Experimental tool for prioritizing articles to work on

I'd be curious for WikiProject maintainers and others to try this prototype, Projo, and share what you think. The goal is to help editors find high-impact articles that need a lot of work. Put in a list of articles, such as a long list of stubs or a link to a PetScan query, and let it process. Then you can filter your list to only articles with a high view count, a low quality score (using LiftWing), and one or more cleanup tags. Examples:

• From WikiProject Computer Security, view high-importance start and stub articles ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
• Based on Category:Politics stubs: view stubs ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
• Based on Special:LonelyPages: view orphans sorted by pageviews.

Thanks to @Audiodude for making this based on an idea I had for creating fun article lists for Event:Wiki Loves Pride/2026/Suggested articles: using PetScan to get a list of articles from a category (including subcategories, filtered by the presence of a manually-pasted list of cleanup tags), then copy-pasting the list into the Microtask Generator to add quality scores and page view counts, then exporting to a spreadsheet so I could filter out articles with high quality scores or low page views. (Could make sense for this kind of concept to go into Microtask Generator or somewhere else instead of staying a separate tool, just trying out the idea.) Dreamyshade (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That is a good start. But it is highly dependent on the placement on talk page. COBIT and undeletion do not fit in security and Risk analysis (business) is way off. So must fix the talk pages first. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to start with a perfect list to get value from a ranking tool. For example, it's fine that the WikiProject Computer Security list has some items that may not be very relevant to computer security, because a person looking for articles to edit can simply skip items that are not of interest to them, or go adjust the talk page banners. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

> highly dependent on placement on talk page.

Exactly. The tool can't guess what articles are of interest to Computer Security, that's up to those in that WikiProject to decide. audiodude (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Articles for improvement both focus on creating such lists. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but what do we really know about the data quality of those pages? I have no idea, and the time needed to go through all of them would be very long. And how consistent are they? The dreaded Unix Security article is marked high importance for security and low importance for software security, which is of course inconsistent. A good next project would be a simple program that signals the inconsistent items so they can be fixed. Have good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The project "importance" metrics are mostly useless. Vital articles requires people actually engage with the nominations. If you wanted to, you could unilaterally change the importance of the Unix Security article, and it is likely no one would even notice. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But there are only 50,000 vitals. How many are for computers and how many for security? Once again something in my head keeps saying: this needs a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A couple days ago I navigated the vital articles table of contents to find the list of vital computer security articles - 40 articles. I linked to that list from the WikiProject Computer security homepage. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, but you did that manually. I prefer work done by computers. That is why we need a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You can query the article database based on categories - for example, this is the intersection of Category:All Computer security articles and Category:All Wikipedia vital articles: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=48078451 Dreamyshade (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, to return to the topic: here's that list of vital articles in the computer security category, processed with Projo. This filtered list is interesting to me because it gives me six articles to review, and among them I see two especially good candidates for improvement: Patch (computing) and Electronic lock, which both have minimal citations. It's a much faster and easier way to find a juicy project than skimming all 71 articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

First, that is a very interesting tool. How many users know about it. Why had I never heard of it? Secondly, we do have an ontological problem. The vital article Type conversion has almost nothing to do with security, a word that appears only once in the text. So it is vital, but not for security, and it is rated low importance for security. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If you prefer work done by computers, I had done some work a while ago on Vital articles looking at generating an index based on the page statistics. The dataset is a bit out of date now, but you can see it here. Accessing the API is extremely time consuming and I'm looking for a more efficient way to get the stats on 50K+ articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks but I am done on this topic. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams... I just fixed the banner at Talk:Unix security to remove a redundant tag that was making the banners more confusing than necessary. The article is marked as low-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, and marked as high-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security. The Projo tool is designed to not rely on manual assessments of importance or quality, instead applying the automated metrics of pageviews and LiftWing quality scores. They aren't perfect either, but they're fast and easy to work with for finding high-impact opportunities to improve reader-facing articles, without making editors engage in the meta-work of adjusting manual assessments. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was good. But we need a program that shows those inconsistencies. We need more simple automation all over the place. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage Ah, those projects have different goals! They answer different questions for editors:

• Vital articles: What are the most important articles in a subject area?
• Articles for improvement: What's one interesting article that needs a lot of work, from any subject area?
• Projo: Out of all of the articles in a list I've provided, which articles are frequently visited and need a lot of work?

Dreamyshade (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

And individual WikiProject ratings: Which of the many articles supported by this particular group of Wikipedia editors subjectively believe is the most important (e.g., for readers to have access to, for editors to improve)? Some (e.g., MILHIST and WPBIO) reject the importance/priority ratings on principle. In that case, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team uses a combination of page views and internal links to rank the articles for offline inclusion. However, groups with smaller or niche interest areas find it important to tell the 1.0 team that a low-traffic article is more important for inclusion than it might look from global metrics alone. One doesn't want, e.g., the article about the president of a tiny country to be excluded just because only people in that small country are interested in reading it. Each group's importance rating (should they choose to participate) forms a third factor in the calculation, giving a small boost to some articles that might otherwise just miss the cutoff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In the last 20 minutes I concluded that as Geosage said, the talk page ratings are almost random, and useless. The article may change over time but the ratings may be from 7 years before. But Now that I have heard about the Projo tool, l should ask you: Is there a page with the list of tools available from WMF? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the answer is no, if you mean "a" page. There are instead multiple lists scattered around, all in various states of (in)completeness and outdatedness. You might start with wikitech:Category:Toolforge tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, fantastic... or what? The least they could do is build a page with descriptions, would take 2 days. But thanks anyway. I am done on this issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Creating the existing lists has already taken far more than two days. Maintaining it would also require magically know every time someone creates a new tool. Things available "from" a WMF site are not necessarily created by the WMF staff, so even a strictly enforced rule requiring WMF devs to document theirs would not be sufficient to get a complete list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Dreamy, from a practical perspective you need living, knowledgeable and energetic people to help you. Try user:Guy Harris who is all three. He knows system level computing pretty well. I will say no more. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Question 4 links to a 404

The link at the end of questoon 4 on the FAQ leads to a 404 page. Does anyone have a replacement link? User:ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Audiodude might know how to get a list. Alternatively, we could probably write something like Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes except just to count the number of tagged articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! Yes it looks like that link is to the old WP1 toold (pre 2018), which had a special _ALL_ keyword. Nothing like that exists in the current site, but I've opened an issue to track adding that feature. audiodude (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@ScienceD90 @WhatamIdoing Okay I've implemented the functionality in WP1 and updated the link in the Q4 item. https://wp1.openzim.org/#/assessments audiodude (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Early archive of WP ID discussion?

I move we go ahead and archive "Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", ahead of the usual schedule, as the talk is taking up so much space on this page. Any objections? the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

With no objection, I have archived this discussion. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposing a new WikiProject Miscellaneous

A WikiProject for editors who want to work on Wikipedia in general. It is for editors who use Special:Random a lot and come across all sorts of problems and articles to fix. Read more about my reasoning here: WP:SPORK.

Here's the tentative WikiProject page: User:TurboSuperA+/WikiProject Miscellaneous

I know that Wikipedia:Random pages patrol exists. This is different in several ways:
1) It is not a "patrol", patrol has such negative connotations. We're working on improving Wikipedia, it can be a "patrol", a "stroll", a "rummage", a "deep dive", a "dig"...
2) That page says it's about ensuring pages adhere to the WP:MOS, implying it is for tiny changes. WikiProject Miscellaneous is for bold editors, for ogres, dragons, those who aren't afraid of getting their hands dirty and doing the big fixes as well as the small.

An example: While mashing Special:Random I came across a series of books where every book in the series had an article, but only the first in the series was notable (per Wikipedia standards) and I wasn't sure what to do. Where do I even ask such a question? Sure I could go to every individual WikiProject and ask, but it'd be nice to have a Miscellaneous Noticeboard for all the questions that don't fit anywhere else. I added that article to my watchlist and then it got lost (and I only have ~1500 articles on it, imagine if there were more). The noticeboard would be a place where you could throw the article up, and editors who want to help would fix it.

Teahouse is fine, but there editors seem to want to answer once or twice and move on. The Miscellaneous Noticeboard would be for editing questions that need more than one quick answer, where questions/articles could sit for a while. I can't think of every possible use, because it would be a place for "everything else", hence the shortcut would be: WP:ASTERIX (cause we'd also have a little fun with it).

So it is for editors who don't mind discussing changes. Who aren't bothered by lots of questions. Who don't think asking question after question is disruptive or annoying. Cause honestly, that's the vibe I get from Teahouse. So on the Miscellaneous WikiProject and noticeboard one could ask all the questions one wants, no matter how dumb, or specific, or general, or etc.

I know I'm not the best at explaining, but I'm hoping this is one of those "who feels it, knows it" situations and I'm hoping it clicks with people. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I like the spirit! What about Wikipedia:Help desk for miscellaneous questions? A couple things to consider: I wonder if allying with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles would be interesting to you - the subject matter scope is entirely open, the "Fix a random page lacking sources" button is featured as a task, and it's quite active and fun. And since Wikipedia:Random page patrol seems pretty inactive, you could take the approach of WP:REVIVE - try to find people who share your vision and re-shape it in that direction. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The most important part is "find people". Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. No group, no WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll work on that. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I had no idea WikiProject Unreferenced articles existed. Thanks for the tip! TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I would expect WP:ASTERIX to be about Asterix. —Kusma (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a little joke, WP:ASTERISK is taken. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If the Teahouse is giving vibes that it doesn't want to deal with multiple questions from one editor, I think that's a Teahouse problem, as it's specifically designed to be a low-key, welcoming environment. I also think asking your assigned mentor would be a good way to find starting points for answers (see Wikipedia:Mentorship for more information).

Note a WikiProject talk page is of no help if no one's watching it. I suspect it'll be a challenge to get significant number of interested editors to participate on a WikiProject page that has no specific focus. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

orphaned Talk Page

I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Regional and national music was the WikiProject's Talk Page, before it moved to a Task Force. Shouldn't it also be merged into the Task Force's Talk Page (which should enable archiving)? rootsmusic (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A merge-and-redirect sounds reasonable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A separate wikiproject is needed for Airships and other lighter-than-air aircraft (Cross-posting from Wikiproject Aviation)

Many airship articles (even important ones) have a lack of sources, too short and haven't been updated in years. As a huge airship buff, that annoys me. This is why I propose a separate wikiproject for Airships, balloons and other Lighter-than-air stuff. Hopefully, if made, will start updating all these broken articles, making them fit for this encyclopaedia again. Also, it could be something like "Wikiproject Aerostats" or an aerostat task force if not fit for a wikiproject. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like a useful purpose for a WikiProject, or perhaps a task force within WP Aviation. At any rate, a new WikiProject requires a group of users interested in working together. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Proposing a WikiProject for details. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

hmm... how would i requit people for the wikiproject? many people were interested on my thread of the hindenburg disaster artice sucking ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation - Wikipedia ) so maybe them? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:REVIVE has some suggestions. As a first step, I suggest that you hang out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. In the long run, fans of airships might be better off as part of a bigger group instead of isolated on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

i did make a post there, the only things i've really done in relation to aviation is make a page and change some stuff on airship articles - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest watching their talk page, and joining discussions when you think you could help. Doing that for several months (or longer) will give you some ideas about how WikiProjects work together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You can ask anyone you have identified as potentially being interested on their talk page if they would like to become part of this effort. They could come to this discussion and state their willingness to join. I see you brought this up at WP Aviation already - you can link to this discussion from there. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

i have, i'm just waiting for replies - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Airships are quite niche. I can see that there is a possible scope for a task force under WP:AV, but not a stand alone WP. I wouldn't be joining either though. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah, maybe i could do a task force. But the problem is is getting people to join, how do i get airship nerds here, do you know of any???? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a good idea to watch the main articles and encourage anyone who adds content or corrects errors. If you can build on someone's work, that encourages them to come back and try to do more. If you just revert it, they'll quit.

Some people actually resort to off-wiki recruiting. That adds an additional layer of complexity (they have to learn everything from sourcing to anti-LLM rules), and new editors often don't stick around for even a few weeks, but some people find it worthwhile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

i'll see. thanks! - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Lego

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego#Reviving WikiProject Lego. The state of articles about Lego, of which hundreds exist, is mostly poor. There are not very many editors working on them either. I proposed that the WikiProject be revived to fix this. Are there any editors here interested in the subject of Lego and willing to help out, maybe join the discussion?

NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:REVIVE. The key thing is to look around the wiki and find people who are already editing those (and related) articles, and see if they'll join you. A simple thing to ask any experienced editor is to put Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego on their watchlist.

It can take months to recruit half a dozen people. Persistence matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Mentorship and Guidance

Hi All, I'm a music fan and new to wiki (been a month), I've been editing pages for musicians and music labels across the world that lack correct or updated info such as Pritam/Tarkan etc, I tried creating a page recently and wish to create pages for many such record labels and musicians. I keep getting feedback on the page and so would like to ask for mentorship in creating my first article and guidance so that i can create pages for musicians that are well known but for some reason not yet on the platform. This forum was advised to me by 'gurkubondinn' to seek someone to help create my page with me. Sasha2026 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a page for coordinating and organizing groups of editors. For personal mentorship, try going to Special:Homepage and clicking on "Get a mentor". (If Special:Homepage doesn't work for you, then turn it on at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-homepage.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Drafts

Hello, I was wondering through the WIKIproject area tonight and happened upon the draft WikiProjects at Category:Draft WikiProjects. Neither the main page nor the talk page for any of the proposed WikiProjects had any activity for the past few years. Is it time to archive them? Or should they be publicized? The two or three that I looked at more carefully were clearly the work of one enthusiastic editor, not a group of editors. I just wondered if there was a process to review them or propose new drafts. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's my first thoughts. Maybe you'll have better ones.

• If the editor is still active, then invite them to move it to their userspace until they're ready to recruit editors. @Levivich, for example, may have just forgotten about starting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Core Content page.
• If it feels hopeless (e.g., the subject is impossible plus editor who created the page was relatively inexperienced and is long gone), then it should go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
• If it's vaguely plausible but not likely to be successful, then consider whether a redirect to an existing group might work.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, WhatamIdoing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Largest articles not included in WikiProjects

If you've ever wondered which articles haven't yet been added to any WikiProjects, we now have a report for that. Please let me know if you have any questions or find a bug in the results. This report will update on a daily basis. Enjoy! the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Not many! If it would be easy for the report to include date creation, might be interesting to see which ones go the longest without WikiProjects. CMD (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll look into adding a column for creation date - good idea! By the way, the report shows the 500 largest articles not in WikiProjects - I have to consider performance in building the list and users loading the results. the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done This was very straightforward to do. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

2004. Now that's old. CMD (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Community Wishlist's Focus Area

In Q15 of the FAQ, I've linked to the Community Wishlist's Focus Area for connecting like-minded contributors. --rootsmusic (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted this change as it added a request to vote on a wishlist item and removed existing content without any explanation. The better place to announce this wishlist item is here in this talk. The FAQ is for more permanent information related to WikiProjects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower I linked to a Focus Area, which is about "connecting like-minded contributors" and not any specific wish, because that Focus Area is relevant to Q15. If I simply announce as a Talk topic instead, this topic will get archived. Do you prefer that I link the Focus Area in the Project's article? rootsmusic (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a vote-collecting concern at any rate. You can announce it here or at the Village Pump. Archived talk still exists after archiving. As for your last question, I don't understand what you mean by "the Project's article". the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower My edit was You can also vote for Wikipedia Foundation to prioritize improvements in a related focus area. It didn't ask or tell people to vote in support of that Focus Area. Would you prefer that I rephrase my edit in answering Q15? Or would you prefer that I link in the Project page? rootsmusic (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Temporary concerns shouldn't be in the FAQ or linked from the council's information pages at all. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower Why do you describe Wikipedia Foundation's Focus Areas as "temporary concerns"? rootsmusic (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Because community wishlist items and focus areas are temporary by their design. These are not permanent structures. Further, whether you intend this or not, you are seeking votes for this focus area. Vote seeking does not belong in our informational pages. Last, please stop pinging me as I watch this page. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Would you connote any intention to seek votes, if I rephrase the edit in Q15 as: "You can choose whether or not to vote for Wikipedia Foundation to prioritize improvements in a related focus area."?

The Council's FAQ also isn't a permanent structure. When Wikimedia Foundation removes the linked Focus Area, then you'll be free to update Q15 by deleting the sentence about it. Until then, that Focus Area is directly relevant to Q15. rootsmusic (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that Focus Areas are "temporary". That's a bit like saying that Category:All articles lacking sources is "temporary". Sure, we hope that the cat will get emptied eventually, but it's going to be around for a long time.

Also, just FYI, Meta-Wiki does not have any anti-canvassing rules, and the Community Wishlist has traditionally welcomed efforts to let editors at different wikis know about anything that might interest them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Another aspect is that this voting at this focus area really does nothing to help anyone get going on WikiProjects, which is what I thought our FAQ is for. Participation at the focus area is more for editors who already work on and understand WikiProjects.

If that also isn't an issue, and you think putting this into the FAQ that is probably rarely read, rather than announcing it here and Village Pump where large numbers of editors will see it, is useful, then have at it. I honestly don't think it is a FAQ-worthy item, but if two or more editors here disagree with me, I'm outvoted.

But beyond that, other material had been erased without any explanation to link to this focus area. If you really want to link to this focus area, other material shouldn't be erased unless there is a good reason to do so. the Stefen 𝕋ower 06:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Seeking new project contributors? Promote your WikiProject at WikiConference North America in Sepember

Lucy Iwuala and I are collaborating to develop a presentation for WikiConference North America "Intro to WikiProjects for New Contributors." We'd like to include a few more case studies of WikiProjects that welcome new contributors in the presentation. We're especially seeking projects that 1) have minimal barriers to entry (for example, they don't require knowledge of a specific language, technology, or specialized subject matter) and 2) have good onboarding resources for new contributors. Think projects where, out of 100 randomly chosen Wikimedians, a sizable percentage interact with the subject on a regular basis. We're happy to include any project as a case study, though, if you are willing to honestly self-assess on those two criteria. Reply or message me if you are interested in having your project included. JMMaok (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@JMMaok, I'm not aware of any WikiProjects that are actively and systematically welcoming new contributors at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, if any are interested in changing that between now and WCNA, please get in touch. There were some excellent ideas shared at the recent WikiData WikiProject days, especially from the session on Quickstart Guides. The discussion was much broader than just creating guides, though. Here are notes from the session. JMMaok (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a boilerplate "WikiProject Newcomers FAQ" oriented to individual WikiProjects that they could mold to their needs. It could include a straightforward "Ways You Can Help" that lists tasks sorted by editor skill level (beginner -> intermediate -> advanced). The current boilerplate template {{Tasks}} is frankly rather dry and uninviting. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That is a neat idea! The current template seems very thorough, but some redesign could make it more inviting. JMMaok (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a page at WP Climate change that also seems instructive as one possible way to design this. As for {{Tasks}}, my point is that it feels too much like a laundry list, and laundry lists don't really trigger self-motivation to want to assist (similar to laundry lists at home). the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I've made an effort to feature a range of tasks at different levels of difficulty on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security, and I'd be delighted for new contributors to participate. We have a lot of articles in very poor shape, so it should be a bit easier to find something to improve than in a more mature WikiProject. Some articles require specific technical expertise, but we also have many articles about human factors (like Operational security, Password fatigue, Psychology in cybersecurity, and Computer security incident management) that an interested non-specialist could improve. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Dreamyshade! That looks like a very cool project. Happy to include it as one of our case studies. JMMaok (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Crusades?

Where should WP:CRUSADES be listed? Should it be listed alongside the original task force or at the bottom of the section for milhist? ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 17:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you split that MILHIST task force off into a separate WikiProject last year. If you are asking where it should be listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history page, then the answer is: wherever MILHIST (=not WP:CRUSADES) wants to list it, including nowhere, if they choose not to list it.

If you are asking about listing it on other pages, please give me a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The related MILHIST task force is already listed in our directory at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/History and society, although currently as a redirect. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I did mean in the directory, thank you :) ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 21:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The best bet seems to be to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/History and society#Military and warfare in a new table row above "Reenactment", filling in the Active, Assessment, Peer review, Collaboration, Portal, and Notes columns as needed. the Stefen 𝕋ower 22:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll add it when I have the time soon ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

New discovery: WikiProject Worthing

See this edit. The person who made that edit, Deveroonie (talk · contribs), has also created 26 related pages, but I cannot find where the WikiProject was proposed, let alone discussed. I don't see a need for this: it's not as if WikiProject Sussex is overburdened. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

most of those pages were categories required for the functioning of the template. I'd also note that while wikiproject sussex does exist, so does WP:WikiProject Brighton (and it has done for years) - covering a similar (if slightly larger) sussex location Deveroonie (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

My main concern is not with the categories, but with the wikiproject as a whole. Wikiproject Brighton was set up twenty years ago, when the rules were different. It also managed a fairly decent membership, although many have now left Wikipedia. Also, it's now considered to be inactive. So it's not a good example to follow. As it says at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, A WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together. A WikiProject is not a subject area, a group of pages, a banner on talk pages, or any of the infrastructure used to support the group. If you do not have a group of editors, you do not have a WikiProject. Successful groups normally begin with about 10 active, experienced editors. It also says Do not create any new WikiProject pages without prior discussion. That includes all "WikiProject (Name)" pages, categories, and templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

i've undone the edit referenced - i apologise for not doing the proposal / discussion but i'd note that WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals doesn't seem to be official wikipedia policy. i do intend to keep developing the project - and articles within - and will attempt to find more individuals interested in the project, and apologise for not doing so beforehand. Deveroonie (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment are also not "official wikipedia policy" pages. WP:NOTAG is normal for a process page. If you feel a need to follow only the advice on "official" pages, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide is an official {{guideline}}, and it tells editors to follow the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Deveroonie, my concern was not about the edit that I linked in my original post. My concern was, as I noted above, with the wikiproject as a whole. That is to say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Worthing; Template:WikiProject Worthing; Wikipedia:WikiProject Worthing/Template:Userbox; the 21 categories, etc. Reverting one edit does not do anything towards resolving the situation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The main Wikipedia:WikiProject Worthing page can be moved to their userspace until they collect a group of people (because Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people). The template needs to go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and then the cats can be cleaned up after the template has been deleted. If a group actually forms around this, we can always ask for a WP:REFUND later.

(Also, aside from the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem, WikiProject Brighton is inactive, which is the problem we're trying to solve by discouraging the creation of one-person "groups".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Script to remove inactive participants from members lists

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Tools for WikiProjects would ideally have a link to a script or bot that would remove or split lists of group participants according to whether they're active. Wikipedia:WikiProject X has a bot-managed Template:WikiProjectCard system, but I'm looking for a tool that will take an ordinary, years-old bullet list of usernames and remove/split anyone who hasn't edited in (e.g.,) a year.

I know that someone was taking such requests, but I can't remember who it was. Does anyone have ideas or favorite methods? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Check out User:Yapperbot/Pruner. See an example at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Active participants. Works great. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:05, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Tools for WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Semi-active pages

Should semi-active projects have a different highlight color than red on the directory? I feel like editors could still benefit from them and shouldn't be led astray. Perhaps they can have a yellow highlight. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 15:00, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/WikiProject only has a yes/no state for |active=. If you look at, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Extinction in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Biology, you'll see that it's marked in green as 'active'. There's no reason why the others can't be marked the same way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

ah. I was wondering that because so many semi-active projects are marked as "semi" in the template, causing them to be marked as "no". I'll go in and fix those myself later ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 17:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)