Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

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....(削除) Let's make another number point pointing to where editors can find these other projects. (削除ここまで)... 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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

The best set of numbers depends on how many articles are within scope. If a group had 2,000 articles, you wouldn't want 100 top-, 1,000 high-, and the remaining 900 mid- WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There are a number of projects assessing priority but without a working link to a priority scale. These are listed at Category:WikiProject banners with errors listed under "D". In some cases these might have a priority scale, in which case we can set or update |ASSESSMENT_LINK= in the banner. For the others, I think a info page with some generally accepted principles would be useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think there are any generally accepted principles. The original goal of the system was to counter page view bias, by letting editors interested in "niche" subjects identify what's important to them instead of what's popular with the world at large. This system originated with the need to choose a subset of articles for offline Wikipedia releases. Page views were an obvious option, plus prioritizing FAs and other articles in good condition, but how do we find articles that matter to various minority groups? Answer: Just have them tell us that it's important to them that we include these articles. Thus |importance=top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So what do you think we should do with these projects that purport to assess priority/importance, but do not in fact have their own priority scale? Would it be too harsh to remove this feature from their banner? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I looked at Template:WikiProject Bagpipes on Talk:Pipe band which links to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. Why does that need to be changed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Because it is generic criteria which you opposed, and because it is an obsolete page attached to a historical project. When I suggested to update it and move it somewhere better you said "I'd prefer nothing". Unless I have misunderstood your position — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I think that's basically useless, but why bother making the change now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have added a couple of paragraphs to Wikipedia:Content assessment which is an active page and not marked historical. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 16 November 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 ]

Articles don't belong to WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand that. I want to clarify my earlier statement: if one checks out an article's discussion page and discovers a banner for a inactive WikiProject that article is a part of and clicked on it (like I did before starting this particular discussion), they may either find it inactive or defunct (and sometimes, the page for a WikiProject and/or a task force is marked as historical).

However, if one wants to make an inactive WikiProject active again, we can retain its banner on that article's discussion page. Just my thoughts about it. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you believe that it is surprising for an editor to click on a banner template that directly says that the group is inactive, and then see that the group really is inactive? I know that, from a logical POV, my question sounds a bit like "Does she really think editors have no reading comprehension skills at all?", but emotions don't follow logical rules. It's possible for people to see "group is inactive" and not quite believe it until they click through. So if it feels surprising, we might be able to change the wording to make it a little more effective, such as "Unfortunately, this group is inactive." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Could be possible. When I clicked on the link to an inactive WikiProject/task force on occasions, I wasn't surprised to find it defunct (for example, see the page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball). I'll also consider merging the defunct task force/WikiProjects to the larger ones as needed. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects. There are multiple steps, but remember that the first one's the hardest, and after that it's more familiar and easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Don't worry. I'll check into this. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Having just looked into the guide, I think we should consider jumpstarting a mass cleanup project. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All for this! I'm currently playing around with the idea of a WP:Toolforge app that would make the creation of assessment categories as simple as adding the topic and project names then pressing 'Go'. Aluxosm (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That would be useful. I've previously made very vague appeals to WMF to create a way to support the various infrastructure that has been built around WikiProjects without directly needing the WikiProjects themselves. Being able to both spin up and spin down projects more easily would be helpful. CMD (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Through the development of various reports and tools, I've been (very) gradually working toward a concept of a WikiProject as an "action center" around a particular topic. But I see no need to eliminate the WikiProject concept itself. I just don't think they ever had much value as "membership clubs". Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not making any guarantees but this project's been in the back of my head for a while; excited to see if I get it done! Here it goes - User:Aluxosm/WikiProject catalyst. Aluxosm (talk) 12:24, 27 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 ]

Yes, the banner templates control what they look like and say (on one line or expanded). But the shell normally keeps them at one line, and as I said can be instructed to hide them all. I am trying to figure out what the expectation is here, since I believe banners already do tend to show they are inactive/defunct. Is the problem here that some banners don't do this? If that's it, we can fix the banner code. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe that "inactive" is the language chosen for defunct groups because it's gentler and therefore less discouraging to anyone who might want to REVIVE it. A "big fat FAILURE" label is going to discourage some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the crux of this is that the WikiProjects in Category:Defunct WikiProjects need to have their talk page templates updated to include |PROJECT_STATUS=defunct so that everything is in sync. The problem with that, as I noted in this related discussion, is that all of their assessment categories would be emptied (and eventually deleted) which would currently make the WikiProject a lot harder to revive.

To add my votes: I don't think the templates should be hidden, and I completely disagree that they should be removed. Aluxosm (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Reasonable concerns. So, what do you think the best option in this case? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Working on it, and will try to lay out my thinking shortly. In the meantime, I've just remembered another issue with batch setting |PROJECT_STATUS=defunct on all of the templates listed below; I do a fair bit of work of with the active RNLI task force of the defunct WikiProject Water sports (which is labelled as such on the talk page, but not on the template); if this was "fixed", the RNLI task force would lose all of their classifications. A solution for that particular issue is in the works (new/different parent), but it's worth mentioning in case there are similar relationships in any of the WikiProjects in the list. Aluxosm (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed that the argument for "decluttering" by not showing defunct WikiProjects on talk pages doesn't have any strength beyond personal aesthetic taste, unless and until I see a better argument, of course. If the issue boils down to some projects not properly announcing they are defunct in the project listings, that is what needs addressing. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Since a defunct group doesn't have anyone left to make announcements, this is something that we can't expect defunct groups to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think you're taking my word 'announcing' a bit too literally. I mean "showing", as in a reader readily seeing a project is defunct by way of the project's banner. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Most projects are dying regardless. With the deletion of most portals (one of the main means of attracting editors in the past) and talk page banners not shown in mobile view (or should I say not visible unless you click a tiny little thing) I believe only the most active projects will continue on in the future. Moxy 🍁 22:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That seems like part of an entirely different discussion. But for what it's worth, I'm on the side of wanting to figure out how to reinvigorate WikiProjects. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Any interested parties should check out this relevant discussion about how we should deal with the defunct WP:ANIME task forces or WikiProjects over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Merging defunct WikiProjects. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm creating a new section dedicated to the cleanup project. Which project should we consider starting with besides WP:ANIME? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What cleanup? You have failed to get a consenus that this is actually an issue but seem to have moved on as if you have that consenus. Nor do you have consenus that these projects being unmerged is an issue. Don't remove the innactive wikiprojects or go on some crusade to merge innactive projects, you aren't cleaning up a problem you are the problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The issue brought before us was defunct projects not showing themselves as defunct in talk page project listings in some cases. That is a minor problem that deserves correction. I don't know where and how that became "let's merge all defunct projects". Defunct projects are not trash (well, most likely are not) - they are historical records of work. Merging them should not be taken lightly, and I don't think anyone has agreed to a formal proposal of a systematic "cleanup". If you are concerned about a specific defunct project that contains work that would be useful to fold into another active one, work through that process and get others' views before proceeding. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was referring to a potential cleanup project to hold discussions amongst other editors on the WikiProjects to have the relevant projects' defunct task forces merged back into their main project page (such as WP:VG, WP:FILM and so on) in general. Nothing is set in stone as of yet.

Taking the above comments into consideration, what should we do without risking any potential disruption? Perhaps get a consensus here or with the other editors on a WikiProject's talk page? Or are there any other ideas? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Part of the issue here is that the statements in this discussion of "the problem" have been rather murky all along. If you want something done that is systematic, I'd suggest putting together a formal proposal with specifics and eventually having an WP:RFC. You can link to such a proposal at WP:VPR. If you want to do something on a case-by-case basis, consult with the active WikiProject you want to upmerge something to or merge into. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My apologies I may have misunderstood the scope of the proposed action... I think in general the point being made is to think long term, so focus on adding active ones not removing inactive ones... Especially as that lowers the incentive to get them back up and running. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good points. I've renamed the section header since, like I said, nothing is set in stone. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think this really does have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, even though that takes both time and effort from whoever is going the clean up/merging work.

I also think that it's important to start small, so you can get an idea of how each of the steps in the process works. If you're going to get stuck on step number eleventy-two, then you want to discover that with just one merge hanging in the balance, not with 20, or 200. I therefore recommend starting with WP:ANIME and seeing that process all the way through to the end, without adding the complication of other groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Indeed, the WP:ANIME effort is exactly what I'm doing at the moment. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry sjones23, when I said "All for it" I thought we were talking about an effort to go through and properly categorise WikiProjects by their status and update things like the WikiProject directory. The first steps here really need to be in identifying where the real problems are, and creating workflows to assist in WikiProject management. Merging a a few together is just a bit of a band-aid at this point and isn't really addressing the core issues; it's a mammoth task that will take up time that's best spent addressing things across the board. Aluxosm (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I see what you mean. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Some years back, a coder got Wikipedia:WikiProject X funded. Unfortunately, there were no plans made for maintenance, so some of the tools are now useless. But if you're interested in tools, I'd start there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Appreciate the link and am trying to heed their words of caution about biting off more than you can chew! I'd stumbled upon the story a while ago and it's the primary reason I want to stay within the existing assessment infrastructure. Aluxosm (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please see User:Aluxosm/WikiProject catalyst, a web app to help with the management of WikiProject assessment categories. Much like an old WP 1.0 tool (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories) but hopefully a little easier to work with and eventually more fully featured. Very early days so any comments would be appreciated before I inevitably end up down a rabbit hole! Cheers, Aluxosm (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

lol i personaly love going down rabbit holes (on YouTube that is) ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In going through Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention, a category that now lists pages where the total of the {{AbQ }} or {{AbI }} templates equal zero, I've come across several WikiProjects and task forces where the importance parameters were removed from their talk page templates (intentionally and unintentionally). This has led to bots like BattyBot and Cewbot removing the importance ratings from the articles because they are now considered deprecated. In the interest of making sure there is some way to WP:REVIVE these projects I'd like to make a plea that if task forces are merged and templates updated, that their importance parameters are carefully considered and transferred regardless. I don't mean to call anyone out, but just to illustrate where some of these problems are so that we watch out for them and can discuss their removal, here are some examples:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 5#Template:WikiProject Bradford - Bradford importance params don't need to be migrated since the WP is defunct (ping)
• Template talk:WikiProject Sikhism#Importance assessments - nearly 800 assessments lost due to a mistaken removal
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Category:U.S. road transport articles by importance - over 400 categories emptied due to a mistaken removal

Aluxosm (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have long thought that these bot tasks are less than helpful. Unless we are sure that the parameter has never been in use, and will not be useful in the future, these parameters are probably best left alone. Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters has 533 subcategories to track these unknown parameters - do we actually need to track them? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

what does MDF stand for? ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Miscellany for deletion . I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 06:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I check Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects every now and again. Usually, it just contains a couple of redirects. I noticed today a new Wikipedia:WikiProject AI in Korean Wikipedia page. I have inquired with the creator about it on their talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thats good as i am new and have already gotten redirected multiple times today lol ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(almost week later) WhatamIdoing, looks like the creator took your advice and set up meta:Research:The Impact of WikiVault on Korean Wikipedia. Their last edits were 1 November 2025 on the Korean Wikipedia; the Research page says the study is projected to run until February 2026. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject AI in Korean Wikipedia to Wikipedia:WikiVault. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Should we transition to using the wording "low-priority" instead of "low-importance", etc.? The change to "priority" was made to the the priority scale in 2015, but we did not reflect that change in the WikiProject banners — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ultimately, I am open-minded as to the result of this discussion, but I am obliged to say that on the linked historical-marked page with the priority scale, it refers to 'priority' and 'importance' interchangeably ("importance or priority", "priority or importance") while placing only an aesthetic emphasis on 'priority' (i.e. in headings). Also, since this would be quite a fundamental change to WikiProject terminology, triggering changes to explanations and reports in WikiProjects (and I assume some templates), I think that a change like this should require invitations to all the WikiProjects, since this affects nearly all those who participate in WP 1.0 assessments. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, I have to point out something pointed out in the first "see also" link: the "guideline of ours" referenced in the second "see also" link is not in current guideline text to my knowledge. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I wouldn't bother inviting all the WikiProjects, but a mass message to the ~100 most active (however you want to measure that) is not unreasonable.

That said, I don't think we've ever had a group insist that their talk-page banner needs to display the word "importance" to anyone, and we have had complaints in the reverse (Why are you saying that the article I created is unimportant?!).

I see three components to this:

• Changing the text displayed on the talk page banners: (e.g., "This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale" → "This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale"). I strongly support doing this.
• Renaming categories is a bigger step (e.g., Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles → Category:Unknown-priority medicine articles). I can weakly support that, but only after reaching out to tool maintainers, etc.
• Changing the wikitext (e.g., {{WikiProject Tulips |importance=Mid}} → {{WikiProject Tulips |priority=Mid}}). I oppose doing this at this time. Instead, I think this should be handled slowly over time, whenever other/substantive edits are being made.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm in full agreement with your three points — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

On inviting WikiProjects, we should be inviting all active and semi-active WikiProjects that are doing assessments. If we don't, we stand to be accused of making a consensus decision "behind closed doors".

On "I don't think we've ever had a group insist that their talk-page banner needs to display the word 'importance' to anyone", I think we would want banners to reflect the terminology used in the projects, otherwise we invite confusion. I wouldn't call my position an insistence, but rather a reasonable concern. Also, I'm not sure why any project would feel a need to have an insistence about something that had the appearance of being long-settled.

On the first component, even though a wording change in a display is certainly a minor effort to accomplish, I have seen no evidence of complaints beyond the anecdotal which would underscore why the change needs to be made. I'm also unsure why anyone whose feelings would be hurt by their article being called "low importance" would feel any better by having their article called "low priority". I am of course very open-minded about this, but the open mind needs hard evidence filled into it. Links to any complaints would be helpful.

On the second component, reports/templates/etc. that are based on the naming of categories would all have to be adapted. In late 2024, we saw a change in the naming of some WP 1.0 categories across all/most projects (_articles to _pages in cases where actual articles weren't involved), and I fear a lot of things are still broken due to that. I've run into quite of number of aspects broken in just the few projects I'm significantly involved with.

On the third component, I agree, given a community decision has been made to proceed on the previous components. Tedious template surgery and bot work will be obviously necessary.

In total, I think unless there is serious evidence underscoring a change, the full length and tediousness of the effort to make these changes is quite heavy in comparison to the anecdotes currently being relied upon to make the change. To be clear, unless all relevant WikiProjects are invited to this discussion, and clear serious evidence is linked to supporting the change, my default position will need to be 'Opposed'. With project involvement and good evidence, my position can be flipped. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@StefenTower, about your idea of inviting "all" the WikiProjects: Do you actually see any practical value in posting MassMessages on the talk pages of defunct and inactive groups? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No, not really. That's why, to quote myself, I said "we should be inviting all active and semi-active WikiProjects".

To this end, though, my suggestion is not as easy as it reads, as I need to figure out all the active and semi-active WikiProjects who also do assessments. My impulse is to create a query that crosses these two thoughts, but not so fast, as I've realized to my horror, Category:WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments isn't fully populated. Therefore, I'm currently trying to figure out, for this exercise and other things I'd like to do (basically, reports), how to completely fill in this category. I don't want this to depend on any project list where self-reporting is involved. My thought as of now is to make a list of projects that receive daily fill-ins of assessment tables, and then add this category to their front pages if it isn't already there. I performed manual category adds to two major projects, to see if there would be an objection, and there hasn't been any.

So, basically, if all goes well, I am going to generate a list of assessed projects that are also active or semi-active. This will give us an upper limit of 888 projects (active / semi-active).

Let's say when I'm done, the total projects to message to will be 800. Is that too many to mass message to, practically speaking? Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I doubt that the status of active/semi-active is accurate.

The MassMessage tool can handle tens of thousands, so there are no relevant technical restrictions. The question is really whether there are social restrictions. How many people do we want to yell at us, when their watchlists light up with "unimportant" messages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The status I'm going by is the categorization from each project (typically as set in their front page WikiProject banner), as accurate as that would be.

As for the messages, as you suggest, these would go to the WikiProject talk pages and only the watchers of these WikiProject's front pages would be notified in their watchlists. I could also try to figure out how many watchers we're dealing with. But having something pop up in the watchlist isn't quite as invasive as a direct user talk message.

As for how "unimportant" this message would be perceived to be, I'd suggest if we think participants of WikiProjects wouldn't think this is important, maybe the change proposed isn't important enough to make. It's not like we have to do this. On the other hand, I'd hate to see a few people here agree on a change, then surprise all the projects with that decision's implementation. I see us being yelled at for that. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you could check the talk page (not the main page) for watchers who actually looked at the talk page during the last 30 days, and maybe cut off at a minimum of 10(?), that would probably reduce the list by filtering out largely inactive groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability?action=info has "Number of page watchers who visited in the last 30 days" of 8. This talk page has 33. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's an interesting, reasonable-sounding way to winnow the list. However, I would have to see if I can write a query that figures this out. At any rate, wouldn't it be useful to start with the ~800 list I proposed, and then the winnowing query (to be) would be run on that? Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I think that's reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

By the way, the reason my responses to this matter have been sluggish is my watchlist has been brutal since the Louisville plane crash, on top of everything else I've been working on. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As far as I'm concerned, this is definitely a WP:NODEADLINE situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been quite backlogged with other tasks, but a lot of that is caught up and I am now working toward building this list. I'll let you know when I'm done (hopefully this weekend). Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

After working on this the past few days, as of now, the base number of WikiProjects to consider is 731 (the ~800 list I mentioned before). I did a Massviews analysis on the number of visits to their talk pages in the past 30 days Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm sure there's a way to get the number of watchers that actually visited the page during the last 30 days, but it probably involves APIs or something similarly complicated.

How do you feel about using 30 page views (1/day) as the cutoff for your Massviews list vs 60 pages views (2/day)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, between what you say here and me confirming at WP:RAQ, it's an API thing and I have next to zero experience with those at this point.

How about we round off to 2/day, and therefore message the top 333 projects in the list. And it wouldn't hurt to post a link to our discussion in WP:VPR as well. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's do that. We'll need a list in the MassMessage format, and then a message to send and a link for people to discuss it (e.g., to this thread, or to a new one?).

I agree with you about the VPR idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Since this is a fairly small number of messages, and if it's all right with you and other editors here, I will volunteer to meatbot-message to the 333 projects (+ VPR) using AWB, so as to avoid any bureaucracy and special formatting of a list and message. I've sent out a WikiProject newsletter this way before.

So, I think we basically need these to proceed:

1. The RfC (or equivalent discussion) started that outlines what needs to be done and the options for editors to !vote or comment on.
2. Heading and message for me to send.
3. List of 333 projects + VPR we're sending the message to (I will build that shortly using the Massviews results)

Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Here is the list of message recipients per #3 on my list. I had to update a few of them to noticeboards due to redirects. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've updated your list to what I think is the MassMessage format. Just revert if you don't want to take that route (I was testing how quick and easy it would be to convert it, and the answer is "very". But AWB's a good method, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Given we go with AWB, I may have to revert it back - not sure. But it's good to know we can use the list either way. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Revert away! WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

{outdent}

For the message, I suggest something like this:

---

==Discussion about WikiProject banner templates==

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#something-something.

---

Does that sound like it has enough information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That should work as long as we're limiting it to just the banner change for now. In the proposal, we may want to say this is likely a first step toward eventually changing how this is named in categories and other WikiProject-related infrastructure.

As for my edit summary when sending it, how about "Delivering message from the WikiProject Council"? Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, I was just thinking we may want to wait until Friday (or later) to send it, to avoid the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I should have enough time cleared on Wednesday December 3 to send out the message. To be clear, am I directing people to this specific discussion or a new one? Should we tag it as an RfC? Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's start a new ==Section==. This one's long enough, and it might be confusing to land here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's what I was thinking, as much of our discussion here hasn't been about the core concern. Could you go ahead and start that? As soon as that's there, I can send out the messages. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@StefenTower, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. Messages are sent. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

i really want to start a project on creating an article about foxes but i kinda need some help ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd recommend going to WP:WikiProject Mammals or WP:WikiProject Animals for that. Creating a new WikiProject is not recommended, but you can do so at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 06:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A WikiProject is a group of people. Until you've found those people, there is no point in proposing a WikiProject. The most effective way to find those people is:

• Create a real (non-temporary) account. They're free and do not require an e-mail address.
• Work on improving multiple fox-related articles (e.g., Fox, Kitsune, Fox hunting...) for months (or even years), so that you will find out if anyone else is interested in that subject. Also, you'll learn how to improve articles, and other people will have better articles to read.
• When you have found about 10 people who are also interested in foxes and want to form a group with you, then come back here.

But realistically: you're unlikely to find enough people who are specifically interested in foxes. So try WP:WikiProject Animals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

thanks for the help ~2025-31421-40 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace has a few people sort of turn up every now and then, but is nowhere near the threshold where it's ready to propose as an official WikiProject.

I'm wondering if having this in my user space discourages people from editing: it risks WP:OWN. On the other hand, the advantage of having it under my name means that people know who is the most likely person to respond.

I also just noticed that there are pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre Islamic Arabia in the Wikipedia: namespace, with the {{WikiProject status }} template set at the value draft.

Should I (now) add {{WikiProject status|draft}} to User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace?

Should I (now) move User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace to Wikipedia:Draft:WikiProject Peace or Wikipedia:WikiProject Peace? Or should I wait until/if the activity looks like it's viable as an official project?

Boud (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Have you tried putting a big "welcome sign" on the page?

Have you tried actively recruiting editors, with personal invitations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not asking for ideas in how to convince or find people interested in the project, though thanks for the suggestions. :) I assume that if/when people are motivated to edit, then they'll find the draft project pages useful and we'll see if a critical mass evolves. I have done a few personal invitations, but I don't want to pressure anyone.My two specific questions remain unanswered. Boud (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I doubt that it makes any difference whether you tag it with {{WikiProject status|draft}}.

Since the Draft: namespace is m:where articles go to die, I wouldn't expect any good to come of moving it to the Draft: namespace, but I'm not aware of any rule against doing so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the answers.I now see that the {{WikiProject status }} template was already in the first version of the page with the value |active, when I presumably tried to follow the instructions. That was back when the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine was a suspected possibility, not a WP:RSed fact. The project remains just as valid now, or even more, IMHO. Based on your guess and the instructions at WikiProject status, I might as well leave the template with the current value.For the second question, m:where articles go to die and your guess are a fair argument against switching to draft space. Boud (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects showed two individuals creating "WikiProject" pages without (apparently) having any actual WikiProject.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) was created by a newcomer to support a single article (which I expect will be deleted or WP:BLARd soon, as it looks like a WP:POVFORK of Jammu). I have moved it to the newcomer's User: space and suggested joining existing WikiProjects.
• I left a note for the creator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian diaspora (an experienced editor) to inquire about whether there is an existing group.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Since I got no response from the second creator, I've moved the page to User:SunriseInBrooklyn/WikiProject Asian diaspora and left a link on their talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alongside @LuniZunie, we have been thinking of working on a new project, WikiProject AI Tools, and we would like to see folks who are interested in it!

What's the goal?
Finding out and implementing constructive uses of LLMs and other AI models on Wikipedia! For example, LuniZunie has worked on a great tool to detect UAA-worthy usernames (Wikipedia:WikiShield), while I am working on a similar tool for CTOP flagging.

Will you try to push generative AI?
Absolutely not, don't worry! The goal here is to use AI tools as classifiers and help, to support human editors in repetitive jobs where current tools or edit filters might not be up to the task. And leave more time to human editors for creation!

Does that mean WikiProject AI Cleanup is dead?
Not at all, to the contrary! Both might in fact work together, with AI tools being some of our best hope against unrestricted generative AI!

Why isn't this a task force of WPAIC?
WPAIC aims at fighting issues caused by generative AI, while this new project will build and use AI tools for various purposes. Of course, there is overlap, but the two project have different scopes.

Who is interested?
From a WP:DISCORD post: @Chaotic Enby @LuniZunie @Kline @Nullnominal @Grapesurgeon @Jlwoodwa Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@CocaPopsRather: I know you are working on an AI model in combination with VandalHandle, would you be interested? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Definitely! I am interested and give my full support. CocaPopsRather 23:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd support it! Happy to give feedback and ideas grapesurgeon (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Pythoncoder: Pinging you too, I've seen you in AfC and you clearly have a good eye for LLMs, would you be interested in this project? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can confirm. - Violet (plural; She/They) 22:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards & @pro-anti-air you guys in? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards said they were in, but could not reply to this for some reason. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 01:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Finally logged in.. Yeah, I'm in monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

a great toll to detect UAA-worthy usernames, Luni, I hope you know how I feel about that... --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 00:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Fair...but are you in..? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you show me the seahorse emoji --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 00:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Chaotic Enby, I also want to join on your proposal WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:AIT#Participants --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Chaotic Enby and LuniZunie, I love the way you've recruited your group before posting here (and especially before creating any categories and templates, because those are such a pain to clean up). This already looks good enough to meet the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Aside from needing to decide on the group's capitalization (Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Tools or Wikipedia:WikiProject AI tools), I think you're ready to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Looking at Template:WikiProject/doc, it looks like the capitalized version is more conventional, I'll go for that one (probably with a redirect from the other)! Luni (or anyone else), feel free to move it if there's anything I forgot to consider. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Chaotic Enby Looks good =D – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 19:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm thinking about whether to recommend making the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee a WikiProject. Created in 2003, the WC kind of already seems like a de facto WikiProject to me, because it is a group of editors who are involved in welcoming new users (registered or not) to Wikipedia, usually by means of one of the numerous welcome templates available, as well as maintaining the templates and discussing related issues or projects such as Editor retention, and more recently, WP:Mentorship. The look-and-feel of the pages might be quite different than the way they are organized on other projects, plus this project would be focused on users, not article content, but then so is Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention and perhaps others. Maybe the only reason it isn't a WikiProject already is because it predates the concept. What do you think: should there be a proposal to make the Welcoming Committee a WikiProject? What might be some pro's and con's of making it a project, or issues to consider? If there were support for it, besides a page move, what else should or must happen to make it a WikiProject? Thanks in advance for your feedback. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If it is a group of editors that works together, it is already a WikiProject, no matter what the name is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alternatively, I have always thought of it as a kind of subset of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, so maybe we could organize it as a task force under their wing. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If the active participants in the welcoming committee initiative want to do that, sure, but personally I don't see any particular need or advantage. The retention wikiproject doesn't have much active participation, so I don't think there will be any significant cross-pollination benefits. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

According to Category:WikiProjects by status WikiProjects can have the following statuses:

• draft
• active
• semi-active
• inactive
• defunct

What is a reasonable definition for each of these categories?

WP:INACTIVEWP says: Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more. There must be hundreds. I can make a script to find em. Polygnotus (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think life would be much simpler if we just switch from humangenerated WikiProject membership lists to softwaregenerated lists of who made the most edits in a particular area that is covered by a WikiProject.

It should be possible to run some code and get a decent list, and filter out gnomes and vandalism reverters.

For inspiration you can look at User:Polygnotus/PAWS/cat2users. The input is a category, the output is a list of users. Another way is to use something like Quarry 96802. Polygnotus (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject X, which had some very cool code, some of which is sadly broken now.

Some people will get mad if you declare them to be a "member" of a group without their consent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

When people visit a WikiProject what they want to know is: "who should I contact to talk about this topic" or "who can I delegate this problem to".

Currently WikiProjects contain lists of members, but ~50% of those are inactive, blocked or vanished. This feeds a feedback loop, because WikiProjects are not useful people don't use them, don't list themselves as a participant which makes them less useful et cetera.

What we need is a standardized way to display a list of participants of a WikiProject. A weighted sort, with people who are active and make many edits at the top.

@StefenTower: noticed this problem and has made a beautiful solution, see User_talk:Polygnotus#WikiProject_activity_solution.

Let's scale this up to every WikiProject! Having dedicated experts may be awkward because of our egalitarian nature, but it would be useful to know who to contact. Polygnotus (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorting through a list of WikiProject participants to remove the inactive ones is a cumbersome manual task, and automation would be appreciated. But I do not think this is the solution. A WikiProject shouldn't claim editors as participants if they haven't agreed to be a participant. Creating a report of the top editors by subject area is an entirely different thing, and one which should have broad community input.--Trystan (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Trystan Good news: User:Polygnotus/Scripts/FilterInactiveOrBlocked.js Polygnotus (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A WikiProject shouldn't claim editors as participants if they haven't agreed to be a participant. True, but they wouldn't be listed as participants but as people who have made the most edits in the appropriate topic area. Polygnotus (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

To clarify the intent of my leaderboard report, it's about identifying who is doing the actual work in the subject area that the WikiProject covers, and knowing that, we can 1) invite report-listed editors to become members (listed participants) in the project; 2) seek collaboration on wiki efforts; 3) ask them for assistance on a subject area matter; or 4) show them some form of wiki-love for their work. It's not meant to be the member/participant list itself. Also note that I provide a way for editors to opt out of being in the report. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@StefenTower Indeed, but my point is that the current membership lists are not useful (half of the people on em are inactive or blocked, and many have very few edits) while the leaderboard report is actually useful. Polygnotus (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I suppose it's conceivable for a WikiProject, especially if WikiProjects were a new thing, to want a list of active subject area editors instead of a sign-up sheet like most projects have now. But we have this thing called inertia, and WikiProjects in 2025 are a showcase for that. :) That's why I would like to push this concept as an add-on rather than a replacement. I don't want to overturn any apple carts unnecessarily. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@StefenTower But I love apples! But yeah, it is a great addition, and since it actually has value unlike 'membership' lists it will replace them in time. Polygnotus (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Perhaps this can happen to a degree over time. I'm just about near the point where I will roll it out to a couple additional projects I'm involved in, or anyone who really, really wants it for their project. It's somewhat straightforward to copy the report to a new project. I eventually want to turn it into a report module that should make it very easy to proliferate. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Medicine for a leaderboard (does not filter out gnomes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe I've seen these before. They are easy to replicate with {{Database report }}. I'm not sure how practically useful they are with just usernames, though. With the leaderboard, I added columns to assist in profiling to some degree those who are listed. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah those alphabetically sorted ones cannot be used for the purpose the people who show up at a WikiProject need them for: figuring out who to ask about this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We don't want people chasing down an individual person to ask about an article. We want them to go to the group.

Also, the high-volume people tend to be gnomes and new page patrollers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think there's any danger of individuals being chased down as such, but having alternatives of where to find answers or collaboration is useful. If an individual has concentrated in a very specific area (like a subject or a type of article), they are naturally the one to go to for a respectful discussion/request about that area. And that goes with or without WikiProjects. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 06:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If people are seeing a leaderboard, e.g.,:

• WhatamIdoing – 200 edits

they're not going to see anything about individual specialization, specific articles types, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If people are seeing 300 names with information about individual specialization and the specific articles types they like working on, and 50% of those people are inactive for over a year, blocked, or vanished, and another 25% has only a few edits, then how does that information help? Oh cool this dude in 2016 was specialized in exactly the kinda stuff I am curious about. Let's jump in the time machine. Its not like people spend an hour or two finding the guy who in 2016 was a perfect fit for the question anyway. Polygnotus (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@WhatamIdoing That is the section below this one: "Bot that keeps track of discussions on talkpages within the topic area of a WikiProject". And filtering out gnomes and vandalfighters is possible. Polygnotus (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If we have a bot that generates a page that lists discussions on talkpages within the topic area of the WikiProject, chronologically.

It could post the lists in userspace so it doesn't even need a botflag and can be transcluded on WikiProjects pages.

It could add some basic stats like the amount of participants in the discussion.

This would make keeping track of discussions happening within a specific topic area much easier. Someone who wants to keep an eye on it could just watchlist a single page.

Does something like this exist? Polygnotus (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Don't know, but if it does, it might have ramifications for the WP:WikiProject Reliability project, in particular, the discussions related to Perennial sources, so if you do discover something, let us know. Meanwhile, I'm subscribed to this discussion and will monitor it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The closest that exists might be WP:Article alerts which tracks RfCs, RMs, and more. WP:Hot articles tracked activity for articles which sounds similar to what you want for talk pages. CMD (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have something somewhat like this here. It shows the last 100 talk page changes within the WikiProject. And I have something even more sophisticated here (see "ALL PROJECT TALK"). These don't show participant stats, though. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I also just recalled I have a database query I wrote several months ago that lists the top 25 most active article talk pages within a WikiProject over the past 30 days. I haven't built a report about it as of yet. This can be adapted for practically any other WikiProject. Stefen Tower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't agree with circumventing the bot policy through transclusion. I think it would be better to get bot approval, which I think should be relatively straightforward for a bot with this scope. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Isaacl and StefenTower: So I got Quarry 99780 and User:Polygnotus/PAWS/Astronomical which then outputs User:Polygnotus/testpage. Something like this could run every ~24 hours (if I move it to Toolforge) and then people can watchlist a single page to keep an eye on a huge amount of talkpages.

I'll ping @DreamRimmer: who is a member of the Bot Approvals Group. I don't think its seen as circumvention, bots who post once per ~24 hours in userspace can't really do much damage, but maybe they have ideas how to improve on this proof of concept. I discovered how to do this stuff thanks to them. Polygnotus (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mathglot: Sorry almost forgot to ping you. If this is something WikiProject Reliability can use let me know. I just picked some WikiProject from the top of the list, but it should be possible to adjust this for other WikiProjects. Polygnotus (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Looking at the allegedly active wikiprojects:
• Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography / Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy / Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year / Wikipedia:WikiProject Years
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways / Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads / Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations / Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity / Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism / Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy / Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy / Wikipedia:WikiProject Reformed Christianity
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports / Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing / Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One / Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle racing / Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals / Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology / Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals / Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds / Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes / Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles / Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods / Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects / Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders

Polygnotus (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey, all, we've been talking about a change to the wording on Template:WPBannerMeta that would affect all of the WikiProject banners on talk pages.

What?

The change would use the word priority instead of importance, like this:

The goal is just to change the text displayed on the talk page banners. The change would be automatic and not require any effort or action on your part.

We're not prepared to consider renaming categories (e.g., Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles → Category:Unknown-priority medicine articles) at this time. We're also not interested in flooding people's watchlists by sending a bot around to change the wikitext (e.g., to change {{WikiProject Tulips |importance=Mid}} → {{WikiProject Tulips |priority=Mid}}). Both of those steps would require updates to bots and tools. The intention is that you can keep typing the same wikitext as you/your favorite rating script always have; the only difference is that the displayed wording will be a little different.

Why?

The original idea was that groups were telling the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which articles were most important to include in offline releases. That has had the unintended effect that some editors are unhappy when a group rates an article as |importance=Low. They feel like their work or interest areas are being labeled unimportant. Also, some groups use these ratings to prioritize articles for improvement, such as a goal of having all "Top" rated articles be improved to a certain level.

Some groups, especially Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, do not rate articles for importance/priority, and would not be affected by this change.

When?

Possibly during the next month or so, depending on what people say.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@WhatamIdoing I think you meant to link to Module_talk:WikiProject_banner#Importance_and_priority. Feel free to remove this message after you've added/fixed the link. Polygnotus (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Grammatically, I think it would be better to say something like "medium priority". (I'm undecided so far on the general concept.) isaacl (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I prefer the priority wording to the importance wording. I know mass changes (in categories) are controversial, but I would like a consistent system to reduce confusion for newer editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If I may be so blunt, I think this is a waste of time. Yes, new editors are occasionally discouraged to see the article they created marked as "low importance", but this is only because they haven't figured out that importance and class ratings don't actually matter. Once this is explained to them, it's no longer an issue. Those same people who are confused about importance ratings will also be unhappy about having their article marked as "low priority". Nothing is actually really broken here, so I reckon it's not worth the effort to try to fix it. MediaKyle (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

+1 to MediaKyle above - this seems a bit unnecessary and doesn't seem to solve the underlying issue. Plus, it would desynchronize the categories with the actual wording on the template, so it won't be a good idea unless the categories are renamed too. Hurricane Zeta ^C 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose Hurricane Zeta ^C 20:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Re on the project's priority scale, do all the projects that would display this actually have priority scales, indicating which articles need work first? When editors have evaluated articles' relative importance, has it been meant as an indication of what to prioritise? NebY (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose Even if swapped to "Low-priority", it's going to be insulting to some. "What do you mean my favorite article is low-priority"? Therefore, I don't feel there is a large enough effect to justify a sweeping change. Either we get rid of importance statistics entirely, or accept that people will be insulted. Of course, I don't believe that such things should be entirely removed to appease a small few. There really are some articles about more significant topics than others. This also seems to be based on hearsay, as no examples are provided of editors finding "Low-importance" to be rage-worthy. "Some editors" is extremely vague. "Citation needed". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Lean oppose WP:NOTBROKEN, and importance actually conveys the idea better than priority. (t · c) buIdhe 20:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Strong Oppose BAD IDEA, significantly diffrent meanings, oppose per other opposes, and NOT BROKEN. MisawaSakura (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment — how much work would this entail? I do see a benefit, however I agree with other editors that it might well be marginal (from the perspective of a newbie getting this rating), so if this will take more than a marginal amount of effort. I'm sceptical. No objections in principle though. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  About ten minutes of coding time, I think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment. I was brought here from an announcement on WT:WPM but the mathematics project templates already use "priority", not "importance". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment – While I lean towards support, has anyone considered removing the importance/priority rating scale altogether? Do they actually serve a useful function? —Quondum 20:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I can only speak for my work in WikiProjects, and I attest they do serve a useful function, which is for prioritizing what articles get the most attention for improvement, from the perspective of the WikiProject's subject area. It's just basic project management. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Doing this on a Wikiproject subpage might be a better way to do it, or to make it invisible in the template, or at least invisible-by-default (using some custom CSS class). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'd rather keep the current approach as it's already in place and works well. Using a subpage throws away all the advantages of categories and the wiki database to organize and report by importance/priority. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  That might not need custom CSS. So far as I can tell, each project's template (e.g. {{WikiProject Mathematics }}, {{WikiProject Numbers }}, {{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia }}) selects the wording by setting |importance= to {{{importance|}}} or {{{priority|}}}, and I think (don't trust me on this) can omit the parameter to omit banner display of either. That's how Talk:Pi shows Mathematics Top-priority but Numbers Top-importance. I suspect a lot of Wikiproject participants don't know this. Some might opt to switch to priority and start using it for project management, some might prefer to make it invisible - if they knew. NebY (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Yes. It can be useful to see "oh! We have three high-importance articles that are stubs!" and statistics like that. It isn't perfect, but it can help direct labour. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  They do have a good function imo. Personally, I often go to low-importance articles in smaller wikiprojects (Like WP Dubai or UAE) to give often neglected pages a better treatment, since in my view, the top importance ones have the most eyes on them. However, the bigger the project, the more useless it is as a function. On the converse, it's somehow also difficult to manage with smaller projects as many articles are unrated, or have ratings that don't make sense. I remember a really important royal here was rated as 'low importance'. And there's the fact that things are very subjective... many American pop culture events may be huge there and thus of high-importance, but have hardly any relevance internationally. It's... an eh feature. jolielover♥ talk 15:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I think this is fine. Presumably we can have bots do the bulk of the changes, so there's no huge cost? Another thing that could be done in the same vein would be to just drop the note of how anything is low, and just leave it as the unwritten default. --Joy (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Agreed on both counts. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose = describing an article as high-priority could be mistaken for meaning it urgently needs updating rather than it's actual meaning. Also WP:NOTBROKEN as aleready stated above. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment - do you have some examples of people getting annoyed over their articles being called low importance? GarethBaloney (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  @GarethBaloney, if you were unhappy with something like this, would you want to be singled out as an example, in a discussion where other editors have dismissed you and your concerns as merely another "fragile" editor and said that Wikipedia is "better off without" you?

  I will tell you instead that I've seen this, and that another editor above says that he's seen it. It's real but not common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose we shouldn't give the impression that certain articles within a project's scope always need more attention/edits than others, and if anything, I'd be more inclined to go with the idea Quondum mentioned where we just get rid of importance/priority ratings altogether. Those provide little to no benefit. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Per your last sentence, since this is a project management tool, I would say they have significant benefit to projects interested in such management (for organizing work priorities), and little/no to those who don't. If a project wants to opt out, that's perfectly fine by me, but we shouldn't want to take away a tool that many projects continue to use. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I have four project pages on my watch list, and I don't see any of them paying attention to importance rankings, except to complain that such-and-such article is not given a high enough ranking. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I have three on my watchlist consistently, and I don't recall seeing any complaints like that. People usually just change the setting if they think it's too low. But let's realize that over 1,100 WikiProjects participate in assessments, so we can't pretend to speak for them all. Also, I do actually use these settings in my WikiProject work, and tend to spend more time in articles that are more central/pertinent to the WikiProject's subject area. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose There's a big difference between priority and importance. Priority implies work is needed, whereas important means how critical the article is to the project. Noah, BSBA ^Talk 22:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. Another make-work project that will light up my watchlist for no reason. If there are any fragile "contributors" who think the importance ranking of an article by a project is a personal affront to them, then we are much better off without them. I have not found importance rankings helpful in any case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  @Ssilvers, the proposed change will be completely invisible to your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Thank you. That's a relief. But I don't think the change would be helpful, and, indeed, I agree that "priority" is even worse. So, let's just remove the very subjective and unhelpful "importance" parameter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  What wording would you use instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Just remove the mention of low importance from the talk page banners. --Joy (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Projects typically have standards for deciding the importance (usually, the proximity to their subject area and thus work priority). It is helpful to projects that use it for their project management. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose. The current banner isn’t a problem; although importance/priority is a useless feature in my opinion. I would support removing the option altogether as nobody seems to really use it in any meaningful way in the wikiprojects I am active in.4meter4 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine is organizing a project right now that's focused on Category:Top-importance medicine articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'm sure there are a few exceptions to the rule. In general the high importance tag is placed on articles with high visibility in a subject area (ie lots of page hits) or that is part of a core concept within a WikiProject's scope. These aren't necessarily articles in bad shape needing editing, so I don't necessarily think "importance" ratings help target editing in many cases. I note too that the banners as used right now aren't assessing priority which is not the same thing as importance. Swapping them out isn't just a matter of word choice, it's changing what is fundamentally being measured. This would require reassessing every article. This seems ill advised.4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I disagree with the sentiment that the word change is too dissimilar to the original and that's why it is disqualifying. I'd argue the change aligns better with how the rating system is used; as a project management tool for organizing and tracking effort. Regardless, I think it is a bad idea to have the banner wording be different from the wording used in the tracking categories. If we're being considerate to new editors it is this kind of disconnect we should be avoiding. That stuff is confusing. ⇌ Syn path 22:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support - it's a small but symbolic change. I write about tropical cyclone articles, and in theory, Wikipedia should cover every tropical cyclone, since they're an object of science research, and any single one could become a destructive force of nature. The standard has been to have articles for each season of storms in the body of water that they form in ("2025 Atlantic hurricane season" for example). Some seasons don't have any bad storms, so it's would be listed as low importance. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. It's easy to see "low-importance" as "trivia", but that's not the case. It's just a lower priority compared to a season with a lot of destructive storms. An article being labeled "top priority" does sound even more important than one saying "top importance", which doesn't have a good ring to it. Even "Mid priority" and "High priority" are both linguistic improvements over "mid/high importance". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Both importance and priority are in the eye of the beholder. Editors contribute according to their interests and the sources available to them. Kerry (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment. Point of clarity: No matter what term we use ('importance' or 'priority'), what I think we're talking about is an article subject's proximity to a WikiProject's subject area, in the range from bulls-eye (Top) down to peripheral (Low). This setting is not to tell any single editor how important an article is to them. This setting is for project management - that is, a group of editors deciding what articles, by way of proximity to their subject area, should get higher priority for development by their group. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Exactly. It's an attempt by one group of people (or sometimes just one person) to try to tell other people what to work on. I don't think that's a terribly successful approach to take to active Wikipedians, who are inherently highly self-motivated. Kerry (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  It's not telling. It is suggesting. Editors are free to work on anything they choose to work on. But from the standpoint of any particular subject area, there are bulls-eye topics and there are peripheral topics. And some editors have a motivation to work on bulls-eye (or close to bulls-eye) topics more than others, so assigning importance/priority will be for their work. Everyone is free to follow their own personal motivation. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose. I'll always say that if a person finds an issue with a word, the problem is not the word. Now, regarding disappearing the parameter as mentioned by another person, each WikiProject can discuss it on their own, but we should seriously start encouraging WikiProjects to refrain using them if they are not really using its purpose. In an ideal organized WP, the importance would look like this: Category:Unknown-importance Madonna articles. That WP is relatively small, so it is easy to organize. Then, for example, you have Category:Unknown-importance United States articles listing 95,614 articles as of this comment (a number that increases daily). Is this project seriously taking "importance" as a parameter for something? I can even assert that at least 85,000 to 90,000 of these articles will fall into the Low-importance category and I highly doubt that any of them would be rated Top. WPUS already lists 220 top-priority articles, wouldn't it be better for them to create Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Core like Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies or Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Core and update their vital-to-the-project articles rather than having four other categories listing 525,456 no-that-vital-to-the-project articles? This of course in the case of that WP, but many projects look the same, as if the importance status was simply inherited from the 1.0 and not integrated into the project's working areas. In my view, we should ask projects whether or not they use importance parameters at all as many other projects don't even use importances and others have ceased their use. Tbhotch ^TM (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I agree. I think we should ditch the notion of "importance", "priority", "proximity" etc. An article is within the topic space of a project or itisn't; I don't think it needs a scale for that purpose. And I would suggest that projects might like to consider having automated ORES quality ratings. I already use the Rater tool for that purpose. I figure whether it is right or wrong with its assessment, it is at least impartial (some editors seem to think everything they work on is high quality!). Kerry (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I would be much more enthused about updating "unknown importance" article categories to "unspecified importance" than changing "importance" to "priority" TBH. Van Isaac, GHTV ^contr _about 00:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Good idea, although currently we show nothing in the banner if it's 'unknown'. So, we're just potentially upsetting talk-page banner editors or those who look at WikiProject categories with the current practice. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 00:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think there's a compromise possible here, too - in the condensed banner shell view, we could just drop the light pink "Low-importance" label, and in the expanded view we could remove the bolding on "Low" and "Low-importance". It's just not a piece of information that requires any sort of emphasis. --Joy (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  For that matter, maybe just make "Low" or "Low-importance" invisible. Only display if it's Mid or above. Would this work as well for you? Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think it's okay to show it in the expanded view, as long as it's not emphasized. But removing it from that view, and have it be visible only through categories, is also fine. --Joy (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Hmmm... maybe something like what we're discussing might work as an alternative proposal. Thank you for your thoughts! Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Some WikiProjects are too big for importance to be of any use. US is one of them. I think such WikiProjects should consider ditching it altogether, like how LGBTQ+ & Biography have. jolielover♥ talk 15:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose. I worry that the amount of experienced editor time it would take to properly transition to the new system, especially if category renamings are involved, is more expensive than the benefit of changing the wording. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose like what @Hurricane Noah stated, importance != priority. A topic may be important to the project but it may not be a priority. I.e. the founding fathers of a nation. These articles are important but are likely developed to the point where it is no longer a priority of the project to continue active content development and structuring in the foreseeable future. These are two separate measures, albeit subjective, and if implemented would require editors to reassess every single article there. I may have no qualms with it being an additional measure, but this as an alternative is not being discussed here. – robertsky (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Strongly oppose. I do not like the idea of getting rid of the importance tag at all, as it would be have a major impact on WikiProjects that use that feature to organize, and the people who don't use WikiProjects largely don't even know what the feature was/is used for in the first place. I am very active in WikiProject Toys and WikiProject Museums, both of which use the Importance scale. WP:NOTBROKEN as well. ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  To be clear, the proposal is not about getting rid of 'importance' but simply renaming it. There is another suggested proposal in comments about chucking it all, but that's not what we're deciding for this proposal. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 00:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I am also aware and just didn't articulate this very well, my apologies. When I said I didn't want it gotten "rid of," what I mean to say that in any capacity I don't want it changed at all; not removed or changed. I also agree with the idea others in the thread have said that the word Importance is more clear than priority, but that does not actually matter to me as much as just having it be left alone. It being changed in any way just seems like a waste of time and manpower to implement this or any of the other proposed ideas from the comment thread when WP:NOTBROKEN. ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose: There is no need to worry about such semantic perceived issues. Some WikiProjects use "priority" whereas others use "importance" for tagging, but both effectively convey the same point. This proposed change would not yield the intended changes that OP thinks it would. It is not our duty to adjust to misconceptions about technical aspects. The goal is to monitor and track articles with these tags. Let's not get carried away with essentially minute changes. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. This reminds me a bit of discussion about AFC "decline" debate a little while back: in both cases the occasional bruised feelings come from the underlying assessment (draft deemed not ready for mainspace, or article as not central to a WikiProject) than from the specific word choice. I don’t think we can nomenclature our way out of the potential for perfectly valid disappointment. And fwiw, I’ve seen (minor) conflict about class (below GA level) but never any about importance. Zzz plant (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Weak Oppose: Based on pre-discussion, this discussion, and my own project experience, I do understand it would be helpful to have a term that is more clear (not just for some users' feelings but for clarity itself), but for a couple reasons, I don't think 'priority' is it. For one, there are projects, including one I'm involved in, that already use 'priority' (in addition to 'importance') to mean something else. Secondly, neither term convey what is meant in apparently most cases – proximity to the WikiProject's subject area. But to use a different term would require more technical work to implement, and I begin to wonder more about cost vs. benefit. Perhaps the ultimate solution should be to hide the importance setting altogether in the banner, and have the importance categories be hidden on the talk page (so only users wanting to see hidden categories will see them). But to do even that would require significant technical surgery. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 01:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I forgot the third reason I had in mind why 'priority' is not the best term, and I brought this up in pre-discussion (and I see others have brought it up here)... 'low-priority' doesn't seem to be a term that would salve the feelings of someone upset over the use of 'low-importance'. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 01:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I don't mean to supplant the proposal, but I just went through the exercise of searching for better terms, I come up with 'pertinence' and 'relevance'. Would "Low-pertinence" or "Low-relevance" be any less potentially upsetting than "Low-importance"? Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 02:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  The term that came to my mind is significance (of the topic). In wikispeak perhaps notability. (How much does WP-notability differ from generic notability?) One could distinguish between core and peripheral topics for a project - but I'm not coming up with a 3-word ranking. But weak oppose on grounds of WP:NOTBROKEN.

  (I think that the importance scale is compounding two axes - the relevance to a field, and a generic/specific distinction. Articles on genera are more important than articles on species, but they're equally relevant - similarly articles on higher taxa at principle ranks are more important than either; but with complications for economic or cultural significance, so an article on rice is more important than an article on a liverwort family.) Lavateraguy (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think "pertinence" seems to best capture the intent, combining a sense of relevance and significance. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  The term is growing on me as well, and I think it's now my most favored choice, if we end up changing the term. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 21:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose per Hurricane Noah, "priority" and "importance" have different meanings and marking a high-quality article as Top-Priority would falsely imply that it was sorely in need of improvement. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Mild support, but it doesn't seem this is going to be accepted. All projects should use the same term, whichever it is. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose: WP:NOTBROKEN. This is a big confusion for the normal readers who doesn't edit here or to newcomers. Is anything big difference to 'Importance' and 'Priority'? And what does it mean to 'Priority' of the assessment of an article? I also suggest if this is wanting to use this 'Priority' assessment, it should be at least relevant to the WikiProject. As a member of Tambayan Philippines, I don't think we need this. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Please also note that this is good idea of 'Priority' assessment, but I think it should be discussed this more and where should put that assessment. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose as per WP:NOTBROKEN and Trailblazer101's thoughts on the matter. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• This is a bit of bike shedding but I'm vaguely in support of it. The very few times I can recall these rankings ever being looked at, I would say priority fit what they were being used for a bit better than importance. CMD (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment: I personally don't care about the wording, but I will oppose creating a mismatch between the wording and the parameter and category. I won't support partial work. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Weak support. The "importance" scale is very useful for WikiProjects, but I don't like the term "importance". Many deadly events are marked "low importance". I can understand why that wouldn't sit right with people. I also agree, though, that "priority" doesn't exactly capture what we're going for, as that implies judgement on the current state of the article. Maybe "relevance" is better? That emphasizes that different WikiProjects can have different ratings for the same article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Good thinking, I like relevance better than importance. Although, we might still want to avoid making it sound like a value judgement on the article and/or its topic. Thinking about how likely it is someone might react with: "What do you mean this article isn't relevant in this field?!"

  Maybe a better word could be "focus"? That might convey the intent better, that it's more about the way the article is understood from the perspective of the WikiProject.

  I imagine there would be far fewer people who would think "What do you mean this article isn't in the focus of this field?!", compared to the situation with 'importance' or 'relevance' or 'priority'. --Joy (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  "Centrality"?

  That concept might not make sense for non-subject-area groups (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyediting or Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup), but they might not be rating articles anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I like centrality a lot. The most important articles for a topic are also the most central; there are no unimportant articles, just more peripheral ones; subjects that have less influence and aren't core tenets or influential events or [insert topic-appropriate thing here]. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I came across 'proximity' when looking at alternative words, but 'centrality' seems better than that. The only issue I see with using either is with geographic WikiProjects. For example, WikiProject Louisville covers the metropolitan area, but a high-importance subject in the area, Fort Knox, isn't exactly central, spatially speaking. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 05:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I suppose that's also fine, but it does seem like a bit of a niche word in comparison. I checked a Flesch-Kincaid calculator, and centrality has a grade level of 32, as does proximity, while relevance and importance have 20, and focus has 8. --Joy (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Which is to say: centrality and proximity have four syllables each, relevance and importance have three, and focus has two. That's all that calculator was counting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I sense you're not impressed by that poor man's measure :) regardless, it's still reasonable to ponder whether we're using too specialized a term, given that the reason we're here is a risk of people not understanding something. --Joy (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'd rather a precise term that most people will understand than an imprecise term that anyone can misunderstand. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Well, that's exactly the problem - we don't really know that most people would understand what we mean by it, especially in phrases like 'top centrality' or 'mid centrality'. --Joy (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  See also Wikipedia:Readability tools. :-D WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  As the discussion has gone on, I think my current favorite is 'pertinence' (3 syllables) but we could decide to shorten that to a 2-syllable 'pertain', and have settings like 'top-pertain' -> 'low-pertain'. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  From a grammar perspective, I don't agree with using something like "low-pertain". I think it's confusing to use a verb in this way. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I don't think I completed my thought. The setting would be something like "pertain=low" (less typing, easier to spell) but show as "Low Pertinence". Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I still think it's confusing, even if only for those reading the source using the template (it doesn't make sense to assign a rating to a verb). If someone needs to save keystrokes, they can use the keyboard macro/shortcut abilities provided by their operating system, or copy from a reference file. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think most rating is done with a script, so key strokes aren't very relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'm fine as well with "pertinence=Low" but I was just trying to make it more editor-friendly. Stefen Tower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 23:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support. Importance is handled by WP:VITAL. :_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose not broken as per others, so doesn't need this "fix". Joseph 2302 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. "Priority" implies that it indicates how immediate of attention an article needs, while "importance" is dependent on the project (like how American Motors Corporation is High-importance for WikiProject Automobiles, but Mid-importance for WikiProject Wisconsin, as it looms larger in the former topic area than the latter). --Sable232 (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Per several comments above, priority is not the same as importance. George Washington is top-importance, but it is not high-priority as it is already at FA. Scolaire (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose per other opposes. NOTBROKEN, different meaning, may lead to confusion. 'Low-priority' sounds as negative as 'Low-importance' to me, aside from the meaning. Electorus (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. Priority != importance, and far from being a quiet change that wouldn't flood watchlists, this would trigger much confusion and editing, as editors first went to correct the newly displayed priority but found only an |importance= parameter, then worked it out and edited the rating on large numbers of articles. NebY (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Extremely strong support. Calling it "importance" was wrong from the beginning. We should not be making value judgments in Wikivoice. --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  WP:WIKIVOICE applies to content within an article, not the talk page or a subpage within a WikiProject. Besides, changing the term to "priority" wouldn't extinguish that concern. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  You two might be interested in Wikipedia:Notability and due weight, in which @Aquillion proposes that editors could sometimes be just a little less pedantic about which words/links are used to wave at a general concept. (Naturally, I have not agreed with them, but more reasonable editors might appreciate what they've written.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose as importance and priority are two different things. Priority would apply if the page was linked from the main page, or it was a current event or there was some urgent need to edit the page. Vital ratings would have looked at importance values to help determine what to include. It is not independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Lean Oppose – Like someone mentioned above, priority could change how the current system is utilized. Once an article reaches a particular state (e.g. Featured Article), a WP member might determine that it's priority needs to be lowered. But in the current system, its importance wouldn't change. Now is that a good thing? Perhaps, which is why I'm only leaning against. I think it needs to be understood that the intended functionality is likely to change before !voting to change it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose - While I understand and support the criticism of "Low Importance", I do not support the use of "Low Priority". It makes it sound like it is a "priority" of Wikipedia, and not an assessment of the topic's centrality to the greater nexus of ideas it fits into. (oh, what jargon I've got today!) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose, as per Hurricane Noah. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose, as others have said, Importance and Priority have different meanings.--DavidCane (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)--DavidCane (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• On the one hand, I appreciate the advantage of aligning terminology, so experience gained with one wikiproject can be useful when participating in another. On the other hand, English Wikipedia has a long tradition of letting wikiprojects manage their own internal matters themselves. Thus I think wikiprojects should be able to use the nomenclature they prefer. If they choose to use a different word, more power to them! isaacl (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose not a very significant change. Priority doesn't sound any less 'negative' than importance. I think any problems with this importance system comes not from the wording of it, but the system itself being useless when a WikiProject is too large. jolielover♥ talk 15:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose this is a solution, but to what problem? I don't think many people will be offended by working on articles labelled low-importance, most people that I've met don't. User:Easternsahara _{review this} 02:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Support this could really help bring new editors along and is a much more [[WP:Precise]] term than ‘importance' ~2025-39521-77 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am expanding this task force, using the template examples on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Silent films task force, but I'm having difficulty with creating the parameters Tamil-cinema-task-force=yes and Tamil=yes. What must be done? Also, Tamil cinema is a part of Indian cinema, but how do I link them? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What do you mean by 'linking' them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I meant connecting them. Making it a sub task force or something. But is there a solution to the main question? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Technically, a subpage can only be in one place. You could, with the agreement of any relevant group, create a redirect from other pages. That means:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Tamil cinema task force already exists
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Tamil cinema task force could redirect to it
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilization/Tamil cinema task force could redirect to it

You have to edit Template:WikiProject Film to add new task forces. You'll have to make an Edit request because the page is protected, but for now, click "View source" on that template and search for references to the silent film task force. You want to mimic what's there, except giving it a unique number and using the name of your task force. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm working on it; will post in a while. Vestrian24Bio 13:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have placed an edit request here. Vestrian24Bio 13:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Kailash29792, it's been added now. Vestrian24Bio 16:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Vestrian24Bio, thank you SO MUCH for everything you've done so far. But it appears major issues remain, such as that under here. It should appear as it does here. You still working on it? Kailash29792 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Kailash29792: All the relevant pages need to be tagged in the talkpage WikiProject template first. After that a bot will create necessary subpages automatically. Vestrian24Bio 02:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]