Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces)
Latest comment: 2 days ago by Goldsztajn in topic Announcing two new WikiProject-related reports
Learn more about this page

    WikiProject Council
    Overview Council page
    Coordination
    Directories

    Shortcut

    WikiProject Men in Music

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments4 people in discussion

    Hello! I want to create a WikiProject called "Men in music" (just like to WikiProject Women in Music). I am currently building the WikiProject for this and this scope for this WikiProject is for all mens composers, singers, mens works related to music and their biographies. I believe this is helpful too since there's a Women in Music, there's for men too to help men's music articles and build it collaboratively like a stub articles, missing sources etc.

    I hope you can help me to build this or if you want more to clarify, just ping me. Thanks. ROY is WAR Talk! 08:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Why not join Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. What is the advantage of separating by gender? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, Martin!
    I already participating in WikiProject Music. This is not because I just want to, because I want to help editors to easily collaboration to the men's music. This WikiProject was to intended to help coordinate specific cleanup, organization, and quality improvements (especially to BLP) across the numerous of articles about Male musicians.
    The goal of Men in Music:
    • Numerous articles on male artists (especially new and existing groups or songs created by male musician) are poorly sourced, not in neutral point of view or fan point of view, over promotional or the article are not maintained to updated especially on GA and FA.
    • Biographies of Male musicians are more crucial and sometimes sees on Article of Deletion (AfD), so to prevent on AfD, why not to save the article on deletion, right?
    This proposal are not intended to mirror or duplicate of Women in Music just because of gender. If you are not confident on my proposal, I should proceed this WikiProject proposal as a task force? I hope you can consider this.
    Thanks! ROY is WAR Talk! 14:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Royiswariii, a WP:WikiProject is a group of editors. Where are the other editors in your group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Please recall the advice you were given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 26 § Creating a WikiProject and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 26 § WikiProject Reviving and Changing the name. Your attempt then to create a new WikiProject appears to have been premature, since you've moved on to a broader topic area. As suggested last time, I feel it would be better to collaborate within an existing wikiProject and re-evaluate after some time to see how well it's working. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    isaacl Where can I gather a member for my proposal? ROY is WAR Talk! 05:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Please see the discussions to which I linked for advice regarding finding collaborators. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    WP:REVIVE also has some advice on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @WhatamIdoing if a abandoned WikiProject and if we revive it, can we proceed to Renaming a WikiProject? ROY is WAR Talk! 17:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Once again, it doesn't really feel like you're taking into consideration the advice you've already been given. I'm uncertain, though, on how to reword this advice. Perhaps your mentor (who you can see at Special:Homepage), or some other experienced editor involved with one of the WikiProjects that you've collaborated with might help help explain matters in a different way. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Royiswariii, who is "we"? About a hundred thousand editors have made 1+ edits this month. Do any of them want to work with you? I am literally asking whether you can ping one (1) single editor who has told you that they'd like to work on articles about male musicians. Have you ever talked to anyone at all about this idea, and had them express positive interest?
    If the answer is yes, then please ping that person now.
    If the answer is no, then please stop posting here until you have already done enough recruiting work to make the answer yes.
    If/when the answer ever becomes yes, ask that other editor to post on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This editor is now engaged in creating a new task force called Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother. I'm sure it will lead to great activity and collaborative editing. Or not ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

    And didn't discuss it with the WikiProject. We can take the lot to MFD+CFD+TFD, but having to clean up a mess like this is exactly what we were trying to avoid by creating these rules.
    I'll go ask Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines if they're willing to host this group. If we don't get a positive response, then here's the pages to deal with:
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    See Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Task force. It appears that this was first proposed to be part of a different WikiProject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother rejected it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother. This is the first step in unwinding this mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 12#Template:WikiProject Big Brother. This is the second step in unwinding this mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Maintenance categories by WikiProject

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    This query: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/94925 looks at articles in specific categories, and makes a list of WikiProjects that have tagged those articles. I'm using the resulting list to check for active groups and then manually post a request, with the list of articles, on the group's talk page.

    It should theoretically be possible to have a message-delivery bot assemble the message, but there are only 178 groups in this list, and some of them are inactive anyway.

    This might be a useful model for some backlog drives to adapt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute)

    edit
    Latest comment: 27 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    An editor @Ally at Wenard had created Wikipedia:Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute) aiming to convert it into a WikiProject, without any prior discussion. Unfortunately, it did not gain much traction, and Ally remains the only editor who have worked in that space, and even they have been inactive since March 2021. I considered userfying the project page into their userspace, but realised that this page has many incoming links from article via {{Wenard attribution}}. I think there should be a page for Wenard Institution in the projectspace due to their invaluable contributions to Wikipedia, but not a WikiProject. What do others think about it? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Here are a few ideas:
    We could remove the link from the template.
    Is the Wenard Institute notable under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) rules? If so, we could create an article and change the link to point to that.
    We could move the page to a title such as Wikipedia:Wenard Institute donations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think that they are notable enough for an article. Regarding the latter move suggestion, I support it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
    See Wikipedia talk:Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute)#Requested move 7 July 2025. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Since that didn't work, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute) and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_29#Template:Wenard_attribution. – Joe (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Proposing a new project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sustainable_Development

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago34 comments4 people in discussion

    Hello, I know that I've acted a bit too fast for this, but I did it because I know that there is interest in this subject, because of my involvement with the WMSDG User Group. Can anyone help me get this going? Thanks. Egezort (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Egezort. please ping the other editors who intend to participate in this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Why a wikiproject sustainable development not a WikiProject:Development with a sustainability task force or something like that? It just seems overly specific and more a buzzword/cliche term than a discrete project area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It could be a WP:TASKFORCE of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations. Or they could just take over and WP:REVIVE the UN project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Horse Eye's Back, It's based on the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals, so it's very broad in scope. There are many other Wikiprojects with similar scopes, but none are explicitly based around this.
    There's a user group, meta:Wikimedians for Sustainable Development that I have been active in for quite some time. And I'm trying to get this wikiproject going in parallel with my work in that group. For example, meta:Wikimedians_for_Sustainable_Development/Annual_plan_2025/Progress is directly relevant to what I want to do here. I considered reviving another relevant Wikiproject, but this seemed like the cleanest approach. Egezort (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That doesn't seem like a discrete wikiproject area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Discrete and/or sensible scopes are not required for WikiProjects; the WP:PROJSCOPE is any articles they volunteer to support.
    The requirement is a group of editors who say they want to work together. Waving at the existence of an affiliate is not enough, since those members might not be interested in editing the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @WhatamIdoing That's fair, I'll send the link of the current page to the WMSDG Telegram group, and if I get some interest there, I'll ping you here and let you know. Thanks! Egezort (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That isn't what the link says... It says that scope will be formalized and publicized, which means that it must be a discrete area of some kind (there is no way that something can be "tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject" otherwise). Now of course that discrete area can and does change as members join or leave a wikiproject, but it never doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It says: "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support)". There is nothing in there that says it must be "formalized", "publicized", "discrete", or anything else. The group's scope is what the group volunteers to support, full stop. It is allowed to be seemingly random articles (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And how do you define a non-discrete scope? That seems like an impossibility, if a scope can be defined it is discrete. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Horse Eye's Back, @WhatamIdoing, I think that even if the policy doesn't allow for a non-discrete scope, the Sustainable Development is very clear and discrete in its scope. It's just that there are a lot of different subjects involved at the same time. Otherwise, the 17 Goals of the UN are very clear.
    I'm still trying to get new editors involved and will notify you when that happens. Egezort (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think if you mean to go with the UN goals specifically and not sustainable development in general Sustainable Development Goals would be a better name. I for example am very interested in sustainable development and would participate in such a project but have very little interest in the UN Goals specifically and no real interest in participating in a project about them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Anything related to Sustainable Development is probably in the scope of the 17 goals to begin with. I didn't want to do the latter because there are other similar wikiprojects with this name, and also because it's not an academic work on the goals themselves. I would assume a Wikiproject about "Sustainable Development Goals" would be about maintaining the UN documents and efforts, and not the subjects involved. Egezort (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Then what is the point of making the 17 goals the scope and not just sustainable development? Its its about the subjects involved and not the UN documents and efforts why make it explicitly about the UN documents and efforts and not the subjects involved? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The UN documents provide a framework to approach things with. So, for example, if I contributed a bit about women's rights in a specific country, I would put that under "Goal 5" in the Wikiproject documentation. The documents create a sort of backbone that allows for people to work together on, like I might say "We're doing an edit-a-thon on Goal 6 tomorrow", and the scope would be much more well defined than if I had said "Clean Water and Sanitation". Egezort (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    But isn't the development goal gender equality not women's rights? If you're being that broad wouldn't goal 14 and goal 15 together mean the wikiproject covers all living things on the planet? As for goal 6 we already have a WikiProject Sanitation and a WikiProject Water. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Women's rights are part of gender equality. You cannot have gender equality without women's rights. The apparently intended scope is not "17 articles, each of which align exactly and precisely with the 17 UN goals, and nothing else". The apparently intended scope is "any article, or part of an article, that relates in some way or another with the 17 UN goals".
    @Egezort, these UN goals are meant to run until 2030. Then the UN will create a new set of (very similar) goals. What's your group going to do in 2031? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As the user group, we don't yet have a solid plan as the WMSDG for after 2030, we do have a strategy document for what our approach will be until 2030, and also we have an annual plan there. I assume that the UN will have a new set of goals (like the Millennium Development Goals before this one), and then we can continue that effort. I don't know if we'll have to change the name for it, either for the Affiliate, or for the Wikiproject.
    You're right about the intended scope here. And also, as @Horse Eye's Back said, there are many WikiProjects for most, if not all of the goals. But this one aims to be a central hub for those too. That's why I also included a related Wikiprojects section.
    As for being too broad, "Life on land" technically would include all humans, and therefore one could argue that even biographies are in the scope of this project. But we shouldn't take "Life on land" that literally here. What we would deem within our scope is stuff that you can see here: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal15 Egezort (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And what I see there is "Biodiversity and ecosystems" "Forests" "Mountains" "National strategies and SDG integration" "Desertification, land degradation and drought" so goal 15 its actually broader than all non-human life on land. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "any article, or part of an article, that relates in some way or another with the 17 UN goals" would mean that 70-80% of articles on wikipedia are in-scope. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If a group volunteers for 70–80% of articles on Wikipedia, then that's okay. The group decides which articles they support, exactly like individual editors decide which articles they support.
    • You cannot force an individual WP:VOLUNTEER to support any article just because you think it makes sense for their interests; in an exactly similar way, you cannot force a group of WP:VOLUNTEERS to support any article just because you think it makes sense for their interests.
    • The converse is also true: You cannot stop an individual volunteer from caring about an article just because you think they shouldn't care about it, and you cannot stop a group of volunteers from caring about an article just because you think they shouldn't care about it.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    But I will be a member of any WikiProject Sustainable Development. What you can not do is give a wikiproject a false or misleading name, such as naming a wikiproject Sustainable Development when its actually about something else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There are no rules restricting the names of WikiProjects (aside from the technical rules imposed by the software). They do not even have to include the word "WikiProject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you want to be technical we have a principle not a rule... The principle of least astonishment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think there is a least astonishment difference between SDGs and the concepts they are meant to make less diffuse. Diffuseness might harm focus, but if the people involved can overcome that, the group might work. I'm currently working on an article for Wikipedia:WikiProject SDG13. CMD (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not seeing a Wikipedia:WikiProject SDG13, that link goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The "principle of least astonishment" is about what readers see. It has nothing to do with how groups of editors self-identify their group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It also applies to the talk page. Are you saying that wikiproject tags don't go on talk pages? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    What makes you think that the principle of least astonishment, which is imposed on us by foundation:Resolution:Controversial content, applies to talk pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The readers also read our talk pages. I would imagine that the principle of least astonishment has common consensus, so imposition or otherwise why not follow it? Its best practice regardless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Readers rarely stumble across talk pages or other back-end pages.
    • There's nothing astonishing about different groups of editors wanting to improve Wikipedia.
    • It is a well-established principle, supported by consensus since before you created your previous account, that WikiProjects can tag any article they want. (See, e.g., fights over WP:LGBT in 2008, WP:WPUSA in 2011...), even if this might irritate or surprise readers or editors.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Readers are not as ignorant as you think they are... I've met a lot of non-editors who tell me that reading the talk pages are their favorite part. I never said or suggested that "different groups of editors wanting to improve Wikipedia." would be astonishing, you appear to be mocking me or casting aspersions. We are not talking about whether or not they can tag articles and I don't appreciate the personal attack based on how long I've edited. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I believe that if you look at the conversation above, you will find that you brought up the subject of WikiProject tags on talk pages, and whether those might astonish readers.
    Noting that your previous accounts first edits were in 2018, in the context of decisions made a decade before then, is not a personal attack. If you would like it to be spelled out more concretely, you should interpret my previous sentence as meaning something similar to "I believe it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone to be aware of discussions that happened many years before their first edit." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Michelin Guide task force

    edit
    Latest comment: 28 days ago12 comments3 people in discussion
    See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Michelin_Guide_task_force § Should_this_task_force_become_a_WikiProject_on_its_own?

    Over at the Michelin Guide task force, we are considering converting the task force into a WikiProject because the scope of the Michelin Guide spans restaurants (WikiProject food and drink) and hotels (WikiProject Hotels, WikiProject Travel and tourism). We are an active project that's been generating a lot of quality content in recent months, including Good articles and Featured lists. If we decide to become a WikiProject, can we be bold and move the page or do we need to go through some sort of process here? Guidance welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Another Believer, How many editors regularly participate in the group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Based on the task force project and its talk page, I'd say five: me, Expandinglight5, History6042, Dtmich24, and Tbhotch. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That's a little thin, but you're all experienced editors.
    Why not WP:REVIVE WikiProject Travel and tourism instead? That would cover restaurants and hotels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I won't speak for others, but I think there's probably interest in keeping the scope limited to the Michelin Guide and not covering the industry as a whole. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with this, all travel and tourism seems like a very big expansion. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Is there anything inside the scope of that group, that's outside the scope of your group? If not, then you could WP:MOVE your existing task force under that group. This would be a "least effort" way to organize the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Anything not covered by the Michelin Guides and Keys is outside the scope. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know if I've explained this clearly.
    You're thinking about a separate WikiProject because:
    • your group is currently organized under WP:FOOD
    • but your scope only partly overlaps with WP:FOOD and partly does not (i.e., the hotel-related content), which is awkward for tagging articles (e.g., Wikipedia:Article alerts would list Michelin-related hotel content for the whole group, which isn't interested in it).
    The first solution you have thought of is:
    • just be a separate WikiProject.
    I'm suggesting that you consider the alternative of:
    • continuing to be a task force, but placing your task force under WP:TRAVEL
    The identified problem with being part of WP:FOOD is that your group wants to support articles that FOOD doesn't want to support. No such objection can be made to TRAVEL, as TRAVEL's scope already encompasses 100% of the articles your group supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Meh, I don't want to be a task force of WP:Travel. I vote for WikiProject Michelin Guide or we just leave things alone, even though I agree the scope of the task force veers out of WP:Food/drink territory and into the realms of WP:Hotels and WP:Travel. Maybe we should have just been bold instead of asking for permission. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you (all) are determined to have a separate group, I won't stop you. Please consider doing a little recruiting, so the group doesn't end up shrinking over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sounds good, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 2 § Template:WikiProject Disambiguation

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 2 § Template:WikiProject Disambiguation. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop

    edit
    Latest comment: 22 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    There are 3 main project pages for this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip Hop, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hip. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Thilio, why did you create these? A WikiProject is a group of people. Who is in your group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I created Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop because I think it’s an important and overlooked area on Wikipedia. Am currently the only person working on it but my plan is to start improving related articles and hopefully get others involved over time especially editors interested in African music or hip hop I know WikiProjects are meant to be group efforts and am hoping this one will grow, for now I just wanted to start organizing things and make it easier for others to join in later. Thilio (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Bamyers99 thanks so much for pointing that.
    I accidentally created a few versions of the project page while setting things up. The one I’d like to keep is Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop.
    I’ll go ahead and tag the other two Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip Hop and Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hip  for deletion as duplicates. Thilio (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, but a WP:WikiProject is a group of editors, and if you're the only one, then you actually do not have a WikiProject, no matter how important you think the subject area is or how much you hope it will grow in the future. All of these pages need to be deleted or moved to your user space (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop → User:Thilio/Future WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop). You can tag or move them yourself, or I can do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the clarification and I understand now. I’ll go ahead and move the pages to my userspace as suggested (e.g., to User:Thilio/Future WikiProject South Sudanese Hip-hop). Appreciated. I’ll take care of it shortly
    Thanks again Thilio (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Proposing a new WikiProject Speedcubing

    edit
    Latest comment: 21 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
     
    Why speedcubing should be a Wikiproject and not a task force

    Hey! I'd like to propose a new WikiProject about speedcubing, the sport which involves solving Rubik's Cubes and other similar twisty puzzles as quickly as possible. I have the following reasons for this proposal:

    • Wikipedia's coverage of speedcubing is too slim - the topic has enough third party coverage to warrant many new big articles.
    • Articles about Rubik's Cubes and speedcubing rely too much on primary sources, mainly from WCA. While the WCA itself is reliable, secondary sources should be added to compliment the primary ones when applicable.
    • Many articles on the topic are outdated or plainly erroneous. For example, the article about 7x7x7 cubes is titled 'V-Cube 7'.

    The purposes of this proposal could also be achieved with a task force, but my reason for proposing a WikiProject instead is that the topic transcends the boundries of the WikiProjects about toys, games and sports: Rockfighterz M (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Rockfighterz M, a WikiProject is a group of Wikipedia editors. Who else is in your group? If the answer is "nobody", then you don't have a WikiProject.
    Everything you typed above might be relevant to a discussion of whether there should be a Category:Speedcubing to go along with Category:Rubik's Cube and Category:Speedcubers. But it has nothing to do with whether you have assembled a group of Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There is one user who has expressed the same interest as me, and there are likely some more at WikiProject Toys, as a few have cited Rubik's Cubes as one of their interests. I don't know if this is enough. Rockfighterz M (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    i think you should make this a part of WikiProject Toys. Sm8900 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#If you have a larger group of editors recommends starting with about 10 editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Mary Baker Eddy article

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    The Mary Baker Eddy article leans heavily on hostile early sources and underrepresents modern scholarship, so help is needed to rebalance it toward her practical Christianity, emphasis on Love, and non-retaliatory response to critics and her religious, journalistic and literary contributions. Muttikins (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Welcome to Wikipedia, @Muttikins. I'm not sure how you ended up on this page, but we really can't help you here. I see you've discussed this question on Talk:Mary Baker Eddy, which is a good place to start. If you need additional help, then the newcomer's Wikipedia:Teahouse or one of the Wikipedia:Noticeboards might be the best place to try next. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks! Muttikins (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    New category for internal reports of WikiProjects

    edit
    Latest comment: 7 days ago10 comments2 people in discussion

    Because I couldn't find one existing already, I just boldly created a category to hold any and all internal reports produced by WikiProjects. See Category:WikiProject-related reports. If such a category already existed, please let me know and I will happily merge. Cheers! Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    If you want to set up such a category to hold stuff such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/MostEdited, Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/Recognized content, etc., it's probably worth checking in on the bot pages to see if the categories can be automatically added. CMD (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Of the examples you gave there, the first was created by me using {{Database report}}, so putting it in a category is a one-time manual task, and I don't mind doing it. In the case of some widely dispersed reports based on templates, they already tend to create categories, but they aren't always in the context of reports for WikiProjects. Recognized content goes into Category:Wikipedia lists of recognized content but it's not categorized under WikiProjects. What I'm basically after here is a category that holds categories of reports from various WikiProjects. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 09:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That makes sense, but it will likely not be very effective unless automated somehow, given how many WikiProjects there are (and how many are dead). CMD (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure what needs to be automated. Just add report pages (or a category of report pages) to Category:WikiProject-related reports the usual way. There's WP:NOHURRY. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Without automation report pages may just wipe the category when they update, depending on how they are generated. No hurry does not seem a reason to not improve such a category. CMD (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The solution for that is usually a manual one. Place the category above or outside where the bot fills in the report. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 05:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If the bot wipes out the whole page with its report with no place to put a category, you should consult with the report bot maintainer and ask them what to do to place a custom category. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 06:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That is what I suggested in the second comment as a way to help the category fulfil its purpose. CMD (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    OK. I don't think that's the usual case, but again, in the examples you gave, I was able to add categories manually without them being overwritten. If you have no way to do that, consult with the report bot maintainer. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    WikiProject Iranian Cities

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago12 comments3 people in discussion

    WikiProject Iranian Cities

    edit

    I propose the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities to improve and organize articles about cities, towns, and villages in Iran. This project will focus on standardizing city articles, adding reliable sources, and creating missing articles for notable locations. Interested editors are welcome to join! Kamran.h20320 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Kamran.h20320, how many people are in your group? A Wikipedia:WikiProject is a group of editors. If you have no editors working with you, then you have no WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @WhatamIdoing Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting the importance of having a group of editors for a WikiProject. Currently, I am in the early stages of proposing Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities and have not yet formalized a group, but I am actively reaching out to editors who have been involved in articles related to Iranian cities (e.g., Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan) to gauge their interest. I plan to post invitations on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran to attract editors with relevant experience. My goal is to form a group of at least 6–10 active editors, as recommended by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. I would appreciate any advice on how to effectively recruit editors or examples of successful WikiProject proposals. Thanks again for your guidance! Kamran.h20320 (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Kamran.h20320 Have you considered reactivating Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran and asking participants in that if they would like to have a special focus or taskforce about Iranian cities? Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 04:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Stefen Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion! I hadn’t considered creating a taskforce within Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, and I appreciate you bringing it up. I will reach out to the participants of WikiProject Iran to see if there is interest in forming a taskforce focused on Iranian cities. My reason for proposing a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities is to create a dedicated space for standardizing and improving articles specifically about cities, towns, and villages in Iran, as this topic has a broad scope (e.g., population updates, infobox standardization, and creating articles for smaller cities). However, I agree that a taskforce could be a great starting point, especially if WikiProject Iran has active editors who are interested. I’ll post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran to discuss this possibility and report back here with the feedback. Do you have any suggestions for how to structure a taskforce or examples of successful city-focused taskforces? Thanks again for your input! Kamran.h20320 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    === Update: Iranian Cities Taskforce ===
    Thank you for the feedback on my proposal for Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities. Based on suggestions from @WhatamIdoing and @Stefen, I’ve created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran#Iranian Cities Taskforce within Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran. The taskforce focuses on improving articles about Iranian cities, standardizing formats, and adding reliable sources. Interested editors are welcome to join by adding their names to the participants list or sharing feedback on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. Kamran.h20320 (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Kamran.h20320, I'll WP:REDIRECT the original page to your new WP:TASKFORCE. This group does not attempt to control task forces at all (though we are willing to share advice, if someone has questions).
    What I'd like to know is why you thought creating pages for a WikiProject was a good idea. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#If you have a larger group of editors, I see six numbered rules, of which you obeyed only one:
    1. Experienced editor with thousands of edits – you have 34 edits, not 1,000s.
    2. Recruit participants before writing a proposal – you didn't.
    3. Scope should have "many thousands of articles" – If "city" means a larger place, Iran has maybe 150 proper cities.
    4. Work with existing groups – you didn't.
    5. Post a proposal – this discussion here.
    6. Wait for approval – you didn't.
    Did you not find the page until it was too late? Did you think that your idea was too good to follow the usual rules? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hello. Thank you. I have recently started editing Wikipedia pages and have noticed many shortcomings in certain areas. I intend to help improve Persian pages with guidance from more experienced individuals. If you have any suggestions on how to contribute in this regard, I would be very happy to hear them and receive your assistance. Kamran.h20320 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    On #3, cities typically have subarticles, especially the larger ones, and Iran has several sizable cities. For the rest, since this is being done as an effort within an existing WikiProject, I'm not sure there is any harm. It will either take off, or not, and any cleanup would be minimal. In fact, Kamran did not have to ask permission for what is simply a bold move in an existing project marked as inactive. That all said, Kamran.h20320, you should ask existing members of the project if they would like to help, while building your editing skills. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am doing my best. I hope to achieve a good result from it. Kamran.h20320 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, @Kamran.h20320, I know you're doing your best, and I can see that you are very intelligent and very interested in helping Wikipedia. (I'm even nervous that asking you about our broken process will distract you from improving those articles, which is more important.)
    I'm thinking that our instructions are unclear. For example, your 15th edit was to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Iranian Cities. I really, really, really do not want people to create any "WikiProject" pages as their 15th edit, or even as their 150th edit. I want this to be edit #1,500 or even edit #15,000. Was there anything I could write in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals that would have convinced you that creating this page, as edit #15, was a bad idea? I don't even know if you had seen the /Proposals page before you created it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm thinking we need some kind of balance that is encouraging new editors to want to improve articles first and is lighter on the discouraging part about WikiProjects. Maybe have something like a "wiki knowledge pyramid" and show a new user "You are here" at the bottom and somewhere up past the middle is creating or expanding WikiProjects. We could show new users how to use existing WikiProject infrastructure to identify articles to work on, particularly those that are stubs or have issues to address. Now how new users discover this kind of information is a tricky part, but perhaps we could modify the standard WikiProject front-page banner to have a link "New editors read this first!" and have an optional way to show this for projects that don't use the standard banner. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 06:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I have created two new reports for the WP:Database reports page: WikiProjects by human changes and WikiProjects with no activity. This is effectively a split of "WikiProjects by changes" to have the primary sort be by non-bot (human) edits and to get the most out of SQL performance enhancements. I've also added a few useful columns to the first report to aid in management of WikiProjects across the board. Please let me know of any problems/concerns and if anyone has ideas for further WikiProject-related reports (I already have a few on my to do list that I'm reviewing). Enjoy! Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks! Goldsztajn (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&oldid=1307872739"