Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Assessment date in WPBS

Articles keep changing over time and may not reflect the quality at the time of last assessment. There is no way to know when an article was last assessed (except checking the page history). I think that WPBS should include an assessment date parameter. Thoughts? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I've no problem with scripts adding dates, but, in practice, I don't think we should expect editors to hand-edit the date when they manually update it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I know you haven't suggested this, but I would strongly oppose anyone sending a bot around to add a starting date. This should be optional and, if it exists, more or less accurate, not "well, we started in on 27 December 2024, so everything is that date until changed later, including things that were last assessed in 2007". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sure. But most assessors use WP:RATER, which can include the assessment date without assessors having to hand-edit it, and without needing to send a bot for it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Should new pages not be added to inactive WikiProjects?

Fram thinks new pages should not be added, and I think new pages should be added.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an issue with the purpose of Wikiprojects vs their tools. For example, I watch the Country article alerts and so the Former Country wikiproject is helpful to me. On the other hand, it's pretty dead and doesn't function as an actual Wikiproject, and the more places dead Wikiprojects are tagged the more opportunity there is for someone unfamiliar to expect there to be support there isn't. CMD (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I also use project categories for filtering & finding pages. However, I don't think pages should be added for defunct WikiProjects, since inactive WPs are only mostly dead, and not dead-dead.

Regarding expected support, inactive WPs have "Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse." in their banner, which I think is sufficient to redirect an unfamiliar editor.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup Worklists are generated for inactive WikiProjects. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit of a blade-that-cuts-both-ways situation: seeing that an article is associated with a given WikiProject is one of the key ways new editors with common interests can seek each other out. I think it's reasonable to continue marking pages that fall within the current scope of a given inactive WikiProject. I would be hesitant to expand the scope (I appreciate this can be a fuzzy line). isaacl (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with being cautious about the scope. Tagging pages for a WikiProject is ideally not a one-step process, but should involve some active participants reviewing the additions on a regular basis. (I know I do this, though I am not sure how many projects do.) If there are no active participants to review, it would be preferable to be quite conservative in tagging new articles, limiting it to only those articles that are inarguably substantially within of the core mandate.

Perhaps off-topic, but how often has a defunct WikiProject been successfully revived?--Trystan (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the scope should remain unchanged, obviously.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, this wasn´t about the occasional tagging of new articles, but the mass tagging of hundreds of long established categories. Fram (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The "new" refers to their tagged status, not the page's age. Also, categories and articles are inclusive to "pages".

What makes you think that Category:1960s in Yugoslavia shouldn't be tagged with {{WP Former countries}}, but Category:5th-century BC Macedonians, Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in the Spanish East Indies, etc., etc., etc. should?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don´t think it is useful to continue adding hundreds of categories to inactive projects. Removing already tagged ones is equally useless until the project is defunct. I have an issue with pointless, unproductive, mass edits pollutibg the watchlists of other editors. Leaving in place already present tags doesn´t have ghat issue, but your edits in this or similar cases were just a nuisance. Fram (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why you think the taggings aren't useful, just that you WP:DONTLIKEIT. Meanwhile, everyone else above has explained why they are useful.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"Everyone else": "On the other hand, it's pretty dead and doesn't function as an actual Wikiproject, and the more places dead Wikiprojects are tagged the more opportunity there is for someone unfamiliar to expect there to be support there isn't. " "Tagging pages for a WikiProject is ideally not a one-step process, but should involve some active participants reviewing the additions on a regular basis." The usefulness of these additions is extremely limited and more theoretical than anything else, even more so for categories than for articles probably (something like "seeing that an article is associated with a given WikiProject is one of the key ways new editors with common interests can seek each other out" is hardly a reason to tag categories, where the talk pages are hardly seen or used): and at the same time it adds clutter to watchlists and the like. Fram (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, everyone else.

1. Re "unfamiliar": "Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse."
2. Re "not a one-step process": yes, for articles; categories, templates, etc. don't use |class= & |importance=; also note "substantially within of the core mandate", which is being followed.

So, what makes you think that Category:1960s in Yugoslavia shouldn't be tagged with {{WP Former countries}}, but Category:5th-century BC Macedonians, Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in the Spanish East Indies, etc., etc., etc. should? Please try to respond meaningfully.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any categories which don't have tags for inactive Wikiprojects should be added to these wikiprojects, as it is a largely pointless exercise where the main result will be the edit appearing on watchlists, and then absolutely nothing. I don't think the tag is useful for these other cats either, but it does no harm to let them in place either, and removing them would equally pollute watchlists. I don't know why you have difficulty grasping the difference between the two situations. Fram (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note also that there probably was a good reason why Category:1960s in Yugoslavia was not added to the Wikiproject for 14 years, even during the time it was active: it was tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia already, which is a subproject of the "former countries" one (and listed as semi-active instead of non-active to boot). Basically, as this was already in the more specific child project, you shouldn't have tagged it for the parent category in any case. Fram (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed; that is a good argument.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Associating a page with a WikiProject is handing that WikiProject a small bill to pay in the form of maintenance. When a WikiProject has active participants, they can decide to scale down the scope of the project accordingly to reduce that bill to the amount they can handle. For inactive projects, there is a risk that this unpaid bill will balloon to a size that discourages re-vitalization of the project. I am concerned about broad categories being associated with an inactive WikiProject, which can expand the scope of a WikiProject substantially. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Has any Wikiproject ever engaged in a systematic scale down? CMD (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, but I wasn't referring to a one. When a WikiProject is active, its members can monitor what pages are being associated with it, and actively prune them to fit the scope that they are planning to maintain. When there are no active members, there is no feedback mechanism to manage the project's scope, and so I think editors uninterested in the topic matter ought to be cautious about expanding that scope. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As an active pruner, I agree with this. Where there is an inconsistency in the scope of an inactive project (it contains X but doesn’t contain Y), the solution could be equally to prune X rather than to add Y. Which is preferable is a question that can only be answered by the future participants of the revived WikiProject, if any, and what they want to see in their reports.--Trystan (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Should inactive projects be turned into inactive taskforces?

A few months ago User:Slgrandson proposed to convert the defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom into a task force. Unfortunately this was posted to the surprisingly inactive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom (Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board is also dead), so it didn't get any traction. On the one hand, if a project is dead it seems sensible to let it lie. However, Template:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom remains in place in many articles, so a conversion would at least see that replaced by the general UK template. Alternatively, existing uses could be replaced. Also a thought, if there was ever a revival, it would make sense for that revival to be a on a talkpage. CMD (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If a small group is long dead, and you have a reasonable expectation that it's permanent, I think we should consider simply redirecting it to a bigger/more active group, assuming a match can be found. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom is a bit of a challenge because the natural target could be either Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom. This would make it a bit harder to WP:REVIVE the group in the future, but I really don't think that such a niche subject area is ever going to be a sustainable group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

My main priority is really the talkpage templates rather than the specific pages, as they are what is more live-facing, and are easier to handle in that regard as they can be split into two templates if needed. WP:Music has the Regional and national music taskforce, which seems to encompass the topic. CMD (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

So perhaps redirect everything there, and ask the TFD folks to send a bot around to fix the talk page templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

(After the usual ≥30-day notice period, assuming nobody objects, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I think merging is an excellent idea, although I think part of the reason why the project was unappealing is that it wasn't niche enough. "Music of the United Kingdom" is a huge topic with little coherence; "Scottish Death Metal" or "English Baroque music" would be much smaller and sound a lot more fun (there might not be many project members, but at least they have the same taste in music). —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

A dead WikiProject will become a dead task force. Keeping these pages around still require a ton of maintenance, be that with WP:Lint fixes, cleanup after WP:TFD when templates that need to be replaced or deleted; cleanup after WP:CFD when categories need to be deleted or renamed, or cleanup after WP:RM when projects get renamed or turned into task forces. And I'm sure there are many more issues that I don't even know. If a project is defunct, it should just be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of that cleanup is highly automated (and rather low priority); these are quite weak arguments. We should avoid hiding parts of Wikipedia's history from non-admins whenever we can. —Kusma (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

As someone that does that cleanup I can tell you that it isn't automated at all, not even remotely. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I oppose converting to task forces. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You can if someone has the initiative. I merged WP Reference works into WP Books, WP Terrorism into WP Crime, and WP Organized crime into WP Crime. 90% of it is just in getting agreement to do it. The problem is specifically in there's a bunch of weird overlap projects with WikiProject UK that go under multiple projects so a merge is awkward. We just removed the British crime banner altogether. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with my article

I’ve made an article for a recent plane crash in Philadelphia I didn’t mean to do connective (via talk). Grffffff (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean, what is a connective? But anyway, this is better handled at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk where you have already posted. CMD (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

yea nvm I put not connected I think. Grffffff (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikiproject Analysis

Hello. Do you find this kind of analysis useful for wikiprojects? It's just a first approach. If there is any interest, I can add more stuff and I am open to suggestions. Looking for a voluntary wikiproject (less than 5000 pages) for some tests. Regards. emijrp (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that many active groups would find such a page interesting.

While you're doing it, I wonder if you could compare the mw:ORES article quality rating against the quality rating on the Talk: page. That can identify outdated ratings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This is actually pretty interesting. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)