A1: A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It isnot a subject area, a collection of pages, or a list of articlestagged by the group.
A3: Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date. You can find out which projects' main pages are being watched by the most users atWikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers.
Q4: Which WikiProject has tagged the most articles as being within their scope?
A4:WikiProject Biography has tagged 2,123,840 articles, which is more than three times the size of the second largest number of pages tagged by a WikiProject. About ten groups have tagged more than 100,000 articles. You can see a list of projects and the number of articles they have assessedhere.
Q5: Who gets to decide whether a WikiProject is permitted to tag an article?
A5: That is the exclusive right of the participants of the WikiProject. Editors at an article may neither force the group to tag an article nor refuse to permit them to tag an article. SeeWP:PROJGUIDE#OWN.
Q6: I think a couple of WikiProjects should be merged. Is that okay?
A6: Youmust ask the people who belong to those groups, even if the groups appear to be inactive. It's okay for different groups of people to be working on similar articles. WikiProjects are people, not lists of articles. If you identify and explain clear, practical benefits of a merger to all of the affected groups, they are likely to agree to combining into a larger group. However, if they object, then you may not merge the pages. For less-active groups, you may need to wait a month or more to make sure that no one objects. SeeWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects for more information.
Q7: I want to start a WikiProject. Am I required to advertise it atWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and/or have a specific number of editors support it?
A7: No, there are no requirements. However, new WikiProjects, especially new groups that are proposed by new editors, rarely remain active for longer than a few months unless there are at least six or eight active editors involved at the time of creation.
Q8: Under what circumstances are WikiProjects deleted from Wikipedia rather than marked as defunct or historical?
A8: Typically, projects are only deleted when they are "false starts" (incomplete projects that never got off the ground), serve as a repository for material that infringes on copyright laws, exist solely as anattack page, or have no other redeeming value. It is more common for semi-active projects to be merged into their parent project, sometimes as atask force. Most inactive and defunct projects are simply left intact with the hope that the materials and discussions collected by the project may become useful at a later date.
Q9: How do you revive an inactive WikiProject?
A9:TheSignpost has written extensively on the subject. Keep in mind that some projects have run their course while others have a scope that is too narrow or too broad to attract a sizable community of editors. If you still want to revive the project, a good way to start is by updating the participants list, inviting new participants, reaching out to active projects for help, and fixing any broken templates and automation. Start discussions on the project's talk page about how to improve the project's organization, goals, and collaborations. Reviving a WikiProject often feels like an uphill battle. Just don't get discouraged.
Q10: Who can assess articles?
A10: Anyone can assess articles, although it is wise to read and follow any assessment guidelines unique to a particular project before deciding what "class" and "importance" should be assigned to an article. For instance, WikiProject Biographies has a unique importance structure with 200"core" articles. Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists are determined through processes independent of the WikiProject, so using those assessments inappropriately may have negative repercussions.
Q11: Is there a limit to the number of projects that can add their banner to an article?
A11: No. Each project determines its own scope and can include whatever articles they like. For instance,Elizabeth II is under the scope of 18 projects and task forces whileBarack Obama is handled by 22 projects and task forces.
Q12: Some WikiProjects provide a WikiProject Watchlist and some do not. Why?
A12: As with all tools available to WikiProjects, not every project has set up a watchlist and some projects may not desire to have one. There are multiple types of watchlists a project can use, fromTim1357's watchlists tonew article notifications toarticle alerts tohot articles. A project can choose whatever watchlists they want to use or even devise their own unique tools.
Q13: What's the difference between a sister WikiProject and a related WikiProject?
A13: People tend to use them interchangeably, but the term "related WikiProjects" is broader than "sister WikiProjects." The terms "parent," "sister," and "child" provide a way of categorizing projects. An example of sister projects would beWikiProject Pittsburgh andWikiProject Philadelphia, while related projects would also include their parent projects (WikiProject Cities andWikiProject Pennsylvania in this case), and any child projects or task forces (WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers andWikiProject University of Pittsburgh come to mind). However, one confusing bit about the term"sister projects" is that it has also been used to compare different wikis or languages of Wikipedia (i.e. Wikisource, Wikinews, Chinese Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc.) which is evidenced by theSignpost's defunctsister projects column.
Q14: How do I participate in a WikiProject?
A14: Participating in a WikiProject is easy. Most projects have a participants list to which you can add your name. Next, you'll want to add the project's talk page to your personal watchlist so that you can keep up to date on the latest discussions and help editors in need. Check out the project's Featured and Good Articles for ideas about how to improve articles under the project's scope. Take a look at the project's goals or browse the project's stubs and start-class articles to find areas where you can help today. Projects may offer a userbox you can add to your user page as a sign of pride that also doubles as a way to add yourself to categories listing all users who are interested in a particular topic.
Q15: What can I do to improve Wikipedia's community of WikiProjects?
A15: TheWikiProject Council is welcome to anyone with ideas for building stronger collaborative links between WikiProjects. Participate in discussions at a variety of projects and try to answer the questions of newcomers. If multiple projects are working on the same article, try to recruit participants from these projects to collaborate. Host meetups for the participants in projects in a particular geographic area. Create contests and backlog drives that anyone can enter. We've interviewed projects that have used social media to recruit participants, partnered with educational institutions, and even manufactured their own games.
This page relates to theWikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regardingWikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil
With help from an editor who was willing and able to explain what happened, I have sorted out what's confusing editors who are trying to leaveWP:APPNOTE notifications and end up here:{{WikiProject status}} is sending people toWP:WikiProject, whose talk page redirects here. Where they want to end up is on the talk page of the subject-specific WikiProject.
With that in mind, I have redrafted the template, so that it will mostly look like this:
This is aWikiProject, an open group of Wikipedia editors. New participants are welcome; feel free totalk to us!
The "talk to us" will point to the talk page for the individual WikiProject. I've also taken the opportunity to shift the language away from WikiProjects being "places" and towards being "groups".
I'd like to get this change made soon-ish, but it's IMO more important to get it right on the first try, so please let me know if there's anything you'd like to change.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the info-box about the proposal process under "Creating and maintaining a project". And I meant "projects" rather than "articles". Oops.Licheris2 (talk)23:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, can imagine people being interested, but that would require having an actual group to start with, so that there is someone for the interested people to work with.
Quite a few of these seem to be specific university/museum projects, which may be time-gated. To that extent, they are probably not intended to "survive". I noteWikipedia:WikiProject Raising Representation for example was recently updated to be past tense. It seems valuable to promote transparency and reporting in such a way, perhaps we need a template which can be placed on such projects saying something like "This WikiProject was part of an initiative that ran from XXXX to XXXX. For ongoing similar work, please see WikiProject YYYYYYYY."CMD (talk)09:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First step then should be to add that as an alternative atWikipedia:WikiProject. Hopefully someone with experience in the Event space can figure out if that needs adding, otherwise I am planning to experiment with it at some point over the next few months.CMD (talk)02:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main work of the group here is to provide advice and support when people seek us out for questions. Answering those questions requires knowing how humans behave and being very familiar with Wikipedia's internal workings. Inexperienced editors don't have this combination of skills and therefore can't usually do much to help with this project.
I'm happy to have newer editors hang out here, but there isn't a checklist of tasks to be done. The front page lists the tedious project of updating the manual directory listing. Another task – but one I'd suggest only to a clueful newer person (you might qualify, BTW) – is to look for a couple of inactive content/article-focused WikiProjects that could be merged up into an existing larger, active group. Merging up inactive groups is something we'd like to do, but every step in the path is slow.WhatamIdoing (talk)16:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that I'm absolutely interested! PAGs currently have a lot of bloat which makes them hard for newcomers to read through, and some streamlining is absolutely needed.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)20:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is being asked? The link to here is something that is on all project pages not just for the old policy one. Not sure the template coding right now allows us to have specific links of this nature. On a side note the reason the project was stop was the community felt and created the village pump proposals because many though that the project was awikiproject cabal of only half a dozen editors with most controversial changes going to the new noticeboards anyways.....and that we now have so many policies that a more authoritative location than just a Wikiproject was need it. At the same time there was also a shift to discussing specific changes to policies on those policy talk pages. I have no recollection of where this RFC type conversation took place. Must remember a Wikiproject hasforever been singled out as this place not to dictate policies. That being said with the widespread use of RFC in the past decade... that direction for implementing changes may work with the newer generation of editors..... as in having a project to host these and simply posting notices at the pump and relevant policy talk pages. Best we inform people trying to revive obsolete projects... why they're obsolete and what the normal procedure is now.Moxy🍁23:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intent is not to dictate policy or to host RfCs. The point is to re-draft PAGs with the goal of simplifying them (e.g., making them easier to understand) and condensing them (e.g., removing redundancies or consolidating sections/pages). Then, we would put the re-drafted PAGs to the community for comment and eventually an RfC.voorts (talk/contributions)23:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand the purpose.... I'm just explaining why things were shut down....likeWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style(All discussions, development, maintenance of, and other related matters concerning the Manual of Style (MoS) are conducted exclusively on the respective talk pages of individual MoS guidelines. If you believe the community has matured about Wikiprojects or a new generation have a different point of view of where these things should happen I have no objections. I'd be willing to help out either way...just be aware there's going to be some pushback. If I remember correctly it was the medical, dates and history Wikiprojects content editors that had the most concerns in the past. Must realize the project never really ever got going in the first place was closed down was later revived and it was closed down again due to the above concerns..... all that said feel free to give it a try.... there's not too many left from the era when all this happened.Moxy🍁00:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did what where? I am talking about two different projects with two very different histories.Policy one never got off the ground. The MOS reach its natural maturity.... but nevertheless had the same outcome. Using the MOS example above to explain where talks generally take place now not that there was a cabal at the MOS project. (I guess I'll try to write more clearly).Moxy🍁00:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change it.... perhaps it should link to the directory? But I'm not sure directing people to other inactive projects is helpful in the long run. Was thinking that at the time that the council can give better guidance then other inactive projects (as we have here)... If you fill otherwise again feel free to change it.Moxy🍁00:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great solution.... Let's make another number point pointing to where editors can find these other projects.... Oops my bad I skipped right over point number one.Moxy🍁00:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not an article and cannot be assigned a priority.
I see that project banners are still linking toWikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria for the importance/priority scale when a project does not have their own. This is an ancient and obsolete page and it would be good to have a link to somewhere more appropriate. Does anyone have any suggestions or could we start a new page for this? — Martin(MSGJ · talk)12:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of a generic page about this. If we create a new one, it should include the note that these are mostly unmanaged/arbitrary.CMD (talk)14:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many aeons ago, I started some sorting for one WikiProject roughly thinking "Top->Subject could be considered as a chapter title in a single book about the topic", "High->Subject could be a chapter within a book about one of the top-level articles", etc. However following that down further levels required too much keeping track of higher levels than would be viable.CMD (talk)15:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that form the bedrock of human understanding across disciplines. These include fundamental scientific principles, major historical events, essential philosophical concepts, and universally recognized cultural phenomena.
Subjects that support or expand upon core knowledge. These may include key figures, landmark studies, influential works, or pivotal technologies that have shaped modern thought.
Topics that provide depth, nuance, or regional specificity. These include local histories, specialized theories, or cultural practices that enrich broader understanding.
Articles that are tangential, emerging, or of limited scope. These might include niche interests, recent developments, or speculative ideas that contribute to curiosity but are not essential for general literacy.
Subject is not an article and cannot be assigned a priority.
That sort of wording is too weirdly specific and yet generic. Any default wording will have to ambiguously reference the overall topic of a single WikiProject. "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia" might be "Subject is essential to understanding the topic", "Subject contributes a depth of knowledge"->"Subject provides significant additional context to the topic", "Subject fills in more minor details" (works as is). "Subject is mainly of specialist interest" might work as is too, although we may want instead to state that the "Subject is not directly relevant to the overall topic" or similar.CMD (talk)16:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer nothing, or a link to the template's /doc page so people can find a list of the standard options.
The point behind these priority/importance scales is that different groups would have different ideas about what was most/least importantto them. The top-importance article for an individual pop star will be the BLP about that pop star, and no BLP actually "forms the bedrock of human understanding across disciplines". This version is better suited toWikipedia:Vital articles than to WikProject ratings.
Hello. I've discovered that some articles' WikiProjects have been rendered defunct. That said, I think we need to raise a concern I have on this: should we consider removing any and all defunct WikiProject templates from the article talk page? Thanks,sjones23 (talk -contributions)00:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because someone might eventuallyWP:REVIVE them. But please consider merging defunct groups up to a larger/active one, so these templates can be replaced with an active group.WhatamIdoing (talk)01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been defunct WikiProjects for years now. I remember doing an "inventory" of WikiProjects 10 years ago and there were defunct WikiProjects back then. Why is this suddenly urgent now and requires action? Sometimes these WikiProjects are revived, usually they aren't. But if you try to send them all toWP:MFD, you'll find longtimers have very negative feelings about deleting old content like this, they'd rather have it marked with a "historical tag".LizRead!Talk!02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't shy away from fixing issues that are old. The existence of defunct WikiProject pages is probably not a significant issue in itself, but every talkpage banner is a fresh opportunity to mislead a new editor. That said, at least defunct WikiProjects display an "inactive" tag (seeTalk:Åland), so better than the inactive WikiProjects with no tag.CMD (talk)03:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CMD. I believe the original question is whether banner templates such as{{WikiProject First aid}} should be removed from Talk: pages (not whetherWikipedia:WikiProject First aid should be sent to MFD). I think the banner templates should be left alone, unless/until the defunct group gets merged up (in which case, it should be replaced by the new group's banner template).WhatamIdoing (talk)03:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since we editors naturally spend most of our time on the subject/article page rather than the talk page, I don't see what issue there is here. Is some kind of work being hindered by the presence of the defunct project banners?Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk02:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is which defunct project the article belongs to.
If a user sees a Wikiproject tag with an inactive project next to it and then click on it, they may find the project defunct on the top of its page. I found out about it myself before opening up the discussion.sjones23 (talk -contributions)03:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. I want to clarify my earlier statement: if one checks out an article's discussion page and discovers a banner for a inactive WikiProject that article is a part of and clicked on it (like I did before starting this particular discussion), they may either find it inactive or defunct (and sometimes, the page for a WikiProject and/or a task force is marked as historical).
Do you believe that it is surprising for an editor to click on a banner template that directly says that the group is inactive, and then see that the group really is inactive? I know that, from a logical POV, my question sounds a bit like "Does she really think editors have no reading comprehension skills at all?", but emotions don't follow logical rules. It's possible for people to see "group is inactive" and not quitebelieve it until they click through. So if it feels surprising, we might be able to change the wording to make it a little more effective, such as "Unfortunately, this group is inactive."WhatamIdoing (talk)04:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All for this! I'm currently playing around with the idea of aWP:Toolforge app that would make the creation of assessment categories as simple as adding the topic and project names then pressing 'Go'.Aluxosm (talk)07:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be useful. I've previously made very vague appeals to WMF to create a way to support the various infrastructure that has been built around WikiProjects without directly needing the WikiProjects themselves. Being able to both spin up and spin down projects more easily would be helpful.CMD (talk)08:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Through the development of various reports and tools, I've been (very) gradually working toward a concept of a WikiProject as an "action center" around a particular topic. But I see no need to eliminate the WikiProject concept itself. I just don't think they ever had much value as "membership clubs".Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk18:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the banner template should taginactive WikiProjects as such. I don't know why theinactive tag is being applied to defunct WikiProjects, instead of adefunct tag. Hiding defunct WikiProjects would de-clutter banner templates, especially if the template is long.rootsmusic (talk)02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable to retain some indication of defunct/inactive WikiProjects, so they can be found by those looking and so if undefuncted, they are automatically returned. However, I don't think any of this is possible with the current implementation as it is the WikiProject tags determining the inactive/defunct display, rather than the bannershell template.CMD (talk)03:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the banner templates control what they look like and say (on one line or expanded). But the shell normally keeps them at one line, and as I said can be instructed to hide them all. I am trying to figure out what the expectation is here, since I believe banners already do tend to show they are inactive/defunct. Is the problem here that some banners don't do this? If that's it, we can fix the banner code.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk05:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "inactive" is the language chosen for defunct groups because it's gentler and therefore less discouraging to anyone who might want to REVIVE it. A "big fat FAILURE" label is going to discourage some editors.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Templates of defunct WikiProjects without the PROJECT_STATUS parameter
I think the crux of this is that the WikiProjects inCategory:Defunct WikiProjects need to have their talk page templates updated to include|PROJECT_STATUS=defunct so that everything is in sync. The problem with that, as I noted inthis related discussion, is that all of their assessment categories would be emptied (and eventually deleted) which would currently make the WikiProject a lot harder to revive.
Working on it, and will try to lay out my thinking shortly. In the meantime, I've just rememberedanother issue with batch setting|PROJECT_STATUS=defunct on all of the templates listed below; I do a fair bit of work of with theactiveRNLI task force of thedefunctWikiProject Water sports (which is labelled as such on the talk page, but not on the template); if this was "fixed", the RNLI task force would lose all of their classifications. A solution for that particular issue is in the works (new/different parent), but it's worth mentioning in case there are similar relationships in any of the WikiProjects in the list.Aluxosm (talk)10:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the argument for "decluttering" by not showing defunct WikiProjects on talk pages doesn't have any strength beyond personal aesthetic taste, unless and until I see a better argument, of course. If the issue boils down to some projects not properly announcing they are defunct in the project listings, that is what needs addressing.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk19:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most projects are dying regardless. With the deletion of most portals (one of the main means of attracting editors in the past) and talk page banners not shown in mobile view (or should I say not visible unless you click a tiny little thing) I believe only the most active projects will continue on in the future.Moxy🍁22:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What cleanup? You have failed to get a consenus that this is actually an issue but seem to have moved on as if you have that consenus. Nor do you have consenus that these projects being unmerged is an issue. Don't remove the innactive wikiprojects or go on some crusade to merge innactive projects, you aren't cleaning up a problem you are the problem.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue brought before us was defunct projects not showing themselves as defunct in talk page project listings in some cases. That is a minor problem that deserves correction. I don't know where and how that became "let's merge all defunct projects". Defunct projects are not trash (well, most likely are not) - they are historical records of work. Merging them should not be taken lightly, and I don't think anyone has agreed to a formal proposal of a systematic "cleanup". If you are concerned about a specific defunct project that contains work that would be useful to fold into another active one, work through that process and get others' views before proceeding.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk17:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to a potential cleanup project to hold discussions amongst other editors on the WikiProjects to have the relevant projects' defunct task forces merged back into their main project page (such asWP:VG,WP:FILM and so on) in general. Nothing is set in stone as of yet.
Taking the above comments into consideration, what should we do without risking any potential disruption? Perhaps get a consensus here or with the other editors on a WikiProject's talk page? Or are there any other ideas?sjones23 (talk -contributions)18:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here is that the statements in this discussion of "the problem" have been rather murky all along. If you want something done that is systematic, I'd suggest putting together a formal proposal with specifics and eventually having anWP:RFC. You can link to such a proposal atWP:VPR. If you want to do something on a case-by-case basis, consult with the active WikiProject you want to upmerge something to or merge into.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk18:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I may have misunderstood the scope of the proposed action... I think in general the point being made is to think long term, so focus on adding active ones not removing inactive ones... Especially as that lowers the incentive to get them back up and running.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this really does have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, even though that takes both time and effort from whoever is going the clean up/merging work.
I also think that it's important to start small, so you can get an idea of how each of the steps in the process works. If you're going to get stuck on step number eleventy-two, then you want to discover that with just one merge hanging in the balance, not with 20, or 200. I therefore recommend starting withWP:ANIME and seeing that process all the way through to the end, without adding the complication of other groups.WhatamIdoing (talk)22:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry sjones23, when I said "All for it" I thought we were talking about an effort to go through and properly categoriseWikiProjects by their status and update things like theWikiProject directory. The first steps here really need to be in identifying where the real problems are, and creating workflows to assist in WikiProject management. Merging a a few together is just a bit of a band-aid at this point and isn't really addressing the core issues; it's a mammoth task that will take up time that's best spent addressing things across the board.Aluxosm (talk)13:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I've left abarnstar for the editor whose excellent explanation set us on the right path.WhatamIdoing (talk)16:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussion at
