Wikipedia talk:Inactive WikiProjects

from User_talk:Kleinzach/Archive_31 11:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject historical clutter

Hi Kleinzach, Continuing from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles...

It was just an idea, not a committed position. I appreciate your interest in cleaning up the stuff beginning with "Wikipedia:WikiProject". Did you see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Activity_reports "The data is fascinating. It looks like ~10% of our WikiProjects received zero non-bot edits during the last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)". Agree there's room to do something about inactive clutter, just not sure we've explored all options, where deletion is the last resort. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate your interest in preserving the early history of WP. I just hope you can find a good place to put all this stuff. --Klein zach 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of unconcluded ideas about this, posted in various places. I'd like to summarise and propose a solution at Wikipedia:Inactive wikiProjects. Perhaps all inactive, defunct (were active but faulty) and stillborn (but maybe a fair idea) could be moved to subpages of that page. Inactive wikiProjects are already well categorised, but that is not obvious enough. Having "Inactive" in the Page Title and URL would make it hard to miss, in every incoming reference and edit recorded. You don't seem to object to redirects remaining at titles beginning "Wikipedia:WikiProject ..."? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and TPH have already said sensible things in the various places. I would like some indication from you as to whether you would think moving the clutter to subpages of "Wikipedia:Inactive wikiProjects" would be an improvement. It will still be clutter, but elsewhere, and not cluttering the active wikiProjects? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This idea has a lot of potential. I think I'd prefer to see an area outside the Wikipedia namespace being used, a kind of museum (archive) space or whatever. (In 20 years time the early history of Wikipedia may well be of interest to people and it would be good to have a place where it is properly accessible.) Anyway I will be interested to see what you propose. --Klein zach 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To describe WikiProject ideas that seemed good in theory but then lead to nothing, I'd like to use a term other than "stillborn". The metaphor is too unbalanced. Do you have any ideas? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Seemed good in theory [to somebody, for some reason, in some context] but then lead to nothing". 'Stillborn' is the norm, I guess. Otherwise 'abortive', 'croaked', 'born in exanimation'. One other phrase I like is 'asleep in Jesus'. We could describe this desultory conversation as 'asleep in Jesus'. Excuse me while I take a nap. . . . . --Klein zach 23:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we're thinking in concert. I'm thinking "stalled" (with no need to distinguish reasonable ideas that did nothing from those that did almost nothing).

I'm thinking of proposing two holding directories:

0 "active wikiprojects" left where they are.

1 "inactive wikiprojects" go to Wikipedia:Inactive WikiProjects/ if revivable or with a history, and including "stalled" if they remain a good idea in theory.

2 "closed wikiprojects" go to Wikipedia:Closed WikiProjects/ if they had a history, or are to be retained for some other reason, but are not welcome to be revived.

All others should be redirected or deleted.

I'm not keen on a "Museum" or other new namespace. It could too easily confuse. We overwhelmingly keep histories (eg old article versions) in the place where they were written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear the desk of inactive wikiproject scraps

Moved by request from my talk page. --Klein zach 04:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

To continue the analogies, I appreciate that it is sensible to move the inactive, currently-unproductive wikiProject scap paper records off the desk. I agree that a plethora of inactive WikiProjects may confuse and overwhelm newcomers browsing them.

I still think we should file most of them, not delete them.

As I described previously, we could wp:move inactive wikiprojects to a subpage of "Wikipedia:Inactive wikiProjects" or similar. However, I wouldn't support deletion of the redirects at the original title, because old authors might come back looking for them. And then, would this be really cleaning, by doubling the number of titles?

Another idea might be to significantly enlarge the {{inactive}} tag to push the content of the page below the fold. This larger template could be mcuh more informative about active and inactive wikiprojects, and how to navigate to tehm. This should prevent newcomers getting confused by old abandoned stuff. A stronger variation on this would be to replace the page entirely with the inactive template. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the last idea as I think it could offer us a new option. --Klein zach 04:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In replacing the wikiProject main page with a template? It should be a new template, one that says that the "There was a wikiProject here, but it is long inactive. If you wish, you may revert back. You should probably first ask for feedback at the wikiproject/proposals page". Or something like that?

If your keen on this, lets write it up as a guideline proposal at this project page, as see what happens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it worth writing some guideline on when a wikiProject should be simply redirected, and when it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK to both. Would you like to do a draft? I trust it will be moderate in tone (and comprehensive in scope) so it is likely to be accepted by most editors not just the Keepistas. Incidentally I think it would be logical to deal with 'historical' and 'defunct' tags before the 'inactive' one. --Klein zach 04:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

At MfD, we're seeing a lot of WikiProject being deleted with no, or minimal opposition. I think nominators are identifying lower-value relics than before, but it is clear that deletion is appropriate sometimes.

There is overlap here with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Dealing_with_inactive_WikiProjects aka WP:INACTIVEWP. That section is reasonable guidance. Guidance we write here might be merged, or should this be written more definitively?
The essay Wikipedia:Not everything needs a WikiProject aka WP:NENAW is quite reasonable, but it is a bit fluffy to call guidance.
I've added some definitions and a start to guidance on the project page. I've also added pictures to {{inactive}} and {{defunct}} to move the inactive/defunct material down the page. I don't know what people will think of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the opening premise, as SmokeyJoe will anticipate. The WikiProjects being deleted are being deleted by consensus. The intention is certainly to clean up the 'lowest-value relics' first. Unfortunately there is still some harassment of nominators (particularly JJ98) going on, and tactical voting, sometimes on some very obscure issues. (I note the !vote to keep the task force for the uninhabited Johnston Atoll here). --Klein zach 00:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What opening premise do you disagree with? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms applied to inactive WikiProjects

This is to explain that I am deleting the following:

"no editing or talk page discussions on the articles within the scope of the WikiProject (as declared by the WikiProject) by listed members of the WikiProject."

This is impractical. No-one is going to have time to check through all the articles within the scope of a project looking for collaborative editing. It would be hugely burdensome. In practice only single-article projects would ever be listed as 'inactive'. Collaboration has to be related to project talk page discussions. In any case, collaborations that are unknown to project members are not true project collaborations. --Klein zach 00:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made related changes, for the same basic reason, to other sections of the doc. --Klein zach 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On members editing articles in the scope, OK. I guess I was worrying about a band of editors doing project work, but having all the discussions on aricle talk pages. However, if they are following a wikiProject plan, they should at least record their progress, and that would count as edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On directing MfDs:

One purpose of guidelines to to guide !voters at XfD. In fact, what I am hoping for is some guidance for what should, and should not be deleted. "consensus" at individual MfD discussions is often quite dubious if the pnumber of participants is small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More guidance would indeed be a good thing. That's agreed. (It's very irritating to hear the 'We do this, We do that' rigamarole in lieu of real policy.) --Klein zach 03:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]