are within the scope of interest. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Activity of WikiProject Biography's talk page

    I previously tagged WikiProject Biography as "semi-active" merely because it's been lacking replied and consisting of just notifications and announcement, but then it got reverted. I addressed the reversion at WP:VPP (archived discussion). Anyways, the WikiProject's talk page is still abysmally filled with reply-less messages. Makes me reluctant to post anything biography-related. I can't help wonder how long this will continue and not expect anything in return (or something like that) whenever I post there? George Ho (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we should try to WP:REVIVE that group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    By announcing the need of recruitment at WP:VPM? Okay... if that works. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The worst-case scenario of posting something on the project's talk page is not getting an answer. Still, as it's the 39th most active project in the past year per human (non-bot) edits, it still seems worth a try. the Stefen 𝕋ower 08:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Posted notice about this discussion at that talk page and other related talk pages. George Ho (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Biography" is just too broad a term, if you ask me. Issues are always likely to get more response at a more specialized project page. Probably the tag should be restored to warn people. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... Shall we continue discussing this at WP:VPIL? That way, we can figure out what else to do with WP:WPBIO. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject Library and Information Science

    This project seems to have been created unilaterally by Kerrieburn without following any approval process — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MFD is where these are handled. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries? Or just move to User: space?
    Invite the editor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange?
    (Also, feel free to watch Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects to find other instances of newly created WikiProject pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently joined this project https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Library_and_Information_Science (project page created in January 2024) after meeting members at WIkiCon Australia last month.
    WikiProject Library and Information Science (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125310122) was created in April 2024.
    I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Library and Information Science to collate additional content that would be useful for those involved with the project. This followed the same procedure used in another WikiProject that I am involved with. I was not aware that there was any kind of approval process required. Kerrieburn (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kerrieburn, traditionally, there hasn't been any kind of process here, with the result that we have about 2,000 "groups of editors" that have just one or two editors, or even zero. What we care about is whether there are people here, editing the English Wikipedia, who want to work together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @WhatamIdoing We definitely have a group of editors working together on this project. Kerrieburn (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Revival of WikiProject Feminism

    I noticed that editors @ipiggot and @The Ars Goetia are seeking to WP:REVIVE the project, which was previously considered. Anyone interested in supporting WP:WikiProject Feminism are welcome to join! Mitchsavl (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a great idea. I wish them lots of luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you mitchsavl for the notice, I will say that I will try my hardest to revive the project but I will be mostly inactive for the next 2-3 weeks Goetia [She/They] (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Revival of WikiProject Bowling

    I'm going to attempt WP:REVIVE the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bowling (Zakk😎) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Go for it! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    One question on the wiki project criteria

    It says to not start a project on any individual person. However WikiProject Taylor Swift is all abt Taylor Swift and seems to be productive. Why is that allowed to exist? Was it simply grandfathered in before this rule was made? 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 08:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure which criteria you are looking at, but the guidelines are advice aimed at increasing the chance that a WikiProject is successful. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift is not very active, and that's despite the very active work on related articles. CMD (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was grandfathered in. Seeing how these various groups have fared over the years is why the rule was created a few years ago. Eventually, I think most of them will get merged up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject Nurses in Red

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Nurses in Red has been created. This is apparently a group/event that's been happening for several years. I wonder whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals should mention the WikiProjects that are more event-focused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot request relating to a WikiProject's categories

    Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests § Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages. I'm making a note on this page in case someone here has other ideas/can explain things better than I have. I can't find an exact guideline about this situation but I know it's not the way we normally do things. Graham87 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Content Disclaimer

    Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

    1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
    2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
    3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
    4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
    5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.