Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject and all talk pages of subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council redirect here.

WikiProject Council was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 18 April 2011.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What's a WikiProject?

A1: A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a subject area, a collection of pages, or a list of articles tagged by the group.

Q2: How many WikiProjects are there?

A2: There are 917 WikiProjects tagged as "Active" (see Category:Active WikiProjects), and 244 WikiProjects tagged as "Semi-active" (see Category:Semi-active WikiProjects); many of these have one or more subsidiary task forces or work groups.

Q3: What's the biggest WikiProject?

A3: Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date. You can find out which projects' main pages are being watched by the most users at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers.

Q4: Which WikiProject has tagged the most articles as being within their scope?

A4: WikiProject Biography has tagged 2,045,697 articles, which is more than three times the size of the second largest number of pages tagged by a WikiProject. About ten groups have tagged more than 100,000 articles. You can see a list of projects and the number of articles they have assessed here.

Q5: Who gets to decide whether a WikiProject is permitted to tag an article?

A5: That is the exclusive right of the participants of the WikiProject. Editors at an article may neither force the group to tag an article nor refuse to permit them to tag an article. See WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN.

Q6: I think a couple of WikiProjects should be merged. Is that okay?

A6: You must ask the people who belong to those groups, even if the groups appear to be inactive. It's okay for different groups of people to be working on similar articles. WikiProjects are people, not lists of articles. If you identify and explain clear, practical benefits of a merger to all of the affected groups, they are likely to agree to combining into a larger group. However, if they object, then you may not merge the pages. For less-active groups, you may need to wait a month or more to make sure that no one objects.

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.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

See earlier archives at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcut

WT:COUNCIL

WikiProject technology share

Through my own WikiProject work and observing of others working in different WikiProjects, I've wondered why there doesn't seem to be a dedicated spot for us to share our technical ideas about how to better operate the WikiProjects. In more general venues, I see people asking questions about how to generate particular reports for their WikiProjects, as one example. From my own perspective, I sometimes feel like I want to share what I've done (as I can see potentially widespread benefits to some things I've conjured up), or alternatively thirst to see what others and other WikiProjects have done. What would be everyone's feel for a spot for WikiProjects sharing technical ideas? Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. That's exactly what this page should be used for — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in terms of an organized resource that can be cooperatively built, not unlike other technology resources we have, such as Wikipedia:User scripts. And of course, discussion about it would happen somewhere (likely on its own talk page, but certainly this talk page can be regularly directed to it). It would cover the various technical approaches that can be employed by WikiProjects, whether traditional or experimental, particularly looking at layout, navigation and data-driven aspects, such as reports, alerts and milestones, and possibly more. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be something that can be taken from the remains of Wikipedia:WikiProject X, although dividing discussion into more places doesn't feel the best idea. CMD (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are chunks of X that can be used as-is or adapted for use by wikiprojects, it certainly makes sense to list them somewhere like on the "Technical notes" page. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the code is open source, and I believe that the author would be very happy if someone adopted the codebase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think very many people are working in that area.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes could use some attention, and it would be an appropriate place to leave notes about scripts that are working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I welcome your thoughts here, but I'm torn on how to proceed. I was thinking in terms of an area where we document our various forms of technical experimentation in wikiprojects, and the lightly visited Technical notes page currently seems to cover generically helpful tools. I could certainly add some of those tools to the page. On the other hand, useful reports based on database queries I've been working on or unique navigation/layout approaches I've developed don't seem to have a place. Should we make a place for these experimental ideas on the page? I'm concerned that the usual approach for editing informational pages would get in the way of a true skunkworks effort. Perhaps for my experimental things, I should just create my own dedicated user page and point there from Technical notes? Of course I'm open to other ideas here. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower, I think that "one-stop shopping" is generally the best first approach. The difficulty with linking to pages with other information is that you might not know that the thing you need is explained on the linked page.

I think another thing that would be helpful is if you "advertised" your work. An occasional note at WP:RAQ, perhaps? An offer to some of the more active (or relevant) WikiProjects to run a particular query for them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I wish for is to have Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers care about recent visitors to the talk page, instead of how many long-dormant accounts put the page on their watchlists 15 or 20 years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WikiProject?

Is it worth moving WP:WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce to its own WikiProject? One concern we have is almost all the articles being tagged weren't previously within WP:Anthro's scope, and probably aren't (could move the parent to WP:WikiProject Literature?). Also it doesn't seem WP:Kingbotk supports taskforce tagging, although I'm probably being dumb, the Generic template feature only seems to do importance and priority parameters Kowal2701 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I commented about this in a previous thread but thought best to seek wider input Kowal2701 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingbotk is a way outdated, long-defunct bot whose maintainer appears to have left Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.

Anyways, if there is significant enough enthusiasm and activity surrounding the Oral tradition task force, then yes, it may be worth moving it to its own WikiProject. If you desire it instead to be a taskforce of a different WikiProject, then WikiProject History is an option, though as you probably know, that can be controversial. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do people use to tag articles? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, looking at the number of participants suddenly interested in this taskforce and also seeing that some oral tradition-ish articles aren't really anthropology-ish, it makes more sense for this to be a WikiProject on its own. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do the participants in the the anthropology WikiProject think about the articles in question being included within its scope? isaacl (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t had a response Kowal2701 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no concerns have been raised, then, I wouldn't worry about the effects of having more articles placed within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Joseon#Requested move 5 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joseon#Requested move 5 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct projects in the directory

Defunct WikiProjects are not distinguished from inactive WikiProjects in the directory; should they be explictly marked as such (and have its replacement listed), moved to a different page or section, or removed entirely from the list? Xeroctic (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeroctic, are you talking about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing about the subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, as the one you linked is unmaintained. Xeroctic (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that Reports bot were keeping the first one up to date, because maintaining Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory was always a chore and probably isn't being done now. The last time that page's contents were overhauled was when Chongkian went through the list more than a year ago.

I looked through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Medicine, and found that most of the smaller projects were either inactive or semi-active, even with a generous definition of "semi-active" (in practice; I just adjusted the tags on them). Most of them should be merged up to a larger group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hoping meta:Campaigns/WikiProjects will result in something like the automated directory coming back. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a baby step towards grouping WikiProjects, I wonder whether we could adapt the categories in mw:ORES/Articletopic#Taxonomy to create categories via {{WikiProject status}}. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games could be tagged as {{WikiProject status|active|culture}} or {{WikiProject status|active|media}} and be put in a Category:WikiProjects about culture or a Category:Media-related WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. By the way, I started thinking through what ORES-based upmerging would look like at User:Joe Roe/WikiProject merging and listing the 'top level' projects at Template:WikiProjects navigation. Thoughts and additions welcome. – Joe (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for the STEM group, I'm thinking about a set like this:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Science,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life (separate from the rest of biology because there are hundreds of thousands of species articles),
Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and
Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment

but I'm not sure how to group:

but they all feel like they could be one group (or two or three). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three (Computing, Technology, and Engineering) would fit the ORES taxonomy but I'm not really familiar with these areas of the project. Alternatively there's the potential to use a 'catch-all' project (i.e. a new Wikipedia:WikiProject STEM in this case) to cover topics that could stand alone but aren't that active right now, until they're ready. Do feel free to add to the list! – Joe (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with edit war?

I have been editing the page for a music festival, Pickathon, since yesterday and it has been in something of an edit war with two other editors. I would very much appreciate it if other music folks could weigh in on the various items in Talk:Pickathon Monkeywire (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the discussion is productive on that page, and you are getting useful advice — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of inactive WikiProject

Can a WikiProject declare itself to be active by itself? [1] Haven't noticed it for roughly three months after I looked at the project I redesigned. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects are just groups of editors who share a common interest in a given area. If they're using the WikiProject pages to collaborate or facilitate editing in the area, then the project's active, and it doesn't matter who might make that determination. isaacl (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If someone's active enough to notice the |inactive tag and remove it, then that user is probably active enough to answer questions on the talk page, which is good enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]