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Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date.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 2,129,359 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
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.
The best set of numbers depends on how many articles are within scope. If a group had 2,000 articles, you wouldn't want 100 top-, 1,000 high-, and the remaining 900 mid-WhatamIdoing (talk)22:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of projects assessing priority but without a working link to a priority scale. These are listed atCategory:WikiProject banners with errors listed under "D". In some cases these might have a priority scale, in which case we can set or update|ASSESSMENT_LINK= in the banner. For the others, I think a info page with some generally accepted principles would be useful — Martin(MSGJ · talk)09:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any generally accepted principles. The original goal of the system was to counter page view bias, by letting editors interested in "niche" subjects identify what's important to them instead of what's popular with the world at large. This system originated with the need to choose a subset of articles for offline Wikipedia releases. Page views were an obvious option, plus prioritizing FAs and other articles in good condition, but how do we find articles that matter to various minority groups? Answer: Just have them tell us that it's important to them that we include these articles. Thus|importance=top.WhatamIdoing (talk)04:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think we should do with these projects that purport to assess priority/importance, but do not in fact have their own priority scale? Would it be too harsh to remove this feature from their banner? — Martin(MSGJ · talk)14:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is generic criteria which you opposed, and because it is an obsolete page attached to a historical project. When I suggested to update it and move it somewhere better you said "I'd prefer nothing". Unless I have misunderstood your position — Martin(MSGJ · talk)17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Appreciate the link and am trying to heed theirwords of caution about biting off more than you can chew! I'd stumbled upon the story a while ago and it's the primary reason I want to stay within the existing assessment infrastructure.Aluxosm (talk)12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In going throughCategory:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention, a category that now lists pages where the total of the{{AbQ}} or{{AbI}} templates equal zero, I've come across several WikiProjects and task forces where the importance parameters were removed from their talk page templates (intentionally and unintentionally). This has led to bots likeBattyBot andCewbot removing the importance ratings from the articles because they are now considered deprecated.In the interest of making sure there is some way toWP:REVIVE these projects I'd like to make a plea that if task forces are merged and templates updated, that their importance parameters are carefully considered and transferred regardless. I don't mean to call anyone out, but just to illustrate where some of these problems are so that we watch out for them and can discuss their removal, here are some examples:
I have long thought that these bot tasks are less than helpful. Unless we are sure that the parameter has never been in use, and will not be useful in the future, these parameters are probably best left alone.Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters has 533 subcategories to track these unknown parameters - do we actually need to track them? — Martin(MSGJ · talk)22:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we transition to using the wording "low-priority" instead of "low-importance", etc.? The change to "priority" was made to thethe priority scale in 2015, but we did not reflect that change in the WikiProject banners — Martin(MSGJ · talk)16:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I am open-minded as to the result of this discussion, but I am obliged to say that on the linked historical-marked page with the priority scale, it refers to 'priority' and 'importance' interchangeably ("importance or priority", "priority or importance") while placing only an aesthetic emphasis on 'priority' (i.e. in headings). Also, since this would be quite a fundamental change to WikiProject terminology, triggering changes to explanations and reports in WikiProjects (and I assume some templates), I think that a change like this should require invitations to all the WikiProjects, since this affects nearly all those who participate in WP 1.0 assessments.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk19:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother inviting all the WikiProjects, but amass message to the ~100 most active (however you want to measure that) is not unreasonable.
That said, I don't think we've ever had a group insist that their talk-page banner needs to display the word "importance" to anyone, and we have had complaints in the reverse (Why are you saying that the article I created is unimportant?!).
I see three components to this:
Changing the text displayed on the talk page banners: (e.g., "This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale" → "This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale"). Istrongly support doing this.
Renaming categories is a bigger step (e.g.,Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles →Category:Unknown-priority medicine articles). I canweakly support that, but only after reaching out to tool maintainers, etc.
Changing the wikitext (e.g.,{{WikiProject Tulips |importance=Mid}} →{{WikiProject Tulips |priority=Mid}}). Ioppose doing this at this time. Instead, I think this should be handled slowly over time, whenever other/substantive edits are being made.
On inviting WikiProjects, we should be inviting all active and semi-active WikiProjects that are doing assessments. If we don't, we stand to be accused of making a consensus decision "behind closed doors".
On "I don't think we've ever had a group insist that their talk-page banner needs to display the word 'importance' to anyone", I think we would want banners to reflect the terminology used in the projects, otherwise we invite confusion. I wouldn't call my position an insistence, but rather a reasonable concern. Also, I'm not sure why any project would feel a need to have an insistence about something that had the appearance of being long-settled.
On the first component, even though a wording change in a display is certainly a minor effort to accomplish, I have seen no evidence of complaints beyond the anecdotal which would underscore why the change needs to be made. I'm also unsure why anyone whose feelings would be hurt by their article being called "low importance" would feel any better by having their article called "low priority". I am of course very open-minded about this, but the open mind needs hard evidence filled into it. Links to any complaints would be helpful.
On the second component, reports/templates/etc. that are based on the naming of categories would all have to be adapted. In late 2024, we saw a change in the naming of some WP 1.0 categories across all/most projects (_articles to _pages in cases where actual articles weren't involved), and I fear a lot of things are still broken due to that. I've run into quite of number of aspects broken in just the few projects I'm significantly involved with.
On the third component, I agree, given a community decision has been made to proceed on the previous components. Tedious template surgery and bot work will be obviously necessary.
In total, I think unless there is serious evidence underscoring a change, the full length and tediousness of the effort to make these changes is quite heavy in comparison to the anecdotes currently being relied upon to make the change. To be clear, unless all relevant WikiProjects are invited to this discussion, and clear serious evidence is linked to supporting the change, my default position will need to be 'Opposed'. With project involvement and good evidence, my position can be flipped.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk17:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. That's why, to quote myself, I said "we should be inviting all active and semi-active WikiProjects".
To this end, though, my suggestion is not as easy as it reads, as I need to figure out all the active and semi-active WikiProjects who also do assessments. My impulse is to create a query that crosses these two thoughts, but not so fast, as I've realized to my horror,Category:WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments isn't fully populated. Therefore, I'm currently trying to figure out, for this exercise and other things I'd like to do (basically, reports), how to completely fill in this category. I don't want this to depend on any project list where self-reporting is involved. My thought as of now is to make a list of projects that receive daily fill-ins of assessment tables, and then add this category to their front pages if it isn't already there. I performed manual category adds to two major projects, to see if there would be an objection, and there hasn't been any.
So, basically, if all goes well, I am going to generate a list of assessed projects that are also active or semi-active. This will give us an upper limit of 888 projects (active / semi-active).
I doubt that the status of active/semi-active is accurate.
The MassMessage tool can handle tens of thousands, so there are no relevant technical restrictions. The question is really whether there are social restrictions. How many people do we want to yell at us, when their watchlists light up with "unimportant" messages?WhatamIdoing (talk)05:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The status I'm going by is the categorization from each project (typically as set in their front page WikiProject banner), as accurate as that would be.
As for the messages, as you suggest, these would go to the WikiProject talk pages and only the watchers of these WikiProject's front pages would be notified in their watchlists. I could also try to figure out how many watchers we're dealing with. But having something pop up in the watchlist isn't quite as invasive as a direct user talk message.
As for how "unimportant" this message would be perceived to be, I'd suggest if we think participants of WikiProjects wouldn't think this is important, maybe the change proposed isn't important enough to make. It's not like wehave to do this. On the other hand, I'd hate to see a few people here agree on a change, then surprise all the projects with that decision's implementation. I see us being yelled at for that.Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk05:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you could check the talk page (not the main page) for watchers who actually looked at the talk page during the last 30 days, and maybe cut off at a minimum of 10(?), that would probably reduce the list by filtering out largely inactive groups.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting, reasonable-sounding way to winnow the list. However, I would have to see if I can write a query that figures this out. At any rate, wouldn't it be useful to start with the ~800 list I proposed, and then the winnowing query (to be) would be run on that?Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk22:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After working on this the past few days, as of now, the base number of WikiProjects to consider is 731 (the ~800 list I mentioned before). I did a Massviews analysis on the number of visits to their talk pages in the past 30 dayshere. I could maybe write a query to rank these WikiProjects by number of watchers (of course not knowing which watchers are active), but I'm not sure how to query the views from said watchers. This information is available on each page as you stated, but I don't know how togenerate it for a list of WikiProjects. Maybe we should just go by talk page views (from Massviews) to keep it relatively straightforward? (does it really matter if a watcher is looking at the talk page?)Stefen𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab •Gruntwerk07:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a way to get the number of watchers that actually visited the page during the last 30 days, but it probably involves APIs or something similarly complicated.
Let's do that. We'll need a list in the MassMessage format, and then a message to send and a link for people to discuss it (e.g., to this thread, or to a new one?).
Since this is a fairly small number of messages, and if it's all right with you and other editors here, I will volunteer to meatbot-message to the 333 projects (+ VPR) using AWB, so as to avoid any bureaucracy and special formatting of a list and message. I've sent out a WikiProject newsletter this way before.
So, I think we basically need these to proceed:
The RfC (or equivalent discussion) started that outlines what needs to be done and the options for editors to !vote or comment on.
Heading and message for me to send.
List of 333 projects + VPR we're sending the message to (I will build that shortly using the Massviews results)
I'veupdated your list to what I think is the MassMessage format. Just revert if you don't want to take that route (I was testing how quick and easy it would be to convert it, and the answer is "very". But AWB's a good method, too).WhatamIdoing (talk)23:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, thebanners for talk pages usually say something like:
"This article has been rated asLow-importance on theimportance scale."
There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#something-something.
That should work as long as we're limiting it to just the banner change for now. In the proposal, we may want to say this is likely a first step toward eventually changing how this is named in categories and other WikiProject-related infrastructure.
A WikiProject is a group of people. Until you've found those people, there is no point in proposing a WikiProject. The most effective way to find those people is:
Create a real (non-temporary) account. They're free and donot require an e-mail address.
Work on improving multiple fox-related articles (e.g.,Fox,Kitsune,Fox hunting...) for months (or even years), so that you will find out if anyone else is interested in that subject. Also, you'll learn how to improve articles, and other people will have better articles to read.
When you have found about 10 people who are also interested in foxesand want to form a group with you, then come back here.
User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace has a few people sort of turn up everynow and then, but is nowhere near the threshold where it's ready to propose as an official WikiProject.
I'm wondering if having this in my user space discourages people from editing: it risksWP:OWN. On the other hand, the advantage of having it under my name means that people know who is the most likely person to respond.
I'm not asking for ideas in how to convince or find people interested in the project, though thanks for the suggestions. :) I assume that if/when people are motivated to edit, then they'll find the draft project pages useful and we'll see if a critical mass evolves. I have done a few personal invitations, but I don't want to pressure anyone.My two specific questions remain unanswered.Boud (talk)22:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that it makes any difference whether you tag it with{{WikiProject status|draft}}.
Thanks for the answers.I now see that the{{WikiProject status}} template was already inthe first version of the page with the value|active, when I presumably tried to follow the instructions. That was back when the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine was a suspected possibility, not a WP:RSed fact. The project remains just as valid now, or even more, IMHO. Based on your guess and the instructions atWikiProject status, I might as well leave the template with the current value.For the second question,m:where articles go to die and your guess are a fair argument against switching to draft space.Boud (talk)14:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alongside @LuniZunie, we have been thinking of working on a new project, WikiProject AI Tools, and we would like to see folks who are interested in it!
What's the goal? Finding out and implementing constructive uses of LLMs and other AI models on Wikipedia! For example, LuniZunie has worked on a great tool to detect UAA-worthy usernames (Wikipedia:WikiShield), while I am working on a similar tool for CTOP flagging.
Will you try to push generative AI? Absolutely not, don't worry! The goal here is to use AI tools as classifiers and help, to support human editors in repetitive jobs where current tools or edit filters might not be up to the task. And leave more time to human editors for creation!
Does that meanWikiProject AI Cleanup is dead? Not at all, to the contrary! Both might in fact work together, with AI tools being some of our best hope against unrestricted generative AI!
Why isn't this a task force of WPAIC? WPAIC aims at fighting issues caused by generative AI, while this new project will build and use AI tools for various purposes. Of course, there is overlap, but the two project have different scopes.
Relevant discussion at