Cleaning up or merging dormant projects
This came up today in a discussion with Pine and others about the WMF annual plan.
- How can we clean up and merge dormant projects, while continuing to support Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 article evaluations and categorization?
- When small wikiprojects are merged, what else has to happen to update the functioning of the whole system?
– SJ + 17:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, @Sj. This has been discussed several times in the last couple of years, so you might want to start in the archives for this page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects is where we're collecting some of the practical information.
- Overall, I'd say that the problem areas include:
- The actual process of merging (once you reach the point of clicking buttons) is boring and occasionally fiddly work. Some parts could be semi-automated. Some parts require an admin (e.g., to delete unused 1.0 cats). WP:TASKFORCES can preserve the varying
|importance=ratings for 1.0, but mostly I think that blank-and-redirect works out in practice, and based on the experience for WP:MED, I'd particularly recommend that for the talk page even if a task force model is used. - WikiProjects are groups of people, which means that merging depends upon social factors. If you "forcibly" merge the groups, the individuals might walk away rather than participate. We need participation.
- What individual editors want is not what Wikipedia needs. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile is basically inactive, but an editor recently decided to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Chilean Legislatures. Why? The editor only wants to work on Chilean legislators and legislative institutions, not on everything else about Chile. What Wikipedia needs is an active Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and a lively Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile, and if you want to write about politicians in Chile, then you pick one or the other, without making yet another tiny doomed sub-speciality group.
- The actual process of merging (once you reach the point of clicking buttons) is boring and occasionally fiddly work. Some parts could be semi-automated. Some parts require an admin (e.g., to delete unused 1.0 cats). WP:TASKFORCES can preserve the varying
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! It feels like our version of Dunbar's Number could be "optimal range (min/max) for effective WikiProjects" and strong guidance to keep projects at a scope that they have a set of active users in that range. (and perhaps layout / template / page design norms that make it easy to refactor where people spend their time w/o lots of fiddly work) Individuals might have a weak preference but not strong enough to say "no I want to start a project that will become inactive within a year" – SJ + 19:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing not sure if there is a better section to ask this, but is there a list of "active" or inactive WikiProjects anywhere? Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Katzrockso The definition is here: WP:INACTIVEWP. Because it 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.
it is pretty difficult to determine which are truly dead (it is difficult to filter outroutine/automated announcements or unanswered queries
using software). - To get a rough idea of the scope of the problem, Wikipedia:WikiProject says
The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects
. Category:Active WikiProjects contains ~654 pages. The last time I checked over 200 of those had not been edited for over a year. And I didn't even bother to try to filter outroutine/automated announcements or unanswered queries
. That means that WikiProjects are basically vestigial at this point. - The entire system should probably be replaced with something better. I don't know if it worked in the past but its certainly not working now. Polygnotus (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- There are a good number of truly active WikiProjects, but overall, you're in the ballpark. I think WikiProjects basically are the right idea but they need a fresh take. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @StefenTower I think we need to combine:
- your WikiProject leaderboards
- using WikiProjects as a meta-talkpage, see User:Polygnotus/PAWS/Astronomical
- automatically finding people who edit in the areas covered by a project (e.g. User:Polygnotus/PAWS/cat2users) and automatically showing them relevant stats
- showing stats on the wikiprojects and Special:Impact and Special:Homepage (unanswered questions, edit requests, how many edits did you make, requested articles, articles with maintenance tags etc)
- and various other things.
- That addresses the flaws of the current system. Polygnotus (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think we are close to being on the same page. A WikiProject is basically people contributing toward a topic area. And people rightly might want to know the impact of their contributions toward that topic (perhaps even from before they mindfully joined the project - like what my leaderboard does). Also, it would be nice if we can somewhat standardize the presentation of how editors can help without it seeming like a bland to-do list, where editors can easily see what issues need addressing, what voids need filling, what resources are available, what milestones the project is moving toward, etc. I have even mused about what would happen if we took the spirit of portals and fused them with WikiProjects - so they're not just workspaces but also showcases. Various projects are already doing many of these things, but I often get the nagging feeling we have not come anywhere close to optimizing what we can do. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject X, which worked on this kind of stuff some years ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. I was around when that was being worked on, and I mused on why it didn't ultimately succeed in the link I gave above ("a fresh take"). Of course, opinions may vary. the Stefen 𝕋ower 07:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @StefenTower I think we should move away from "Stefen has added his name to a list of WikiProject participants" and should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen". Getting people to subscribe is a major hurdle that can be avoided.
- The problem is that the WMF, for various depressing reasons, won't work on stuff like this.
- And since we can't realistically get a substantial subset of the ~40k active editors to install a bunch of JavaScript we do need the WMF to make meaningful changes in this area. Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus That would definitely be a major (and useful) mind flip for the Wikipedia, and beyond the WMF apparently not taking an interest in such, there are such things as inertia and development costs/prioritization. I have been lightly proposing a happy medium that can eventually be done without particular higher-up support – making WikiProjects more like action centers around topic areas (kind of like a portal, but for editing collaboration). But certainly, a key issue around this is getting editors to visit these places, that is, to match their editing interests to a topic's editing needs. How we can better implement these connections is our challenge, even with the current state of WikiProjects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. A lot of Wikipedia editors are really not interested in coordinating with other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. Belonging in a group is voluntary. I have not intended to indicate any change to that paradigm. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- To be clear, it would be useful for editors who do edit heavily in particular subject areas to know there is an option for further concentrating their work. I don't want to nag any editors but gently making them aware somehow may be useful. Relying on editors discovering WikiProjects or WikiProjects occasionally inviting editors seems to not quite be a robust-enough model. the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing
I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group.
That is not what[We] should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen
means tho. - Showing someone a dashboard of stuff that may be relevant to them is not the same as assuming they want to collaborate with others.
- The mantra "A WikiProject is a group of people" is irrelevant here. Polygnotus (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. A lot of Wikipedia editors are really not interested in coordinating with other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus That would definitely be a major (and useful) mind flip for the Wikipedia, and beyond the WMF apparently not taking an interest in such, there are such things as inertia and development costs/prioritization. I have been lightly proposing a happy medium that can eventually be done without particular higher-up support – making WikiProjects more like action centers around topic areas (kind of like a portal, but for editing collaboration). But certainly, a key issue around this is getting editors to visit these places, that is, to match their editing interests to a topic's editing needs. How we can better implement these connections is our challenge, even with the current state of WikiProjects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. I was around when that was being worked on, and I mused on why it didn't ultimately succeed in the link I gave above ("a fresh take"). Of course, opinions may vary. the Stefen 𝕋ower 07:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject X, which worked on this kind of stuff some years ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think we are close to being on the same page. A WikiProject is basically people contributing toward a topic area. And people rightly might want to know the impact of their contributions toward that topic (perhaps even from before they mindfully joined the project - like what my leaderboard does). Also, it would be nice if we can somewhat standardize the presentation of how editors can help without it seeming like a bland to-do list, where editors can easily see what issues need addressing, what voids need filling, what resources are available, what milestones the project is moving toward, etc. I have even mused about what would happen if we took the spirit of portals and fused them with WikiProjects - so they're not just workspaces but also showcases. Various projects are already doing many of these things, but I often get the nagging feeling we have not come anywhere close to optimizing what we can do. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @StefenTower I think we need to combine:
- There are a good number of truly active WikiProjects, but overall, you're in the ballpark. I think WikiProjects basically are the right idea but they need a fresh take. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. 1) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by human changes (sort on Status); 2) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects with no activity the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @StefenTower thanks for the reply. Unfortunately the first database report seems to be very generous. WP:WikiProject Religion has solely notices to RfCs, deletion nominations and RMs on the talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- It's not intentionally generous. It's just reporting the status setting. If a status is incorrect, per the guidelines, then they can be changed. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- See also Category:WikiProjects by status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @StefenTower thanks for the reply. Unfortunately the first database report seems to be very generous. WP:WikiProject Religion has solely notices to RfCs, deletion nominations and RMs on the talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Katzrockso The definition is here: WP:INACTIVEWP. Because it says
Activity of WikiProject Biography's talk page
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
I previously tagged WikiProject Biography as "semi-active" merely because it's been lacking replied and consisting of just notifications and announcement, but then it got reverted. I addressed the reversion at WP:VPP (archived discussion). Anyways, the WikiProject's talk page is still abysmally filled with reply-less messages. Makes me reluctant to post anything biography-related. I can't help wonder how long this will continue and not expect anything in return (or something like that) whenever I post there? George Ho (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe we should try to WP:REVIVE that group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- The worst-case scenario of posting something on the project's talk page is not getting an answer. Still, as it's the 39th most active project in the past year per human (non-bot) edits, it still seems worth a try. the Stefen 𝕋ower 08:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- "Biography" is just too broad a term, if you ask me. Issues are always likely to get more response at a more specialized project page. Probably the tag should be restored to warn people. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
WikiProject Library and Information Science
This project seems to have been created unilaterally by Kerrieburn without following any approval process — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- WP:MFD is where these are handled. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Merge up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries? Or just move to User: space?
- Invite the editor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange?
- (Also, feel free to watch Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects to find other instances of newly created WikiProject pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- I recently joined this project https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Library_and_Information_Science (project page created in January 2024) after meeting members at WIkiCon Australia last month.
- WikiProject Library and Information Science (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125310122) was created in April 2024.
- I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Library and Information Science to collate additional content that would be useful for those involved with the project. This followed the same procedure used in another WikiProject that I am involved with. I was not aware that there was any kind of approval process required. Kerrieburn (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Kerrieburn, traditionally, there hasn't been any kind of process here, with the result that we have about 2,000 "groups of editors" that have just one or two editors, or even zero. What we care about is whether there are people here, editing the English Wikipedia, who want to work together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @WhatamIdoing We definitely have a group of editors working together on this project. Kerrieburn (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Kerrieburn, traditionally, there hasn't been any kind of process here, with the result that we have about 2,000 "groups of editors" that have just one or two editors, or even zero. What we care about is whether there are people here, editing the English Wikipedia, who want to work together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Revival of WikiProject Feminism
I noticed that editors @ipiggot and @The Ars Goetia are seeking to WP:REVIVE the project, which was previously considered. Anyone interested in supporting WP:WikiProject Feminism are welcome to join! Mitchsavl (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- This is a great idea. I wish them lots of luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you mitchsavl for the notice, I will say that I will try my hardest to revive the project but I will be mostly inactive for the next 2-3 weeks Goetia [She/They] (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Revival of WikiProject Bowling
I'm going to attempt WP:REVIVE the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bowling (Zakk😎) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Go for it! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
One question on the wiki project criteria
It says to not start a project on any individual person. However WikiProject Taylor Swift is all abt Taylor Swift and seems to be productive. Why is that allowed to exist? Was it simply grandfathered in before this rule was made? 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 08:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- I am not sure which criteria you are looking at, but the guidelines are advice aimed at increasing the chance that a WikiProject is successful. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift is not very active, and that's despite the very active work on related articles. CMD (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it was grandfathered in. Seeing how these various groups have fared over the years is why the rule was created a few years ago. Eventually, I think most of them will get merged up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
WikiProject Nurses in Red
Wikipedia:WikiProject Nurses in Red has been created. This is apparently a group/event that's been happening for several years. I wonder whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals should mention the WikiProjects that are more event-focused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Bot request relating to a WikiProject's categories
Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests § Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages. I'm making a note on this page in case someone here has other ideas/can explain things better than I have. I can't find an exact guideline about this situation but I know it's not the way we normally do things. Graham87 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity
Deprecated website affecting thousands of articles
The Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance has given us a backlog of links that need to be replaced or removed. This affects literally over half a million citations spread across a few hundred thousand articles, so basically every WikiProject could help.
If any WikiProjects would like a list of all articles that they've tagged and that contain one of these WP:ATODAY links, please see the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service. You'll need to copy the code for the bot and change the name of the WikiProject to yours (must be an exact match against the database). Post here if you run into problems with getting the list for your WikiProject; post at Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance if you have general questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think WikiProject Video games might benefit from this. If I recall correctly we've had discussions off wiki about this and there were at least some efforts to address this, but at the same time it couldn't hurt. Normally I'd just do it myself, but given the amount of VG articles this may affect I'd rather try and gain consensus to see whether other editors think this is necessary before doing anything. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 18:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea, made Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security/Deprecated archival service. I modified the instructions at the top of the page to clarify a bit.
- I copied in both pieces of code but seem to have only received the list of "Articles with links inside citation templates", not "Outside of citation templates". I can't tell if I messed something up, or if "Outside of citation templates" had zero items so it didn't show up. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Because there are two "separate" reports on the same page, it needs to have {{Database report end}} in between them. I've fixed it and re-generated the reports for you. You have 220 in the first list and only 42 in the second. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing Nice, thank you! Also glad to be learning about the database report template, very neat. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm happy with it, too. The "end" template is literally the only 'trick' I know about it, and I just learned that recently myself. It looks like a very powerful and flexible tool. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing Nice, thank you! Also glad to be learning about the database report template, very neat. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Because there are two "separate" reports on the same page, it needs to have {{Database report end}} in between them. I've fixed it and re-generated the reports for you. You have 220 in the first list and only 42 in the second. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Mislabeled advice pages
It looks like there are about 150 non-redirect WikiProject advice pages that have "guideline" in the title. This occasionally results in confusion of these essays with the real WP:Guidelines. It would be a good idea to get these renamed at some point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Adjustment of WP1.0 summary table
I'm working on reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security, and I noticed that the assessment summary table (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Computer security) is a bit confusing because the table combines together articles, pages, and meta-categories. I'd like to propose the following small adjustments:
- Change "Quality" column heading to "Quality/Type"
- Add simple centered sub-heading rows for "Articles", "Pages", and "Status"
- Move Featured Media to "Pages" section, just above "Files".
Sample modified table | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Compare to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Politics.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Since this change would affect many WikiProjects, it'd be helpful to hear input from multiple WikiProject maintainers before I propose this to the developers at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Updated to incorporate suggestions. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Revised. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, I wish I did not have to say this, but it will be tough going. The topic is both dynamic and complicated and if there are plenty of users who know it, I have not seen them. To avoid abstract comments please see Unix security for updates and the talk page. Unix is a very important issue. A user called Marcus did some cleanup 2 years ago, but I had to do more last month to remove banalities and out of date items. Now it hardly says anything, but most of the incorrect items have been removed. I do not have time to rewrite the page. As a test please try to get that page fixed to see who is active and knowledgeable, then go from there. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Yesterday, all my dreams...: I invite you to write this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security. It's helpful to add ideas and suggestions on that talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- I had taken a look at that project back then and it seemed dead. So I did my fixes and moved on. I fix things as I have time, but generally do not get involved in projects, given that the computer related ones do not seem to be that active. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Yesterday, all my dreams...: I invite you to write this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security. It's helpful to add ideas and suggestions on that talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- In tables that have featured media, the FM appear between featured lists and 'A' class, but media are not articles. I suggest that FM be moved down into the 'Pages' section.
- I don't see why the new sub-headings should be in italics. Nurg (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Nurg: Good points, incorporated. I reworked the example based on User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Politics to show a more complete example, removed the italics, and moved FM above File. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Could consider changing "Assessed" to "Total assessed" and "Total" to "Grand total". Also, would be clearer if there were tooltips or similar for 'FA', 'FL', 'GA', 'FM', and the two 'NA'. Don't know if you would want to include these in this proposal or leave for a separate proposal. Nurg (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Nurg: Sounds good to me! I can't seem to wedge in "Total" before "Assessed" or "Unassessed" without changing the upstream templates, so I put in "Assessed Total" and "Unassessed Total" for the example. I like the idea of adding tooltips, but not sure how to mock that up here. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Could consider changing "Assessed" to "Total assessed" and "Total" to "Grand total". Also, would be clearer if there were tooltips or similar for 'FA', 'FL', 'GA', 'FM', and the two 'NA'. Don't know if you would want to include these in this proposal or leave for a separate proposal. Nurg (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Nurg: Good points, incorporated. I reworked the example based on User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Politics to show a more complete example, removed the italics, and moved FM above File. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- I can imagine people not liking this idea but can there be a total for quality content which is FA+FL+A+GA as they have all passed some kind of actual review. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 21:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Experimental tool for prioritizing articles to work on
I'd be curious for WikiProject maintainers and others to try this prototype, Projo, and share what you think. The goal is to help editors find high-impact articles that need a lot of work. Put in a list of articles, such as a long list of stubs or a link to a PetScan query, and let it process. Then you can filter your list to only articles with a high view count, a low quality score (using LiftWing), and one or more cleanup tags. Examples:
- From WikiProject Computer Security, view high-importance start and stub articles ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
- Based on Category:Politics stubs: view stubs ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
- Based on Special:LonelyPages: view orphans sorted by pageviews.
Thanks to @Audiodude for making this based on an idea I had for creating fun article lists for Event:Wiki Loves Pride/2026/Suggested articles: using PetScan to get a list of articles from a category (including subcategories, filtered by the presence of a manually-pasted list of cleanup tags), then copy-pasting the list into the Microtask Generator to add quality scores and page view counts, then exporting to a spreadsheet so I could filter out articles with high quality scores or low page views. (Could make sense for this kind of concept to go into Microtask Generator or somewhere else instead of staying a separate tool, just trying out the idea.) Dreamyshade (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- That is a good start. But it is highly dependent on the placement on talk page. COBIT and undeletion do not fit in security and Risk analysis (business) is way off. So must fix the talk pages first. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- You don't need to start with a perfect list to get value from a ranking tool. For example, it's fine that the WikiProject Computer Security list has some items that may not be very relevant to computer security, because a person looking for articles to edit can simply skip items that are not of interest to them, or go adjust the talk page banners. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Articles for improvement both focus on creating such lists. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but what do we really know about the data quality of those pages? I have no idea, and the time needed to go through all of them would be very long. And how consistent are they? The dreaded Unix Security article is marked high importance for security and low importance for software security, which is of course inconsistent. A good next project would be a simple program that signals the inconsistent items so they can be fixed. Have good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The project "importance" metrics are mostly useless. Vital articles requires people actually engage with the nominations. If you wanted to, you could unilaterally change the importance of the Unix Security article, and it is likely no one would even notice. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- But there are only 50,000 vitals. How many are for computers and how many for security? Once again something in my head keeps saying: this needs a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- A couple days ago I navigated the vital articles table of contents to find the list of vital computer security articles - 40 articles. I linked to that list from the WikiProject Computer security homepage. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- OK, but you did that manually. I prefer work done by computers. That is why we need a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- You can query the article database based on categories - for example, this is the intersection of Category:All Computer security articles and Category:All Wikipedia vital articles: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=48078451 Dreamyshade (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Also, to return to the topic: here's that list of vital articles in the computer security category, processed with Projo. This filtered list is interesting to me because it gives me six articles to review, and among them I see two especially good candidates for improvement: Patch (computing) and Electronic lock, which both have minimal citations. It's a much faster and easier way to find a juicy project than skimming all 71 articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- First, that is a very interesting tool. How many users know about it. Why had I never heard of it? Secondly, we do have an ontological problem. The vital article Type conversion has almost nothing to do with security, a word that appears only once in the text. So it is vital, but not for security, and it is rated low importance for security. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- If you prefer work done by computers, I had done some work a while ago on Vital articles looking at generating an index based on the page statistics. The dataset is a bit out of date now, but you can see it here. Accessing the API is extremely time consuming and I'm looking for a more efficient way to get the stats on 50K+ articles. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks but I am done on this topic. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- OK, but you did that manually. I prefer work done by computers. That is why we need a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- A couple days ago I navigated the vital articles table of contents to find the list of vital computer security articles - 40 articles. I linked to that list from the WikiProject Computer security homepage. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- But there are only 50,000 vitals. How many are for computers and how many for security? Once again something in my head keeps saying: this needs a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Yesterday, all my dreams... I just fixed the banner at Talk:Unix security to remove a redundant tag that was making the banners more confusing than necessary. The article is marked as low-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, and marked as high-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security. The Projo tool is designed to not rely on manual assessments of importance or quality, instead applying the automated metrics of pageviews and LiftWing quality scores. They aren't perfect either, but they're fast and easy to work with for finding high-impact opportunities to improve reader-facing articles, without making editors engage in the meta-work of adjusting manual assessments. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that was good. But we need a program that shows those inconsistencies. We need more simple automation all over the place. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The project "importance" metrics are mostly useless. Vital articles requires people actually engage with the nominations. If you wanted to, you could unilaterally change the importance of the Unix Security article, and it is likely no one would even notice. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- @GeogSage Ah, those projects have different goals! They answer different questions for editors:
- Vital articles: What are the most important articles in a subject area?
- Articles for improvement: What's one interesting article that needs a lot of work, from any subject area?
- Projo: Out of all of the articles in a list I've provided, which articles are frequently visited and need a lot of work?
- Dreamyshade (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- And individual WikiProject ratings: Which of the many articles supported by this particular group of Wikipedia editors subjectively believe is the most important (e.g., for readers to have access to, for editors to improve)? Some (e.g., MILHIST and WPBIO) reject the importance/priority ratings on principle. In that case, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team uses a combination of page views and internal links to rank the articles for offline inclusion. However, groups with smaller or niche interest areas find it important to tell the 1.0 team that a low-traffic article is more important for inclusion than it might look from global metrics alone. One doesn't want, e.g., the article about the president of a tiny country to be excluded just because only people in that small country are interested in reading it. Each group's importance rating (should they choose to participate) forms a third factor in the calculation, giving a small boost to some articles that might otherwise just miss the cutoff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- In the last 20 minutes I concluded that as Geosage said, the talk page ratings are almost random, and useless. The article may change over time but the ratings may be from 7 years before. But Now that I have heard about the Projo tool, l should ask you: Is there a page with the list of tools available from WMF? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the answer is no, if you mean "a" page. There are instead multiple lists scattered around, all in various states of (in)completeness and outdatedness. You might start with wikitech:Category:Toolforge tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well, fantastic... or what? The least they could do is build a page with descriptions, would take 2 days. But thanks anyway. I am done on this issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Creating the existing lists has already taken far more than two days. Maintaining it would also require magically know every time someone creates a new tool. Things available "from" a WMF site are not necessarily created by the WMF staff, so even a strictly enforced rule requiring WMF devs to document theirs would not be sufficient to get a complete list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well, fantastic... or what? The least they could do is build a page with descriptions, would take 2 days. But thanks anyway. I am done on this issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the answer is no, if you mean "a" page. There are instead multiple lists scattered around, all in various states of (in)completeness and outdatedness. You might start with wikitech:Category:Toolforge tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- In the last 20 minutes I concluded that as Geosage said, the talk page ratings are almost random, and useless. The article may change over time but the ratings may be from 7 years before. But Now that I have heard about the Projo tool, l should ask you: Is there a page with the list of tools available from WMF? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Dreamy, from a practical perspective you need living, knowledgeable and energetic people to help you. Try user:Guy Harris who is all three. He knows system level computing pretty well. I will say no more. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- And individual WikiProject ratings: Which of the many articles supported by this particular group of Wikipedia editors subjectively believe is the most important (e.g., for readers to have access to, for editors to improve)? Some (e.g., MILHIST and WPBIO) reject the importance/priority ratings on principle. In that case, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team uses a combination of page views and internal links to rank the articles for offline inclusion. However, groups with smaller or niche interest areas find it important to tell the 1.0 team that a low-traffic article is more important for inclusion than it might look from global metrics alone. One doesn't want, e.g., the article about the president of a tiny country to be excluded just because only people in that small country are interested in reading it. Each group's importance rating (should they choose to participate) forms a third factor in the calculation, giving a small boost to some articles that might otherwise just miss the cutoff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but what do we really know about the data quality of those pages? I have no idea, and the time needed to go through all of them would be very long. And how consistent are they? The dreaded Unix Security article is marked high importance for security and low importance for software security, which is of course inconsistent. A good next project would be a simple program that signals the inconsistent items so they can be fixed. Have good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Question 4 links to a 404
The link at the end of questoon 4 on the FAQ leads to a 404 page. Does anyone have a replacement link? User:ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Audiodude might know how to get a list. Alternatively, we could probably write something like Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes except just to count the number of tagged articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out! Yes it looks like that link is to the old WP1 toold (pre 2018), which had a special _ALL_ keyword. Nothing like that exists in the current site, but I've opened an issue to track adding that feature. audiodude (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ScienceD90 @WhatamIdoing Okay I've implemented the functionality in WP1 and updated the link in the Q4 item. https://wp1.openzim.org/#/assessments audiodude (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out! Yes it looks like that link is to the old WP1 toold (pre 2018), which had a special _ALL_ keyword. Nothing like that exists in the current site, but I've opened an issue to track adding that feature. audiodude (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Early archive of WP ID discussion?
I move we go ahead and archive "Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", ahead of the usual schedule, as the talk is taking up so much space on this page. Any objections? the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)