Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 25

Active discussions

WP:WikiProject Council/Guide is not a guideline

Hello. I am removing the "guideline" tag from the WikiProject guide. The promotion to guideline seems to have gone entirely without discussion, and it has consistently been changed and rewritten with little to no discussion. As such, it is completely inappropriate that it is tagged as a guideline; per WP:policies and guidelines, a guideline must be supported by consensus. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree it shouldn’t be a guideline (maybe for other reasons than you provided) but I think it’s more of an information page than an essay. -- Calidum 19:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
As Calidum pointed out, it's informational. @PJvanMill: would you consider switching the template from "essay" to "information page"? Various templates used on this page will need to be changed, as will the sentence that has "guidelines" in it near the beginning. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Struck, replaced with recommendation to change back to guideline AND discuss possible demotion to "information page" - see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Calidum @davidwr I have no objection to changing the template to {{information page}}, I agree "essay" is not quite the right word. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)   Done 19:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment Things were a lot looser in 2006. The apparent absence of "push-back" suggest at least assent if not outright consent. Unless there was a move to revert it since that was "squashed" without sufficient discussion, I recommend changing it back to "Guideline" then holding a "re-affirmation" RFC if you think one is needed. Your point about this changing over time without enough discussion is a good one, which is why I'm suggesting a "re-affirm status as Guideline or demote to information page" with "no consensus" being "no consensus to demote." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@davidwr I would say an outcome of "no consensus" should be interpreted as "no consensus that this should be a guideline / no consensus to uphold guideline status". I think this should not be marked as guideline before a strong consensus FOR it is demonstrated. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@PJvanMill: Hmm. I went back and read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 1#Tag for guide pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 2#Guide header wording and it looks like you are right, there was actually a discussion that resulted in it NOT being called a guideline. On the other hand, within months of those 2006 discussions, someone boldly changed it to a guideline. Unless I missed something, it went over 13 years without being reverted or objected to, which strongly suggests "silent assent." In any case, it's obvious it's time for some kind of formal discussion. Unfortunately, it looks like Radiant! who made the late-2006 change has retired, or at least he's no longer editing under that name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@davidwr Not that Radiant! would probably remember an action taken in 2006... :) I think the right place to start that discussion would be here, with a mention at WP:VPPRO, correct? Despite the fact that this has undeniably been the status quo for a very long time, I still believe that it should not be returned to guideline status unless/until that discussion results in "Support". In today's Wikipedia, we should use today's WP:PG policy and not just take remnants from the 2006 wild west for granted. And yes, there has been a long time of silence, but I would suggest it was a silence of indifference (wikiprojects aren't that big a deal, after all) and not of approval. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the council page. We have a process in place if there is a problem and people feel it's not classed right.-WP:HISTORICAL. Last thing we want is editors changing things without going through the whole process to get all associated pages up to date. Side note would be OK with it tagged as an info page. But best get input for the community and council members first.-Moxy 🍁 21:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Moxy, I see you just undid my change. In your edit summary, you indicate that you are reverting solely because my edit was out of process. Now, sure, whether a page is tagged as guideline is important business. My point is, though, that tagging this as guideline was done completely out of process as well. I think that given the WP:PG policy, we should default to not tagging something as a guideline unless there is clear consensus for it. I won't edit war, but please consider my position. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Note that WP:HISTORICAL says An accepted policy or guideline... (emphasis mine). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Was no process in place when this was originally promoted. So yes a talk would be needed as the page has influence countless conversation and has been stable without a problem in its status for over a decade. That said even if promoted out of process....we have a process for that now.....but that would not hold up to scrutiny because of the length of time that has passed....again at WP:HISTORICAL. Can I ask what the problem is here that it needs demotion? We have many guidelines that are in this in information rather then rules...this is a mix of both.--Moxy 🍁 21:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy My main issue is that marking it as a guideline suggests all advice in it is mandatory. The page currently suggest that it is a rule that before creating a project, it must first be proposed at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals and may only be created when there are six supporters. In reality, that is not treated as a rule but simply as advice - see for example here. That, in particular, I do not think should be a rule, which is the main reason I would vote-non-vote "Oppose" on an RfC asking whether this should be a guideline.
That said, the content in the "General principles" section seems to describe accepted norms that are actually being followed - something one would expect from a guideline. So it feels like part of this should be a guideline, but part should be marked as "just advice". Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
A guideline = " generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If you believe a project will be viable with just a few people I would suggest go a head. --Moxy 🍁 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy Of course, but I have a problem with calling it a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow when in reality it's just advice, and I am also concerned with the fact that any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus seems to be consistently ignored. Both of those indicate to me that at least this part should not be marked as "guideline". I do not feel like the page is really preventing me from doing anything, it's just that the label feels inaccurate. It is not treated like a guideline, so why does it say "guideline"? I admit that this isn't really a big deal, but it feels like whether a page is marked as guideline or not should be a big deal. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Its a highly active page with countless discussions over its content and refenced thousands of times in talk that link here. Out of all the guidelines out there I would have to say this one is watched over by many. --Moxy 🍁 19:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy It was my impression that it has often been changed quite a lot with little discussion, but I might not have looked well enough. The more important point, though, is that the part of the guideline about creating a new wikiproject is regarded as optional advice and not really as a guideline. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Wow, it's not every day we consider reverting an edit from 14 years ago; nice find, PJvanMill! I have to agree, though, that whatever problems there may have been with the promotion in 2006, the fact that the guideline designation has stuck around for this long gives it status quo status, and an affirmative consensus will have to be formed to remove the designation. But that's alright, since as Moxy pointed out, we have a process for that, and I'd encourage it to be started, since I think a removal is a plausible outcome to expect. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb, just to make sure: the right process for this is a request for comment on this talk page, advertised at WP:VPPRO? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
PJvanMill, it's presumably whatever WP:HISTORICAL says. I'm not familiar with the process, so I'll defer to others for clarification. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. Start an WP:RFC on this page...see Example RfC here....that is short and non-opinionated...could have a section for rationale for change, survey and discussion sections.
  2. Add {{Under discussion}} to the top of the guide with a link to the RfC just made.
  3. Post a very short notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) again with a link to the RfC just made....notice could contain the RfC wording that again is short and to the point.
  4. Sit the process may take over a month to conclude
--Moxy 🍁 03:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Moxy. PJvanMill)talk( 11:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
PJvanMill, it happens that I wrote most of the WP:PROPOSAL section that you are trying to impose on that page. This was many years after that page was declared to be a guideline, and well before you created your account last year, so of course I don't expect you to know anything about that. PROPOSAL is not intended to be applied retroactively. Instead, you should assume that any long-tagged page came by its tags in accordance with whatever the accepted process was at that time. As Sdkb notes, WP:HISTORICAL is the process for demoting pages that no longer need to hold their current status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I understand. After posting that last comment, though, I changed my mind about trying to deprecate the whole guideline, given that I really only have a problem with the wording of one phrase as added in 2019. So I think I should just propose a change to that one bit of wording instead of starting a deprecation RfC on the whole thing. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
PJvanMill, maybe you should just Wikipedia:Be bold and improve it.
To give you a quick background on the process of creating WikiProjects, I've been thinking (for years) about canning the whole process, and telling people that, seriously, they just shouldn't create any more, and if they absolutely think that they need yet another, then they need to get several of their best wiki-friends to come to this page and try to talk us into it. It would be more realistic. Build it and they will come is not how WikiProjects work.
I ran some numbers back about 10 years ago (that's the source of statements about having at least six active editors). Attempts to start a group reliably fail unless there are multiple active editors involved in it. So if you want a chance at success, you need multiple editors who want to participate in the group (otherwise, you don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject at all), those editors need to have made hundreds or thousands of edits, and you can't be new (because most new editors stop editing after a few months). If your group doesn't meet all of those criteria, you're just wasting your time setting up pages. Six active would-be participants is good. A dozen is safer. Three isn't enough.
What I'd like people to understand is that the proposal process does not recruit editors. Either you find them and bring them to the proposal, or nobody will show up. I'd also like them to understand that the advice about getting together a group is not an arbitrary rule. It's not even "a rule"; technically, the whole proposal process is optional. It's just a statement of the facts: to have a chance at your proposed WikiProject still having anyone around this time next year, you need to start with at least six editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
All so true. I'd like to see a wider approval process, say an Rfc, before any new project is allowed. Even the biggest struggle to stay active these days. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing Surely, whether a project will succeed or fail cannot be predicted based just on the starting number of participants? After all, if you have a sound concept, and you have 4 people who are not only active but also actively recruiting, that number can grow to 6 relatively quickly - at least, if they have an actual, living wikiproject to recruit people to instead of some proposal. It just seems to me that for a group of 5 or 4 enthousiastic people, it is terrible advice to tell them to sit around until they are with 6. I will admit there is very little hope for this, though. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 23:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a strong statistical probability, not an absolute rule. I could probably start a WikiProject single-handedly and turn it into something viable for a time, just because enough highly active editors know me and would put a page on their watchlists as a favor to me. But when we're talking about a real project, instead of a deliberate attempt to provide a counterexample, six was more likely to be successful than four. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Many English Wikipedia initiatives start with a rush of users stating their interest that rapidly fade away. A lot of interested participants is not a guarantee, nor is a hard numerical cutoff, but the more people involved, the greater the chance that some of them will stick around. The choice is not solely between doing nothing and starting a new WikiProject: editors interested in a subject who want to co-ordinate and discuss points of interest should definitely find an appropriate venue, particularly one where more interested participants can be found. Generally this will mean using the discussion page for an appropriate WikiProject that has some existing degree of activity. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments subpages

I had a headache figuring out why all the WikiProject pages mention the Comments subpages. I eventually found WP:DCS and then MSGJ mentioning them here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 22#Comments subpages. Now that the headache is gone I am just annoyed by all those mentionings. Will they go away? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mysteriumen, where are they being mentioned? For example, on talk pages, in search results, in guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I kept finding the /Comments mentioned, I think it was on talk pages as well, but here is one example Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Assessment#Assessment instructionsMysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mysteriumen: Many of the project pages tend to be relatively lightly edited. I have usually removed them as I've come across them. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Confusing links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia#Maintenance

Hello everybody. I noticed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia in the Maintenance list are a bunch of Yes entries linking to No, a disambiguation page. In the source code they appear as unlinked no but in the resulting page they appear a Yes. As a result it is unclear whether yes or no is the intended mesage. Can you help figuring out what happens in the background and fix this confusing mess? Thank you. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I have figured out what was going on. The Template treats all entries as a yes and automatically links to it. I have removed the no entires that created the confusion. This problem is fixed now and my post here was in hindsight unecessary. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

update on WP:HIST

hi all! checking in briefly. all is well at WP:History. We have added an additional active coordinator, and a new coordinator from another wikiproject to help with assessment. Generally speaking, the project remains inactive overall; our main goal is to serve as a community forum for anyone who may drop by, and also as a partial gateway to history topics in general, and to other wikiprojects that are much more active than our own, for anyone who might be interested. we welcome any thoughts or feedback. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, I think you are correct in identifying the lack of responses (to some requests) as a potential problem. You want people to think that WPHIST is a useful place. No one person can know everything, but getting some sort of response might help. You may be able to help find the "right" person by looking at the contributors to related articles or related WikiProjects. If you can ping someone with a personal request, that can help get responses.
Another useful thing, when the request is for help at an article's talk page, is to post a note on the WikiProject's page when someone did reply on the talk page. That makes people reading it feel like the group is being helpful, even if most people don't know anything about the subject.
You might not want to do that for every single request, but I encourage you to try it out on occasion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing! nice to see you here again. those are all top-notch ideas!! I am going to give some real thought into using those at the wikiproject. you are welcome to drop by any time, and to add any ideas that you wish. thanks for these terrific ideas. see you! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
by the way, anyone and everyone who works on ancient history, medieval, etc, is welcome to come by. our two new coordinators both have some real expertise in those areas, but we are always eager to have more people in those areas. the average person is not so proficient in those, so we want to extend a special invitation to anyone who might have experience there. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to historical wikiproject coordinators

Hi there. is there anyone else here who serves as a coordinator for wikiprojects on various areas or topics within history? I am the coordinator for Wikiproject History. whatever project you may have, it is almost certain that your project is far more active . my main goal is to make wiki-project history useful as an introductory resource; i.e. as described in the list below:

a) we can help any new editors who would like to learn how to get active in editing history topics in general,
b) we can serve as a community forum, where people can post questions and get answers, and
c) we can try to serve as a conduit and a doorway, where new editors can come by and find their way either to:
1) articles needing work, since we have automated article alerts there.
2) various topics for discussion on our talk page;
3) various other wikiprojects, whose activity levels are far, far greater than ours, such as e.g.: Military history, and Women in Red, etc etc.

So please do write back if you wish. let us know anything we can do that can help, anything you'd like us to promote, or anything else we can do that would be worthwhile.

by the way, I am also currently one of the active editors at Community bulletin board. we have been trying to give this a renewed level of activity, by posting editing drives, contests, and many other group activities there. so you are welcome to let me know if there is anything that you might like me to highlight or to promote there, as well.

I hope that is helpful. I look forward to hearing any ideas, suggestions, requests etc, that you may wish. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


Should we have a IRC Channel? --Commons is in a thing (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Which "we"? There is already an IRC channel for the English Wikipedia in general. I doubt that we need one specifically for the WikiProject Council. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
hm, how about whatsapp? --Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
There are also editors on Telegram, Matrix, Discord, and maybe even still Steam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Yes, there are a handful of editors in Steam groups, but I don't think anyone takes those as serious discussion venues.... --Izno (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC))
WhatamIdoing, that is good to know. I would be very interested in joining any threads on telegram. can you please let me know how I would do so? thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Sm8900, there is information at m:Telegram. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


It's not clear to me if Wikipedia:GLAM/TarfayaPedia is a Wikipedia project, but since it is listed in the Projects section at Talk:The Little Prince as a project, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and assumed it is. Otoh, there's been no activity there, so I added a {{WikiProject status|Inactive}} template. But if it is a project, maybe it should be marked 'defunct' instead. Can someone check if this is a project at all, and if so, whether the template should be altered. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That looks a bit like a cross between a chapter-sponsored event and a WikiProject. I don't know if there is a simple way to classify it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A question regarding WikiProjects or wikiprojects

Should "wikiprojects" as a generic term be capitalized? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974 I'd say that's a matter of personal taste and not really something we need to hold a discussion about. How one spells Wikipedia-specific things is of no consequence, all that matters is that the others understand what one is referring to. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I had a dispute with SMcCandlish about whether "wikiprojects" should be capitalized when talking about Category:Defunct newsletters of WikiProjects. I thought a discussion would be necessary to resolve the dispute. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Soumya-8974 I see, this is about this CfD discussion. Reading that discussion, I think you can say there is consensus that capitalising as 'WikiProject' is preferable for consistency. If you want to change this in other places, I think you can just go ahead - perhaps someone will disagree and you have to discuss. But holding a centralised discussion about such a trivial thing would be a waste of time. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that we use it as a "generic" term. A WikiProject is a specific thing (a group of people who want to work together to improve Wikipedia), not just any old project that has some connection to any old wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevant RM

  FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability/Style guide#Requested move 20 November 2020
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pls take a look

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#‎How can we better consolidate and discourage creation of overly-specific WikiProjects?.--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: sorry I missed this, but what was the conclusion, if any? I agree this is often a problem. More of a problem is a single editor creating a project that is never going to be active. An extreme policy might be to enforce a policy of having at least 10 active members before creating a new project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Public art

Back in July 2019, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Public Art, I asked members to consider whether or not the project should be converted into a task force. No replies. I see an editor has just marked the project as 'semi-active', so I've raised the question once again. Just an FYI, but also soliciting feedback from Council page watchers. FWIW, I edit articles about public art all the time, but I mostly use WikiProject Sculpture and WikiProject Visual arts for collaboration. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: What project do you propose to make it a task force of? Perhaps you should ask the receiving project if they are keen? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
MSGJ, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts is the most appropriate umbrella project by far. There's a standalone project for Sculpture but not all public art is sculpture. I've not asked WP Visual arts for feedback but I'd say most Public Art articles are also tagged as part of WikiProject Visual arts because of the overlap. Let's just say almost all public art articles should be tagged as part of WikiProject Visual arts. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice for advertising relaunched projects?

I've been posting a bunch at/linking to WikiProject Usability trying to revive that project, but it doesn't really seem to have drawn in many editors. I'm also involved in some recent discussions at Articles for improvement, which really ought to be a lot more active than it is. Would you all have any advice about how to advertise a relaunched WikiProject or otherwise draw in editors to it? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would think that 'usability' is just another word for 'accessibility', which already has a semi-active project at WP:WikiProject Accessibility (presumably to parallel WP:ACCESS). --Izno (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Izno, that's somewhat tangential to the question I'm asking, but to answer, they're not the same. WikiProject Accessibility (both in how it defines itself and de facto in how it focuses its efforts) is primarily about ensuring Wikipedia works for those with disabilities, whereas WikiProject Usability looks at more general issues. To take a recent example, the VPR discussion on moving the featured/GA topicons to be next to the title was something I shared to the project as it's relevant to the scope. It (like all usability discussions) needs to keep accessibility in mind as a top priority, but assisting those with disabilities was not the impetus for the proposal. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, posting it here was a good first step. I'm not sure if I'll contribute that much, but at least I added it to my watchlist. Keep up the good work! --MarioGom (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Jimmy_Dore by UnitedStatesian

I created this WP:Project in order to improve Wikipedia by making Jimmy Dore's entry look more like an encyclopedia article, similar to Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Frank Zappa, or Banksy (artists most similar to JD).

Notice this project was deleted by UnitedStatesian (talk) (a non-admin? how?) who added this snarky comment,

>> "The proposed WikiProject was not created; the proposer does not understand the function and purpose of WikiProjects"

Oh really? I spent several hours studying the docs before I created the page. Additionally, I have been a WP editor for 17 years. That kind of remark is utterly offensive, juvenille, disrespectful, and completely inappropriate.

I would caution UnitedStatesian that comments which berate another WP Editor, instead of dispassionately discussing the edit, are inappropriate and may denote bullying. See, WP:BULLY, which states:

>> Doing so violates Wikipedia's civility policy which states that "even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block..."

Additionally, there are many problems with this delete.

1: This deletion was less than 48 hours after Kingsif (talk) filed a single OPPOSE vote. He said:

  • Oppose You're wanting to make a project just to focus improvements on one article, where the main concern is BLP. Just go to the Biographies WikiProject and ask for help. Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2: I was not given the opportunity to respond. I have limited time in a day. I don't always log in to WP every day.

3: I have no interest in joining a WikiProject about BLPs or Biographies in general.

I proposed a Jimmy Dore Project page SPECIFICALLY, because that is my interest. Not only is Jimmy Dore immensely popular, but topics he covers are at an intersection of ideas I am also interested in: Political Dysfunction of the Left in Modern America, Corporate Media Criticism, War & Peace, Censorship, etc.

4: There are *potentially* a dozen pages which might mention Jimmy Dore (see pages which mention Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Hicks for example, arguably artists most similar to Dore). However any edits which attempt to add important biographical information about Jimmy Dore on WP are met with speedy reverts, including by the notorious meta-User:Philip Cross, known to vandalize pages of prominent anti-war voices. This seems to be an organized effort.

5: There is at least one WP:Project proposal with a focus on a single artist: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Justin_Bieber

6: There are at least 20 WP:Project pages with a focus on a single living artist, or noteworthy person:

Bob Dylan, Billie Eilish, Beyoncé,Demi Lovato, Donald Trump, Dua Lipa, Gwen Stefani, Janet Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, Joe Biden, Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Meghan Trainor, Madonna, Shakira,Taylor Swift, Brandy, Ariana Grande

7: These WP:Project pages are devoted to individual deceased persons

Frank Sinatra, Leibniz

8: These WP:Project pages are devoted to a fictional person:

Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, James Bond, King Arthur (arguably fictional)

9: And there there is this:


10: I can see no Wikipedia:Project criteria which was violated. I have checked here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-01/WikiProject_report, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide

11: None of the criteria mentioned at "Under what circumstances are WikiProjects deleted from Wikipedia rather than marked as defunct or historical?" in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-01/WikiProject_report have been met, especially since this was only a PROPOSAL.

12: The article was not moved to my namespace as suggested by WP:REVIVE.

13: I was not notified as required by WP:SPEEDY, nor was WP:SPEEDY followed as far as I can tell.

14: I was not given sufficient time to obtain the support of "at least 6 to 12 active Wikipedians" as suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Proposing_a_project as a criteria for a project to succeed.

15: In fact, this same page says the following:

>> projects that are likely to succeed tend to start with at least 6 to 12 active Wikipedians. Once that threshold is reached, the proposal can be considered successful and the project created (see below). If there is insufficient support to start the project after a few months....

"A few Months?" My project was up for ~48 HOURS!

16: Additionally, Template:Archived_WikiProject_Proposal_notcreated says this:

>> After a WikiProject Proposal has run for three months, it is archived to make room for new proposals.

"THREE MONTHS." My project was up for ~48 HOURS. C'mon.

Thus, I have asked UnitedStatesian on his (talk) page to restore my Wikipedia Project Proposal, since it appears his deletion was hasty. --Bill Huston (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't see any harm in keeping the proposal open. There's not much that a WikiProject can offer here that cannot already be done at Talk:Jimmy Dore, and I think it's unlikely to gain significant traction, but I don't see why it cannot be attempted. --MarioGom (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:TLDR and WP:SHOUT's advice on boldface, and then come back and make your case concisely. WikiProjects are very rarely appropriate for individual people, and you'll need to present a strong case for why Dore should be an exception. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 14:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Sdkb: WP:TLDR seems to apply to articles, not to Talk: pages. As for WP:SHOUT, fair enough, but I spent several hours crafting this comment to be as concise as possible, and with selective bolding to make it easy to scan rapidly. In sum:
      1. My proposal was hastily deleted, in apparent violation of Wikipedia rules, which require that a proposal be open for 3 months. (Mine was closed after 2 days!)
      2. I feel I was bullied by UnitedStatesian, in violation of WP rules.
      3. I cited more than 20 examples of Projects devoted to a single person.
      4. I have already made the argument for why Dore should be an exception in the proposal itself, and also here in the "TLDR" which you don't want to read.
      5. I cannot make any further defense with an inappropriately closed Project. Please reopen. --Bill Huston (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:Other stuff exists. We shouldn't have any projects dedicated to specific people. (You might be able to sell me on this disastrous presidency, but that can be as easily covered under the existing US Presidents project.) Inevitably, your project will become inactive and subsequently defunct, potentially merged into another or outright deleted or simply left to decay. Find another project to contribute to where the person in question is covered under and save us and yourself the inevitable grief. I'm not going to bother reading the rant and frankly think this is an example of why we need to change this process and fundamentally how all WikiProjects less than active are structured. Merhe and redirect the lot so we aren't giving false ideas to innocent contributors that they're being "helpful" by starting Yet Another Project. Especially when those innocent contributors have been here for a decade and still haven't figured that much out. --Izno (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
      Agree {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Council working across Wikis?

Hi! I am interested to know if WikiProject Council works with other languages in Wikipedia and if it coordinates with Wikimedia sister projects? Zblace (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Linux project seems inactive

The Linux WikiProject seems to be inactive. Can we update its status in the WikiProjects space? -proxxz talk 07:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Why? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser


Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Edit requests

Would someone mind closing the proposal above as successful per the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Closing_proposals? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

P,TO 19104, you can do so yourself after you've created the project page (note that the outcomes for wikiproject proposals are created and not created). Given that the proposal is not there to determine consensus but rather the number of interested people, there is no need for someone to close the discussion before the project can be created. In fact, the proposal is closed when the project has been created.
About creating the page: you could use {{wikiproject}} as a starting point, though you would have to cut some stuff out that's specific to subject-area wikiprojects; you could also not use that. Maybe discuss a bit with the other prospective participants about how the page should be organised; it can all be changed later, of course, so don't waste time trying to make it perfect. If you need any help, feel free to ask me. PJvanMill)talk( 22:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

please how can I write a musician article Em-rich58 (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

To Em-rich58:   Note: Please read and digest Help:Your first article to find the answers you want. Thank you for your interest! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

It says I need to be registered to edit. I am, and I think something is wrong with protection. ThatDislikedOne (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@ThatDislikedOne: Perhaps the message wasn't clear. For semi-protected pages, your account needs to be autoconfirmed. This usually happens automatically when your account is at least four days old and you have at least 10 edits. Just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That account is now WP:GLOCKed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Simplify marking WikiProject status on talk page

See discussion Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Add class/importance attribute on shell and please advise where else is right forum to discuss. I know it's potentially a major change. Shushugah (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a tricky template. I think the people you want to talk to are the ones who have spent the most time editing that template, so I recommend checking the template's history page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Members and participants

User:SMcCandlish recently edited multiple pages to remove words like "membership" and "joining". The edit summaries say that WikiProjects are "just pages for collaboration". (This contradicts WP:WikiProject, which opens with a statement that a WikiProject is a group of editors, and the FAQ at the top of this page, which says that a WikiProject "is not a subject area, a collection of pages, or a list of articles tagged by the group."

It is possible to be a member of a group without the group being a membership organization, and I think the idea of "joining" a group has some value for some editors, even though in practice, "participation" is far more important than having your name recorded on a membership list. What do the rest of you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing at all contradictory between A) a wikiproject being a page (usually with subpages) at which editors collaborate and gather collaboration-related resources, for a particular topic, and B) it not being a subject area (a WP:Category), a collection of pages (a WP:Portal), or a list of articles (a list, or a subtype thereof: an index, an outline, or a set index article). The fact that "collection of pages" is ambiguous is a copy-editing matter, not a rallying point for anti-WP:Common sense misinterpretation. That is, if the wording doesn't suit the reality, fix the wording, don't try to bend the reality.

When wikiprojects turn into problems – which is quite frequently, as it's been the central cause of large number of ArbCom cases and decisions, as well as the main reason for the creation of the WP:CONLEVEL policy – it is almost invariably because the project has started acting as if it is a private membership organization, capable of excluding other editors and their input, of making up its own rules against site-wide consensus, of inventing its own processes to bypass site-wide ones, of acting as "canvassing farms", of behaving in a WP:VESTED manner, and in trying to exert WP:OWNership over entire categories of content the project claims is within scope. We were well on the way to ridding wikiprojects of "join" and "member" language, until the now-dead but still-deployed WP:WikiProject X templating system hard-coded these terms.

When people have tried to set up explicit membership organizations (even ones that apparently did good things), the community has been swift and firm in shutting them down (see, e.g., the history of WP:Esperanza, a precursor of what is now WP:Teahouse). When wikiprojects are set up with an obvious intent to over-control content, they are also shut down, even more swiftly and firmly (one example among several: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English). I.e., there is a clear consensus that wikiprojects cannot act as exclusive membership organizations and cannot control content topics (see also WP:ARBPRINCIPLES#Building consensus: WikiProjects and WP:ARBPRINCIPLES#Function of WikiProjects and WP:ARBPRINCIPLES#Levels of consensus); we should not continue to use language which has encouraged problems of this sort.

Back to "fix the wording, don't try to bend the reality": The reality is that no one has to sign up as a "member" of a wikiproject to use it and participate in discussions at it. The only reason for these lists/categories of editors is to help one editor participating in the project find another potentially interested in working on the same content (hopefully a still-active editor). Secondarily, it also helps illustrate whether a project is active or not, though this is probably better determined by wikiproject talk page activity level. Being a "member" cannot confer any rights or privileges, and gives no one more weight in any discussion (though you will unfortunately see people attempt to pull this crap: "Why should we listen to User:Foobar? They're not even a member of WikiProject Bazzquux!"). In years of randomly and gradually (not robotically and forcefully) updating this wording to use "participate in" and "participants" instead of "join" and "members", I have run into virtually no opposition, until last week when I discovered that the WikiProject X stuff is hard-coded to look for a page named /Members as part of its scripting (which is a reparable problem), and one wikiproject, WP:WikiProject Women in Red, which has the unusual distinction of organizing lots of off-site events, has been using "members" to mean participants in the wikiproject, and "participants" to mean participants in the events (which is also a reparable problem, e.g. "WikiProject participants" and "event participants" or "WikiProject participants" and "event attendees", or whatever).

Finally, the sooner we get to consistently using the same terminology across all wikiprojects (probably the last step would be renaming the categories and patching the userbox templates that use them), then the better able we'll be to have bots and other tools do stuff for all wikiprojects without bugs being triggered by inconsistent page names and template parameters.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't fully read SMC's long comment above, but my view is that yeah, it'd probably slightly be better to use terminology like "participant" rather than "member" to subtly dissuade any temptation to brigade, but I doubt it'll have much of an impact. This is a trivial bit of semantics that never appears to casual readers, so I think we have far better things to do than argue over it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I definitely agree that this is not worth arguing about, so in the interest of not wasting other editors' time I'd urge SMcCandlish to simply accept it when someone reverts this on a particular wikiproject page. Also, I think consistently using the same terminology across all wikiprojects should not be a goal: wikiprojects making their own choices on inconsequential terminology is not a problem, and trying to make all wikiprojects conform will very likely fail. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I have on occasion had project "members" complain to me that I'm "not even a project member" when I work on pages that their project "owns". I've added myself as a member on a few projects (sometimes in reaction to that complaint), bu the projects I actively participate in are not strongly overlapping the ones I'm listed as a member of. So yes, I understand why SMcCandlish is trying to suppress those "member" tendencies. Is there an argument to prefer going back on what he fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The four edits I saw were the ones to WikiProject Council guidance pages ([1], [2], [3], [4]), all of which are fine with me. Basically I agree with Sdkb: I think "participant" is slightly better than "member", but I doubt the word choice will influence group dynamics on Wikipedia much. If SM thinks these tweaks will help things run more harmoniously here, then I'm all for it, and I hope he's right. Ajpolino (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, the problem with "a wikiproject being a page (usually with subpages) at which editors collaborate" is that that is not what the definition of WikiProject is. A WikiProject actually is "the editors who collaborate", and not the page(s) where part of their collaboration is visible.
The definition you give in your first paragraph and the one you appear to use in your second paragraph are self-contradictory. Groups of editors cause problems. "A page (usually with subpages)" never does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
That's an ... inventive interpretation, and it actually proposes, when you boil it down, precisely what consensus is against, that wikiprojects are membership clubs. It's also demonstrably counterfactual, anyway. E.g. WP:WikiProject Dogs became completely moribund (that is, all active editors participating in it either abandoned the wikiproject or abandoned Wikipedia entirely, and all wikproject work and activity ceased). Yet within a year or so, a new set of editors arrived at it and kick started it again, and I started participating in it again. It is a not a different wikiproject. It is at the same name, has the same resources and subpages (though we merged some of them to reduce pointless complexity), uses the same templates, works on the same articles in the same categories, etc., etc. It is not "WikiProject Dogs II", it's WikiProject Dogs. I think you're approach this from a "the Beatles consist of Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and ..." perspective, focused on individuals, rather than looking at it more like "Wikipedia consists of the output of, and internal resources for, all who wish to work on it". WikiProjects are a topical microcosm of Wikipedia itself, and failure to understand this – the habit of sliding into a walled-garden, private-clubhouse, very un-wiki mentality about wikiprojects – is the root cause of all problems associated with and emanating from wikiprojects, which are the collective reason that so many editors simply want to shut them all down has having outlived their alleged usefulness. Support for the idea of doing so grows every year, but I think taking that route would be a mistake. It's why I care to try to dig the psychological triggers for this sort of behavior up by their roots. PS: I am in no way contradicting myself, you're just following the simple reasoning here: Wikiprojects are collaboration resources. They only become a problem when people misintepret them as, and attempt to turn them into, membership organizations, like private clubs.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
From the very first sentence of WP:WikiProject and the WP:WikiProject Council/Guide: "A WikiProject is a group of contributors". From the very first day of the WikiProject Guide:  A WikiProject is an inherently social construct (bold in the original).
You can have a social group (that article used to be linked in that first sentence) without having an exclusive members-only club. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Projects hate it when non "participants" jump in and change long standing wording, layouts preferences and especially when project made templates are merged..... one of many reasons Wiki projects fall into disuse.... that is there collaborative work gets dismissed. In this case here not seeing a big change..... more like British vs American English change. But would advice that individual projects should not be made to deal with long drawn out talks or edit wars over simple wording of this nature.--Moxy 🍁 04:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I see, by the way, that in wp:WikiProject, "members" has recently been replaced by "project's participants". That would seem to pave the way for more widespread changes in terminology, unless there are strong objections.--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Moxy: But, see... if what you're describing about what "project hate" is accurate, then it's very much a problem, and helps to justify evangelizing a revised idea of just what constitutes a WikiProject and/or its activities.

Projects hate it when non "participants" jump in and change long standing wording, layouts preferences and especially when project made templates are merged

First off, a project can't make a template, it doesn't have the ability to submit edits to a wiki. Some editor or editors created those templates, perhaps acting on behalf of other editors aligned with the project, or implementing the collaborative decisions of those project participants, but nevertheless all templates are the creations of a specific editor or editors, not "a project".

that is there collaborative work gets dismissed.

Whose work is getting dismissed? Or, to put it another way, how is the merge of a "project created" template, or a change to "long standing wording" that's somehow considered WP:OWNed "by the project", different from changes made to any other Wikipedia content, all of which was the work of some editor or editors?
What you're really arguing for is for project-"blessed" content to be treated specially, for it to somehow be more immune to the business-as-usual activities of the community — wherein templates get merged, wording gets changed, and layouts get tweaked all the time — simply because it has the project stamp of approval affixed to it. Basically, as I'm interpreting your statement, the position of those involved in the project is that, because they got together as a group and decided on something, that local consensus should be treated as sacrosanct or binding by the entire Wikipedia community, regardless of broader consensus decisions?
That's incorrect. In fact, it's pretty explicitly exactly what WikiProjects are not intended to represent. So, there's value in anything that gets people out of that mindset where they participate in a WikiProject as a means of establishing a Local Consensus Cabal (or LCC, ™ and © 2021 FeRDNYC) which gives their communal decisions greater weight or special standing within the Wikipedia community. If working to downplay the notion of personal Membership in a WikiProject will combat, or even might help to combat the LCC mentality, then it feels worth doing.
WhatamIdoing and SMcCandlish have both presented their concept of what a WikiProject is, but I'm going to advocate for a model that's slightly different from both of their positions — but I feel is supported by the spirit, if not the literal wording, of organizing documents like Wikipedia:WikiProject and etc.
A WikiProject, in my view, is neither the group of people collaborating under its banner, nor the organizational content they create. Rather, a WikiProject is the editing activities performed by those editors as they work to improve the encyclopedia. (Because remember, we are all here to build an encyclopedia.) More specifically, a WikiProject represents a collaborative effort to drive edits to (or affecting) Wikipedia articles. Creating extra-article content (project pages; project templates, scripts, and bots; even project Talk page discussions) is all well and good, and it may facilitate the project's editorial goals, but in the end all of that should be in service of the only project activities that really matter: Improving articles in the main namespace.
Without that, and if a project isn't doing that, then all other project activities are meaningless. Including any establishment of "membership" in the project — what does that even mean, if it doesn't involve making edits to the encyclopedia?
Heck, if people want to declare their "membership" in this or that WikiProject, they can do it the way we handle every other sort of tribal community peacocking: They can put a userbox on their userpage. That's what it's for. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I have to observe that "Projects hate it when non "participants" jump in and change long standing wording ..." is basically proving my point for me. As declared participant in a wikiproject you have no more WP:OWN/WP:VESTED right to edit/control a page at that wikiproject than any other editor.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I have some doubts about the premise here. Can we have a few examples, ideally from the last few years? For example, I don't know whether @Moxy is referring to something like WikiProject Composers' infobox war, or if he's talking about someone re-writing the WikiProject's pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes take over of project pages...... recent examples I can think of is here at the council page when it was completely reworked out of the blue by someone who never participatedin the project. The other example would be the history project....was completely redone giving it some sort of weird hierarchy that has completely killed the project.--Moxy  18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The wikiproject council is not a wikiproject, though. It's a sort of layer above the wikiprojects.
Anyway, I think this all depends. Certainly, any pages with editing guidance must not contradict the global consensus. But for content that is (1) only about the internal organisation of the wikiproject and where (2) on the level of global consensus, there is only a slight preference (as would be my interpretation of the consensus about the terminology choice of "participants" vs "members"), I'd say the consensus among the project participants(/members) is important. And I'm not familiar with the history wikiproject, but what Moxy describes, if done without discussion with the project's members(/participants), seems to me like an action that one would be justified in reverting (at least, I cannot think of a strong P&G-based argument for changing the structure of a wikiproject like that). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we're a WikiProject. A WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together to improve Wikipedia, right? That pretty much describes the reason most of the regulars hang out on this page. Our method of improving Wikipedia is sort of at one or two removes, but it's still the same goal.
What Moxy refers to is largely an effort by one editor whose enthusiasm led him into being overly bold here last January. (Also, WPHIST wasn't a beehive of activity beforehand, so I don't think we can fairly say that he killed it, or even that it's dead.) I think Moxy's correct about the social dynamics there. If you want to win friends and influence people, you don't appear out of nowhere and re-write "their" pages. You hang out for a while, make sure that the group accepts you as "one of us", and then you re-write "our" pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree entirely with WhatamIdoing. with respect, the changes that I made at WP:HIST were not detrimental. I have brought in new project coordinators, who are more active than myself, and whose expertise is greater than my own. they have been able to offer some highly valuable insights to the multiple editors who continue to use the wiki project as a forum. So my own experience there entirely supports SMcCandlish --Sm8900 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
uniti aedificamus.   new useful update, on some doings at WikiProject History. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The reasons I don't consider the council to be a wikiproject itself are: (1) its activities do not involve editing articles (2) the council has some amount of influence on all wikiprojects. Specifically (2) makes me think that the 'regulars' should not have any bigger a say in anything, including matters of presentation and internal structure. But I admit I'm nitpicking. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style not a WikiProject? What about Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings? Or Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam? Or Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange? The point is that you can have a group of editors who want to work together to improve Wikipedia even if their area of collaboration isn't directly in the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Good point, WhatamIdoing. Indeed, "editing articles" is not the right thing to look at. I suppose the better point is that nearly all that happens at the council is discussion. It feels much more like a forum to me than a project. I recognize though that at this point I'm talking about what it "feels like to me", and that there are perfectly legitimate definitions of "wikiproject" that would include the council. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this is more of a "talking shop" than a "local productivity" group, which means that it overlaps with some other concepts (e.g., noticeboards – especially since some of our discussions involve dispute resolution). But I think we're still within the bounds of the WikiProject definition. I do agree with you that we're not representative of a typical WikiProject. If you wanted to show someone what a regular WikiProject looked like, you'd probably pick something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Anecdotal: I watchlist a couple of WikiProjects, and participate on their talk pages frequently, but have never added myself to the member list of one. I think most WikiProjects are just a "X noticeboard", e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates is just "the template editing noticeboard" in my eyes. There are some which are more organised structures, like WP:MILHIST, but these are few and far between. I think adding one to the membership list of one is fine. But I agree I prefer the term "participant". Membership often implies some kind of exclusive group that you sign up for, usually involving fees or selection, and the concept of "outsiders". It's a small semantic difference, not one I care much about, but I guess strictly speaking the word "participant" is better. On the broader issue, more anecdotes, ime WikiProject participation does not tend to be closed, but some do try to exercise dominance on content, sometimes even rejecting consensuses formed outside their project. Which is insane, to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ways to get involved

I just posted an "ad" for Wikipedia:Feedback request service, and it occurred to me that we could probably come up with a list of things that would help people remember about ways to help and ways that they can get help. I've previously posted about Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, and I sometimes advertise individual split or merge proposals. What do you do to help connect people to opportunities? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I like using Wikipedia ads and putting userboxes to promote the subject. –Wizdzy 23:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether anyone is watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts these days, so I sometimes copy interesting items out of it and onto the main discussion page. We were talking about DYKs, and there was a surprisingly good group (it's usually all BLPs and organizations, which don't interest the group as much), so I just posted a batch yesterday. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

new doings at Wikipedia: Community bulletin board

Hi. a few of us have initiated a new effort to use Wikipedia: Community bulletin board as a current resource. we have been editing it to reflect new editing drives, new group efforts and projects, new or recurring editing drives at WikiProjects, and a whole variety of current efforts and activities.

this new effort began several months ago. please come by the page to view this if you have not done so already. and please, feel free to add listings for any current activities at your own favorite wikiprojects, group activities, or anything else. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What advantage do you think that page has, compared to posting an announcement at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: excellent question. but just take a look at the left side of the screen. there is a permanent link there to Wikipedia:Community Portal, and the WP Bulletin Board is permanently transcluded there!! I appreciate your important question, to discuss that. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like that might reach more non-editors, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
yes, I think so. I appreciate your positive and helpful reply on that. thanks! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Flag of Portugal

I have nominated Flag of Portugal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything still to do with WikiProject X?

So I think most are familar with what happened, and didn't happen, with Wikipedia:WikiProject X. Nothing wrong with failed experiments, as Thomas Edison would tell you. But does it make sense to consider putting the projects that are on the WPX format back onto the standard project setup? Seems like the standard format is easier to maintain, and that Wikipedia overall, and the WPX projects themselves, would benefit from a return to cross-project consistency. Before I raise at the projects themselves, any thoughts here? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to offer to change a project's pages to "standard format", make the offer on the project's talk page. See what response you get. I would not object for any project I am listed on, participate in, or watch, but cannot speak for anyone else. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
More importantly, perhaps, is it worth the effort? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks PS. I think it makes the projects more useful going forward. Given there are less than 30 on WP:X (out of >1,000 active and semi-active total), seems like a small effort to regain consistency. I will follow the project talk-by-project talk approach you suggest. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Decentralize/disband WikiProject Cities?

In August I proposed that WikiProject Cities remove its importance parameter in favor of a "core" list of 50 cities and various taskforces otherwise, as has been done for WikiProject Biographies and WikiProject Film. I did not receive any substantial response at that time, and looking at subsequent activity at its talkpage the majority of messages/discussions are either procedural in nature such as FARs or receive at most one response.

Which brings me to my next point, that it appears that WikiProject Cities is rather moribund (even by WikiProject standards) and its aim appears to be too diffuse. NYC and Beijing, London and Singapore, Chicago and Buenos Aires, and Paris and Shanghai don't particularly have much in common except that they are all a rather ubiquitous type of human settlement. A current (as in, September) proposal for a Megacities WikiProject has one !vote, an oppose of its aim being too diverse; what do you think cities in general are?

So I propose that we dissolve WikiProject Cities (Esperanzify it, if you will) and replace it with one of the following:

  • Megacities should go in the proposed Megacity project should it come to fruition; if not, the below option could do as well.
  • Everything else should be covered by their respective national WikiProject or other arrangement. New York City, London, and Chicago have their own WikiProjects, just to name a few. Los Angeles and San Francisco are covered by their own respective taskforces in the California WikiProject, and most American cities are treated similarly. For cities in other countries, their respective country's WikiProject (or other such thing, e.g. WikiProject Africa for African cities) could take charge in improving it. The argument that this would disadvantage cities in the developing world, whose WikiProjects might not be the most active, would be more convincing were WikiProject Cities itself active.

Apologies if this is not the correct process for such an action, of which I am unaware and to which I am willing to be directed. A notice of this discussion has been posted on the WikiProject's talkpage. If this gets enough traction and is felt proper, I could put this on centralized discussion, but that seems a bit much for right now. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't mind dissolving that project. I never consulted it although I've written or edited a score or more of articles about cities or relating somehow to them. I have never had it on my watch list; in fact, I didn't know it existed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • KEEP - it is a common place to discuss issues with city articles. This project discusses the layout and contents of cities of all sizes, including tiny cities too, thus it can't be replaced with something called Megacities. Did anyone notice the talk page has 22 archives, which means it is being used by editors. Also, Wikipedia:USCITIES is hosted here too, which is critical importance to keep for U.S. city editors, which expands to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (do not delete). • SbmeirowTalk • 10:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Only five of those archives postdate 2015, meaning that they largely date to the 2000s and early 2010s. Of those, the majority are, as said above, either procedural posts like FACs or FARs or posts that get either zero or one reply. I don't recall using USCITIES for my content work, but assuming it is in fact useful to a substantial portion of editors it can likely be moved to WikiProject United States (which itself is a fairly bloated project IMO) or userfied, or WikiProject Cities can be itself archived while the USCITIES subpage (and presumably several others like it) remain.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This is more recent activity, which is more important to me --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline - • SbmeirowTalk • 12:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This wikiproject is largely defunct or inactive as User:John M Wolfson pointed out the lack of participation post2015.Catchpoke (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree putting the responsibility to each national Wikiprojects. There's also guidelines and layouts on cities article which at some point helps standarization of cities article. There's also a need to have cities such as both Paris and New York under one Wikiproject tag, something that national Wikiprojects cant do. If the only common thing between them is that they are human settlement, then I suppose renaming the project to Wikiproject Human Settlement is a choice? Nyanardsan (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree that There's also a need to have cities such as both Paris and New York under one Wikiproject tag, since both are articles that will be heavily edited even without any WikiProject, and both have their own WikiProjects. Assuming you're correct, however, should every single village or other incorporated place in the whole world be included? If not, what precisely would be the cutoff? That's also not touching the idea of people not actually using any of the guideline stuff, which I've personally never used.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      A WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together. The "cutoff" is: whatever pages that group happens to feel like working on, even if that list does not make sense to any other editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • First off we don't delete; the only option for a project such as this is to mark as semi-active/inactive/defunct. If people are not actively using the project to collaborate (as seems to be the case), then I would mark the project as inactive (maybe first put it semi-active for a period of time) and see if anyone appears to reactivate it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviving Countering systemic bias in religion Wikiproject

It baffles me that the “Countering Systemic Bias in religion” page has been defunct for a while, with the last posts being from 2006-2007. In a post-2020 world, where the struggle for survival during has a pandemic has brought so much political and religious vision, prejudice of different kinds, including those on racial, class, ethnic and religious lines are more problematic than ever. People who are divided on COVID-19 related policies are also interestingly enough, demarcated by political and religious differences. I propose that this page may be reactivated, so that those who have editing issues in the category of religion may have a specialized area to find solutions for related grievances.

Please see the following journal articles for relevant scholarship:

Coffeebreak80s (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Coffeebreak80s, a Wikipedia:WikiProject is a group of editors. If you want to WP:REVIVE an inactive WikiProject, you need to build a new group of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


I revived WP:Rocketry a few weeks ago. But since then, only two new members joined. What do I do? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS, to WP:REVIVE a WikiProject, you need to make people feel welcome and that their contributions matter. This is a months-long or even year-long task, so settle in for the long haul. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I think I'm doing well so far. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 12:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@StarshipSLS, you might find a couple of related WikiProjects (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy) and ask them if some of their experienced editors would please put the Rocketry group's page on their watchlist, as a favor to you and to help you since you're a relatively new editor. Having more people watching the page means more people who might join the discussions or help you out if you get in a jam. You might also find it useful to watch some of their pages, so that you can meet more people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

AFC request

Hi there! Hope you are doing great. I just wrote a draft of my new article and was wondering if there is any chance someone can check it and help me understand if the article is ok. Also, that would be great if this draft could be reviewed faster than 6 months. Many thanks :)

Hey, it's me again :) Just wanted to make sure, someone saw my message at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna levchuk (talkcontribs) 06:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna levchuk (talkcontribs) 09:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Anna levchuk, you may have more luck at a more specific venue like Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency. I've also repaired the COI declaration template that you seem to have tried placing on your user page, hopefully that's in your best interest. AngryHarpytalk 16:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much!

Article rating

Hi! I was wondering if to rate the importance of an article in the scope of the WikiProject there is any previous requirement, such as the editor being part of the WikiProject or a specific guideline to follow. Thanks beforehand! --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Not really, but do look at the WikiProject's assessment criteria if there are any.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Roger that, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

yes you can rate any article you want despite of the interest thank you!! Baloyi khazamulae (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

you're welcome!! Baloyi khazamulae (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Project 'Reference works' marked inactive

I've marked Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference works as 'inactive'. If this isn't sufficient notification, let me know if I should add this to WP:VPM or anywhere else. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Council/Archive 25".