Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Taskforces

I found this error [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teapot&diff=prev&oldid=1194437991] where the WikiProjectBanner set was moved from the top of the talk page to the middle of some else's comment and the WikiProjectBannerShell was put there in the middle of the talk page by {{user|cewbot}}. If it happened once, I would hazard that it happened several times. I have already informed the operator of Crewbot, {{user|Kanashimi}}.

I expect that some of these page will now have multiple sets of project banners, as the old ones would appear where no one would expect it, and the talk pages appears to have no project banners at all, so editors may place a new set of banners at the top of those talk pages.

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ok looks like we need to check the bots edits then see if we can correct them. Sheriff U3 19:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for reporting. It is same issue as Module talk:WikiProject banner#Misplaced banners by bot. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the report. In January 2024, cewbot performed a problematic operation. Although most of the bugs have been fixed, there are still some remaining. Module talk:WikiProject banner#Misplaced banners by bot and many previous discussions have mentioned this problem. Modifying {{tl|WPBS}} may detect these problems, but it is still under review. Kanashimi (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Who? Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia:WikiProject Data Visualization, created yesterday, ever been submitted as a formal proposal, or even discussed here? I've not been able to locate any obvious prior discussion of the project anywhere in Wikipedia talk space etc, though possibly I've missed something. At minimum, it would seem to me that Wikipedia:Graphics Lab should have been informed of the proposal, given that there appears to be a substantive overlap in scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, here I'm proposing a new WikiProject about datagraphics. I previously proposed it on a meta talk page and just went ahead and created it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Data Visualization.

The goal is to keep datagraphics up-to-date and to create and add datagraphics. Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics is about Wikipedia articles on the subject.

I did not know that there is a place to propose a WikiProject until a user – who around a day ago called me a {{tq|tendentious little shit}} – pointed out that I had not proposed this WikiProject before creating the draft-stage project page (sorry about that, it wasn't intentional since I didn't know of this page here).

Information on things the WikiProject will be about can be found on the draft-stage WikiProject page. Please first see that page. I created various tools and resources relating to datagraphics on Commons earlier.

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab describes itself like so {{tq|The Graphics Lab helps improve all graphical content stored on Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia.}} so that is not about datagraphics in particular and it doesn't seem to be about updating, creating, adding, and maintaining datagraphics but about editing graphics. I'll notify it and WikiProject Statistics.

I think the project will still be active in 5 years because datagraphics are kind of a timeless thing and with things like the possibly upcoming OWID Gadget and datagraphics continuously becoming outdated, there is lots of work to do.

Users that I believe may be interested in joining: {{ping|Theklan|John Cummings|Timeshifter|Doc James|RCraig09|Sleyece|Zache|Bikesrcool|Ozzie10aaaa|Jason.nlw}}. Please comment if you're interested in joining this WikiProject. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Could you please provide a link to the discussion on Meta. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Listen, I'm no criminal for creating a new WikiProject or not knowing about this page. The proposal is here and the other comment received no replies. Note: the user has moved this talk page thread into his thread, created shortly before mine which is fine but please know that I started writing this before the other thread existed so I didn't see that thread. Now, let's please focus on the proposed new WikiProject. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I posted an entirely reasonable request that you provide a link to a discussion you said took place. If you are serious about this proposal (which in my opinion has considerable merit, though I have some reservations) I suggest you stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'll link it later or if any other user would also like to see the backstory of how the idea for the WikiProject took shape. I'll also link at least at least one other related discussion that does not use the term WikiProject but is essentially also proposing this or sth like it (also without any replies). It's not well-written and both are somewhat more specific so I think it's better if people read the WikiProject page and this proposal for info on what the project will be about than some distracting background info that's not the actual proposal. Not everything I do or start is required to get your approval and yes your request is reasonable. I am serious about this proposal and am staying ontopic. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The comment is at m:Talk:OWID Gadget#Data visualizations may have a hard time on Wikipedia. Finding this out required maybe 30 seconds in Special:Contribs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, especially the second comment of mine since at first it was just something I was thinking of alongside and more of a note. The second place is c:Commons:Village pump#Updating needed ––– outdated files. Again, both are not as broad and informative as the draft page above. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Early-draft-stage Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Charts discussed here with interest from {{ping|Joe Roe|Isochrone|WhatamIdoing}} is another related initiative. What it seems to be about is something that I think would be one of many things the proposed WikiProject could do. They could link to each other and that task force could also opt to become part of this WikiProject but that's entirely up to them. If that's where people collaborate on the new Charts extension, then this wouldn't fall within the scope of this WikiProject I guess.

:Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::A WikiProject is a group of people. If you don't have a group of people, then you don't have a WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Did I say something else? With WikiProject I'm referring to the proposed WikiProject – if it's necessary to say "this proposed WikiProject" instead of {{tq|this WikiProject}} I can do so. The subject is "Proposing a new WikiProject Data Visualization". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Have you already recruited anyone? I see that you've pinged people, of course, but will they be surprised when they see this discussion, or have you already talked to them about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I made the two threads above but these did not get a reply, I did not know of this page which as said in the post is why I created the draft page before proposing it here. As I wrote those are {{tq|Users that I believe may be interested in joining}} and while I have talked with some of them about datagraphics-related things before and some of them may have read either of the two threads above I haven't talked with them earlier about the WikiProject in specific before in terms of replying to them or pinging them or hearing from them. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::For the most part, you need to recruit editors in advance. This is not a "build it, and they will come" situation; this is more like a "make reality official, since our group is already working together" situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As clarified, I didn't know about this / {{tq|that there is a place to propose a WikiProject}} until today. I've marked the page which contains the info as draft-stage with {{tl|WikiProject status}}. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Happy to be involved with a WikiProject on the topic here on EN WP. Thanks to User:Prototyperspective for starting this effort. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for including me. I'd be happy to help. What's the over/under on how advanced you want the solution? Do the graphics just need to display in an agreeable format or do we need a full AI management tool for UI/UX visuals. I've got a lot of ideas for the latter, but we'll have to agree on the epistemic limits of the AI tool through consensus. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|What's the over/under on how advanced you want the solution? Do the graphics just need to display in an agreeable format}} The project would be about datagraphics in general like the ones in the Examples section, it's not about a solution or any particular solutions. Personally, I organized Our World in Data files on Commons for example (by subject and type), identified & updated outdated ones, and added a few of them to articles where they were missing, used KST to create a few charts, and added datagraphics from studies. This is for anybody interested in / involved in charts etc so a quite broad subject area. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I added my username to the project participant list:

• :Category:WikiProject Data Visualization participants

{{re|Prototyperspective}} I think you said we need 10 members to allow this project to go ahead? Note to: {{u|Sleyece}} and {{u|Doc James}}. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• I like this initiative and will participate if I can (thanks for the ping), though from a WP:COUNCIL organizatorical perspective I do think it would be better as a taskforce of either the Graphics Lab (i.e. Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Charts, my preference) or WP Statistics. Apart from the points made above about the inactivity of most new WikiProjects, this doesn't seem like it is intended use most of the functionality of a WikiProject: it'll be creating and maintaining graphics and related guidelines, rather than monitoring and maintaining articles in a topic area. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Great, that's nice to hear! I think it's much better suited for a separate WikiProject than a taskforce of either Graphics Lab or WP Statistics. Reasons for that include but are not limited to the following:
• :* Subpages about taskforces are harder to find than a proper separate WikiProject
• :* This is a large-scale very-broad initiative and not suited for a task-force and not a good idea to downgrade it to a taskforce
• :* It's misleading and misplaced in a WikiProject that is about articles on the subject of statistics, not instances thereof (e.g. people may not look for it there and if they do, see next point plus many participants there are/may not be interested in what this is about)
• :* These initiatives could simply link to the WikiProject as a related project and vice versa
• :* Regarding inactivity, I think most other new WikiProjects are less broad and on subjects less prevalent and/or in less need of lots of diverse types of activities (such as updating outdated datagraphics or things to do with the upcoming extensions)
• :* WikiProjects aren't necessarily or required to be about {{tq|monitoring and maintaining articles in a topic area}} and it would be good to have one more WikiProject that is of another kind (albeit monitoring and maintaining articles is part of the activities, just largely not with an per-article approach)
• :* Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Charts is a hard to find page with just 11 pageviews the last 30 days and the Graphics Lab about a much broader subject that in addition despite being way broader does not include various activities of this WikiProject; the draft-stage Charts taskforce is about a subject much more narrow that is the Charts extension.
• :Prototyperspective (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::This effort will also include a significant software development component, which is unusual for most Wikiprojects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree that this needs to be it's own Project. It's multi-modal and will require coding skills or development knowledge for anyone who really intends on helping to a reasonable degree. Also, the Foundation has expressed interest in its own in house AI Model to handle things like this, so at some point we're going to be creating software that bumps up against their desires. My concern is not that they'll pump the breaks on our efforts, but that the Project will become exponentially more complex. A Task Force may be help for specifics -- Sleyece (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Do you intend for this group to be working on the English Wikipedia, or across all the wikis? If this involves activity outside the English Wikipedia, then maybe it should be a broad m:Wikimedia user group instead of an enwiki-only editors group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I'm gonna be honest with you. I don't see any way this project gets completed without becoming a Wikimedia user group, but I don't want to discount a separate EN:Wiki group. It's a multi-modal issue. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::In case you're asking me: the project would be about just English Wikipedia. A Wikimedia user group in addition maybe and/or more WikiProjects like it on other language Wikipedias sounds like a good idea. There's more than enough to do on ENWP alone and other projects could have other kinds of tasks and methods such as possibly identifying articles that have a newer datagraphic in their ENWP equivalent and checking whether to import such to their article version (random example Energy in Iceland and :fi:Energia Islannissa). Prototyperspective (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::This needs to be a Project. Commons:Category:Data graphics is a broad category. It includes datamaps too. Such as:

:::Commons:Category:English-language SVG choropleth maps of the United States with visible numbers. Made with templates

:::Those maps are made with a template and instructions that have been worked on for a long time. It's not something that can be developed in Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.

:::What is really needed is a tool where one pastes in a list of states with values. Or a .csv file of the same. And out pops a fully finished US choropleth map with visible numbers. The user sees nothing of the inner workings of the tool.

:::These are longterm projects with people sharing ideas on Wikimedia pages, and with outside map tools and sites.

:::--Timeshifter (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That's an excellent point. The UX/UI coding of this Project is going to be a huge task. This implementation will need to be seamless. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Sleyece}} I had to look up [https://www.google.com/search?q=UX%2FUI UX/UI]. Please add your username here:

::::::Category:WikiProject Data Visualization participants

:::::--Timeshifter (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Timeshifter}} We had such a tool for many years using the now-disabled Graph extension, though it was underused and many people continued to use the SVG templates instead. With the upcoming replacement Chart extension we should be able to do something similar again, and this could be an opportunity to form a task force to develop and push it more effectively this time. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::}}

{{re|Joe Roe}} Currently, the one in development says: "This extension supports the following chart types: Bar chart. Pie chart. Line chart. Area chart." I am all for more chart and map tools. Please add your username here in order to reach the minimum of 10 members to form a new wikiproject:

• :Category:WikiProject Data Visualization participants

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The goal of the project is to replace the old Graph extension (which supported thematic maps) and its underlying Javascript library, [https://echarts.apache.org/en/index.html Apache eCharts] supports geospatial data (e.g. [https://echarts.apache.org/examples/en/editor.html?c=map-usa-projection]), so I think it's safe to assume we'll get that before too long. It is also linked to Commons' sadly-underused data namespace, which already supports geospatial data – expanding the base maps available there would therefore be a good way to get a head start on improving data maps on enwiki.

:I've added myself to the list on that page. – Joe (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::If the group's goal is to work on mw:Extension:Chart, then you probably ought to do it at mw: instead of here at w:en:. I'm sure the devs would love to have people available to answer their questions and make suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In this project here I think users would make use of extensions and tools and add/embed things into articles. With such practical application one usually comes across partly or fully technical issues (and ideas) – these could then be discussed with other WikiProject participants and during or subsequently to that something could be reported to devs and the issue linked in the discussion or project page. That's kind of similar to c:Commons:Village pump/Technical where technical things are also being discussed, not just on phabricator where often an issue is created subsequently to a discussion assuming it couldn't be solved in another way.

:::Looks like currently we're only about 4 people away from the minimum of 10 participants. {{ping|Enyavar|MTheiler|Wikideas1|Lady3mlnm}} is anybody of you interested in joining the proposed WikiProject?

:::Also, if anybody would like to add or change something about the draft project page, go for it. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That sounds interesting but I don’t know how I would help? Wikideas1 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You could post some subpages of the project page explaining step-by-step how you create some of your datagraphics. That's just one idea. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've been creating charts and maps for Wikimedia Commons since 2022. The project looks interesting to me though with my unstable life I can't promise participation in any joint activity. Thanks for the ping. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Joe Roe}} and all. Feel free to add any map-related links along with a short explanation to here:

::c:Commons:Map resources

::--Timeshifter (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Happy to join as I've been contributing similar SVG for the last 15 years. Please ping if you'd like help with anything in particular. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::cnglee created this template for US choropleth datamaps:

::Commons:File:Template map of US states and District of Columbia.svg

::--Timeshifter (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, indeed. It uses a very clever technique pioneered by {{u|TilmannR}}: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_created_with_JavaScript cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 15:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've added my name and would be happy to help out in the future (I'm rather busy now, but have a decent amount of experience in this area). I just worry this might go in the path of some other WikiProjects with tasks of this scale – dying a slow, uncared for, death – but I can't see any harm in try to centralise this somewhere in spite of that. – Isochrone (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Trust me, it won't. We can scale this on command. It's gonna be different this time. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Great news – we've reached 11 participants. Thanks for signing up. Can the proposed project now please be approved?

::

6. Wait for approval.
The decision will be made by consensus, probably within a couple of weeks. Please don't create any templates or categories for your potential group before then. (Cleaning up abandoned templates and categories is a hassle.)

:::@Prototyperspective, thanks for reminding me about this conversation. We are trying out this new process, and I really appreciate your patience with it.

:::We haven't figured out an official approval process yet, but you've assembled a group of experienced editors, and I don't see anyone objecting. If nobody disagrees by Monday, then I think you should considered your group approved.

:::Please consider putting a note on your calendar to come back here in six months or a year and tell us how things are going. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::With no objections by now, the WikiProject is approved and I'll change the {{tl|WikiProject status}} to active. Thanks everyone, let's make this a great lively project.
If you would like to add or change something at the WikiProject page please go ahead and do so or suggest it at the wikiproject's talk page.
I'll make notes in my calendar to report back how things are going with the project. On May 20-22, the new Charts MediaWiki extension will be deployed on enwp – maybe there already is something to discuss or collaborate on regarding the use/adoption of the extension once it's available. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm really new and I'd like some advice. Also how much should I link, and what, and also how much should I correct grammar and what should I correct? Starrysecton (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Starrysecton. I have three suggestions for you:

:* Go to Special:Homepage, and look at the suggested tasks. (If the link to the special page doesn't work, then you might have to turn on the new editor features in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-homepage – remember to click the blue 'Save' button at the bottom of the page; prefs changes aren't auto-saving on Wikipedia.)

:* Tell us what kinds of subjects interest you (could be anything we've got an article on: anime? books? computers?), so we can show you how to find a relevant WikiProject (=group of editors). For example, if you tell them that you're interested in video games, we could recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. That group's page says they have some goals, such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Stubs goal, which means finding a "stub" (=very short article) and adding more content and sources to it.

:* Post a note at the Wikipedia:Teahouse to request advice.

:WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you!! Starrysecton (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve noticed the project is defunct (and wikiproject micronations is inactive) so I’m interested in what it takes to potentially revive it. Unfortunately I don’t know anyone else who would be interested in this, so if I had to do loads on my own it probably wouldn’t be very viable but i’m interested nonetheless notadev (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sadly what it mostly requires is anyone else who would be interested in it. This is not a unique situation, people have created Wikiprojects for most countries, and most of them are ghost towns. I generally advocate for merging them into larger groups in the hopes of bringing together more editors, however this isn't a magic solution as many editors may simply not be interested in broader topics. For now, I recommend keeping WikiProject San Marino (and maybe WikiProject Micronations) on your watchlist, and replying if anyone else shows an interest. CMD (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, I thought as such, and I do think that something like wikiproject europe might be far too broad for what I’m specifically interested in (I’m not sure if it’s active either). notadev (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree that would be far too broad. Wikipedia:WikiProject European Microstates would be a more manageable size. CMD (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:On the general question, see WP:REVIVE. But I agree with the above comments: It's going to be difficult to find enough people to have a durable, active group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

How to create a portal on Wikipedia. OωO Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Mary Joy 20 Marcial, you can ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! ^ω^ Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that the WikiProject on Adoption, Fostering, Orphan Care, and Displacement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Adoption,_fostering,_orphan_care_and_displacement is defunct during a Wikipedia edit-a-thon focused on adoption issues. There are currently 12 people participating. Grad0507 (talk]]) — Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Grad0507, if people are participating in an edit-a-thon then that's likely working closer together than many WikiProjects do. If those participants want to revive a WikiProject they can, but it won't bring any particular benefits to the edit-a-thon or really affect the edit-a-thon at all. CMD (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::You don't have to ask permission to WP:REVIVE an old group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I want to create a task force under a WikiProject. How would I go about doing this? Element10101 AIW WPI TOL{{colored link|lightgrey|User_talk:Element10101|T}} ~ {{colored link|lightgrey|Special:Contributions/Element10101|C}} 22:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Element10101, are you asking for technical information or for permission? (Permission is easy: go to their talk page, make friends with whoever is there, and ask them if they think it would be a good idea to create a task force.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I was asking for permission; thank you! Element10101 AIW WPI TOL{{colored link|lightgrey|User_talk:Element10101|T}} ~ {{colored link|lightgrey|Special:Contributions/Element10101|C}} 00:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

(2405:6E00:2228:1E34:84A8:53FF:FE92:4009 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC))

The Guide defines, "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." (Category:Defunct WikiProjects are also "projects with no activity for a year or more.")

Its inactive projects listing greatly shortens the inactivity period and says: "a project page should have had no directly project-related activity for at least three months. Comments from outside parties left on talk pages without response would not qualify as activity by this definition."

The template's doc not only extends by one month, but it also adds two criteria as follows:

{{Talk quote block|

• there are no editors listed as members or
• there have been no significant changes to the main project page for four months or
• there have been no discussions on its talk page for four months.

Minor fiddling with formatting, automatic archiving, and unanswered messages to the WikiProject from outsiders ("Could someone with this project please help me with...") or from bots do not count as signs of project activity.}}

rootsmusic (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Why are you asking about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm trying to figure out the criteria to change a project's status from semi-active to inactive. I think the Council should have one criterion or a set of criteria to avoid confusion. rootsmusic (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you looking at a single group, or do you want to do this en masse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::someone probably should do it en masse, no one has been maintaining the list of active wikiprojects for a while. this would also be the correct place to discuss doing that. Psychastes (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::For example, WikiProject Linux's last update was someone marking it active in October 2022. The last answer to a message posted on its talk page was in 2020, (ironically, debating whether or not to mark the project as inactive) so I've remarked it as inactive. Psychastes (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps more saliently, the last response to a message posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian literature was over 16 years ago, yet it was marked as active. Psychastes (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What we still lack is an easy way to wrap up such pages while potentially retaining useful tools. CMD (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed, but i think there's somewhat of a catch-22 that if anyone was particularly motivated to make use of them, there'd likely be at least a handful of editors to keep the project alive. Marking them inactive or defunct fortunately doesn't make those resources disappear, but it would be nice to have a standard process for porting a wikiproject into a lighterweight generic "info" page without all the higher-maintenance dross of assessment and article alerts and such. Psychastes (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects. We either blank and merge (best for very small, long-dead groups, or "groups" that were only ever one person to begin with) or we convert them to task forces.

:::::::::I would not be surprised if we could manage well with a quarter of the WikiProjects that we currently have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Just looking at a couple of projects. I mistakenly assumed that the Council's own participants would assess, upon request, a project's recent activity to determine whether its status should be changed. Only a bot can assess en masse. rootsmusic (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you want to post a link to a specific WikiProject, then I'm sure that someone here would be willing to review it and share an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's reasonable for a Wikiproject's talk page to go without any discussion for a few months and not be "inactive" - i would think those should be "semi-active." A year makes sense to me for "inactive" Psychastes (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::and we should probably also have an exception for discussions about whether a project is active or not. I don't think it really counts if the only activity on a project someone asking if a project is active every 9 months and getting a generic "it's active" response from an insistent solo maintainer, with no other evidence of collaborative activity. Psychastes (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not aware of any status criteria that requires "collaborative activity" or multiple participants. The template's doc has the following criteria for semi-active status:

:::{{Talk quote block|

:::* there have been some, but relatively few, significant changes to the main project page for several months or

:::* there have been some, but relatively few, discussions on its talk page for several months.}}

:::rootsmusic (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::"collaborative activity" is the phrase used in the templates themselves, but I'm acting under the implicit assumption that a discussion inherently requires two or more participants, a person responding to themselves on a talk page isn't a discussion in the same way an automated post or a person making a post and getting no response isn't a discussion. Psychastes (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Note that Category:Defunct WikiProjects are also "projects with no activity for a year or more." rootsmusic (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::hmm, that's a good point. It looks like the only meaningful difference between the two is that "Inactive" projects can be reactivated by anyone, but "Defunct" projects shouldn't be re-activated without obtaining consensus from associated wikiprojects first? I suppose a year of no collaborative activity isn't an unreasonable amount of time to expect that. As I understand it we effectively have a pause on new WikiProjects at the moment but maybe that process ought to be used also for renewal of defunct projects, I'm seeing a lot of "active" projects that were marked inactive by someone, then "reactivated" by a drive-by editor, which of course was then followed by no actual activity on the project. Psychastes (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Should be asking yourself what is the best way to promote an inactive projects. Does going around tagging projects as inactive help them or cast them out as useless? Moxy🍁 17:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm going to be honest, I don't really think I have any reason to care about promoting inactive projects, no. The vast majority of them were started and abandoned shortly after, or served their purpose and can now be retired. And helping editors find out which wikiprojects are active areas for collaboration with an accurate indication of their status is more important than whether or not some editors would like to continue to pretend that projects that have had no activity for several years are still somehow "active" Psychastes (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::In the end, after hanging out with this group (i.e., WikiProject Council) since literally before some of our editors were born, my notion of an active group has condensed into a single criterion: Does anyone answer questions, when you ask them?

::::::I strongly object to people creating new WikiProject pages (especially separate templates and categories) unless they've got at least half a dozen experienced editors on board, but if the infrastructure already exists, then the only thing that matters to me is whether this process is functional:

::::::* Editors need help with Example. At the top of Talk:Example, they find a link to {{fake link|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Example}}, and they ask their question there.

::::::* Someone sees their question on the WikiProject's talk page and answers it.

::::::I don't care whether the group updates the project page. I don't care if there is a list of participants. I don't really even care if there's just one person active these days. All I really care about is: When you knock on the door, does someone answer?

::::::If there have been no answers at all, the group is either inactive or defunct. A talk page that gets very few replies is probably semi-active. Anything else is active.

::::::In terms of process: Updating the tag with your best guess is a good way to see whether anyone is paying attention. If they revert you, then don't re-revert, even if you firmly believe that your rating is better. Sometimes, marking a group as semi-active or inactive is the spur that the last participant needs to WP:REVIVE the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That all sounds entirely reasonable to me, thanks for explaining! And if marking a project inactive or semi-active sparks more activity all the better :) Psychastes (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Psychastes, I don't think that was really an invitation to go and mark active wikiprojects as inactive just to see if it annoys people. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If there have managed to have been no discussions between editors on a project's talk page for an entire year, regardless of the edits to the main page, can you honestly say that that project itself is still active? A few months here and there is surely reasonable, but after twelve consecutive months of no discussion, there is no collaboration happening there! Even if discussion is happening elsewhere, the wikiproject itself is still inactive.

:::::::::The vast majority of the projects that I marked as inactive had gone *several* years with only unanswered queries and routine/automated messages like GAR and AfD. I suspect the majority of them will go uncontested, because there probably really is no one watching those pages. Nonetheless, if they're re-marked as active by anyone watching the associated project page, I won't contest them. My goal is not to "annoy" people, please assume good faith. My goal is to accurately gauge which projects are truly active. Psychastes (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes, I can honestly say that many such projects are still active. Like, for example, WP:ELIT, which is the one I noticed, and WP:BHUTAN, which another editor has already complained about on your talk page. There's no real reason to talk on the talk page of many wikiprojects, and that doesn't make them inactive. I have no idea when the last time I wrote on WT:BOOKS was, but I'm certainly an active member of that wikiproject, for example. In WP:ELIT's case, you can see that editors in the project are still actively collaborating by looking at the main wikiproject page. Please be more careful before marking wikiprojects as inactive or semi-active. @WhatamIdoing asked a pretty simple question, which I think is a good one: {{tq|All I really care about is: When you knock on the door, does someone answer?}} You're not knocking on the door. You're just sticking up a "closed" sign on it and waiting to see if someone comes to the door and takes it off. -- asilvering (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, I can't say *I* understand what active is supposed to mean here, but I doubt I'm getting an answer to that other than "some editors say it is active when you ask." Regardless, based on feedback, I will not be modifying the status of any more wikiprojects and I will probably minimize my involvement other than watchlisting a few for subjects I find interesting. I would say that my impression of wikiprojects upon reflection from having reviewed the "active" ones from A-L is that by any metric, wikiprojects are not really much of a thing anymore outside of the hard sciences and transportation. I'm not sure what collaboration between editors can be happening at all without regular discussion. However, since other people feel differently, I fully intend to let them continue to do whatever it is they feel they are doing to contribute to English Wikipedia by participating, which is apparently beyond my ken, without perturbing them any further. Cheers. Psychastes (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You've egregiously missed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history in your impression of active WikiProjects, one of the most (the most?) effective areas of collaboration. CMD (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::milhist is basically a hard science ;). And yes, there are others, WIR and Video games or anime or whatever, I wasn't making an exhaustive list. Previously I've mostly been involved with Philosophy and Classics, neither of which projects are particularly active, I'd probably say they were semi-active, there are really only a few people active in either area and the subject areas are vast. It's mostly jarring to see the definition of "active" is shifted so glacially to the other direction. Psychastes (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Asilvering, are you working together with other people? Or working solo on articles that happen to fall into the scope of the group? Could you name three other editors that you actually work with? And where is your group coordinating its work, since it's not on the group's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You mean WP:ELIT? All that info's on the main page. There's even an in-person meetup next month. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::So your group doesn't use the talk page consistently (and why would you, if you're at an in-person event?). That's going to make rapid assessment more complicated. Still, in the end, if someone sets an incorrect status, it's easy enough to revert it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I suspect it is rare for WikiProjects to be inactive on-wiki but active elsewhere, although I understand activity in places like Discord is increasing. Perhaps we should encourage who at times collaborate elsewhere to post talkpage updates? CMD (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I don't think there's any point in doing that when the activity is obvious on the main page of the wikiproject. This is an invented problem: if someone doesn't come around and mark a wikiproject as inactive simply because there are no recent talk page posts, there is no need for someone to make periodic talk page posts to ward someone off from marking the wikiproject as inactive for no reason other than a lack of recent talk page posts. -- asilvering (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::It's not an invented problem, talkpage discussions are the traditional area of activity. What we have is a newly invented aspect of collaboration that is harder to track. CMD (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• WP:INACTIVEWP says: "{{tq|To verify that a project is inactive, post on its talk page asking if anyone minds marking it as such. If there are no objections, you can add inactive to the {{WikiProject status}} template at the top of the WikiProject page. }}" That stage has been ignored in the recent mass addition of "Inactive" templates to WikiProjects. I suggest that these should be removed, and the proper process followed. PamD 08:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• :That guideline would benefit from having a time frame added: "If there are no objections..." within a week /month/ when? Not all active editors edit regularly or frequently. PamD 08:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)