Epstein Files Full PDF

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject and all talk pages of subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council redirect here.

WikiProject Council was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 18 April 2011.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What's a WikiProject? A1: A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a subject area, a collection of pages, or a list of articles tagged by the group. Q2: How many WikiProjects are there? A2: There are 641 WikiProjects tagged as "Active" (see Category:Active WikiProjects), and 306 WikiProjects tagged as "Semi-active" (see Category:Semi-active WikiProjects); many of these have one or more subsidiary task forces or work groups. Q3: What's the biggest WikiProject? 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Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date.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 at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers. Q4: Which WikiProject has tagged the most articles as being within their scope? A4: WikiProject Biography has tagged 2,147,741 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 assessed here. 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. See WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. Q6: I think a couple of WikiProjects should be merged. Is that okay? A6: You must 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. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects for more information. Q7: I want to start a WikiProject. Am I required to advertise it at Wikipedia: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 an attack page, or have no other redeeming value. It is more common for semi-active projects to be merged into their parent project, sometimes as a task 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: The Signpost 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 while Barack 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, from Tim1357's watchlists to new article notifications to article alerts to hot 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 be WikiProject Pittsburgh and WikiProject Philadelphia, while related projects would also include their parent projects (WikiProject Cities and WikiProject Pennsylvania in this case), and any child projects or task forces (WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers and WikiProject 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 the Signpost's defunct sister 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: The WikiProject 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.

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
	See earlier archives at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4
	This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Council This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil

When people visit a WikiProject what they want to know is: "who should I contact to talk about this topic" or "who can I delegate this problem to".

Currently WikiProjects contain lists of members, but ~50% of those are inactive, blocked or vanished. This feeds a feedback loop, because WikiProjects are not useful people don't use them, don't list themselves as a participant which makes them less useful et cetera.

What we need is a standardized way to display a list of participants of a WikiProject. A weighted sort, with people who are active and make many edits at the top.

@StefenTower: noticed this problem and has made a beautiful solution, see User_talk:Polygnotus#WikiProject_activity_solution.

Let's scale this up to every WikiProject! Having dedicated experts may be awkward because of our egalitarian nature, but it would be useful to know who to contact. Polygnotus (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting through a list of WikiProject participants to remove the inactive ones is a cumbersome manual task, and automation would be appreciated. But I do not think this is the solution. A WikiProject shouldn't claim editors as participants if they haven't agreed to be a participant. Creating a report of the top editors by subject area is an entirely different thing, and one which should have broad community input.--Trystan (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trystan Good news: User:Polygnotus/Scripts/FilterInactiveOrBlocked.js Polygnotus (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject shouldn't claim editors as participants if they haven't agreed to be a participant. True, but they wouldn't be listed as participants but as people who have made the most edits in the appropriate topic area. Polygnotus (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the intent of my leaderboard report, it's about identifying who is doing the actual work in the subject area that the WikiProject covers, and knowing that, we can 1) invite report-listed editors to become members (listed participants) in the project; 2) seek collaboration on wiki efforts; 3) ask them for assistance on a subject area matter; or 4) show them some form of wiki-love for their work. It's not meant to be the member/participant list itself. Also note that I provide a way for editors to opt out of being in the report. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower Indeed, but my point is that the current membership lists are not useful (half of the people on em are inactive or blocked, and many have very few edits) while the leaderboard report is actually useful. Polygnotus (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's conceivable for a WikiProject, especially if WikiProjects were a new thing, to want a list of active subject area editors instead of a sign-up sheet like most projects have now. But we have this thing called inertia, and WikiProjects in 2025 are a showcase for that. :) That's why I would like to push this concept as an add-on rather than a replacement. I don't want to overturn any apple carts unnecessarily. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower But I love apples! But yeah, it is a great addition, and since it actually has value unlike 'membership' lists it will replace them in time. Polygnotus (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this can happen to a degree over time. I'm just about near the point where I will roll it out to a couple additional projects I'm involved in, or anyone who really, really wants it for their project. It's somewhat straightforward to copy the report to a new project. I eventually want to turn it into a report module that should make it very easy to proliferate. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Medicine for a leaderboard (does not filter out gnomes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've seen these before. They are easy to replicate with {{Database report}}. I'm not sure how practically useful they are with just usernames, though. With the leaderboard, I added columns to assist in profiling to some degree those who are listed. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah those alphabetically sorted ones cannot be used for the purpose the people who show up at a WikiProject need them for: figuring out who to ask about this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want people chasing down an individual person to ask about an article. We want them to go to the group.

Also, the high-volume people tend to be gnomes and new page patrollers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any danger of individuals being chased down as such, but having alternatives of where to find answers or collaboration is useful. If an individual has concentrated in a very specific area (like a subject or a type of article), they are naturally the one to go to for a respectful discussion/request about that area. And that goes with or without WikiProjects. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 06:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If people are seeing a leaderboard, e.g.,:

• WhatamIdoing  –  200 edits

they're not going to see anything about individual specialization, specific articles types, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If people are seeing 300 names with information about individual specialization and the specific articles types they like working on, and 50% of those people are inactive for over a year, blocked, or vanished, and another 25% has only a few edits, then how does that information help? Oh cool this dude in 2016 was specialized in exactly the kinda stuff I am curious about. Let's jump in the time machine. Its not like people spend an hour or two finding the guy who in 2016 was a perfect fit for the question anyway. Polygnotus (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if they're seeing Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing That one is generated by Reports bot. It is obviously far superior to the convention of an unordered list of names of people who are mostly blocked/inactive/vanished, but not as good as what I am proposing.

Grunt22 has made 10 edits so far, Maxklymok has made 49, BirdDoc1701 made 55. Smasongarrison has made 883,796 edits, CAPTAIN RAJU 416,832 edits and Doc James 313,463 edits.

So if I have a question those 3 are more likely to be able to answer it. Polygnotus (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information like that can be added to a leaderboard report. It's just a matter of figuring out changes to the SQL query. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 04:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower, what do you think about focusing on editors who primarily edit in a given scope? See https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/80399 for an example. It excludes editors whose contributions are primarily (>90%) to out-of-scope articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply. My leaderboard already accomplishes "focusing on editors who primarily edit in a given scope" if the reader elects to sort by "Project Participation (%)", descending. I don't see a need to exclude entries from this particular report, though, as the report is about top contributions no matter their concentration. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 21:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that if a WikiProject wanted a report that limits it to editors concentrating their edits within the project's included subjects, just a few tweaks to the leaderboard's SQL would accomplish that. Oddly enough, my inspiration for adding a "Project Participation (%)" column came from earlier efforts where I asked others for assistance in generating a Quarry result to figure out who is concentrating their edits in a specific WikiProject. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that sounds good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing That is the section below this one: "Bot that keeps track of discussions on talkpages within the topic area of a WikiProject". And filtering out gnomes and vandalfighters is possible. Polygnotus (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blockhaj recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Runology, Category:WikiProject Runology, and Template:User WP:Runology. Ingwina signed up as a participant after a discussion at User talk:Ingwina#Renovating the rune-articles > Naming convention.

They are both long-time editors, so this is different from the usual newbie trying to find some fellow fans. But two-person WikiProjects still have a long history of failure, so we've been adjusting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals process to discourage this. My question for all of you is: Do you think we could find half a dozen editors who might be interested in this niche subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The project is still in its infancy and i personally havent advertised it to anyone beyond Ingwina yet. I believe we could fairly easily find half a dozen editors who would be interested in the project, but i also dont think we need more than maybe 3-4 active people in practice. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 00:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Our experience over the years is that most groups need 6 to 10 editors, because half of them will lose interest (6 to 10 now becomes 3 or 4 a year from now). There's no deadline here, but please give some thought to recruiting editors when you can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've posted this here because this project will most likely require collaboration from WikiProject Portals and WikiProject Outlines. Luckily, this is not a monumental task, so only a few experienced editors would ever be needed.

My proposal is for a Portal of Outline pages, created for the convenience of WIkiProject Outlines members. Like any other portal, this would aid in information retrieval for newcomers and long-time editors alike. This Portal could also help readers of the encyclopedia who prefer Outline pages over alternative methods of information.

Is this a feasible and worthwhile endeavour? As a newcomer, I haven't worked on many projects, but I understand the infrastructure of WIkipedia at a novice level. I'd be willing to put together the Portal myself, but help would be appreciated. What do you think? Comments here would be helpful, and my talk page is also available. I'm not committed to the idea yet, so feel free to share your objections.

If this Portal already exists, then please post a link down below. MicrowaveIsAlive (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Readers usually want to know something about a subject area (like comics or football). They don't usually show up at Wikipedia thinking something like "What I'd really like to do today is to read something that's been formatted as a list. It doesn't matter what it's about, so long as it's a list!"

Therefore I think that creating a portal based on the formatting style of the page (whether random lists, random outlines, or random prose) is a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn’t only be random lists scattered aimlessly. These Outline pages would be clearly organized and grouped for simplicity. Also, the audience isn’t just readers (though that’s not to say they’re excluded either), they’re also WikiProject Outlines members who want to be able to navigate and identify Outline pages in need of rewriting, formatting, grammar fixes, and whatever else there may be.

Consistent formatting can also be helpful for neurodivergent people, including but not limited to those who have autism, dyslexia, OCD, and countless other mental differences. Wikipedia’s goal is knowledge for everyone.

At the very least, there should be clearer recognition for the Featured Outline pages, just like for any other formatting. MicrowaveIsAlive (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines Moxy🍁 00:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If what you specifically want to do is "WikiProject Outlines members who want to be able to navigate and identify Outline pages in need of rewriting, formatting, grammar fixes, and whatever else there may be" as you state, why not create a department/subpage in WikiProject Outlines for that purpose? Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 04:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts would list some kinds of tags/actions, but few outlines end up in those processes.

For "Featured Outline pages", see Wikipedia:Featured lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a task force's banner warns that it "is believed to be inactive", should I not tag it on a Talk page (for assessment of the article) and instead tag only its parent WikiProject? rootsmusic (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have no requirements. Do whatever you think is best. Tag one, both, or neither if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]