Council
This template relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil articles

Original discussion held at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

I would like to propose merging the different WikiProject Status templates into one template. Currently there are templates for Defunct, Inactive, Semi-active and Project header which would also determine active. This Suggestion would accomplish several things.

1. It would combine like usage templates into one easy to use template.
2. It would combine the documentation for these templates into one allowing a cleaner, centrally located document that can be understood without having to go several places to get all the context.
3. It would create a category for "Active projects" which is currently difficult to determine which are active without having to dig.
4. It will make it easier to update the status of a project. If the projects status changes, just change the status.
5. It would allow us to eliminate at some point these other templates for Semi-active, defunct, inactive, Project header and potentially a couple others as well.

I have already created the template for WikiProject Status for those that say its too hard its already basically done. Although it could probably use some more testing. I think I have designed it well enough to make it easy to determine coding problems and fix them pretty easily by separating each of the (fairly complicated) statuses into subpages. Just to be clear I didn't write all of it I just gathered the different bits and incorporated them into one template.

I am suggesting this here rather than the merge board because of the high usage of these templates to allow the maximum possibility of discussion. Additionally because it would create a new category and also the creation of a whole new template its a little beyond a simple merge.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about this idea. --Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill give it a few more days for the discussion but since knowone seems to care one way or the other I will go ahead and start transitioning the templates over into this new one once I wrap up some other tasks later in the week. --Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've done some work on the code. Few comments

1. Couldn't understand what the on parameter was for, because it seemed to call the same template again which would cause a template loop error.
2. Please move the existing templates to the subpages rather than copy-pasting them. This will preserve the history. For example, Template:Semi-active could be moved to Template:WikiProject Status/Semi-active. You will need some administrative help with this, as you have already created those subtemplates.
3. I would prefer Template:WikiProject status rather than Template:WikiProject Status. (Unnecessary capital.)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and good ideas. Not the greatest at coding so I'm glad you reviewed it. I hope you don't mind I changed the bullets to numbers. I agree on bullet three, On #2 I wasn't sure if I could move them but I can do that. On #1 I think that was from the original template. It may not have been needed in it either. It may not be needed if we are merging them into one. --Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been open for so long in this public place I am going to go on a limb and start implementing this. I am going to first fix the template title as suggested above and move the other templates to the subpages to retain the history. I will then also create a category for the Active projects. --Kumioko (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved {{inactive}} over. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with this template. I think we are pretty close to getting this done. A couple questions:

1. Could you also move Template:Project header to Template:WikiProject status/Active?

    Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I noticed you moved the documentation for the templates as well which is great but it seems that in the process the documentation whcih combines al the documents at Template:WikiProject status/doc got wiped out. I think it would be best if we included the instructions for these different templates into a central document since they are merged now which is what I had done before. What do you think? --Kumioko (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm, yes, not sure what happened there. I've split the history again and put back your version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't seem to be categorizing, for example, inactive WikiProjects into Category:Inactive WikiProjects anymore, as can be seen here and here. I can't figure out why this is happening. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also see this with the defunct WikiProjects - seen here and here. Can someone have a look at this please? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Sorry I think this may have been my error. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, that's fixed it! Thanks, Zangar (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a couple more coding problems. Many pages have links to Template:Project header which redirects to WikiProject status/Active which was merged with the other WikiProject status types into WikiProject status.

The subpage WikiProject status/Active has code that allows the projects to identify portal links, shortcut links and replace the image that displays on the message. Can we move or copy this to the main template? Currently when the template is replaced with WikiProject status|active it does not process these functions. I think this should be in the main template as well as or in lieu of being in this template. --Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the logic also isn't generating the defunct category correctly either. --Kumioko (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't able to help you earlier. Are you still experiencing problems? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some of the problems but not all. It seems like now the coding though is redundant between the Main Wikiproject status template and the subtemplates semi active, defunct, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that there are some missing parameters from Template:Project header that did not make it over in the transfer (merge) for Optional parameters for Active projects. Or I simply dont get the new parameters. Moxy (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i.e {{Project header|project-type=topic|image=[[File:WP Canada Logo-.svg|80px]]|margin=0px|topic=[[Canada]]|WP:CA|WP:CANADA|portal=Canada}}

{{WikiProject status|project-type=topic|image=[[File:WP Canada Logo-.svg|80px]]|margin=0px|topic=[[Canada]]|WP:CA|WP:CANADA|portal=Canada}}

Your right. Most of it works but I can't seems to figure out why the images won't show up for Projects. For the shortcuts just put sc1, sc2, up to sc5 in front of the shortcuts like this

{{WikiProject status|project-type=topic|image=[[File:WP Canada Logo-.svg|80px]]|margin=0px|topic=[[Canada]]|sc1=WP:CA|sc2=WP:CANADA|portal=Canada}}

Ok I think I fixed it now. --Kumioko (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While working on cleaning up the WikiProject status's I noticed there are a couple more related templates. Below are the ones I have found and what I recommend doing with them. Any suggestions or input would be greatly appreciated.

• {{closed down}} - Recommend we delete this one.
• {{mothballed}} - Recommend we delete this one
• {{failed}} - Recommend this one be deleted and we can just use defunct. Perhaps with some wording changes. If the project is defunct its failure is inferred.
• {{Historical}} - Recommend this one be merged with defunct. As with failed, if the project is defunct and its still around we can infer its historical.

--Kumioko (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The {{failed}} template relates to proposals that have failed, whether this be a policy, guideline or possibly project - as this is not solely about WikiProjects we should not delete it. But perhaps we may want to look at what uses the template and change any WikiProjects that use the status one.

The {{Historical}} one is used across many pages, again not just WikiProjects - so definitely do not merge this into defunct, as it would make no sense on non-WikiProject pages. And there was probably a reason for WikiProjects to be marked as historical, to ensure they are kept, but the defunct tag could always be used as well for WikiProjects.

Again, the {{closed down}} and {{mothballed}} templates are used on non-WikiProject pages. But I think that on WikiProject pages it would be better to replace them with "defunct" and "inactive" templates respectively. But basically all these templates have uses outside WikiProjects, so they do need to be kept as far as I can see. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Good to know. I agree on Historical and failed but on the other 2 they are only used on a couple pages each so I'm still not sure if we need to keep them. Certainly we don't need to combine them into WikiProject status though. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put {{WikiProject status|Inactive|taskforce=yes}} on Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/GOV task force yet it shows up as a WikiProject. Did I get the code incorrect, or is there a problem with the template. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the "taskforce" parameter only changes the wording for pages with an active status. Projects with any other status just use "WikiProject" as the descriptor despite taskforce being set to yes. --Scott Alter (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to create new "types" used to organize inactive WikiProjects? I'm not sure if I can create them or it requires editing a template. It would only be for sizable groups, not for one or two WikiProjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It requires editing the template. I replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Adding to WikiProject "types". --Scott Alter (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks, Scott Alter. I think I posted the question here first before discovering WikiProject Council talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that projects that have low numbers, say regularly zero, of unassessed articles never be tagged as inactive in any of the various forms. If people are assessing articles, the project is active. This would only require a change in the template documentation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. It could mean that nobody knows they exist, so nobody tags new articles for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but the assessment log would show no, or very low, activity. Or even better, to sort out your case, no new articles. No new articles could make your point. Of course we could have the case where most articles for a project have been written. But in the long run this should be a better metric then activity on the talk or project page since it looks at actual article work. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "processing" for defunct projects, listed at Usage: Defunct projects, seems pretty onerous. What is accomplished by looking for indeffed and inactive editors? It is the activity and usefulness of the Project which is important. I'd been moving a number of inactive projects into defunct status when I came across this template. My rationale in screening these projects? No activity on the project page and talk page for 1 year seemed pretty good to me (even if a bit arbitrary). But how long should an inactive project remain inactive? Is two years a better parameter? At present I'm going to watchlist the newly defuncted projects and see who objects or reverts. (Frankly, I think the reaction to the defuncting will be WP:SILENCE.) But I also think the "processing" into defunct status should be made as simple as possible. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is great way to make sure projects never get revived. This is one of the ways we are losing editors. Will never agree to outsiders killing a groups. The reason so many of them die off completely and dont get revived is because some non group members tagged them in-active to begin with. Project killers!!! Not about usefulness - its about letting editors having a space to consolidate topics and not telling them they are not doing enough with the project page. -- Moxy (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you are saying. But I think you mean that putting Projects into defunct status is causing a loss of editors. I have to disagree. The projects die because they were too obscure, specialized, un-interesting, etc. Putting them into defunct status is just driving the final nail into the coffin. (And at least it's better than MFD'ing the dead project.) And projects don't become inactive because they get tagged, they get tagged because they are inactive. Having a Project for every topic and subtopic dilutes the strength of larger and more active projects. (Perhaps the more obscure projects should be working groups. With working groups, the membership of the larger Projects can be expanded.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a couple of suggestions that I'm not good enough at coding to implement:

• It'd be useful to be able to adapt this template for inactive subpages of still active projects (|subpage=true or something)
• Currently, the defunct header only lets people know that the project is dead, but it could be more productive. It would be really great to have an optional redirect parameter to direct people to the most relevant alternative live page that may be of interest (e.g. |suggestion=WP:MCB)

Let me know what you think. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really like both suggestions and am also unfortunately incapable of making it happen. That said, I was thinking for the first we could utilise the task force parameter like so:

• If |taskforcestatus=semi-active:

'''This [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces|task force]] of [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject {{{project}}}|]] is believed to be semi-active.''' Activity is slower than it once was.<br /><small>Remove the {{para||Semi-active}} parameter from this template if activity resumes or if this tag was placed in error. If almost no activity occurs in this task force, consider setting this tag's {{para||Taskforcestatus}} parameter to <code>inactive</code>.

• If |taskforcestatus=draft:

'''This [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces|task force]] is believed to be in a draft, proposal, or under-construction state.''' Activity may not have progressed very far, or begun at all, yet. <br /><small>Feel free to remove the {{para||Taskforcestatus}} parameter from this template if activity starts up in earnest or if this tag was placed in error. If almost no activity occurs in this task force, or it remains incomplete for several months, consider setting this tag's {{para||Taskforcestatus}} parameter to <code>inactive</code> or nominating the project for deletion at [[WP:Miscellany for deletion]].

• If |taskforcestatus=inactive:

'''This [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces|task force]] is believed to be inactive.''' If you are not currently a member of this task force, please consider joining it {{#if:{{{project|}}}
   |or its parent project [[Wikipedia:WikiProject {{{project}}}|WikiProject {{{project}}}]] 
  }}to help. This tag may be removed if activity resumes, or if this tag has been placed in error.

• If |taskforcestatus=defunct:

'''This [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces|task force]] is defunct.'''<br /> {{#if:{{{taskforcemergedto|}}}
   |It has been merged into or replaced by [[Wikipedia:{{{taskforcemergedto}}}]].
  }} Consider joining {{#if:{{{taskforcemergedto|}}}
   | that or 
  }}other task forces of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject {{{project}}}|WikiProject {{{project}}}]] to help. If you feel this defunct task force may be worth reviving, please discuss at the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject {{{project}}}|talk page]] of WikiProject {{{project}}}. <br> <small>Feel free to remove this tag if it was placed in error.</small>

That would add parameters for task force status (in my example taskforcestatus), whatever the task force was merged into (taskforcemergedto) and the project the task force is under (project). Would that structure make sense? I also think that the template should allow for subpages that aren't task forces (eg in WikiProj Hong Kong there are "departments") but that's a whole other issue I think. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 07:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A characteristic of inactive wikiprojects according to the template usage is that "there has been no reduction in the number of unassessed articles in 6 months". How do I know the number of unassessed articles? Thinker78 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject begins with "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia."

The wording of this template suggests that a WikiProject is "an area for focused collaboration". I think we should change the wording on this template. Maybe something like:

This is a WikiProject, a group of editors who work together to improve Wikipedia. New participants are welcome; please feel free to join us!

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like this - it is much more clearer than the original wording. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{ {TPER}}

The "please" in please feel free to participate feels awkward and is redundant. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but maybe we should change all the wording at once (as suggested above)? I'll deactivate this request until you've had a chance to reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]