Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests §Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages. I'm making a note on this page in case someone here has other ideas/can explain things better than I have. I can't find an exact guideline about this situation but I know it's not the way we normally do things. Graham87 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

BRFA filed phuzion (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance has given us a backlog of links that need to be replaced or removed. This affects literally over half a million citations spread across a few hundred thousand articles, so basically every WikiProject could help.

If any WikiProjects would like a list of all articles that they've tagged and that contain one of these WP:ATODAY links, please see the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service. You'll need to copy the code for the bot and change the name of the WikiProject to yours (must be an exact match against the database). Post here if you run into problems with getting the list for your WikiProject; post at Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance if you have general questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think WikiProject Video games might benefit from this. If I recall correctly we've had discussions off wiki about this and there were at least some efforts to address this, but at the same time it couldn't hurt. Normally I'd just do it myself, but given the amount of VG articles this may affect I'd rather try and gain consensus to see whether other editors think this is necessary before doing anything. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Good idea, made Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security/Deprecated archival service. I modified the instructions at the top of the page to clarify a bit.

I copied in both pieces of code but seem to have only received the list of "Articles with links inside citation templates", not "Outside of citation templates". I can't tell if I messed something up, or if "Outside of citation templates" had zero items so it didn't show up. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because there are two "separate" reports on the same page, it needs to have {{Database report end }} in between them. I've fixed it and re-generated the reports for you. You have 220 in the first list and only 42 in the second. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@WhatamIdoing Nice, thank you! Also glad to be learning about the database report template, very neat. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm happy with it, too. The "end" template is literally the only 'trick' I know about it, and I just learned that recently myself. It looks like a very powerful and flexible tool. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

It looks like there are about 150 non-redirect WikiProject advice pages that have "guideline" in the title. This occasionally results in confusion of these essays with the real WP:Guidelines. It would be a good idea to get these renamed at some point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

might start doing this at every page that's the subject of wikidrama, something might get done Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm working on reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security, and I noticed that the assessment summary table (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Computer security) is a bit confusing because the table combines together articles, pages, and meta-categories. I'd like to propose the following small adjustments:

• Change "Quality" column heading to "Quality/Type"
• Add simple centered sub-heading rows for "Articles", "Pages", and "Status"
• Move Featured Media to "Pages" section, just above "Files".

Since this change would affect many WikiProjects, it'd be helpful to hear input from multiple WikiProject maintainers before I propose this to the developers at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Updated to incorporate suggestions. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Revised. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I wish I did not have to say this, but it will be tough going. The topic is both dynamic and complicated and if there are plenty of users who know it, I have not seen them. To avoid abstract comments please see Unix security for updates and the talk page. Unix is a very important issue. A user called Marcus did some cleanup 2 years ago, but I had to do more last month to remove banalities and out of date items. Now it hardly says anything, but most of the incorrect items have been removed. I do not have time to rewrite the page. As a test please try to get that page fixed to see who is active and knowledgeable, then go from there. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Yesterday, all my dreams...: I invite you to write this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security. It's helpful to add ideas and suggestions on that talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I had taken a look at that project back then and it seemed dead. So I did my fixes and moved on. I fix things as I have time, but generally do not get involved in projects, given that the computer related ones do not seem to be that active. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

1. In tables that have featured media, the FM appear between featured lists and 'A' class, but media are not articles. I suggest that FM be moved down into the 'Pages' section.
2. I don't see why the new sub-headings should be in italics. Nurg (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Nurg: Good points, incorporated. I reworked the example based on User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Politics to show a more complete example, removed the italics, and moved FM above File. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Could consider changing "Assessed" to "Total assessed" and "Total" to "Grand total". Also, would be clearer if there were tooltips or similar for 'FA', 'FL', 'GA', 'FM', and the two 'NA'. Don't know if you would want to include these in this proposal or leave for a separate proposal. Nurg (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Nurg: Sounds good to me! I can't seem to wedge in "Total" before "Assessed" or "Unassessed" without changing the upstream templates, so I put in "Assessed Total" and "Unassessed Total" for the example. I like the idea of adding tooltips, but not sure how to mock that up here. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I can imagine people not liking this idea but can there be a total for quality content which is FA+FL+A+GA as they have all passed some kind of actual review. JacobTheRox ^{(talk | contributions)} 21:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd be curious for WikiProject maintainers and others to try this prototype, Projo, and share what you think. The goal is to help editors find high-impact articles that need a lot of work. Put in a list of articles, such as a long list of stubs or a link to a PetScan query, and let it process. Then you can filter your list to only articles with a high view count, a low quality score (using LiftWing), and one or more cleanup tags. Examples:

• From WikiProject Computer Security, view high-importance start and stub articles ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
• Based on Category:Politics stubs: view stubs ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
• Based on Special:LonelyPages: view orphans sorted by pageviews.

Thanks to @Audiodude for making this based on an idea I had for creating fun article lists for Event:Wiki Loves Pride/2026/Suggested articles: using PetScan to get a list of articles from a category (including subcategories, filtered by the presence of a manually-pasted list of cleanup tags), then copy-pasting the list into the Microtask Generator to add quality scores and page view counts, then exporting to a spreadsheet so I could filter out articles with high quality scores or low page views. (Could make sense for this kind of concept to go into Microtask Generator or somewhere else instead of staying a separate tool, just trying out the idea.) Dreamyshade (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

That is a good start. But it is highly dependent on the placement on talk page. COBIT and undeletion do not fit in security and Risk analysis (business) is way off. So must fix the talk pages first. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You don't need to start with a perfect list to get value from a ranking tool. For example, it's fine that the WikiProject Computer Security list has some items that may not be very relevant to computer security, because a person looking for articles to edit can simply skip items that are not of interest to them, or go adjust the talk page banners. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

> highly dependent on placement on talk page.

Exactly. The tool can't guess what articles are of interest to Computer Security, that's up to those in that WikiProject to decide. audiodude (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Comment: The Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Articles for improvement both focus on creating such lists. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, but what do we really know about the data quality of those pages? I have no idea, and the time needed to go through all of them would be very long. And how consistent are they? The dreaded Unix Security article is marked high importance for security and low importance for software security, which is of course inconsistent. A good next project would be a simple program that signals the inconsistent items so they can be fixed. Have good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The project "importance" metrics are mostly useless. Vital articles requires people actually engage with the nominations. If you wanted to, you could unilaterally change the importance of the Unix Security article, and it is likely no one would even notice. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

But there are only 50,000 vitals. How many are for computers and how many for security? Once again something in my head keeps saying: this needs a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

A couple days ago I navigated the vital articles table of contents to find the list of vital computer security articles - 40 articles. I linked to that list from the WikiProject Computer security homepage. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

OK, but you did that manually. I prefer work done by computers. That is why we need a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You can query the article database based on categories - for example, this is the intersection of Category:All Computer security articles and Category:All Wikipedia vital articles: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=48078451 Dreamyshade (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, to return to the topic: here's that list of vital articles in the computer security category, processed with Projo. This filtered list is interesting to me because it gives me six articles to review, and among them I see two especially good candidates for improvement: Patch (computing) and Electronic lock, which both have minimal citations. It's a much faster and easier way to find a juicy project than skimming all 71 articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

First, that is a very interesting tool. How many users know about it. Why had I never heard of it? Secondly, we do have an ontological problem. The vital article Type conversion has almost nothing to do with security, a word that appears only once in the text. So it is vital, but not for security, and it is rated low importance for security. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

If you prefer work done by computers, I had done some work a while ago on Vital articles looking at generating an index based on the page statistics. The dataset is a bit out of date now, but you can see it here. Accessing the API is extremely time consuming and I'm looking for a more efficient way to get the stats on 50K+ articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks but I am done on this topic. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Yesterday, all my dreams... I just fixed the banner at Talk:Unix security to remove a redundant tag that was making the banners more confusing than necessary. The article is marked as low-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, and marked as high-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security. The Projo tool is designed to not rely on manual assessments of importance or quality, instead applying the automated metrics of pageviews and LiftWing quality scores. They aren't perfect either, but they're fast and easy to work with for finding high-impact opportunities to improve reader-facing articles, without making editors engage in the meta-work of adjusting manual assessments. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, that was good. But we need a program that shows those inconsistencies. We need more simple automation all over the place. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@GeogSage Ah, those projects have different goals! They answer different questions for editors:

• Vital articles: What are the most important articles in a subject area?
• Articles for improvement: What's one interesting article that needs a lot of work, from any subject area?
• Projo: Out of all of the articles in a list I've provided, which articles are frequently visited and need a lot of work?

Dreamyshade (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

And individual WikiProject ratings: Which of the many articles supported by this particular group of Wikipedia editors subjectively believe is the most important (e.g., for readers to have access to, for editors to improve)? Some (e.g., MILHIST and WPBIO) reject the importance/priority ratings on principle. In that case, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team uses a combination of page views and internal links to rank the articles for offline inclusion. However, groups with smaller or niche interest areas find it important to tell the 1.0 team that a low-traffic article is more important for inclusion than it might look from global metrics alone. One doesn't want, e.g., the article about the president of a tiny country to be excluded just because only people in that small country are interested in reading it. Each group's importance rating (should they choose to participate) forms a third factor in the calculation, giving a small boost to some articles that might otherwise just miss the cutoff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

In the last 20 minutes I concluded that as Geosage said, the talk page ratings are almost random, and useless. The article may change over time but the ratings may be from 7 years before. But Now that I have heard about the Projo tool, l should ask you: Is there a page with the list of tools available from WMF? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Unfortunately, the answer is no, if you mean "a" page. There are instead multiple lists scattered around, all in various states of (in)completeness and outdatedness. You might start with wikitech:Category:Toolforge tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Well, fantastic... or what? The least they could do is build a page with descriptions, would take 2 days. But thanks anyway. I am done on this issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Creating the existing lists has already taken far more than two days. Maintaining it would also require magically know every time someone creates a new tool. Things available "from" a WMF site are not necessarily created by the WMF staff, so even a strictly enforced rule requiring WMF devs to document theirs would not be sufficient to get a complete list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Dreamy, from a practical perspective you need living, knowledgeable and energetic people to help you. Try user:Guy Harris who is all three. He knows system level computing pretty well. I will say no more. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The link at the end of questoon 4 on the FAQ leads to a 404 page. Does anyone have a replacement link? User:ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Audiodude might know how to get a list. Alternatively, we could probably write something like Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes except just to count the number of tagged articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for pointing this out! Yes it looks like that link is to the old WP1 toold (pre 2018), which had a special _ALL_ keyword. Nothing like that exists in the current site, but I've opened an issue to track adding that feature. audiodude (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ScienceD90 @WhatamIdoing Okay I've implemented the functionality in WP1 and updated the link in the Q4 item. https://wp1.openzim.org/#/assessments audiodude (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I move we go ahead and archive "Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", ahead of the usual schedule, as the talk is taking up so much space on this page. Any objections? the Stefen Tower 04:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

With no objection, I have archived this discussion. the Stefen Tower 02:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

A WikiProject for editors who want to work on Wikipedia in general. It is for editors who use Special:Random a lot and come across all sorts of problems and articles to fix. Read more about my reasoning here: WP:SPORK.

Here's the tentative WikiProject page: User:TurboSuperA+/WikiProject Miscellaneous

I know that Wikipedia:Random pages patrol exists. This is different in several ways:
1) It is not a "patrol", patrol has such negative connotations. We're working on improving Wikipedia, it can be a "patrol", a "stroll", a "rummage", a "deep dive", a "dig"...
2) That page says it's about ensuring pages adhere to the WP:MOS, implying it is for tiny changes. WikiProject Miscellaneous is for bold editors, for ogres, dragons, those who aren't afraid of getting their hands dirty and doing the big fixes as well as the small.

An example: While mashing Special:Random I came across a series of books where every book in the series had an article, but only the first in the series was notable (per Wikipedia standards) and I wasn't sure what to do. Where do I even ask such a question? Sure I could go to every individual WikiProject and ask, but it'd be nice to have a Miscellaneous Noticeboard for all the questions that don't fit anywhere else. I added that article to my watchlist and then it got lost (and I only have ~1500 articles on it, imagine if there were more). The noticeboard would be a place where you could throw the article up, and editors who want to help would fix it.

Teahouse is fine, but there editors seem to want to answer once or twice and move on. The Miscellaneous Noticeboard would be for editing questions that need more than one quick answer, where questions/articles could sit for a while. I can't think of every possible use, because it would be a place for "everything else", hence the shortcut would be: WP:ASTERIX (cause we'd also have a little fun with it).

So it is for editors who don't mind discussing changes. Who aren't bothered by lots of questions. Who don't think asking question after question is disruptive or annoying. Cause honestly, that's the vibe I get from Teahouse. So on the Miscellaneous WikiProject and noticeboard one could ask all the questions one wants, no matter how dumb, or specific, or general, or etc.

I know I'm not the best at explaining, but I'm hoping this is one of those "who feels it, knows it" situations and I'm hoping it clicks with people. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 08:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@TurboSuperA+, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I like the spirit! What about Wikipedia:Help desk for miscellaneous questions? A couple things to consider: I wonder if allying with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles would be interesting to you - the subject matter scope is entirely open, the "Fix a random page lacking sources" button is featured as a task, and it's quite active and fun. And since Wikipedia:Random page patrol seems pretty inactive, you could take the approach of WP:REVIVE - try to find people who share your vision and re-shape it in that direction. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The most important part is "find people". Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. No group, no WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'll work on that. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 04:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I had no idea WikiProject Unreferenced articles existed. Thanks for the tip! TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 04:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would expect WP:ASTERIX to be about Asterix . —Kusma (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's a little joke, WP:ASTERISK is taken. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 04:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

If the Teahouse is giving vibes that it doesn't want to deal with multiple questions from one editor, I think that's a Teahouse problem, as it's specifically designed to be a low-key, welcoming environment. I also think asking your assigned mentor would be a good way to find starting points for answers (see Wikipedia:Mentorship for more information).

Note a WikiProject talk page is of no help if no one's watching it. I suspect it'll be a challenge to get significant number of interested editors to participate on a WikiProject page that has no specific focus. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Regional and national music was the WikiProject's Talk Page, before it moved to a Task Force. Shouldn't it also be merged into the Task Force's Talk Page (which should enable archiving)? rootsmusic (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

A merge-and-redirect sounds reasonable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Many airship articles (even important ones) have a lack of sources, too short and haven't been updated in years. As a huge airship buff, that annoys me. This is why I propose a separate wikiproject for Airships, balloons and other Lighter-than-air stuff. Hopefully, if made, will start updating all these broken articles, making them fit for this encyclopaedia again. Also, it could be something like "Wikiproject Aerostats" or an aerostat task force if not fit for a wikiproject. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This sounds like a useful purpose for a WikiProject, or perhaps a task force within WP Aviation. At any rate, a new WikiProject requires a group of users interested in working together. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Proposing a WikiProject for details. the Stefen Tower 19:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

hmm... how would i requit people for the wikiproject? many people were interested on my thread of the hindenburg disaster artice sucking ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation - Wikipedia ) so maybe them? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

WP:REVIVE has some suggestions. As a first step, I suggest that you hang out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. In the long run, fans of airships might be better off as part of a bigger group instead of isolated on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

i did make a post there, the only things i've really done in relation to aviation is make a page and change some stuff on airship articles - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I suggest watching their talk page, and joining discussions when you think you could help. Doing that for several months (or longer) will give you some ideas about how WikiProjects work together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You can ask anyone you have identified as potentially being interested on their talk page if they would like to become part of this effort. They could come to this discussion and state their willingness to join. I see you brought this up at WP Aviation already - you can link to this discussion from there. the Stefen Tower 20:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

i have, i'm just waiting for replies - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Airships are quite niche. I can see that there is a possible scope for a task force under WP:AV, but not a stand alone WP. I wouldn't be joining either though. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

yeah, maybe i could do a task force. But the problem is is getting people to join, how do i get airship nerds here, do you know of any???? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's a good idea to watch the main articles and encourage anyone who adds content or corrects errors. If you can build on someone's work, that encourages them to come back and try to do more. If you just revert it, they'll quit.

Some people actually resort to off-wiki recruiting. That adds an additional layer of complexity (they have to learn everything from sourcing to anti-LLM rules), and new editors often don't stick around for even a few weeks, but some people find it worthwhile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

i'll see. thanks! - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego#Reviving WikiProject Lego. The state of articles about Lego, of which hundreds exist, is mostly poor. There are not very many editors working on them either. I proposed that the WikiProject be revived to fix this. Are there any editors here interested in the subject of Lego and willing to help out, maybe join the discussion?

NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

See WP:REVIVE. The key thing is to look around the wiki and find people who are already editing those (and related) articles, and see if they'll join you. A simple thing to ask any experienced editor is to put Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego on their watchlist.

It can take months to recruit half a dozen people. Persistence matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi All, I'm a music fan and new to wiki (been a month), I've been editing pages for musicians and music labels across the world that lack correct or updated info such as Pritam/Tarkan etc, I tried creating a page recently and wish to create pages for many such record labels and musicians. I keep getting feedback on the page and so would like to ask for mentorship in creating my first article and guidance so that i can create pages for musicians that are well known but for some reason not yet on the platform. This forum was advised to me by 'gurkubondinn' to seek someone to help create my page with me. Sasha2026 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is a page for coordinating and organizing groups of editors. For personal mentorship, try going to Special:Homepage and clicking on "Get a mentor". (If Special:Homepage doesn't work for you, then turn it on at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-homepage.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I was wondering through the WIKIproject area tonight and happened upon the draft WikiProjects at Category:Draft WikiProjects. Neither the main page nor the talk page for any of the proposed WikiProjects had any activity for the past few years. Is it time to archive them? Or should they be publicized? The two or three that I looked at more carefully were clearly the work of one enthusiastic editor, not a group of editors. I just wondered if there was a process to review them or propose new drafts. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Here's my first thoughts. Maybe you'll have better ones.

• If the editor is still active, then invite them to move it to their userspace until they're ready to recruit editors. @Levivich, for example, may have just forgotten about starting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Core Content page.
• If it feels hopeless (e.g., the subject is impossible plus editor who created the page was relatively inexperienced and is long gone), then it should go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
• If it's vaguely plausible but not likely to be successful, then consider whether a redirect to an existing group might work.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply