Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Council: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:40, 18 February 2013 editScottalter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,952 edits →WikProject category categorization: any one else?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:04, 8 January 2025 edit undoTrystan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,586 edits →Should new pages not be added to inactive WikiProjects? 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Central|text=] and all talk pages of subpages of ] redirect here.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 400K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 20 |counter = 26
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-04-18/WikiProject report|writer= ]| |||day =18|month=April|year=2011}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} {{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{archives|banner=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=2|units=months|auto=yes|1=See earlier archives at: ], ], ], ]}}
{{Skip to bottom}} {{Skip to bottom}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{new discussion}}
1=
{{WikiProject Council}}
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages}}
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Navigation}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Navigation}}
{{shortcut|WT:COUNCIL}}
<div style="float: right;">{{archive box|search=yes|auto=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=1|units=month}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-04-18/WikiProject report|writer=]|day=18|month=April|year=2011|small=yes}}<br/>{{shortcut|WT:COUNCIL}}</div>

== WPCANADA ==

] is requiring the replacement of the banners of other projects without the consultation of the members of those projects. ] says that WPTORONTO, WPMONTERAL, WPVANCOUVER, WPOTTAWA banners should be removed and replaced. There has never been such an agreement. Indeed when the WPCANADA banner was expanded with the city projects as a flagged additional project there was not supposed to be a replacement drive, as seen in the . Why can't projects use their own banners, why are we forced to use WPCANADA's banner? When WPCANADA added these projects to their banner, it was without the consent of the projects in question, or even informing them. Now, WPCANADA seek to replace these banners without the consent or even informing them that this is even happening. -- ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing where CANADA says to replace banners for the four cities. In fact, ] seems to respect the four cities in their choice to have a separate rating. ] (]) 05:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
::Just would like to correct the IP's comments - dont like guess work or dishonesty. We have had many many talks on the matter starting in 2007 till 2010 - I will agree not all liked the idea of merged templates - but here we are years latter still moving forward with this idea. You will note that the City projects still have there banners.] (]) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

::::A simple check of the talk archives for the four city projects show no notice given about replacement of their banners with the WPCANADA banner. The archives do show that the four city projects were added without the consent of the city projects. Further {{green|'''"Ones labelled ''Half Done'' may use either the Canada banner or their original banner."'''}} shows a replacement drive by WPCANADA, since it wouldn't be "half done" without being under a replacement drive. A discussion amongst only WPCANADA people without discussions with the various city projects would be a move without consultation of the city projects. -- ] (]) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
::::: We have even tlak about redirecting the tlak pages (to no avail) What is your intention with the post? Are you expeting thoses that participate and work on the projects to change eveything that has taken place since 2010- beause you came along and did not like what has happend?] (]) 20:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::The discussion on redirecting the talk pages DID NOT INFORM the city projects at all. That is clearly imperial hubris is nothing is. To eliminate the city project's own discussion areas without bothering to post a message saying that another project was about to destroy its community area is the height of high handedness. -- ] (]) 09:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Could we get you to look more carefully before commenting - as again your assertion is wrong - ] - ].] (]) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:A similar discussion is archived at ] (January 2011).
:—] (]) 17:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
::Previous discussion ] at the time the projects were originally added to WPCANADA shows no move towards replacement of the banners, but now the instructions at WPCANADA shows such at the very least, an implicit drive to replacement with the {{green|''Half Done''}} labelling. It was at the end of 2010, so after the so called discussions, which never occurred at the city projects (check their talk archives), and which came to the conclusion that the city project banners would not be replaced. If the drive from 2007-2010 is for replacement from a WPCANADA point of view, and without consultation of the city projects, and at the end of 2010, it was agreed to not replace the city project banners, but now we have a claim originating from 2007 that such a drive is taking place, how is the appropriate action? This shows years of non-consultative replacement by WPCANADA. -- ] (]) 20:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
::::What outcome are you looking for here - reverting of thousands of edits for many mnay editors over years? Some sort of actions for thoses that have actualy worked for and on the projects your tlaking about? Pls explain what YOU think the rest of us should do.] (]) 20:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Clearly, the restoration of the city project banner on all High and Top importance articles, since they are almost always considered low importance by WPCANADA, and the city importances do not appear at all under the WPCANADA banner without expanding them, and '''are not colour coded''' unlike the WPCANADA importances, so clearly degrading the usefulness of those ratings since they have low visibility. I would like to do that for all mid-importance articles as well, but Top and High are should all be restored. Also all articles where the only taskforce activated is the city projects should revert to just having the city projects banner, since there's no point in a WPCANADA banner if the only project involved from the WPCANADA bouquet is that of the city projects. Since many of these city-only activated WPCANADA banner instances are not really of Canada wide concern, being primarily local concerns (hence only having the city switches activated) there's not really a point in having the WPCANADA banner. -- ] (]) 09:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::As a person that participants and maintains this projects - I am simply not sure about the above assessment. Articles like ] would be relevant to both projects as with many articles like ] or ]. If projects like Ottawa had more involvement I would say this sound good - but this is not the case. If we were to have less templates on a talk page all ratings would be seen like at ] - the problem we have is to many tags on talk pages that is confusing for our editors. ] (]) 19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Articles like Ottawa have multiple taskforces signed on, so would still have the WPCANADA banner. But since it is the TOP-importance article for WPOTTAWA, it should have its own banner displayed. Many articles that are high or top importance to a city project end up with a ''low'' importance at the WPCANADA banner, and the city importances do not show up when the banners are collapsed, so it makes it appear to editors that those topics are not important to the city projects at all. This would mean that discussions about those articles might not have notice passed to the city projects (or WPCANADA for that matter, since it's rated as low importance) and might occur at say WPSHOPPINGMALLS. Shopping malls are important to the local community but in the national scheme of things are not important. The use of the WPCANADA banner obscures the importance to the local community, and makes it look like the locally focused wikiproject thinks it is unimportant as well, even if it's rated Mid or High, because under the collapsed banner view, that doesn't show through. Since this type of topic would only be important to the city project and not any other project on the WPCANADA banner, there's not real benefit from the WPCANADA banner as it just hides the relative importances, and makes the city project something that doesn't matter, thus reducing activity there, and reducing notice given to members of the project and WPCANADA as well, since those members of both the city project and WPCANADA won't have every page watchlisted, but a notice going to WPSHOPPINGMALLS may be missed by editors focused on local shopping malls. Whereas as a highly visible high-importance may garner a notice to the city wikiproject. -- ] (]) 06:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
:As an editor who is uninvolved in Canadian affairs, it appears to me that there is a rather simple solution to this whole thing. Tweak the WPCanada banner so that the importance labels appear for each subproject/taskforce. You could even have a small color-coded swatch for each of these. My limited experience with the Canadian projects showed me that most of the subprojects are far from active, so having some cooperation in tagging and assessments would be beneficial. ] (]) 18:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you for presenting a solution - Sounds more then logical to me - I would support this concepts.] (]) 18:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
:*That sounds good to me. If someone designs an elegant way to use colours or icons on the WPCanada banner to draw attention to higher importance ratings for city WikiProjects, I'll support it. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
:::WPMED's banner is set up to list separate priority/importance ratings per task force, and that might make a reasonable model. Scott Alter's the go-to guy for WPMED's banner, and he's really nice, if someone needs to ask for help doing the same thing. Otherwise, BannerMeta's talk page is probably the best place for such questions.
:::In general, WPCANADA can't force the removal of any other group's banner—but whether to have a separate banner is a decision for each of those ''groups'', not just one person. If the unregistered editor believes that it's really important to have separate banners, he needs to go talk to each group and get the entire group to decide that they really want to maintain separate banners. ] (]) 01:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the words WAID. This page is on my watchlist, I wasn't following this specific discussion until my name popped up. I gave it a quick read through, so here's my outsider opinion looking in. Just to summarize, the "cities" projects believe that WPCANADA is trying to minimize the other projects' roles by using 1 encompassing banner instead of several. First, you need to consider the purpose of WP banners. Is it really to "advertise" the importance of the page to the project? How many readers not previously aware of WikiProjects look at just one banner on a random talk page, and think "this article is really important, so I should edit it"? My guess is close to zero. WP banners might lead a reader to the Misplaced Pages namespace world of WikiProjects. If a reader gets this far, they'll investigate the various projects and settle on what interests them. My belief is that the purpose of banners is two-fold. 1) to say that a specific group of people are interested on working on the article (so a reader can join, if interested) and 2) to automatically categorize the article by class and importance/priority. Existing members of a project are not searching through talk pages to find out which articles the project prioritizes - they go right to the assessment tables, categories, and toolserver.

::::So with that mindset, looking at the WPCANADA banner situation, I don't see why everything couldn't be within {{tl|WPCANADA}}. Almost all articles within the scope of a Canadian city project are likely to be within the scope of WPCANADA. Functionality-wise (links to project pages and article categorization), there is no reason not to merge. But from an advertising perspective, a city project would be relegated to a task force line. With the formatting of {{tl|WPBannerMeta}}, there is minimal customization available of a task force line. I'm not involved in the programming of that template, but I have used it extensively. AFAIK, the image on the left cannot be "dynamically" changed. However, the text stating "This article is supported by x (marked as x-importance)." can be customized. Since it takes any markup, a background color should be able to be applied to select text. So if you want "x-importance" to have a background with the corresponding importance color, that could be done (although I don't think this customization should be necessary to a project). --] (]) 05:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

== Lacking MOS ==

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this but, I will try to keep it brief in comparison to the resulting problems of a missing MOS. I made an attempt on the talkpage for the specific needed MOS here ]
The resulting problem without this seemingly minor guideline has left an opening for a particular editor to ] my edits based on their misinterpretation of a guideline. I get it - when it comes to making little difference between upper and lower case "V" in a Dutch surname. In fact I totally agree with the other editor that stated "it is no big deal". The problem starts when after I either start an article or work within one and I use the proper lower case "v" that very same editor follows my tracks and contributes only by capping the "V" or changing namespaces the same way. Basically saying the proper way is in their mind "wrong" so they change it unilaterally to fit their mis-interpretation. The editor has repeatedly claimed that surname is "Anglicized" but has fallen short when asked for references to support their theory....] (]) 23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
:This sounds like it should be at ] or ]. You may find more help there. --] (]) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
::I made a post at MOS and the other editor refuses to participate in DR] (]) 01:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I was deliberate in my link. One of the ways to get help is to ask for people to weigh in on a question. Leaving a link at the main WT:MOS page that you would like feedback on your topic is a way to do that, ]. And if the user is really hounding you, then you will undoubtedly be able to get some help at ANI or elsewhere. This is still the wrong page to be asking for help at. --] (]) 02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

== A-class cats ==

See ] for a proposal to delete about a thousand empty A-class categories. ] (]) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

== Is this a wikiproject? ==

] calls itself a wikiproject, but it does not manage any articles. Should it be reclassified? ] (]) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

:The various cleanup projects don't manage articles either. Personally, I think that WikiDepartments should be revived as a distinction from WikiProjects. ARS, GOCE, FUN, WikiProject Templates, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Redirects, WikiProject Deletion, would then be WikiDepartments. Thus Consumer Reports would become a WikiDepartment. But as there is no distinction currently, I don't see how this is different from various other things I just listed that are called WikiProjects. -- ] (]) 16:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

::From ]: "A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Misplaced Pages." Is there a group of people at that page who want to work together to improve Misplaced Pages? If so, then they're a WikiProject. It is not necessary for them to call themselves "WikiProject ____". (If they're not in the directory, you should feel free to add them.) ] (]) 05:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

== Input needed on activating an importance parameter ==

] does not have the importance parameter activated. A number of editors have express surprise about it. See ] and ] for the !voting. -- ] (] - ]) 07:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

:Some projects have intentionally chosen to leave out the importance paramater as it can lead to friction between editors with different opinions about an article's importance. "Importance" is inherently a subjective opinion. ] (]) 08:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

::Yep. But it seems we have almost got a consensus but the admin is not altering the protected template because there has not been enough recent discussion. It seems we don't have many actives editors at WikiProject Environment so there is not a lot of discussion. -- ] (] - ]) 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


== Category question ==
{{done}} -- ] (] - ]) 02:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Is there an active category here with editors that specialize in a topic that would include ]? I guess this is in medicine and epidemiology and virology but I did not see those categories. Are there projects related to media and politics whose scope would touch on that topic? ] (]) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
== Project task force to do lists ==


:We don't really have categories of editors, but we do have ]. That said, you have already initiated discussion on that article talkpage, and it is likely watched by most of those who are already interested in the topic. ] (]) 03:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC){{z48}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, and it's previously been (much) discussed at ]. ] (]) 02:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
*That merely links to ], so if the two clicks is a pain, someone please replace the first link I posted with this one. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


== Creating a WikiProject ==
== WikProject category categorization ==


Hello people!
Spurred by recent discussion about how to categorize the eponymous WikiProject categories (] and ]), I'd like to propose an improvement to the WikiProject categorization within ]. Currently, WikiProjects are categorized by a combination of "type/descriptive" (as in ]) and parentage. Some projects can be found within a descriptive category, while others require searching through categories of other WikiProjects to look for your target project. I believe that an eponymous category for a project should only contain content that a project would like to manage...a completely separate project should not necessarily be within a different project's category hierarchy. Not all projects claim to have "parents" or "children", but "related" projects. Often, when a project's category needs to be categorized, it is just dumped in the main category of another project.
I just wanna ask if I can create a WikiProject without going to a official process? I'm planning to create a WikiProject for a girl group. ] ] 08:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


:The ] is worth a read. In summary creating a Wikiproject won't do much without having other editors on board. ] (]) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Rather than forcing a project to have parents and children to facilitate categorization, why not make categories for the headings in the ]. Essentially, the Directory is a categorization of projects by topic, so why not have the categorization parallel this? We already have many of the topic categories in use (], ], ], ], ], ], to name a few). This way, all of the projects categories can be easily found by category, no guessing is required as to parentage, and every project can have control of all content within their project's eponymous category. I realize this would be a large undertaking, but as the projects are poorly categorized now, it is something that can be slowly phased in, one topic area at a time. --] (]) 04:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
:@], you should join ] and ] instead, and you should not attempt to start any separate WikiProjects until you have half a dozen other ''experienced'' editors who will publicly state that they will participate.
:Years ago, I pulled some stats on WikiProjects that were successful (more specifically, that didn't completely fail within a few months). The two key indicators were: the person starting them had been editing for years (I notice you've been editing for only four months), and there were lots of people interested in working with that person (the more, the merrier, but 6 to 10 was usually enough). Most WikiProjects that didn't meet ''both'' of these criteria failed. In many cases, a couple of months later, nobody was posting and the original founder had stopped editing. ] (]) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


== WikiProject approval process ==
*'''Comment''' - I wasn't sure if a policy even existed for categorization of wikiprojects, but I finally found it at ]. The part relevant to this discussion is
{{quote|If there is a "parent" WikiProject with a category (e.g. ]), the new category should be made a subcategory of that as well.}}
:I'm just providing this for context, not in support of any particular viewpoint. ] (]) 16:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


Months ago, we said we'd update the ] process. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Do we actually want any more WikiProjects?
*'''Comment''' - I think reducing clutter in eponymous categories is not a very important issue. As much clutter occurs because there is no consistency in choosing what should appear in the parent category - the wikiproject main page, the eponymous category, or both.


Leaving aside the chance of a once-a-decade group like ], I'm currently wondering whether the answer is that we actually don't want to encourage WikiProjects. One possibility is to just say "No", or at least "No, unless you can produce a petition that will be listed on ]".
:I think the biggest advantage of this proposal is that it leaves projects free to choose the most appropriate categorization. For example, in the Directory there is a table of Geosciences wikiprojects, but there is no ] and therefore no ]. But is this is worth the effort involved? First, a lot of wikiprojects should be notified about this discussion so that there is a clear consensus for change. Then, if there was consensus, someone would need to do the recategorizing. That's a lot of work. ] (]) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


Another is to suggest a lightweight alternative, such as this:
::Any other thoughts? I don't think it is a major issue, but it is something that occasionally comes up. And each project should be able to decide how to organize its eponymous category. I don't want to change how projects organize their own pages - just how the eponymous categories are categorized. Therefore, this shouldn't require the consensus of all WikiProjects. I think it is akin to reorganizing the Directory - something that is within the scope of the Council and discussion should be here. If no one else has any suggestions, I may just be bold and give it a shot within some of ] as a start - specifically the health-related projects, which I contribute to. --] (]) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


* Create a central page at {{fakelink|User:Founder/Favorite_thing}}.
== Misplaced Pages:Database reports/New WikiProjects ==
* Create a shared watchlist by making a list of all articles you're interested in at {{fakelink|User:Founder/Favorite_thing/Articles we support}} and then using ] on that page.
* Do not create banners. Do not tag articles. Do not create categories. Do not spam links to your page. Do not do or say anything that suggests this is an official or permanent group of any sort.
* Do invite your friends to work with you and to post on that page. Do invite individual editors who contribute to these articles to join you. Do post (once or twice) a link with an invitation at the most relevant WikiProject(s).
* If your group maintains at least five active participants for a year, then those pages can be moved to {{fakelink|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Favorite thing}}. Participation will be measured by them posting to {{fakelink|User talk:Founder/Favorite_thing}}, not by quietly editing the articles. (If they're not posting on that page, then you don't need a WikiProject page. The point of the WikiProject page is for participants to coordinate the group's activities.) If you don't meet that standard but you want it out of your userspace, then ask the most closely related active WikiProject to adopt your group, whether by completely merging it away or as a ].


I recommend that all watchers of this page also watch ]. <br> If we'd done this from the start, we'd have far fewer defunct WikiProjects now. What do you think?
—] (]) 17:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


] (]) 20:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
== Redundant WikiProject? ==


* I generally support the premise that there are enough WikiProjects for any would-be WikiProject founder(s) to find an appropriate venue for collaboration. But, since many/most WPs are talk-inactive, I think that, rather than dilute the talk-pool further via {{fakelink|User talk:Founder/Favorite_thing}}, just start using the most relevant WP from the start. If the traffic is enough to overwhelm the parent WP, then, based on the activity level & its duration leading up to that point, an informed decision can be made by the council & participants as to whether a TF or new WP is more appropriate. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 21:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the wiki project ], that was created a couple of days ago, is unnecesary. We already have a wiki project named ] and I don't see why we would create a wiki project for each form of government of a country.
*:That's basically ]: use an appropriate existing WikiProject to host discussion, and then after some time the involved participants can decide on the best ways of working. If no one's work is being impeded, then no change is needed. If there is some clash in operations, they can consider changes, such as splitting off discussion to a subpage, creating a task force to separate out article alerts, or (perhaps in some cases) creating a new WikiProject. ] (]) 22:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== WikiProject category RecentChanges ==
Even now ] is kind of inactive, I don't think we should split it ] (]) 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
{{hatnote|cross-posted from Help Desk, no replies there}}
I can apply ] to various ], but it only tracks recent changes to the talk pages (since those are the pages tagged by the project banners).


Is there any way to get RecentChanges to display for the main pages ''corresponding'' to the talk pages in the category? Or a tool?
:] was by ], who may be unaware of the existence of ]. Please mention this anomaly to that editor.
:—] (]) 16:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
::I doubt it, cause all the articles that he included into the project already belonged to ]. So he most probably saw the banner on those talk pages. ] (]) 17:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


There used to be ], which is now deprecated. Also a number of prominent topics (e.g., ] & ]) for ] 'articles by quality' lists are deprecated (although a few are still working), as well as the replacement web tool. ] (]) 18:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A WikiProject is a group of people, not a subject area. If there are two groups of people, then they may continue to work separately or they may merge together, exactly as they choose. If there aren't two groups of people, then there actually aren't two WikiProjects. There's just someone pretending to be a WikiProject (very probably because he doesn't realize that a WikiProject is defined as being "a group of people" and not "a page that says 'WikiProject' at the top"). ] (]) 18:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


:@], you need to make a list of the WikiProject's pages. For example, make a list of everything in ] (or any similar category), use search-and-replace to remove the <code>Talk:</code> part of the file name, and then use ] on the page. This won't auto-update, so you'll need to update the list manually every now and again. ] (]) 21:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Do you recommend me to ask ] to leave his new single user- project and join ], where there are more participants? Is it a appropriate action if I remove the banners that he added to different articles? ] (]) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the pointer. Looks like its finally time to take a crack at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== WikiProject Reviving and Changing the name ==
:::::I would like to always assume good faith, but I would like to point out that there is a dispute ongoing at ] which originated with a user trying to remove ] from the page. This has escalated to a bunch of socks adding various WPs willy-nilly to the page and/or trying again to remove WP:Hungary. And, strangely, about the same time these socks appeared, ] appears and creates WP:Kingdom of Hungary as his first edit... and it promptly gets added to ]. (Apparently the Serbians would prefer that to WP:Hungary.) Sigh. ] (]) 04:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::FYI, this is now the subject of a thread at ]. Regards, ] (]) 05:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Specifically, . <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;]&nbsp;(], ])</font> 05:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I have now nominated ] at ]. Regards, ] (]) 02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi!
== Request for comment on ] ==
I'm just asking if a WikiProject defunct can be revive and change the name? ] ] 16:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please consider the advice you were given at ], and what I've previously suggested about ] to host discussion. ] (]) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::] Actually, we found a defunct WikiProject here and the founder agreed to give it to me and start with my few fellows editors to start WikiProject. But, we will build and add a collaboration (or supported) to some existing WikiProjects like ] to maintain the activeness of the parent WikiProject. It is possible? ''(And we're working now on the design of our future WikiProject, but it will take long). ] ] 12:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Other than ] and ], a new WikiProject should not be created for a particular band unless extremely popular both outside Misplaced Pages & within. Using ] directly or creating a taskforce within it is fine. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 14:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It doesn't feel like you've taken the previously offered guidance into consideration. No one owns a WikiProject so no one can give one to you. I continue to advise starting with having discussions on the talk page of an existing active WikiProject. ] (]) 23:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::] But it says {{tq|If your group can't wait for the new process, please only create group pages in the userspace of one of your members.}} It means we can create on my user or one of my members a WikiProject. ] ] 05:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::So, all the templates will be on my userpage? ] ] 05:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No: User groups do not get any templates. They do not get to tag any pages. I should update the documentation to be very clear about that.
::::::@], who else is in your group? A WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together. If nobody's working with you, you do not have a WikiProject, full stop. ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::], we're 7 or 8 (Final it's 8) active editors we're working and we're planning to create a WikiProject. since we're always active, I will be the founder of our WikiProject if they want to let me to create a WikiProject. ] ] 02:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Can you name these editors {{u|Royiswariii}}? ] (]) 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::]
:::::::::Here:
:::::::::AstrooKai
:::::::::Borgenland
:::::::::Acrom12
:::::::::Royiswariii (me)
:::::::::Bloomagiliw
:::::::::Indo360 (semi-active, fully active will back on january)
:::::::::Orojackson56 (per above)
:::::::::Freedom Wall (counted in since they are actively on 2 articles) ] ] 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Where have you been talking to them about your plan? ] (]) 02:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::on AstrooKai's talk page. ] ] 03:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Actually, i was planning to create a WikiProject too on October but it was scrapped due to a guidlines here on WikiProject and then they back to planning on creating a WikiProject. ] ] 03:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What are you trying to get out of a Wikiproject? Are there particular tools you are looking for, or a particular thing you wish to see? ] (]) 04:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I was planning to create a WikiProject focused on Bini, a Filipino girl group, to organize and improved related article. Their popularity was like a rocketship, but of course I can maintain of activeness of the WikiProject through inviting on other editors. ] ] 06:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That's the scope of the proposed group.
:::::::::::::::The question is about tools. For example, do you need a statistics table like the one at https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Philippine%20music%20task%20force ? Do you need a bot to deliver a newsletter? ] (]) 07:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Oh sorry. Yes we need that too, and the banner of course. ] ] 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::What tools, and why? How exactly will you use them?
:::::::::::::::::Do any of the other supposed members have any idea that you're trying to create this? ] (]) 07:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::We need a project statistics bot and new article bots that can configure into a specific articles. I don't know the other bots that we need, do you know the other bots here and other basic needs of bots on WikiProject?
::::::::::::::::::The other members are they know this, they leave me to create this and waiting to establish the WikiProject. ] ] 07:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::How about you collaborate together on ] for a month, and if activity is high enough to require a separate project, you can split? ] (]) 11:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::], Can you give me a tutorial how I do it? and if we maintain the high activeness, how can I split it? ] ] 11:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::You can have discussions on ] just as you would for an independent WikiProject. ] (]) 11:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Alright, thanks! ] ] 11:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Many CfD discussions on assessment categories ==
To clarify the usage of ], I have posted ]. ] (]) 16:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


I thought it might be helpful to highlight the many different discussions which have recently closed or still happening at CfD regarding assessment categories. These are the ones that I am aware of, please add any others.
== Are WikiProjects Language Specific or do they Overlap? ==
* ] - initial nomination by myself to test the water. Closed as '''move'''.
* ] - closed as '''delete'''.
* ] - monster nomination of all other non-article categories. Closed as '''move'''. The batch is so large it seems to have broken the bot and these are still waiting to be moved.
* ] - although just one category is nominated, I suspect this relates to all non-article/NA-importance intersection categories. Discussion still '''open''' as I write.
* ] - ongoing discussion at village pump.
* ] - partially confused because the previous consensus close has not yet been carried out.
&mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 23:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:@]: Since you say {{Tq|I suspect this relates to all non-article/NA-importance intersection categories.}} on Portal-Class xyz articles of NA-importance, I'd like to note that I'm fine with it in most cases. However, I oppose it on draft pages, and userspace pages with draft tags, because someone may want to provisionally rate the importance. For example, let's say there does not exist an article on ], so someone might create ] and rate it's importance provisionally. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 03:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been engaging in discussion with the WikiProject Medicine community and have a couple questions that pertain to the logistical landscape and ability to intercommunicate with specific WikiProjects in different languages within Misplaced Pages. I'm posing the question here because I'm assuming the Council has a broad view of the community landscape and you may have gotten these sort questions before.
::That's pretty much what I wrote at the CfD discussion &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Assessment date in WPBS ==
But before that, here is some background on my experiment, which I hope to build-out with community buy-in. The project is intended to collaborate with others to surface and generate knowledge as it relates to Regional Variations in Standards of Care; regions are intended to be country-specific and standards of care means how disease states are tackled and treated in different regions. Many countries view and tackle disease states differently (whether it be due to cultural, societal, economic or other reasons, and this type of information is not readily available for all to view in one standardized place). One can think of this looking something similar to the , but on a global scale. I've created mock-up articles that model the inclusion of Regional information and have vetted it past the community in WikiProject Medicine. Here are the mock-up articles I created: ], ], ]. In doing so, articles could potentially build out to discern the variations in health care that exist by country and by disease state. The questions below will help me better understand the constructs within Misplaced Pages that would allow one to connect Wikipedians from different countries on one specific effort.


Articles keep changing over time and may not reflect the quality at the time of last assessment. There is no way to know when an article was last assessed (except checking the page history). I think that WPBS should include an assessment date parameter. Thoughts? <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
1. Is ] specific to the English Version of Misplaced Pages? <br>
2. Or put another way, does each language have its own version of WikiProject Medicine? <br>
3. Or does WikiProject Medicine span across all Misplaced Pages language domains? <br>
4. Is there a tagging method that allows for people within those languages to partake in a regionally specific, yet globally collective project? <br>


:I've no problem with scripts adding dates, but, in practice, I don't think we should expect editors to hand-edit the date when they manually update it. ] (]) 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
My assumption, in the above, is that most Wikipeidans supporting a certain Misplaced Pages language domain currently reside, or at least better understand the variations, within that specific region of the world, respective of language.
::I know you haven't suggested this, but I would strongly oppose anyone sending a bot around to add a starting date. This should be optional and, if it exists, more or less accurate, not "well, we started in on 27 December 2024, so everything is that date until changed later, including things that were last assessed in 2007". ] (]) 20:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, sure. But most assessors use ], which can include the assessment date without assessors having to hand-edit it, and without needing to send a bot for it. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 07:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Should new pages not be added to inactive WikiProjects? ==
I appreciate your any feedback and guidance I can get to move forward. Thanks. ] (]) 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


{{U|Fram}} thinks new pages should ''not'' be added, and ]. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 11:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sounds like an interesting project. I hope you're aware that there are lots of inaccuracies in Misplaced Pages articles - although we're constantly working to improve them!
::1. Yes. Have a look at the bottom of the navigation bar on the left of ] - you'll see links to medicine wikiprojects in other languages.
::2. See 1.
::3. See 1.
::4. None that I'm aware of.
::] (]) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


:This is an issue with the purpose of Wikiprojects vs their tools. For example, I watch the Country article alerts and so the Former Country wikiproject is helpful to me. On the other hand, it's pretty dead and doesn't function as an actual Wikiproject, and the more places dead Wikiprojects are tagged the more opportunity there is for someone unfamiliar to expect there to be support there isn't. ] (]) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] label ==
::I also use project categories for filtering & finding pages. However, I don't think pages should be added for ''defunct'' WikiProjects, since inactive WPs are only ], and not dead-dead.
::Regarding expected support, inactive WPs have "{{tq|Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.}}" in their banner, which I think is sufficient to redirect an unfamiliar editor. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 12:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:: are generated for inactive WikiProjects. --] (]) 14:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's a bit of a blade-that-cuts-both-ways situation: seeing that an article is associated with a given WikiProject is one of the key ways new editors with common interests can seek each other out. I think it's reasonable to continue marking pages that fall within the current scope of a given inactive WikiProject. I would be hesitant to expand the scope (I appreciate this can be a fuzzy line). ] (]) 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree with being cautious about the scope. Tagging pages for a WikiProject is ideally not a one-step process, but should involve some active participants reviewing the additions on a regular basis. (I know I do this, though I am not sure how many projects do.) If there are no active participants to review, it would be preferable to be quite conservative in tagging new articles, limiting it to only those articles that are inarguably substantially within of the core mandate.
:::Perhaps off-topic, but how often has a defunct WikiProject been successfully revived?--] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, the scope should remain unchanged, obviously. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 18:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


To be clear, this wasn´t about the occasional tagging of new articles, but the mass tagging of hundreds of long established categories. ] (]) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Your ] label, {{tl|User label WPCouncil}} is in danger of being deleted. See (].) If you still want it, you may wish to move it to project space, perhaps a redirect page or by placing <tt><nowiki>{{db-move|Template:User label WPCouncil|]}}</nowiki></tt> above the redirect. Also see {{t|user label}} for technical details. Feel free to review my planning page, ], and talk there if you have questions. ] (]) 01:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:The "new" refers to their tagged status, not the page's age. Also, categories and articles are inclusive to "pages".
:What makes you think that {{cat|1960s in Yugoslavia}} shouldn't be tagged with {{tl|WP Former countries}}, but {{cat|5th-century BC Macedonians}}, {{cat|2nd-millennium disestablishments in the Spanish East Indies}}, etc., etc., etc. should? &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don´t think it is useful to continue adding hundreds of categories to inactive projects. Removing already tagged ones is equally useless until the project is defunct. I have an issue with pointless, unproductive, mass edits pollutibg the watchlists of other editors. Leaving in place already present tags doesn´t have ghat issue, but your edits in this or similar cases were just a nuisance. ] (]) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You still haven't explained why you think the taggings ''aren't'' useful, just that you ]. Meanwhile, everyone else above has explained why they ''are'' useful. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 11:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Everyone else": "On the other hand, it's pretty dead and doesn't function as an actual Wikiproject, and the more places dead Wikiprojects are tagged the more opportunity there is for someone unfamiliar to expect there to be support there isn't. " "Tagging pages for a WikiProject is ideally not a one-step process, but should involve some active participants reviewing the additions on a regular basis." The usefulness of these additions is extremely limited and more theoretical than anything else, even more so for categories than for articles probably (something like "seeing that an article is associated with a given WikiProject is one of the key ways new editors with common interests can seek each other out" is hardly a reason to tag categories, where the talk pages are hardly seen or used): and at the same time it adds clutter to watchlists and the like. ] (]) 12:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, everyone else.
:::::# Re "unfamiliar": "{{tq|Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.}}"
:::::# Re "not a one-step process": yes, for articles; categories, templates, etc. don't use {{para|class}} & {{para|importance}}; also note "substantially within of the core mandate", which is being followed.
:::::So, what makes you think that {{cat|1960s in Yugoslavia}} shouldn't be tagged with {{tl|WP Former countries}}, but {{cat|5th-century BC Macedonians}}, {{cat|2nd-millennium disestablishments in the Spanish East Indies}}, etc., etc., etc. should? Please try to respond meaningfully. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I don't think any categories which don't have tags for inactive Wikiprojects should be ''added'' to these wikiprojects, as it is a largely pointless exercise where the main result will be the edit appearing on watchlists, and then absolutely nothing. I don't think the tag is useful for these other cats either, but it does no harm to let them in place either, and removing them would equally pollute watchlists. I don't know why you have difficulty grasping the difference between the two situations. ] (]) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Note also that there probably was a good reason why {{cat|1960s in Yugoslavia}} was not added to the Wikiproject for 14 years, even during the time it was active: it was tagged for ] already, which is a subproject of the "former countries" one (and listed as semi-active instead of non-active to boot). Basically, as this was already in the more specific child project, you shouldn't have tagged it for the parent category in any case. ] (]) 13:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed; ''that'' is a good argument. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 11:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Associating a page with a WikiProject is handing that WikiProject a small bill to pay in the form of maintenance. When a WikiProject has active participants, they can decide to scale down the scope of the project accordingly to reduce that bill to the amount they can handle. For inactive projects, there is a risk that this unpaid bill will balloon to a size that discourages re-vitalization of the project. I am concerned about broad categories being associated with an inactive WikiProject, which can expand the scope of a WikiProject substantially. ] (]) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Has any Wikiproject ever engaged in a systematic scale down? ] (]) 16:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I don't know, but I wasn't referring to a one. When a WikiProject is active, its members can monitor what pages are being associated with it, and actively prune them to fit the scope that they are planning to maintain. When there are no active members, there is no feedback mechanism to manage the project's scope, and so I think editors uninterested in the topic matter ought to be cautious about expanding that scope. ] (]) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::As an active pruner, I agree with this. Where there is an inconsistency in the scope of an inactive project (it contains X but doesn’t contain Y), the solution could be equally to prune X rather than to add Y. Which is preferable is a question that can only be answered by the future participants of the revived WikiProject, if any, and what they want to see in their reports.--] (]) 14:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:04, 8 January 2025

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject and all talk pages of subpages of Misplaced Pages: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 925 WikiProjects tagged as "Active" (see Category:Active WikiProjects), and 246 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 Misplaced Pages:Database reports/WikiProject watchers. Q4: Which WikiProject has tagged the most articles as being within their scope? A4: WikiProject Biography has tagged 2,055,315 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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Archiving icon

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: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject/Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
    WikiProject iconCouncil
    WikiProject iconThis page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil
    WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages
    WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
    WikiProject Council
    FAQs Overview + talk Council page
    Coordination
    Directories

    Shortcut

    Category question

    Is there an active category here with editors that specialize in a topic that would include COVID-19 lab leak theory? I guess this is in medicine and epidemiology and virology but I did not see those categories. Are there projects related to media and politics whose scope would touch on that topic? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    We don't really have categories of editors, but we do have Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine. That said, you have already initiated discussion on that article talkpage, and it is likely watched by most of those who are already interested in the topic. CMD (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, and it's previously been (much) discussed at WP:FTN. Bon courage (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

    Creating a WikiProject

    Hello people! I just wanna ask if I can create a WikiProject without going to a official process? I'm planning to create a WikiProject for a girl group. Royiswariii Talk! 08:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

    The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide is worth a read. In summary creating a Wikiproject won't do much without having other editors on board. CMD (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Royiswariii, you should join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Music and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pop music instead, and you should not attempt to start any separate WikiProjects until you have half a dozen other experienced editors who will publicly state that they will participate.
    Years ago, I pulled some stats on WikiProjects that were successful (more specifically, that didn't completely fail within a few months). The two key indicators were: the person starting them had been editing for years (I notice you've been editing for only four months), and there were lots of people interested in working with that person (the more, the merrier, but 6 to 10 was usually enough). Most WikiProjects that didn't meet both of these criteria failed. In many cases, a couple of months later, nobody was posting and the original founder had stopped editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

    WikiProject approval process

    Months ago, we said we'd update the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals process. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Do we actually want any more WikiProjects?

    Leaving aside the chance of a once-a-decade group like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject COVID-19, I'm currently wondering whether the answer is that we actually don't want to encourage WikiProjects. One possibility is to just say "No", or at least "No, unless you can produce a petition that will be listed on Misplaced Pages:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something".

    Another is to suggest a lightweight alternative, such as this:

    • Create a central page at User:Founder/Favorite_thing.
    • Create a shared watchlist by making a list of all articles you're interested in at User:Founder/Favorite_thing/Articles we support and then using Special:RecentChangesLinked on that page.
    • Do not create banners. Do not tag articles. Do not create categories. Do not spam links to your page. Do not do or say anything that suggests this is an official or permanent group of any sort.
    • Do invite your friends to work with you and to post on that page. Do invite individual editors who contribute to these articles to join you. Do post (once or twice) a link with an invitation at the most relevant WikiProject(s).
    • If your group maintains at least five active participants for a year, then those pages can be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Favorite thing. Participation will be measured by them posting to User talk:Founder/Favorite_thing, not by quietly editing the articles. (If they're not posting on that page, then you don't need a WikiProject page. The point of the WikiProject page is for participants to coordinate the group's activities.) If you don't meet that standard but you want it out of your userspace, then ask the most closely related active WikiProject to adopt your group, whether by completely merging it away or as a WP:TASKFORCE.

    If we'd done this from the start, we'd have far fewer defunct WikiProjects now. What do you think?

    WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

    • I generally support the premise that there are enough WikiProjects for any would-be WikiProject founder(s) to find an appropriate venue for collaboration. But, since many/most WPs are talk-inactive, I think that, rather than dilute the talk-pool further via User talk:Founder/Favorite_thing, just start using the most relevant WP from the start. If the traffic is enough to overwhelm the parent WP, then, based on the activity level & its duration leading up to that point, an informed decision can be made by the council & participants as to whether a TF or new WP is more appropriate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
      That's basically what I said in the earlier discussion: use an appropriate existing WikiProject to host discussion, and then after some time the involved participants can decide on the best ways of working. If no one's work is being impeded, then no change is needed. If there is some clash in operations, they can consider changes, such as splitting off discussion to a subpage, creating a task force to separate out article alerts, or (perhaps in some cases) creating a new WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    WikiProject category RecentChanges

    cross-posted from Help Desk, no replies there

    I can apply Special:RecentChangesLinked to various WikiProject categories, but it only tracks recent changes to the talk pages (since those are the pages tagged by the project banners).

    Is there any way to get RecentChanges to display for the main pages corresponding to the talk pages in the category? Or a tool?

    There used to be WP:XWT, which is now deprecated. Also a number of prominent topics (e.g., physics & math) for WP:1 'articles by quality' lists are deprecated (although a few are still working), as well as the replacement web tool. Tule-hog (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Tule-hog, you need to make a list of the WikiProject's pages. For example, make a list of everything in Category:All WikiProject Medicine pages (or any similar category), use search-and-replace to remove the Talk: part of the file name, and then use Special:RecentChangesLinked on the page. This won't auto-update, so you'll need to update the list manually every now and again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the pointer. Looks like its finally time to take a crack at Pywikibot. Tule-hog (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    WikiProject Reviving and Changing the name

    Hi! I'm just asking if a WikiProject defunct can be revive and change the name? Royiswariii Talk! 16:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Please consider the advice you were given at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council § Creating a WikiProject, and what I've previously suggested about using the most relevant active WikiProject to host discussion. isaacl (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isaacl Actually, we found a defunct WikiProject here and the founder agreed to give it to me and start with my few fellows editors to start WikiProject. But, we will build and add a collaboration (or supported) to some existing WikiProjects like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pop Music to maintain the activeness of the parent WikiProject. It is possible? (And we're working now on the design of our future WikiProject, but it will take long). Royiswariii Talk! 12:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Other than WP:The Beatles and a handful of others, a new WikiProject should not be created for a particular band unless extremely popular both outside Misplaced Pages & within. Using WP:Pop music directly or creating a taskforce within it is fine.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn't feel like you've taken the previously offered guidance into consideration. No one owns a WikiProject so no one can give one to you. I continue to advise starting with having discussions on the talk page of an existing active WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isaacl But it says If your group can't wait for the new process, please only create group pages in the userspace of one of your members. It means we can create on my user or one of my members a WikiProject. Royiswariii Talk! 05:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, all the templates will be on my userpage? Royiswariii Talk! 05:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No: User groups do not get any templates. They do not get to tag any pages. I should update the documentation to be very clear about that.
    @Royiswariii, who else is in your group? A WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together. If nobody's working with you, you do not have a WikiProject, full stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    WhatamIdoing, we're 7 or 8 (Final it's 8) active editors we're working and we're planning to create a WikiProject. since we're always active, I will be the founder of our WikiProject if they want to let me to create a WikiProject. Royiswariii Talk! 02:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Can you name these editors Royiswariii? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    AirshipJungleman29
    Here:
    AstrooKai
    Borgenland
    Acrom12
    Royiswariii (me)
    Bloomagiliw
    Indo360 (semi-active, fully active will back on january)
    Orojackson56 (per above)
    Freedom Wall (counted in since they are actively on 2 articles) Royiswariii Talk! 02:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Where have you been talking to them about your plan? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    on AstrooKai's talk page. Royiswariii Talk! 03:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, i was planning to create a WikiProject too on October but it was scrapped due to a guidlines here on WikiProject and then they back to planning on creating a WikiProject. Royiswariii Talk! 03:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    What are you trying to get out of a Wikiproject? Are there particular tools you are looking for, or a particular thing you wish to see? CMD (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was planning to create a WikiProject focused on Bini, a Filipino girl group, to organize and improved related article. Their popularity was like a rocketship, but of course I can maintain of activeness of the WikiProject through inviting on other editors. Royiswariii Talk! 06:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's the scope of the proposed group.
    The question is about tools. For example, do you need a statistics table like the one at https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Philippine%20music%20task%20force ? Do you need a bot to deliver a newsletter? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oh sorry. Yes we need that too, and the banner of course. Royiswariii Talk! 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    What tools, and why? How exactly will you use them?
    Do any of the other supposed members have any idea that you're trying to create this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    We need a project statistics bot and new article bots that can configure into a specific articles. I don't know the other bots that we need, do you know the other bots here and other basic needs of bots on WikiProject?
    The other members are they know this, they leave me to create this and waiting to establish the WikiProject. Royiswariii Talk! 07:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    How about you collaborate together on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musicians for a month, and if activity is high enough to require a separate project, you can split? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    AirshipJungleman29, Can you give me a tutorial how I do it? and if we maintain the high activeness, how can I split it? Royiswariii Talk! 11:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    You can have discussions on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Musicians just as you would for an independent WikiProject. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Alright, thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 11:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Many CfD discussions on assessment categories

    I thought it might be helpful to highlight the many different discussions which have recently closed or still happening at CfD regarding assessment categories. These are the ones that I am aware of, please add any others.

    — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    @MSGJ: Since you say I suspect this relates to all non-article/NA-importance intersection categories. on Portal-Class xyz articles of NA-importance, I'd like to note that I'm fine with it in most cases. However, I oppose it on draft pages, and userspace pages with draft tags, because someone may want to provisionally rate the importance. For example, let's say there does not exist an article on Mars, so someone might create Draft:Mars and rate it's importance provisionally. —CX Zoom 03:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's pretty much what I wrote at the CfD discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Assessment date in WPBS

    Articles keep changing over time and may not reflect the quality at the time of last assessment. There is no way to know when an article was last assessed (except checking the page history). I think that WPBS should include an assessment date parameter. Thoughts? —CX Zoom 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've no problem with scripts adding dates, but, in practice, I don't think we should expect editors to hand-edit the date when they manually update it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I know you haven't suggested this, but I would strongly oppose anyone sending a bot around to add a starting date. This should be optional and, if it exists, more or less accurate, not "well, we started in on 27 December 2024, so everything is that date until changed later, including things that were last assessed in 2007". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, sure. But most assessors use WP:RATER, which can include the assessment date without assessors having to hand-edit it, and without needing to send a bot for it. —CX Zoom 07:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Should new pages not be added to inactive WikiProjects?

    Fram thinks new pages should not be added, and I think new pages should be added.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is an issue with the purpose of Wikiprojects vs their tools. For example, I watch the Country article alerts and so the Former Country wikiproject is helpful to me. On the other hand, it's pretty dead and doesn't function as an actual Wikiproject, and the more places dead Wikiprojects are tagged the more opportunity there is for someone unfamiliar to expect there to be support there isn't. CMD (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also use project categories for filtering & finding pages. However, I don't think pages should be added for defunct WikiProjects, since inactive WPs are only mostly dead, and not dead-dead.
    Regarding expected support, inactive WPs have "Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse." in their banner, which I think is sufficient to redirect an unfamiliar editor.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cleanup Worklists are generated for inactive WikiProjects. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a bit of a blade-that-cuts-both-ways situation: seeing that an article is associated with a given WikiProject is one of the key ways new editors with common interests can seek each other out. I think it's reasonable to continue marking pages that fall within the current scope of a given inactive WikiProject. I would be hesitant to expand the scope (I appreciate this can be a fuzzy line). isaacl (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with being cautious about the scope. Tagging pages for a WikiProject is ideally not a one-step process, but should involve some active participants reviewing the additions on a regular basis. (I know I do this, though I am not sure how many projects do.) If there are no active participants to review, it would be preferable to be quite conservative in tagging new articles, limiting it to only those articles that are inarguably substantially within of the core mandate.
    Perhaps off-topic, but how often has a defunct WikiProject been successfully revived?--Trystan (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, the scope should remain unchanged, obviously.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    To be clear, this wasn´t about the occasional tagging of new articles, but the mass tagging of hundreds of long established categories. Fram (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    The "new" refers to their tagged status, not the page's age. Also, categories and articles are inclusive to "pages".
    What makes you think that Category:1960s in Yugoslavia shouldn't be tagged with {{WP Former countries}}, but Category:5th-century BC Macedonians, Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in the Spanish East Indies, etc., etc., etc. should?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don´t think it is useful to continue adding hundreds of categories to inactive projects. Removing already tagged ones is equally useless until the project is defunct. I have an issue with pointless, unproductive, mass edits pollutibg the watchlists of other editors. Leaving in place already present tags doesn´t have ghat issue, but your edits in this or similar cases were just a nuisance. Fram (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    You still haven't explained why you think the taggings aren't useful, just that you WP:DONTLIKEIT. Meanwhile, everyone else above has explained why they are useful.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Everyone else": "On the other hand, it's pretty dead and doesn't function as an actual Wikiproject, and the more places dead Wikiprojects are tagged the more opportunity there is for someone unfamiliar to expect there to be support there isn't. " "Tagging pages for a WikiProject is ideally not a one-step process, but should involve some active participants reviewing the additions on a regular basis." The usefulness of these additions is extremely limited and more theoretical than anything else, even more so for categories than for articles probably (something like "seeing that an article is associated with a given WikiProject is one of the key ways new editors with common interests can seek each other out" is hardly a reason to tag categories, where the talk pages are hardly seen or used): and at the same time it adds clutter to watchlists and the like. Fram (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, everyone else.
    1. Re "unfamiliar": "Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse."
    2. Re "not a one-step process": yes, for articles; categories, templates, etc. don't use |class= & |importance=; also note "substantially within of the core mandate", which is being followed.
    So, what makes you think that Category:1960s in Yugoslavia shouldn't be tagged with {{WP Former countries}}, but Category:5th-century BC Macedonians, Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in the Spanish East Indies, etc., etc., etc. should? Please try to respond meaningfully.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think any categories which don't have tags for inactive Wikiprojects should be added to these wikiprojects, as it is a largely pointless exercise where the main result will be the edit appearing on watchlists, and then absolutely nothing. I don't think the tag is useful for these other cats either, but it does no harm to let them in place either, and removing them would equally pollute watchlists. I don't know why you have difficulty grasping the difference between the two situations. Fram (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note also that there probably was a good reason why Category:1960s in Yugoslavia was not added to the Wikiproject for 14 years, even during the time it was active: it was tagged for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Yugoslavia already, which is a subproject of the "former countries" one (and listed as semi-active instead of non-active to boot). Basically, as this was already in the more specific child project, you shouldn't have tagged it for the parent category in any case. Fram (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed; that is a good argument.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Associating a page with a WikiProject is handing that WikiProject a small bill to pay in the form of maintenance. When a WikiProject has active participants, they can decide to scale down the scope of the project accordingly to reduce that bill to the amount they can handle. For inactive projects, there is a risk that this unpaid bill will balloon to a size that discourages re-vitalization of the project. I am concerned about broad categories being associated with an inactive WikiProject, which can expand the scope of a WikiProject substantially. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Has any Wikiproject ever engaged in a systematic scale down? CMD (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know, but I wasn't referring to a one. When a WikiProject is active, its members can monitor what pages are being associated with it, and actively prune them to fit the scope that they are planning to maintain. When there are no active members, there is no feedback mechanism to manage the project's scope, and so I think editors uninterested in the topic matter ought to be cautious about expanding that scope. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    As an active pruner, I agree with this. Where there is an inconsistency in the scope of an inactive project (it contains X but doesn’t contain Y), the solution could be equally to prune X rather than to add Y. Which is preferable is a question that can only be answered by the future participants of the revived WikiProject, if any, and what they want to see in their reports.--Trystan (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: