Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council: Difference between revisions

Line 155: Line 155:

::::::Yes, that’s the crux of the issue I’m facing. [[User:Sjones23|sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] – [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 00:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Since we editors naturally spend most of our time on the subject/article page rather than the talk page, I don’t see what issue there is here. Is some kind of work being hindered by the presence of the defunct project banners? [[User:StefenTower|”’Stefen 𝕋ower’s got the power!!1!”']] ”[[User talk:StefenTower|Gab]]” • [[Special:Contributions/StefenTower|Gruntwerk]] 02:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think the issue is which defunct project the article belongs to.

::::::::If a user sees a Wikiproject tag with an inactive project next to it and then click on it, they may find the project defunct on the top of its page. I found out about it myself before opening up the discussion. [[User:Sjones23|sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] – [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 03:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a way to hide defunct WikiProjects in the template? [[User:Rootsmusic|rootsmusic]] ([[User talk:Rootsmusic|talk]]) 00:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

::The banner templates (e.g., at the top of an article’s talk page) for a defunct group say “This article is within the scope of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject Example]], a project which is currently considered to be ”'[[Wikipedia:INACTIVEWP|inactive]]”’.” Isn’t that enough? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What’s a WikiProject?

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

Q3: What’s the biggest WikiProject?

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Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date.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

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

A4: WikiProject Biography has tagged 2,123,300 articles, which is more than three times the size of the second largest number of pages tagged by a WikiProject. About ten groups have tagged more than 100,000 articles. You can see a list of projects and the number of articles they have assessed here.

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

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

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

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

A7: No, there are no requirements. However, new WikiProjects, especially new groups that are proposed by new editors, rarely remain active for longer than a few months unless there are at least six or eight active editors involved at the time of creation.

Q8: Under what circumstances are WikiProjects deleted from Wikipedia rather than marked as defunct or historical?

A8: Typically, projects are only deleted when they are “false starts” (incomplete projects that never got off the ground), serve as a repository for material that infringes on copyright laws, exist solely as an attack page, or have no other redeeming value. It is more common for semi-active projects to be merged into their parent project, sometimes as a task force. Most inactive and defunct projects are simply left intact with the hope that the materials and discussions collected by the project may become useful at a later date.

Q9: How do you revive an inactive WikiProject?

A9: The Signpost has written extensively on the subject. Keep in mind that some projects have run their course while others have a scope that is too narrow or too broad to attract a sizable community of editors. If you still want to revive the project, a good way to start is by updating the participants list, inviting new participants, reaching out to active projects for help, and fixing any broken templates and automation. Start discussions on the project’s talk page about how to improve the project’s organization, goals, and collaborations. Reviving a WikiProject often feels like an uphill battle. Just don’t get discouraged.

Q10: Who can assess articles?

A10: Anyone can assess articles, although it is wise to read and follow any assessment guidelines unique to a particular project before deciding what “class” and “importance” should be assigned to an article. For instance, WikiProject Biographies has a unique importance structure with 200 “core” articles. Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists are determined through processes independent of the WikiProject, so using those assessments inappropriately may have negative repercussions.

Q11: Is there a limit to the number of projects that can add their banner to an article?

A11: No. Each project determines its own scope and can include whatever articles they like. For instance, Elizabeth II is under the scope of 18 projects and task forces while Barack Obama is handled by 22 projects and task forces.

Q12: Some WikiProjects provide a WikiProject Watchlist and some do not. Why?

A12: As with all tools available to WikiProjects, not every project has set up a watchlist and some projects may not desire to have one. There are multiple types of watchlists a project can use, from Tim1357’s watchlists to new article notifications to article alerts to hot articles. A project can choose whatever watchlists they want to use or even devise their own unique tools.

Q13: What’s the difference between a sister WikiProject and a related WikiProject?

A13: People tend to use them interchangeably, but the term “related WikiProjects” is broader than “sister WikiProjects.” The terms “parent,” “sister,” and “child” provide a way of categorizing projects. An example of sister projects would be WikiProject Pittsburgh and WikiProject Philadelphia, while related projects would also include their parent projects (WikiProject Cities and WikiProject Pennsylvania in this case), and any child projects or task forces (WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers and WikiProject University of Pittsburgh come to mind). However, one confusing bit about the term “sister projects” is that it has also been used to compare different wikis or languages of Wikipedia (i.e. Wikisource, Wikinews, Chinese Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc.) which is evidenced by the Signpost’s defunct sister projects column.

Q14: How do I participate in a WikiProject?

A14: Participating in a WikiProject is easy. Most projects have a participants list to which you can add your name. Next, you’ll want to add the project’s talk page to your personal watchlist so that you can keep up to date on the latest discussions and help editors in need. Check out the project’s Featured and Good Articles for ideas about how to improve articles under the project’s scope. Take a look at the project’s goals or browse the project’s stubs and start-class articles to find areas where you can help today. Projects may offer a userbox you can add to your user page as a sign of pride that also doubles as a way to add yourself to categories listing all users who are interested in a particular topic.

Q15: What can I do to improve Wikipedia’s community of WikiProjects?

A15: The WikiProject Council is welcome to anyone with ideas for building stronger collaborative links between WikiProjects. Participate in discussions at a variety of projects and try to answer the questions of newcomers. If multiple projects are working on the same article, try to recruit participants from these projects to collaborate. Host meetups for the participants in projects in a particular geographic area. Create contests and backlog drives that anyone can enter. We’ve interviewed projects that have used social media to recruit participants, partnered with educational institutions, and even manufactured their own games.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

With help from an editor who was willing and able to explain what happened, I have sorted out what’s confusing editors who are trying to leave WP:APPNOTE notifications and end up here: {{WikiProject status}} is sending people to WP:WikiProject, whose talk page redirects here. Where they want to end up is on the talk page of the subject-specific WikiProject.

With that in mind, I have redrafted the template, so that it will mostly look like this:

The “talk to us” will point to the talk page for the individual WikiProject. I’ve also taken the opportunity to shift the language away from WikiProjects being “places” and towards being “groups”.

If you’d like to see a comparison that includes task forces, inactive WikiProjects, etc., then please look at Template:WikiProject status/testcases.

I’d like to get this change made soon-ish, but it’s IMO more important to get it right on the first try, so please let me know if there’s anything you’d like to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks workable to me. Thank you for working on this. Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made the request: Template talk:WikiProject status#Update language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is

Done, and I’ve left a barnstar for the editor whose excellent explanation set us on the right path. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Add “the” before “two thousand existing articles” Licheris2 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licheris2: Can you tell us where this text is exactly? Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the info-box about the proposal process under “Creating and maintaining a project”. And I meant “projects” rather than “articles”. Oops. Licheris2 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Licheris2. I’ve fixed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. Anyway, is that 2024 process still occurring? Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good point. You can see the current state at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Proposing a WikiProject. The box at Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project could probably be updated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve updated that page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects shows a lot of redirects and deleted pages. It also shows these:

Wikipedia:WikiProject AMWikicommonsUploadWorkflow – from a museum; might be intended for Commons
Wikipedia:WikiProject Migrants of Colour Stories Aotearoa – same museum, but has five members listed
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia spoken by AI voice
Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD Engagement – four members listed
Wikipedia:WikiProject Raising Representation – they organize editing parties
Wikipedia:WikiProject Genocide
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre Islamic Arabia – two members listed
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aram (Suryoye) – four members listed

I am doubtful that any of these will survive. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one for genocide puzzled me as they didn’t even create a way for people to sign up. I imagine this project could attract many participants but they didn’t even bother accommodating people coming to them. Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, can imagine people being interested, but that would require having an actual group to start with, so that there is someone for the interested people to work with.

The subject overlaps with Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights; perhaps they’ll end up merged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of these seem to be specific university/museum projects, which may be time-gated. To that extent, they are probably not intended to “survive”. I note Wikipedia:WikiProject Raising Representation for example was recently updated to be past tense. It seems valuable to promote transparency and reporting in such a way, perhaps we need a template which can be placed on such projects saying something like “This WikiProject was part of an initiative that ran from XXXX to XXXX. For ongoing similar work, please see WikiProject YYYYYYYY.” CMD (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe encourage editing events and museum projects to use a different name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there one? Events can now use the Event:Sandbox space, although I haven’t tested it. I don’t know what I’d call a time-limited project. CMD (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In-person events are usually handled as meetups, e.g., Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First step then should be to add that as an alternative at Wikipedia:WikiProject. Hopefully someone with experience in the Event space can figure out if that needs adding, otherwise I am planning to experiment with it at some point over the next few months. CMD (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Council should have a “to do” list. New members won’t know how to help the Council, except the couple of sentences under How can you help? rootsmusic (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main work of the group here is to provide advice and support when people seek us out for questions. Answering those questions requires knowing how humans behave and being very familiar with Wikipedia’s internal workings. Inexperienced editors don’t have this combination of skills and therefore can’t usually do much to help with this project.

I’m happy to have newer editors hang out here, but there isn’t a checklist of tasks to be done. The front page lists the tedious project of updating the manual directory listing. Another task – but one I’d suggest only to a clueful newer person (you might qualify, BTW) – is to look for a couple of inactive content/article-focused WikiProjects that could be merged up into an existing larger, active group. Merging up inactive groups is something we’d like to do, but every step in the path is slow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m interested in reactivating WP:WPPG for the purposes of condensing and simplifying PAGs without changing their substantive meaning. I inquired on the Discord where @Femke, @Toadspike, and @Chaotic Enby expressed interest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I’m absolutely interested! PAGs currently have a lot of bloat which makes them hard for newcomers to read through, and some streamlining is absolutely needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need permission to WP:REVIVE any existing/former group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a WikiProject is marked as defunct, the instructions output by the {{WikiProject status}} template state: “If you feel this group may be worth reviving, please discuss with related groups first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error.” Should that be removed? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we instead need to ask @Moxy why he linked to “related groups” to this one page. The “related groups” for Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines would be groups like Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is being asked? The link to here is something that is on all project pages not just for the old policy one. Not sure the template coding right now allows us to have specific links of this nature. On a side note the reason the project was stop was the community felt and created the village pump proposals because many though that the project was a wikiproject cabal of only half a dozen editors with most controversial changes going to the new noticeboards anyways…..and that we now have so many policies that a more authoritative location than just a Wikiproject was need it. At the same time there was also a shift to discussing specific changes to policies on those policy talk pages. I have no recollection of where this RFC type conversation took place. Must remember a Wikiproject has forever been singled out as this place not to dictate policies. That being said with the widespread use of RFC in the past decade… that direction for implementing changes may work with the newer generation of editors….. as in having a project to host these and simply posting notices at the pump and relevant policy talk pages. Best we inform people trying to revive obsolete projects… why they’re obsolete and what the normal procedure is now.Moxy🍁 23:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is not to dictate policy or to host RfCs. The point is to re-draft PAGs with the goal of simplifying them (e.g., making them easier to understand) and condensing them (e.g., removing redundancies or consolidating sections/pages). Then, we would put the re-drafted PAGs to the community for comment and eventually an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand the purpose…. I’m just explaining why things were shut down….like Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style(All discussions, development, maintenance of, and other related matters concerning the Manual of Style (MoS) are conducted exclusively on the respective talk pages of individual MoS guidelines. If you believe the community has matured about Wikiprojects or a new generation have a different point of view of where these things should happen I have no objections. I’d be willing to help out either way…just be aware there’s going to be some pushback. If I remember correctly it was the medical, dates and history Wikiprojects content editors that had the most concerns in the past. Must realize the project never really ever got going in the first place was closed down was later revived and it was closed down again due to the above concerns….. all that said feel free to give it a try…. there’s not too many left from the era when all this happened.Moxy🍁 00:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WPMOS is inactive because it met its goal (figuring out which pages are/aren’t MOS, and giving them name that indicate their status, e.g., redirecting the unvetted “Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dermatology-related articles)” page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force) – not because people were worried about any sort of WP:CABAL. The description on the page was inaccurate, and I’ve removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did what where? I am talking about two different projects with two very different histories. Policy one never got off the ground. The MOS reach its natural maturity…. but nevertheless had the same outcome. Using the MOS example above to explain where talks generally take place now not that there was a cabal at the MOS project. (I guess I’ll try to write more clearly). Moxy🍁 00:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, you changed what was originally an unlinked sentence, If you feel this project may be worth reviving, please discuss with related projects first, in Template:WikiProject status so that “please discuss with related projects first” now links to “Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council” (this page). WikiProject Council is almost always not a “related project” and almost always the wrong place for these discussions. For example, if you wanted to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicinal botany, you should be talking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants; you shouldn’t be posting here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it…. perhaps it should link to the directory? But I’m not sure directing people to other inactive projects is helpful in the long run. Was thinking that at the time that the council can give better guidance then other inactive projects (as we have here)… If you fill otherwise again feel free to change it. Moxy🍁 00:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe point to WP:REVIVE, and make sure REVIVE has a good description about how to build partnerships with related groups? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great solution…. ~~Let’s make another number point pointing to where editors can find these other projects.~~ … Oops my bad I skipped right over point number one.Moxy🍁 00:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: –

Done [1] Moxy🍁 09:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Importance	Meaning
Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
NA	Subject is not an article and cannot be assigned a priority.

I see that project banners are still linking to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria for the importance/priority scale when a project does not have their own. This is an ancient and obsolete page and it would be good to have a link to somewhere more appropriate. Does anyone have any suggestions or could we start a new page for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of a generic page about this. If we create a new one, it should include the note that these are mostly unmanaged/arbitrary. CMD (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve pasted the summary table from that page. I think the descriptions could be improved … — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many aeons ago, I started some sorting for one WikiProject roughly thinking “Top->Subject could be considered as a chapter title in a single book about the topic”, “High->Subject could be a chapter within a book about one of the top-level articles”, etc. However following that down further levels required too much keeping track of higher levels than would be viable. CMD (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used a bit of AI to make an improved scale — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Importance	Meaning
Top	Articles that form the bedrock of human understanding across disciplines. These include fundamental scientific principles, major historical events, essential philosophical concepts, and universally recognized cultural phenomena.
High	Subjects that support or expand upon core knowledge. These may include key figures, landmark studies, influential works, or pivotal technologies that have shaped modern thought.
Mid	Topics that provide depth, nuance, or regional specificity. These include local histories, specialized theories, or cultural practices that enrich broader understanding.
Low	Articles that are tangential, emerging, or of limited scope. These might include niche interests, recent developments, or speculative ideas that contribute to curiosity but are not essential for general literacy.
NA	Subject is not an article and cannot be assigned a priority.

That sort of wording is too weirdly specific and yet generic. Any default wording will have to ambiguously reference the overall topic of a single WikiProject. “Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia” might be “Subject is essential to understanding the topic”, “Subject contributes a depth of knowledge”->”Subject provides significant additional context to the topic”, “Subject fills in more minor details” (works as is). “Subject is mainly of specialist interest” might work as is too, although we may want instead to state that the “Subject is not directly relevant to the overall topic” or similar. CMD (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think of ‘Low’ as “Connected yet generally tangential to topic”. Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d prefer nothing, or a link to the template’s /doc page so people can find a list of the standard options.

The point behind these priority/importance scales is that different groups would have different ideas about what was most/least important to them. The top-importance article for an individual pop star will be the BLP about that pop star, and no BLP actually “forms the bedrock of human understanding across disciplines”. This version is better suited to Wikipedia:Vital articles than to WikProject ratings.

The standard we’ve found workable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment is that we keep Category:Top-importance medicine articles to approximately 100 articles, and Category:High-importance medicine articles to about 1,000 articles. Other groups might find that setting a percentage of tagged articles works better for them (e.g., 1–5% can be top-rated). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are replying to me. I’m just remarking on what the default wording for Low importance should say. Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to the last comment on the page, about all the comments above it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I won’t consider it a reply to my remark. Carry on. 🙂 Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A list of standard options anywhere seems fine. Happy to make the standard 100, 1,000, 10,0000, the rest. CMD (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’ve discovered that some articles’ WikiProjects have been rendered defunct. That said, I think we need to raise a concern I have on this: should we consider removing any and all defunct WikiProject templates from the article talk page? Thanks, sjones23 (talk – contributions) 00:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, because someone might eventually WP:REVIVE them. But please consider merging defunct groups up to a larger/active one, so these templates can be replaced with an active group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have been defunct WikiProjects for years now. I remember doing an “inventory” of WikiProjects 10 years ago and there were defunct WikiProjects back then. Why is this suddenly urgent now and requires action? Sometimes these WikiProjects are revived, usually they aren’t. But if you try to send them all to WP:MFD, you’ll find longtimers have very negative feelings about deleting old content like this, they’d rather have it marked with a “historical tag”. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really has to do with the viability of the page itself (as in.. is it still useful and a record of past things that’s still may apply). The lead at Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style maybe something needed for some projects. Moxy🍁 03:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn’t shy away from fixing issues that are old. The existence of defunct WikiProject pages is probably not a significant issue in itself, but every talkpage banner is a fresh opportunity to mislead a new editor. That said, at least defunct WikiProjects display an “inactive” tag (see Talk:Åland), so better than the inactive WikiProjects with no tag. CMD (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CMD. I believe the original question is whether banner templates such as {{WikiProject First aid}} should be removed from Talk: pages (not whether Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid should be sent to MFD). I think the banner templates should be left alone, unless/until the defunct group gets merged up (in which case, it should be replaced by the new group’s banner template). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s the crux of the issue I’m facing. sjones23 (talk – contributions) 00:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we editors naturally spend most of our time on the subject/article page rather than the talk page, I don’t see what issue there is here. Is some kind of work being hindered by the presence of the defunct project banners? Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is which defunct project the article belongs to.

If a user sees a Wikiproject tag with an inactive project next to it and then click on it, they may find the project defunct on the top of its page. I found out about it myself before opening up the discussion. sjones23 (talk – contributions) 03:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to hide defunct WikiProjects in the template? rootsmusic (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The banner templates (e.g., at the top of an article’s talk page) for a defunct group say “This article is within the scope of WikiProject Example, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.” Isn’t that enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the banner template should tag inactive WikiProjects as such. I don’t know why the inactive tag is being applied to defunct WikiProjects, instead of a defunct tag. Hiding defunct WikiProjects would de-clutter banner templates, especially if the template is long. rootsmusic (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the banner shell generally tames the clutter, and in the rare cases it doesn’t, there’s an option for hiding all the projects. Stefen 𝕋ower_{‘s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be preferable to retain some indication of defunct/inactive WikiProjects, so they can be found by those looking and so if undefuncted, they are automatically returned. However, I don’t think any of this is possible with the current implementation as it is the WikiProject tags determining the inactive/defunct display, rather than the bannershell template. CMD (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply