Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Template Is_contentious is now available

Template {{Is contentious}} detects if a given article is tagged as contentious, and is now available for use:

• {{Is contentious|Transphobia}} → yes
• {{Is contentious|Giraffe}} →

This should be useful to WikiProjects which have lists or tables of pages they might wish to tag, or to arrange in certain ways depending on article attributes. Further developments in this area are in progress. Please report any issues with this template below, or at the Template Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating the proposal process

Back in the day, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals was a more lively place, and if you wanted to start a group, then there were people watching it who might be interested in joining. Just 13 still-active editors are watching the page. Basically all the proposals fail, to the point that we stopped marking them as failed years ago. The typical proposer is a single individual, often less experienced than we might wish, with neither a group of editors nor any plan for finding and forming a group.

We have more conversations here about how to merge inactive and semi-active groups than how to start new groups or how to WP:REVIVE existing groups. The most useful groups are large (100+ participants) and have a broad subject area ("plants", not "tulips"). We probably need something on the order of 20 very large groups, or 200 large and medium-sized groups. What we have is 2,000 mostly tiny and mostly inactive groups. Creating new groups can be a good idea (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 four years ago) but it is almost always a waste of the creator's time.

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 210#AbuseFilter warning for WikiProjects and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject The Weeknd; pinging @SmokeyJoe and @Bearcat.

Given all that, I'd like to know everyone's thoughts about the future of creating new groups. I'm looking for a gut feeling, not for anything carefully considered. For example, you could tell me where you fall in a spectrum that runs something like this:

• Prohibit creation of new groups and enforce that through the Special:AbuseFilter.
• Require prior approval for pages created by any non-admin (e.g., a proposal signed by six people who intend to participate).
• Discourage creation of new groups, e.g., by warning editors not to create the pages (but not actually prohibiting them from creating the pages).
• Allow people to create the pages freely, but speedy-delete or redirect them if they don't meet certain simple activity goals within the first month/year (e.g., six active editors signed up as participants).
• Re-write the proposal instructions to require proposals and to require a reasonable number of initial participants.
• Do nothing, because it's really not that important.

Feel free to write your own ideas.

(I do sometimes wonder whether we could get WMF grant money to pay an editor to systematically merge some of these WikiProjects up to larger groups. The technical work involved in merging the group's templates is not my idea of fun.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think systematically merging WikiProjects is a good idea. If the WikiProject is dormant, it won’t become active by mixing with other dormant things and diluting the old focus of them all. I think WikiProject have mostly served their purpose, which was to coordinate editors during exponential growth periods.

New topics can be served by a new WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 being an excellent example.

• Prohibit creation of new groups and enforce that through the Special:AbuseFilter?

  I am averse to that language, “prohibit” and “endorse”. Can we instead take away (archive by blanking) the instructions on how to make a WikiProject?

• Require prior approval for pages created by any non-admin (e.g., a proposal signed by six people who intend to participate).

  Like. Why six? I’d suggest seven. Seven is less likely to divide into ties.

• Discourage creation of new groups, e.g., by warning editors not to create the pages (but not actually prohibiting them from creating the pages).

  Yes. As above, do this by removing the instructions on how to do it

• Allow people to create the pages freely, but speedy-delete or redirect them if they don't meet certain simple activity goals within the first month/year (e.g., six active editors signed up as participants).

  NNOOoooo. Newcomer enthusiasts do best when they creatively create, and then when you BITE them with speedy deletion of their good faith efforts, … that’s not how one grows a project.

• Re-write the proposal instructions to require proposals and to require a reasonable number of initial participants.

  Yeah, let’s do that now. A new WikiProject needs a proposal and seven editors signing on, intending to participate.

• Do nothing, because it's really not that important.

  It’s not like WikiProject creating is burning resources (storage, volunteer time) in large amounts, but we do know that the current list of proposals are very unlikely to achieve anything but the disappointment of the person trying. However, we’ve known this for a very long time, and would be a good thing to do something.

I don’t think systematically merging inactive WikiProjects is a good idea. But I do think systematically tagging and archiving them might be.

I think one of the factors that killed WikiProjects is the autotagging of new pages with WikiProject banners. For me, this is analogous of finding a former champion too tired to get out of bed, and force feeding them their old champion’s diet. If a WikiProject doesn’t have enough active volunteers to tag new pages of interest to the WikiProject, then it is time for the WikiProject to wind back its scope, not to have New Page Reviewers force feed new pages into it. This auto WikiProject banner addition removes the most basic job of WikiProject maintenance from its last casual maintainers, but chokes these last maintainers with too many new pages. Not only that, it also misinforms the new article writer that there are others who might care about their new article, when the WikiProject is defunct but some wheels are turning due to outsiders. I think defunct WikiProjects should be auto tagged defunct, and defunct WikiProjects should be unable to be tagged onto now pages, and maybe old tags should be removed. I think AfC and NPR volunteers should STOP applying WikiProject tags. I think there should be a rule: You may only apply a WikiProject tag if you are an active member of that WikiProject.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

When you say "autotagging", I assume you mean a non-automated but systematic process. I think groups marked inactive don't get added very often.

In terms of merging, consider the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Mathematics. Why not merge/redirect all the inactive groups up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics? That would reduce the risk that someone would attempt to contact a non-existent group for help with an article, or that NPP/AFC folks would add tags for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mathematics is a rare active WikiProject. That merge would be good. I mean don’t merge things into an inactive WikiProject. Also, ask the WikiProject whether they want the stuff merged in, don’t just do it. Don’t do it unless they say yes. In fact, expect them to merge it in themselves. Are they active and interested, or not? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

We've got a process for merging WikiProjects, with a standard recommendation to wait at least a month for any objections. A completely defunct WikiProject won't object because nobody who cares about the group is still editing, so we don't necessarily want to require active agreement. To give an example, merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Polyhedra into Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics would require:

• one editor thinking it's a good idea (good enough to inspire that editor to make the proposal),
• non-resistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Polyhedra for at least 30 days after making the suggestion,
• acceptance by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, including a decision about whether it's a straight merge or the creation of a task force, and
• someone(s) doing the practical/technical work (merging templates, redirecting pages).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Personally I'd fall closer to the high end of the spectrum, something closer to "prohibit or heavily limit the creation of new wikiprojects without broad support". Certainly one of the biggest problems with wikiprojects has been the constant creation of small limited-participation wikiprojects for topics of very narrow interest — the ones that are still relatively successful, like mathematics and film and music, are for broad subjects that encompass a lot of topics, while many of the underperforming ones are excessively narrow silos, like single-topic WikiProject One-Specific-Musician or WikiProject One-Specific-Actor playpens. But, alternatively, WikiProjects also have the ability to create task forces, which are still under the management of the overall wikiproject but allow editors to hone in on more specific topics of interest within it — but those, conversely, don't seem to be anywhere near as well-known, even though they would often suit the needs of new wikiproject creators better than a full-on wikiproject would.
  For instance, there aren't nearly enough active editors on the subject of Canadian film to justify or effectively maintain a full-on WikiProject Canadian Film — I'm not the only active editor on the subject, but it sure feels like I am sometimes — but as a task force within WikiProject Film, there's not nearly as much overhead required: it doesn't need its own dedicated templates and can be tagged for with a Canadian=y flag inside the existing parent project's templates; it doesn't need its own dedicated importance or quality rating infrastructure and can just use the parent project's assessment criteria. So as a WikiProject it would be unsustainable, but as a task force within a larger parent WikiProject it doesn't require as much sustenance in the first place — and as a task force, it also benefits from the ability to bring in outside eyes when needed, because sometimes all that's really needed is the eyes of people who edit on film in general. (Editors don't require any special expertise in Canadian film to know that the IP who keeps vandalizing Nicole Dorsey's article with stuff about chocolate milk isn't adding anything of value, for example: you don't need a master's degree in Canadian film history to recognize that as inappropriate, and it can be watched out for by absolutely any responsible editor in the world so long as they know that Nicole Dorsey's article exists. So it's kind of the best of both worlds: the task force exists to be on top of identifying Nicole Dorsey as a film director who would qualify for an article, while the broader wikiproject as a whole can keep an eye out for the milk vandal.)
  So I'd be closer to the "stop or severely limit the creation of new wikiprojects without broad support" end of the spectrum — but what we can also do is better document the role and value of wikiproject task forces within larger parent wikiprojects as an alternative, and then allow the parent wikiprojects to monitor the creation and maintenance and mercy-killing of their task forces on their own. Task forces still shouldn't be created without being proposed first, but the parent wikiprojects should be the venue for their proposal and discussion — after all, WikiProject Music is in the best position to decide whether it needs a The Weeknd task force or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  My experience with WPMED's task forces is that most were pointless, a few were active for a couple of years, and then they all fizzled out. I'm not sorry that we created them, and I do think that it's a valuable and frequently preferable alternative creating a completely separate group.

  (Canadian film sounds like a subject that might interest The Interior.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to close down the proposals page, as they are not getting the attention they need. Probably better just to direct editors to this talk page? For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Southern African Music and Sound was created in February, but no one commented. Today that project was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound. Hard to fault the creator because they did follow the proposal process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe suggested archiving/blanking the instructions. I think closing down the proposals page could be part of that. We could replace it with a note saying that a WikiProject is a group, and unless you already have a sizable group, any pages you create need to be in your userspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, support that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is hardly a reason to create new WikiProjects and they require unique cases (such as Covid). Anything worthwhile for a project was already created - countries, sports, media, etc. Any new project created is usually DoA and I don't see any bright future for Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound. Additionally, these create a ton of maintenance issues that these creators either don't know or don't care about in templates, categories, lint errors and other places. Even merging dead WikiProjects is pointless. Everything other than the main page and its talk page should be deleted and marked as historical and the rest deleted. In the TV project we have many dead task forces that don't do anything other than collecting dust (Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Fawlty Towers task force a task force for a 12 episode series, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Awake task force for a similar amount). Even task forces should be about a broad subject that actually needs collaboration that a simple talk page can't handle. Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have less of a problem with new task forces being created within existing projects. But we could perhaps streamline the process of marking them as inactive so they don't clutter the banner — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they are still in the banner is something I have an issue with. Look how long the code and /doc of Template:WikiProject Television is when most of its task forces are dead. At some point we need to recognize that we should be serving our active editors and not some false historic sentiment. Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be suggested that after finding a sizeable group of interested editors, they should consider finding the best matching parent WikiProject that still has some activity, and try holding their discussions there. If there's enough overlap in interests amongst the groups, then both of them can benefit. isaacl (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is also good advice, although the parent project may not be clear cut in all cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Interdisciplinary subjects are a problem for finding a "parent", but I think that's manageable. People can always ask for help here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The interested parties can choose any one they prefer, and as deemed necessary, provide pointers on other project discussion pages to discussions on the page where they are collaborating. isaacl (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I shut down the proposal process by editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. The next two tasks are:

• Reject/archive most of the old proposals listed on that page. The ones from February and March should probably be allowed to run their course, but the rest are likely old enough to be stale.
• Update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide to completely change the process. Step #1 might be blanking most of what's there.

I can't spend much time on wiki today, so I'd love it if someone else could do some of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

MFD discussion for WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound

An MFD discussion which proposes the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound is ongoing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Decade overviews

I have set up Category:decade overviews as a set of categories, as well as articles, and navboxes, as part of WikiProject History Contemporary History task force, which I chair.

Please feel free to contact me any time, with any comments, ideas or questions. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks useful. How is it supposed to work exactly - for example is 1870s in film supposed to be in Category:1870s decade overviews? Is there any effort to populate all these categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

hi @MSGJ. that is an excellent question. actually, it is meant to be used for articles that are themselves an overview for an entire decade. so therefore if a category pertains to a decade, but the articles within it are only for specific years, then no, that category would not be included there. thanks.

please feel free to comment further or at length, if you want. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ok. i see that 1870s in film is indeed an article covering an entire decade. so based upon that, yes, it could go in the decade overviews category. I'm open to any feedback of course on this. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ, thanks to you, I have now set up Category:Century overviews as well. thanks for your helpful input! Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a redundant word in Category:20th-century century overviews :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ; yes, ok. that's a quesiton of nomenclature which we should probably resolve now. down the road in the 22nd century, they may thank us!! :) ok, so you favor Category:20th-century overviews, as the name format for this set of categories? Sm8900 (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So do I. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done ok, done. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other. Specifically, please see entry on the list entitled Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13#Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles. Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)