Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Replace participant lists with "designated representatives"?

The main way I use participant lists (other than adding myself to them) is when I come across a topic area I'm unfamiliar with and am seeking someone knowledgeable about it to ping. However, the lists as they currently exist don't serve that function well—there are way too many names, many of whom are no longer active or were never that active in the first place. The list is also redundant to the category of project contributors, which creates excess work for editors who have to list themselves in two places. And it's worth emphasizing that Wikipedia places no intrinsic value on "badges" unless they do something to help build the encyclopedia.

Given all this, I think an overhaul of participant lists is in order. I propose that we replace participant lists at most WikiProjects (if some want to opt out, fine) with the following:

1. a template that automatically generates a list of the roughly 10 most active participants based on project talk page activity. I think I've seen this somewhere at some other Wikimedia project.
2. a template that links to or transcludes the participants category, so that those who really want to see everyone can do so.
3. a "designated representative" or two for the project. This will be an active editor in good standing who has been selected by the project to field questions about it or its topic area from outside editors. The role won't come with any explicit responsibilities other than being listed and thus likely being pinged more often, and (consistent with Wikipedia's de jure non-hierarchical culture) the designated representative de jure should not be afforded any additional weight in intra-project discussions just because of their role.

I think that this change would help a lot for less active WikiProjects, where the question for someone coming across them is mainly "who is still around who I can talk to"? Listing a single editor or two for the representative would be a lot easier to maintain than trying to keep a full participant list up to date, and the category list/most active list would be generally self-maintaining. What do you all think? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the proposal (though I do feel participants lists to be generally unhelpful), just wanted to point out that Reports bot used to maintain for each project a list of "active WikiProject editors" (2+ edits in the past 90 days to the project's project pages), as well as a separate list of "Active subject-area editors" (5+ edits in the past 30 days to the articles with the project's banner on their talk). Perhaps that's where you saw a list of active participants? For an example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject History. Reports bot seems to have stalled on that task again; I'm not sure why. Ajpolino (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Whats most important is the amount of watchers for a project...no point in posting if no one is watching Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers. As for the proposal...seems logical if someone wants to do the work..but the council (a project with no members list) has always advised that each project pic its own way of member tracking if its even wanted. Many dont formally join a list but are around because many believe that some projects are centered around cabals. --Moxy 🍁 23:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there some set of templates with a standard format for project pages for someone starting up a new WikiProject? If so, that might be the thing to update. (And if not, creating that is something the WikiProject Council ought to do, since having every WikiProject custom-designed is a waste of editor effort.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject.--Moxy 🍁 15:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino, should we make a request at WP:BOTREQ to get the bot reactivated? (As an aside, I've brought up before that it's definitely not good that we have so many bots that just stop functioning without notifying anyone. It resulted in the creation of User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, but that doesn't seem to be helping much here.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I left a note at the operator's talk page. If we don't hear from him, or he says he doesn't have time to maintain that task, I'm happy to post at BOTREQ. It does seem like bots tend to quietly retire around here... Ajpolino (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is generally a good idea, but I think it should be opt-in, not opt-out. I expect many WikiProjects will want to have their own mix between these three things and a standard participant list. PJvanMill)talk( 09:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(Harej's bot is working again.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Dissociation between Wikiprojects and portals

In last years there has been a Dissociation between Wikiprojects and portals. Many active Wikiprojects like Buddhism and Basketball no longer have a portal. Some portals are maintained by several Wikiprojects like Portal:Computer programming and Portal:Society, there are Wikiprojects that maintain several portals like WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Germany and portals without any associated Wikiprojects like Portal:Civilizations and Portal:Telephones. So I suggest removing the portal, portal2 and portal3 parameters from Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Directory/WikiProject.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Most WikiProjects seem inactive

At Template talk:AFC submission#Improving the odds of a speedy review, User:Headbomb told me "Active WikiProjects are a dime a dozen, and are far from the exception". This interests me, and I think it is better continued here.

It has been my "impression" for a long time that most WikiProjects are inactive. I have perused Category:WikiProjects by status from time to time, and I find that a survey of Category:Active WikiProjects main talk pages shows mostly negligible activity. Noting biases here, I am counting WikiProjects by title, not coverage; there may be activity not reflected on the main talk page; and my attention tends to be drawn to problem areas.

It is also my impression over many years that when Headbomb says something, he is right. I have two questions.

1. What is a good measure of WikiProject activity? Does it matter that "Category:WikiProjects by status" is laggy? Does any good come from pushing WikiProjects out of "Active" and into "Semi-active", or is that sort of thing discouraging to the few active members and a self-fulfilling prophesy?

2. Should care be take to not tag new articles with WikiProject tags from inactive WikiProjects? I think yes, because to tag a new page with an inactive WikiProject is to mis-indicate to the author that other editors have already taken an interest in the new article. I think it better to advise the author of the new page to look into relevant WikiProject, and to tag it themself, thinking that this will have the benefit of encouraging new involvement in the WikiProject.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

One thought that's related to, but doesn't directly answer, your questions... Many of the not-actually-active projects in the "active" category are task forces of larger projects. E.g. Australian motorsports, which is just a part of WP Australia. If you look at the task force talk page, it's dead, but the broader WP Australia talk page is doing fine. A good number of task forces should probably be redirected, but they're not doing much harm just sitting there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Some amount of merging niche inactive projects would definitely help. I think we also need better ways to measure which projects are actually active or inactive (this will help inform our merging or signalling, plus enable data collection). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Most WikiProjects seem inactive I'm going to put a big fat on this. Now, on the other issues

1. Very few things are a good measure of WikiProject activity on their own. Which project is 'active' and which is 'not active', or whatever, is a complex a nebulous function of

a) Article creation in the subject area

b) General editor activity in the subject area, from article expansions, to gnoming, to cleanup, to whatever

c) Editor activity on the associated WikiProject pages themselves

d) Editor activity using associated WikiProject pages which don't necessarily involve edits to said project page (e.g. several people might use Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts without getting involved anywhere else in the WikiProject Videogames subpages)

A project might be focused on content creation (e.g. a putative WikiProject Tulips, or maybe a specific taskforce) and get along just fine uncontroversially, without much activity in the deletion areas, or much discussion on the talk pages because most editors active in the area are used to the Wikipedian standards, and nothing particularly contentious is happening on those articles. Another might generate a lot of discussion about the minutiae of something, which affects 3 articles out of 5000.

2. Why does it even matters? WikiProjects are merged and revived all the time. WP:GLASS is pretty much dead currently. But if 3 months from now, a few people from the Glass Packaging Institute decide to get involved, they'll have the infrastructure already setup for them. Or maybe someone reads Talk:Glass and notices that WikiProject, and decides to gets involve with it. Sure they may be lonely, but they'll again have the infrastructure setup and can start watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass/Article alerts and get involved with those discussions. There might be a case to remove the banners of a handful of WikiProjects that are so tiny and hopelessly specialized (WikiProject Blue Flowers of North Ireland; WikiProject Short Stories of H.P. Lovecraft), but those have usually been merged into more useful projects and with their banners replaced and G6'd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I also don't see that this is an issue: it's just math resulting from any set having individual members with a finite lifespan, as any WikiProject does. It is also true that most Wikipedia editors are inactive. (and most humans who ever lived are dead) Many (most?) of the inactive or defunct WikiProjects are on topics that are so narrow as to never have been all that useful. I focus on the active WikiProjects; the population outside that group is not relevant in any way. And are there enough WikiProjects such that every one of the 6-million-plus articles can be in at least one active WikiProject? Of course the answer is yes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the most active editors on glass (Enamelled glass dyk last month) & I had no idea WP:GLASS existed. What on earth is it doing hanging off the Physics Wikiproject?? Crazy. Now that I do know, what does that change? Talk page sections: 1 in 2020, 2 in 2019. In general, most projects are either dead or useless (mainly meaning that project talk entries don't get any useful response. There are far too many subprojects. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It started as an effort to cover the physics of glass mostly, and then enlarged to cover other things. It's fully independent of WP:PHYS for this reason (e.g. has its own {{WikiProject Glass}} banner), and could be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Glass without any issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, are there enough WikiProjects such that every one of the 6-million-plus articles can be in at least one active WikiProject? Of course the answer is yes. I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of extremely niche inactive WikiProjects, but there are also a bunch in important, high-level areas (often ones impacted by WP:Systemic bias) that are inactive. I recently wanted to bring up something relating to stove, and the only really relevant pages were WT:WikiProject Food and drink and WT:WikiProject Home Living. I posted at both of those, but it was only a month later when I found an excuse to mention the issue somewhere else (I think at one of the pumps, perhaps) that I finally got any reply. Take a look at those two pages — you'll see a decent number of posts (a disconcerting percentage of which are One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!), but what you won't see is any threading. What that means is that no one is watching those pages, and the only people going there are those who are throwing out questions into the void. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, sorry, I misunderstood your original point; this latest point has greater resonance with me, which I would state as "too many of the ~900 WikiProjects marked as active aren't really" and agree with 100%. I find that if a WikiProject talk page doesn't seen to have threading, I add to my post some pings of some of the folks who are listed as project participants and currently active. And of course you've come to the right place; the council welcomes your participation here in anything WikiProject-related, and hearing any ideas you have to improve the project space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your time and answers. Going back to Q2, Am I hearing correctly that most people don't think it does any harm to tag a new article with an inactive WikiProject's banner? NB. Don't worry about taskforces, just whole WikiProjects. I think there is something in the word "taskforce" that implies an objective that will be achieved, meaning eventual inactivity is a goal.

With regards to tagging talk pages with WikiProject banners, I have just gone through a couple dozen year old articles, and not found any inactive WikiProject banners. Maybe everything is OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, the only potential harm done by tagging a page with an inactive project is that it might encourage someone at the page to post at that project when they'd be better off posting at a more active one, or to assume that a page is being monitored when it is not. I'd make sure that every new talk page has at least one active project, and ideally one active project with a reasonably narrow scope (e.g. not just WikiProject United States), but that might not be possible for some pages depending on editing activity in that area. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that. Tagging for an inactive project is pointing people to a dead end. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. If the inactive project's banner template is coded correctly, the template will say "a project which is currently considered to inactive." (e.g.: {{WikiProject Event Venues}}) This text makes it unlikely people will be led astray (unless they want to reactivate the project: a good thing) and has the added benefit of obviating the need to retag/reassess every page if the project were ever reactivated. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this talk.....was on a zoom conference about this topic just a few weeks ago. In response to what most found valuable about so call dead projects I wrote about at Wikipedia:WikiProject#Inactive projects.--Moxy 🍁 02:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. A WikiProject may look inactive because it has achieved its objective. I had come here assuming "never active" WikiProjects, or "bad idea" WikiProjects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I can think of very few subject-area WikiProjects that could be justified in saying that they've completed their objective. To do that, they'd have to bring every significant page in their domain to "complete" status, which is technically how FA is defined, but even if we give a more realistic bar of B-class, I don't think there are really topics outside of coinage or hurricanes where that's even in sight. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Point being missed here...project is always a work in progress...but what can be done is the organizational aspect of how the project and its pages should be structured. Comes a point in many projects that content is the only thing to deal with because the project has all its protocols in place and talks take place at individual articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers is a good example.... they all know each other well and go to each-other directly to talk about things.--Moxy 🍁 15:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Square Enix with some 450 articles is closing in. --Izno (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Until, of course, new games come out, alongside new designers, CEOs, ... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also disagree. The only reason an active subject-area project has become inactive, at least so far, is that the interested editors have moved on to other things (here or elsewhere). And that's ok. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Automated wikiproject directory working again

Reports bot is now updating the automated wikiproject directory again, including the "active wikiproject editors" pages. Presumably Harej found and fixed the issue, so thanks Harej! PJvanMill)talk( 13:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful great news.--Moxy 🍁 14:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Council/Guide is not a guideline

Hello. I am removing the "guideline" tag from the WikiProject guide. The promotion to guideline seems to have gone entirely without discussion, and it has consistently been changed and rewritten with little to no discussion. As such, it is completely inappropriate that it is tagged as a guideline; per WP:policies and guidelines, a guideline must be supported by consensus. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree it shouldn’t be a guideline (maybe for other reasons than you provided) but I think it’s more of an information page than an essay. -- Calidum 19:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

As Calidum pointed out, it's informational. @PJvanMill: would you consider switching the template from "essay" to "information page"? Various templates used on this page will need to be changed, as will the sentence that has "guidelines" in it near the beginning. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Struck, replaced with recommendation to change back to guideline AND discuss possible demotion to "information page" - see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum @davidwr I have no objection to changing the template to {{information page}}, I agree "essay" is not quite the right word. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)  Done 19:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Things were a lot looser in 2006. The apparent absence of "push-back" suggest at least assent if not outright consent. Unless there was a move to revert it since that was "squashed" without sufficient discussion, I recommend changing it back to "Guideline" then holding a "re-affirmation" RFC if you think one is needed. Your point about this changing over time without enough discussion is a good one, which is why I'm suggesting a "re-affirm status as Guideline or demote to information page" with "no consensus" being "no consensus to demote." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@davidwr I would say an outcome of "no consensus" should be interpreted as "no consensus that this should be a guideline / no consensus to uphold guideline status". I think this should not be marked as guideline before a strong consensus FOR it is demonstrated. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@PJvanMill: Hmm. I went back and read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 1#Tag for guide pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 2#Guide header wording and it looks like you are right, there was actually a discussion that resulted in it NOT being called a guideline. On the other hand, within months of those 2006 discussions, someone boldly changed it to a guideline. Unless I missed something, it went over 13 years without being reverted or objected to, which strongly suggests "silent assent." In any case, it's obvious it's time for some kind of formal discussion. Unfortunately, it looks like Radiant! who made the late-2006 change has retired, or at least he's no longer editing under that name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@davidwr Not that Radiant! would probably remember an action taken in 2006... :) I think the right place to start that discussion would be here, with a mention at WP:VPPRO, correct? Despite the fact that this has undeniably been the status quo for a very long time, I still believe that it should not be returned to guideline status unless/until that discussion results in "Support". In today's Wikipedia, we should use today's WP:PG policy and not just take remnants from the 2006 wild west for granted. And yes, there has been a long time of silence, but I would suggest it was a silence of indifference (wikiprojects aren't that big a deal, after all) and not of approval. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the council page. We have a process in place if there is a problem and people feel it's not classed right.-WP:HISTORICAL. Last thing we want is editors changing things without going through the whole process to get all associated pages up to date. Side note would be OK with it tagged as an info page. But best get input for the community and council members first.-Moxy 🍁 21:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Moxy, I see you just undid my change. In your edit summary, you indicate that you are reverting solely because my edit was out of process. Now, sure, whether a page is tagged as guideline is important business. My point is, though, that tagging this as guideline was done completely out of process as well. I think that given the WP:PG policy, we should default to not tagging something as a guideline unless there is clear consensus for it. I won't edit war, but please consider my position. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:HISTORICAL says An accepted policy or guideline... (emphasis mine). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Was no process in place when this was originally promoted. So yes a talk would be needed as the page has influence countless conversation and has been stable without a problem in its status for over a decade. That said even if promoted out of process....we have a process for that now.....but that would not hold up to scrutiny because of the length of time that has passed....again at WP:HISTORICAL. Can I ask what the problem is here that it needs demotion? We have many guidelines that are in this format....as in information rather then rules...this is a mix of both.--Moxy 🍁 21:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy My main issue is that marking it as a guideline suggests all advice in it is mandatory. The page currently suggest that it is a rule that before creating a project, it must first be proposed at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals and may only be created when there are six supporters. In reality, that is not treated as a rule but simply as advice - see for example here. That, in particular, I do not think should be a rule, which is the main reason I would vote-non-vote "Oppose" on an RfC asking whether this should be a guideline.

That said, the content in the "General principles" section seems to describe accepted norms that are actually being followed - something one would expect from a guideline. So it feels like part of this should be a guideline, but part should be marked as "just advice". Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A guideline = " generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If you believe a project will be viable with just a few people I would suggest go a head. --Moxy 🍁 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy Of course, but I have a problem with calling it a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow when in reality it's just advice, and I am also concerned with the fact that any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus seems to be consistently ignored. Both of those indicate to me that at least this part should not be marked as "guideline". I do not feel like the page is really preventing me from doing anything, it's just that the label feels inaccurate. It is not treated like a guideline, so why does it say "guideline"? I admit that this isn't really a big deal, but it feels like whether a page is marked as guideline or not should be a big deal. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Its a highly active page with countless discussions over its content and refenced thousands of times in talk that link here. Out of all the guidelines out there I would have to say this one is watched over by many. --Moxy 🍁 19:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy It was my impression that it has often been changed quite a lot with little discussion, but I might not have looked well enough. The more important point, though, is that the part of the guideline about creating a new wikiproject is regarded as optional advice and not really as a guideline. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, it's not every day we consider reverting an edit from 14 years ago; nice find, PJvanMill! I have to agree, though, that whatever problems there may have been with the promotion in 2006, the fact that the guideline designation has stuck around for this long gives it status quo status, and an affirmative consensus will have to be formed to remove the designation. But that's alright, since as Moxy pointed out, we have a process for that, and I'd encourage it to be started, since I think a removal is a plausible outcome to expect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, just to make sure: the right process for this is a request for comment on this talk page, advertised at WP:VPPRO? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

PJvanMill, it's presumably whatever WP:HISTORICAL says. I'm not familiar with the process, so I'll defer to others for clarification. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Start an WP:RFC on this page...see Example RfC here....that is short and non-opinionated...could have a section for rationale for change, survey and discussion sections.
2. Add {{Under discussion}} to the top of the guide with a link to the RfC just made.
3. Post a very short notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) again with a link to the RfC just made....notice could contain the RfC wording that again is short and to the point.
4. Sit back.....as the process may take over a month to conclude

--Moxy 🍁 03:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Moxy. PJvanMill)talk( 11:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

PJvanMill, it happens that I wrote most of the WP:PROPOSAL section that you are trying to impose on that page. This was many years after that page was declared to be a guideline, and well before you created your account last year, so of course I don't expect you to know anything about that. PROPOSAL is not intended to be applied retroactively. Instead, you should assume that any long-tagged page came by its tags in accordance with whatever the accepted process was at that time. As Sdkb notes, WP:HISTORICAL is the process for demoting pages that no longer need to hold their current status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I understand. After posting that last comment, though, I changed my mind about trying to deprecate the whole guideline, given that I really only have a problem with the wording of one phrase as added in 2019. So I think I should just propose a change to that one bit of wording instead of starting a deprecation RfC on the whole thing. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

PJvanMill, maybe you should just Wikipedia:Be bold and improve it.

To give you a quick background on the process of creating WikiProjects, I've been thinking (for years) about canning the whole process, and telling people that, seriously, they just shouldn't create any more, and if they absolutely think that they need yet another, then they need to get several of their best wiki-friends to come to this page and try to talk us into it. It would be more realistic. Build it and they will come is not how WikiProjects work.

I ran some numbers back about 10 years ago (that's the source of statements about having at least six active editors). Attempts to start a group reliably fail unless there are multiple active editors involved in it. So if you want a chance at success, you need multiple editors who want to participate in the group (otherwise, you don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject at all), those editors need to have made hundreds or thousands of edits, and you can't be new (because most new editors stop editing after a few months). If your group doesn't meet all of those criteria, you're just wasting your time setting up pages. Six active would-be participants is good. A dozen is safer. Three isn't enough.

What I'd like people to understand is that the proposal process does not recruit editors. Either you find them and bring them to the proposal, or nobody will show up. I'd also like them to understand that the advice about getting together a group is not an arbitrary rule. It's not even "a rule"; technically, the whole proposal process is optional. It's just a statement of the facts: to have a chance at your proposed WikiProject still having anyone around this time next year, you need to start with at least six editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

All so true. I'd like to see a wider approval process, say an Rfc, before any new project is allowed. Even the biggest struggle to stay active these days. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:WP Rocketry

Resolved

 – WP:MULTI fork of Template talk:WikiProject Rocketry#Edit protected. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone revert the image used on {{WikiProject Rocketry}} to the old one? The new one barely has any rocket, and is mostly a U.S. flag instead. Since the WikiProject isn't a U.S. WikiProject, this is a bad choice. -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments subpages

I had a headache figuring out why all the WikiProject pages mention the Comments subpages. I eventually found WP:DCS and then MSGJ mentioning them here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 22#Comments subpages. Now that the headache is gone I am just annoyed by all those mentionings. Will they go away? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mysteriumen, where are they being mentioned? For example, on talk pages, in search results, in guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I kept finding the /Comments mentioned, I think it was on talk pages as well, but here is one example Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Assessment#Assessment instructionsMysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)