Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I want to revive WikiProject Caucasia. How can I go ahead and revive this project and bring it up to speed. The project is really old and the pages templates etc. are ancient. Anyone willing to help? Angel Eyes ● 💬 17:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Since it wasn't defunct, reviving is basically as simple as being active in it again, adding yourself to the Members page, being ready to respond to matters on its talk page, and perhaps, as you say, updating its appearance and how it works overall. Do you know of any aspects you would like to prioritize for a makeover? It would be useful to make a list to start, and you could call them "Meta tasks" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Tasks#Meta project tasks for an example). Depending on what's in your list, I may be able to assist with some of it. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 18:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Angell Eyes, A WikiProject is a group of people. Therefore, if you want to WP:REVIVE it, you need to recruit other people.

One place to start is with Wikipedia:WikiProject Caucasia/Members. Check the list to see who is still editing (this may be easier with WP:NAVPOPS enabled – you can hover over the usernames and see the date of the most recent edit). Remove the names of people who haven't edited for one, two, or more years (you pick the cutoff). Then post a friendly message on the User_talk: pages of the people who are editing regularly and invite them to help you. I suggest that you invite them to do a specific, easy thing, like "Put this page on your watchlist" or "Join this discussion" (which you would need to create first) or "Help me improve this article" (pick one that you think will appeal to most of them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower, @WhatamIdoing, thank you for your helpful responses. We already have people, (including me, @Liptink0, @Ch3rk.essk0, @AE182). We are already cooperating on our edits, but have no WikiProject. And to be honest, we would prefer a new wikiproject, "Wikiproject Circassia" or "Wikiproject Circassians". Caucasus is too broad, there are already other projects under it such as "WikiProject Ossetia". and I believe there are enough articles about Circassians to fit in a Wikiproject. We would much prefer this and would appreciate your help in creating this project if it is possible. Angel Eyes ● 💬 18:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That is a different thing altogether. First, if you're not going to work on WP Caucasia after all, it should be changed back to inactive. As for creating a new WikiProject, we have a guideline for that. However, I would recommend commandeering an existing one - much, much more straightforward. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 18:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's much easier to take over an inactive one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

When it comes to the Caucasus, we exclusively work on Circassia related articles. If we were to take hold of Wikiproject Caucasus, in my opinion, that's like editing only about Netherlands, but as part of Wikiproject Europe. Angel Eyes ● 💬 18:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, you have the link to instructions on how to do it. If you have a group of editors ready to go on this, follow the instructions and you'll get there. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 18:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

It's also possible that you will discover, over time, that you will find that the overlap is bigger than you expected, e.g., in articles related to the broader area such as Caucasian Wars or North Caucasus, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This sort of soft discouragement is covered in the instructions, right? :) Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of those I've seen around are heavily outdated. Active/inactive project judgement is based mostly on discussion and talk pages. Templates also point towards "joining a WikiProject by talking to us".

Then, what are member lists for?

Of course, they could be kept just out of habit. Then they would be condemned either to remain inaccurate, or to occupy some precious time of an editor in charge of keeping them up to date, or automatically maintained by some bot with questionable criteria (someone who edits a lot in Wikipedia but not so much in the project's scope would be considered active? What if they don't ever participate in discussions? What if the scope evolves in time?...)

The way I see it, we should just get rid of them, so I ask here in case they serve any purpose I've failed to see so far.

Hathor1719 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

They're sometimes used/were formerly used to find editors individually, e.g., to deliver notices to. Wikipedia:WikiProject X has a system that auto-updates the lists so they only show active editors. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members for an example of this.

You could talk to Novem Linguae about whether User:Yapperbot/Pruner could update any lists that you happen to care about. It might be nice to have that done more generally, but that would require someone to organize it across ~2,000 pages, and it might be a lot of work due to varying formats, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the bot! I'll try later to set it up.

And with respect to finding individual members, I think there are already enough help resources for editors, as well as talk pages. Otherwise why would someone want to find a specific individual in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia?

For news delivering it is useful, but then it wouldn't be a "membership" list. For example, I can be very interested in the output of a project but have no time for contributing to it. And in this case such lists wouldn't require maintainance because of their nature of a newsletter.

So I still don't see their usefulness, they seem a hindrance. Hathor1719 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

By the way, if you're going to set up this bot on any particular project and are new to it, it's best to ask on the project's talk page first. Editors can get grouchy if overly bold things are done in their area without any attempt to get talk page responses or a consensus first. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 06:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I also just noticed many changes you've made at WP Environment. It doesn't appear you've joined that project nor have you discussed your changes on their Talk page. That's kind of a "thin ice" situation. You may want to at least describe what you've done so far on the project's Talk page. At least don't be surprised if a participant there decides to revert your work. Best to cover your bases, like in any organization. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 07:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind if someone "from the project" reverts any or all the edits, I don't think anything I edit in Wikipedia is "of my own", I just try to improve what I enjoy or care for and if someone doesn't agreee they're free to revert it. I never engage in "edit wars". In the case of WikiProject Environment, I didn't write in the talk page because I had no doubt, most changes were cosmetic, half of the main page couldn't be read in dark mode, many links and tasks were outdated, there was a lot of repetitive information... and anything controversial I explained in the edit summary.

It is curious that below you say no one forces another to list themselves in the "member list", but then you say that I have changed the WikiProject "without adding myself" (which was on purpose, since I don't believe in such lists). See what I mean? Such additional bureaucracy tends to make people think they "own" the scope and pages of the WikiProject, to the point where I have to announce I am going to try and improve a page that looks mostly inactive, just for the sake of not upsetting some self given owner rights to the members of an outdated list.

With respect to the news deliver, I receive for example news from Abstract Wikipedia, but I am not part of the project nor plan to be.

I am not trying to push all Wikipedia to believe as myself or change how they organise around WikiProjects. However, I came here to ask because, no matter how much I think about it, I still see no real value in those outdated member lists. I was hoping the WikiProject Council would provide a different perspective, and, if not, I just wanted to give you mine, in case you might take it into account in the future.

It is not a matter of engaging or not, it is a matter of what I believe is better for Wikiepdia's future. Hathor1719 (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

While you don't have to list yourself in the project, listing yourself there before making quite a number of changes is a pragmatic choice. You did the equivalent of coming in off the street and changing the face of the organization, as it were. If the participants there like it, they like it, but the issue is assuming they will like it with no communication with them first. A WikiProject is not like an article - they represent groups of people, a community if you will. Respect that, please. Showing courtesy is the norm here.

I also receive news from Abstract Wikipedia, but I had to sign up first. You have to sign up somewhere - and in a WikiProject, it might as well be the participant list. You can also suggest to a project that has newsletters to maintain a separate list for those deliveries, and maybe they will agree with your suggestion.

The bottom line is you can have all the ideas you like for the future of Wikipedia (and I have many myself), but you also have to take others' opinions into account as part of your efforts. Nobody gets to steamroll over anyone in the Wikipedia. That approach wouldn't play in any organization or place of employment you may choose to join in your life. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 07:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the nomenclature in one wikiproject I originally started. I changed from "members" to "listed participants". Eventually, I may make this change in additional projects. After all, we're not running membership clubs, but rather action centers for editors. At any rate, there can still be usefulness to being on a list within a project, like for providing assistance on subject-area topics, receiving special communications from the project, or just to show you're involved and doing something. Ultimately it is up to the editor to de-list themselves, but pruning the list from time to time of very inactive or indefinitely blocked accounts may be useful. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

As I wrote above, news delivery can be achieved independently from any kind of membership and isn't necessarily related to it. For showing involvement as an editor, we already have individual contributions, recent changes, userboxes, and all the bots which count different statistics. And one can help in a subject area without being on a list, just by adding to the watch list the respective help/content page and being active there.

So I still believe they should be deprecated, I don't see any kind of usefulness. Nevertheless, hank you for your perspective. I guess people like lists and badges a lot, I am just against any kind of unnecessary bureaucracy. Hathor1719 (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. If news delivery can be achieved independently... how? Since the WikiProject already has a list of people, just go off that. No need to reinvent the wheel. Also, membership in a WikiProject is not suggested as the only way to participate - it's just one way. Wikipedians are free to participate in any way that comports with the policies and guidelines of the site. If you are against "unnecessary bureaucracy", nobody is making you get involved in any of that. But for people who enjoy the kind of involvement WikiProjects provide for, we have their needs covered too. Participate the way you want to. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 06:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)