Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Systematically merging WikiProjects
Picking up on something from the discussion above, I get the sense that most of us who think that WikiProjects are a good but underused model would like to see them quite aggressively merged into broader topics – based on the observation that big groups like WP:MILHIST or WP:WOMRED seem to be the most effective. (I get that those who don't think they're a good idea, or that they have run their course, don't see the point of this, but we don't lose anything by trying.)

There is a process for merging inactive WikiProjects but it is cumbersome and therefore underused:


 * 1) It assumes that inactive projects should become task forces of the merge target, which greatly increases the technical complexity of the merge – but why would we want an inactive project to become an inactive task force?
 * 2) It only really works for fully-inactive projects, but merging ten inactive projects is likely to just result in one inactive project. Ideally we want to be merging one or two active projects with a larger number of semi- or inactive projects.
 * 3) It has to be done case by case with individual discussions, making it very easy for a small number of objections ("We're very happy here in WikiProject Colourless Green Ideas, thank you very much") to wreck the whole process.

I think to have a chance of reviving the WikiProject model on a larger scale we need to be more aggressive. What I envisage is getting broad, community-level consensus that we should aim to have projects at a certain level of agglomeration – I'd suggest aligning it with the ORES topic taxonomy, which is derived from the WikiProject Council's directory and now used across a wide spectrum of tools and processes, but a potential RfC could present several options. Of course, if there are genuinely active projects under that level that don't want to be merged, then they could remain. But with the rest (the vast majority) we could proceed with merging on a WP:BRD basis, and without creating task forces. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

section break 1

 * Some good ideas, and definitely worth discussing more broadly with the community. WikiProjects are currently under utilised, and any ideas for revival should be actively explored &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think that trying to pull the history-related projects together is a good first step.
 * Joe, I think that technical complexity, especially wrt the banner templates, is a problem we need to solve. We don't want to end up with duplicate banners, and there's an advantage to keeping old pages visible (e.g., if they contain lists of editors or ideas), but the goal of merging groups of people is to end up with one group of people.  Consequently, I think archiving old talk pages and redirecting them to the main talk page should be encouraged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that and merging the banner templates/categories is the main benefit of merging, as opposed to just marking the inactive ones as inactive. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a few reasons taskforces are useful, off the top of my head they can be separately noted on templates and maintain their own lists of articles. These can be useful tools for tracking, especially if the parent Wikiproject is huge. (Presumably task forces are also easier to re-convert into Wikiprojects if needed, although I'm unsure if this has ever happened.) For example, WikiProject Brunei is totally dead, but it would feel suboptimal if a merging into the ORES/Articletopic WikiProject Southeast Asia (Also dead but putting that aside for now) led to the loss of its tracking categories. CMD (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that task forces are useful, but if a topic has proved not to have enough interest behind it to sustain a WikiProject, why would we assume it can sustain a task force? I think it's better (and easier!) to do a clean merge, then let the merged WikiProject decide which, if any, topics it wants to spin out again as task forces. It could also be done on a case-by-case basis so, yes, when merging countries it probably makes sense to retain a task force as that's a natural subdivision. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not assume an inactive Wikiproject can sustain a task force, my point is that the technical tools developed as part of Wikiprojects are helpful even without an active editorbase. For example, I do not think there is enough interest to sustain WikiProject Brunei, but there is a practical use to being able to follow WikiProject Brunei/Article alerts. It is at least a fun curiosity to be able to see WikiProject Brunei/Recognized content/Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Brunei articles by quality statistics, and the sum of having these for each country provides some rough pointers to think about systematic bias. To my understanding, these tools are linked to the existence of task forces, due to how the bots work. Some projects might not have useful tools of course, my mind went to inactive country projects as I've long wondered if/how they could be merged. CMD (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but if there is not an active editor base tagging articles as within the scope of the WikiProject, then these bot-generated reports will also become less and less useful over time. There's a balance to be found but in general I agree with WAID above: WikiProjects are first and foremost a group of people. Their categorisation and quality assessment functions are secondary to that, and can be continued in other ways if the need for the WikiProject (the people) is no longer there. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the tools can be continued in other ways, that would make everything much simpler. At the very least, I use WikiProject Brunei/Article alerts and would be sad to see it gone. CMD (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would welcome any task forces under the umbrella for WikiProject History, just as one possible option, if that is useful to others here. Sm8900 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chipmunkdavis, I'm pretty sure that your purpose could be met with a PetScan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * PetScan will show me when articles are nominated for various community processes on my watchlist? CMD (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't appear on your watchlist. But you should be able to construct a query that asks, e.g., for a list of articles in Category:Articles for deletion and Category:Brunei.  Compare Article Alerts against this PetScan result, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Useful then, but not the same purpose. CMD (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

section break 2

 * I mean, I suppose it won't do any harm here, but I think this is basically a rearranging of the deck chairs. There are plenty of WikiProjects with a broad scope comparable to MILHIST or WOMRED that are functionally defunct; I think the long-term success of those two is at least in part stochastic, and I would not expect "aggressive merging" to form a comparably successful project. Over a decade ago, a user attempted a major upmerge of individual US state projects to WikiProject United States, coupled with a fairly aggressive tagging campaign. I didn't notice at the time any particularly sustained upswing in project activity, and the pushback from the state projects that were active enough not to want to be subsumed started that user's spiral towards long-term abuse.
 * I think it is worth asking why WikiProjects were so active and useful in the early days of en.wikipedia and have undergone such a profound decline. I agree with the above comments about people being first and foremost. *Why*, on an internet full of knowledgeable people, are we unable to attract enough editors to keep these groups staffed and active. I certainly have some ideas, but I'd be curious to know what others think. Choess (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * States were maybe not the best test case since, with enwiki's massive American editor base, they tend to be more active than a country of comparable size elsewhere. I don't know why WikiProjects have foundered – I think the fact that we have salami-sliced topics until they can no longer sustain a working group is one plausible explanation, and hence that merging is worth a try. I'd also be interested to hear other ideas and I do really think they're worth saving. My sense is that new editors that might have gotten involved in a WikiProject if they joined when we did are now more likely to end up invested in a 'patrol', because these still have an active community around them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that some of the problem is focusing on "topics" when a WikiProject is a "group of people".
 * IMO people who want to work together will find a way to do that. However, I think three changes have hurt WikiProjects:
 * lots of salami-sliced topics make it harder to find the other people,
 * the existence of passable pages for most popular subjects reduces the demand for creating content, and
 * the way people want to do that, in the present decade, is off wiki.
 * Merging up people-less pages increases the odds that someone looking for a group will find someone to work with.
 * When I was a new editor, I saw a link to WikiProject Medicine on an article talk page. When I looked around, I saw requests for help with evidence that those requests were resulting in help.  I also saw someone was asking for help on a large but simple task.  I thought I could do that, and maybe that would free up other, more experienced editors to do more important things, like creating articles.  Some 115K edits later, here I am.  I don't think the same thing happens now.  You find the pages, but there's nothing going on.  If there is anything other than automated announcements, it's some kind of complaint or dispute.  It gives you a different view of the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We merged a ton of TV related dead projects into WikiProject Television and converted them into task forces a few years ago. They are still dead but at least the tags take less place on talk pages. My thoughts on this are that we shouldn't support for all eternity dead projects or task forces. If no one finds them useful (and by useful, actively engaging with the project or task force; not by looking at the statistics), then support for them should stop - delete banner or task force entry in banner, delete article categories and leave only the main project page and talk pages as an archive. Some editors don't understand that even inactive pages require sometimes quite a lot of maintenance work. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * tagging @Joe Roe, the originator of this topic, in case they might wish to comment on any topics here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

section break 3

 * Some of this seems like it could be subject to empirical examination: if we look back at the earliest WikiProject archives, are the articles and topics discussed more general or "popular" than at present? Are there a significant number of projects that were once active and have since become quiescent?
 * I think WikiProject Banksia might be an interesting study. Founded 2006, a rather niche topic, but consistently produced Featured Articles through 2018 and got about 10% of its articles above "Start"-class, which I think is pretty successful. Maybe I'm just grasping a different part of the elephant, but this is how I think of our content as developing: one or a few very energetic people doing most of the work, probably on a power law distribution, which stimulates less active users to align with that task (say, doing some reference formatting to help a *Banksia* article towards FA, or contributing a few sentences summarizing a relevant paper).
 * WikiProjects are a group of people sharing a thematic interest . I think the crux of the problem is that we've become increasingly adamantine about refusing to acknowledge that some editors have more knowledge about subject matter than others; the only form of expertise we recognize is "expertise" about our internal rules. Energetically (mis)interpreting policy gives you moderator power over the work of others; energetically interpreting subject matter gets you moderated. Forming a project just creates a bigger target area for people to zoom in and declare that your work is OR, non-notable, fanboyism, etc. Of course our social energy has been diverted to criticism, not creation; that's what we reward. (Happy to take this elsewhere to avoid derailing Joe's concrete proposal—what's our replacement for User talk:Iridescent?) Choess (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Choess, I don't think there's a replacement for Iri's page, but I'm willing to volunteer his page for this conversation. Alternative, you can have it here (maybe in a new section, and feel free to ping interesting/interested editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Shared experiences help bond groups together, establishing a feeling of common purpose. While there is a good reason for Wikipedia not to be a host for general discussion, it means those shared experiences have to come through article editing and related discussion. This was easier to come by when Wikipedia was in a land rush phase, with many eager editors and a need to establish common agreements on article writing conventions, categories, suitable sources, standards for having an article, and so forth. Now that a lot of this has been set up, there is less need for daily discussions on operations. There is still higher level discussions to be had, such as reconciling different standards that were set up by different groups, but typically more abstract discussions garner less interest. Combined with the decrease in long-term editors due to the natural turnover of editors from earlier cohorts and the greater choices of pastimes now available online, more of the current generation of editors never experienced the busy times for their WikiProjects of interest. For new editors today, trying to connect with a group of Wikipedia editors who are mostly heads-down and working steadily away on mundane tasks isn't easy.
 * One thing I think might help (without opening up WikiProjects to more general forum-like discussion) is to build lists of desired articles or tasks to complete, make them very visible, and get people to check off items as they are done. There's still lots of writing to be done, and having a visible tracking board would generate a bit of that common purpose feel again. For this idea to work, though, it needs some volunteers to help keep the status board current, perhaps generating stats at various checkpoints, and to reach out to editors who seem like good candidates based on their contribution history. Ideally this outreach would be assisted by the new editor mentors. I don't know how much interest there is, but the good news is that it is an initiative that can be managed by a fairly small number of people for any one given topic area. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ can do automated leaderboards for certain purposes (e.g., most refs added, most images uploaded to Commons, most words added to an article). That might appeal to some groups.  You'd still have to have someone bringing the off-wiki information back to the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a manual checking off of items would more readily create a shared experience feeling. Automated leaderboards by themselves are just counts. Maybe if they were used to award silly barnstars, it would be appealing to some users and thus foster a bit of esprit de corps. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Small, achievable tasks are good, especially if everyone can see that multiple editors are involved. WikiProject Disambiguation sometimes brings lists of dab-needing articles to WPMED, and we usually get a few editors working on them.  The Pareto principle applies, but the key point is that people need to feel like someone else needs to pitch in.  Having one person do the whole list doesn't make the group feel important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the idea: create a place where people can see the work being done by each person, to help establish common shared experiences. Additionally, help those who want a bit of direction to find tasks that need to be completed. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

New section for discussion, June 4 2024
I would like to suggest that we resume discussion of this topic, at least for a little while longer. I think that there are some interesting ideas here, perhaps we could discuss further, before this gets archived. I hope to add some comments myself a little later, but first I'd like to read this over, and give this a little thought. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There needs to be general broad fiction genre wikiprojects as targets for merging various small WPPs on individual fictional milieus into. We have WP:SciFi, Horror, Romance, Comedy; but there's no Fantasy/Myth-based/Legend-based, CrimeFic/LawFic/PoliceFic/Detective/Mystery, MilFic/Adventure/Western/Wuxia/Murim/Chanbara; and AltHist is inactive. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Novels would seem to cover this &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If they're not just books, that won't work -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a WikiProject Fictional characters but no WP:WikiProject Fiction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Musing here. If I felt I had figured out all the kinks around merging Wikiprojects (and I currently do not), I might be happy to propose merging some around topics I have edited where I have observed them being inactive for awhile. I would feel less comfortable jumping into say merging WikiProject Geography of Canada into WikiProject Canada. This seems twin hurdles others may likely face, potentially stepping on some toes, potentially proposing that someone else does a lot of cleanup. CMD (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have proposed in the past redirecting the talk pages of sub Canada projects like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Canada to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board to no avail. Moxy 🍁 19:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The core of my original idea is to making merging easier. There's a consensus to merge five history WikiProjects but I keep opening the merging instructions and then giving up. A lot of the complexity comes from converting the former WikiProjects into taskforces, but nobody in the linked discussion seems to care about that. Is there anyone who has done this before and is up for writing a shorter set of steps for just merging WikiProjects, without creating additional taskforces? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i think that merging old wikiprojeects is more trouble than simply marking them as inactive, and then starting a new task force from scratch, for each one. Sm8900 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe, I think I could do this for you. I've started WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects.  I still need to sort out the banners/template steps, but please take a look and let me know if this is what you're hoping for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks great, thanks. I'll try it with the history projects now. Though the templates are of course an important step. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I imagine the intent was to keep separate article alerts for a merged WikiProject. But if the merged WikiProject is inactive and no longer has any active participants, then it's probably better to also merge the article alerts into those for the parent project. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There also needs to be people actively tagging new articles or the article alerts will become progressively less useful over time. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject mergers and templates
Well, following 's kindly-provided instructions went well with the history projects until I tried to redirect the obsolete templates to the merged project (given that I'm not merging task forces, that's all the needs to happen), at which point two template editors popped up to object (courtesy ping ). Discussions are taking place at Template talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies and Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024 June 25 – additional input would be very appreciated as I don't actually understand what they're objecting to. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As I've clearly stated in both places. There is a difference between shutting done a project page and redirecting it, and merging a project page into another project. You've claimed you did a merge, when you seem to mean a redirect. In either case, both processes were left incomplete. How to complete them depends on what you actually want, but your last comment wasn't helpful. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They were "left incomplete" because while I was in the middle of doing them MSGJ reverted me and you started a pointless bloody TfD. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit to the template happened at 10:28, 25 June 2024. MSGJ's edit happened at 14:25, 25 June 2024. My edit happened at 18:03, 25 June 2024. If it takes you more than 4 hours to follow up on an edit to the banner template then you should let someone else do this part. Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gonnym, are you volunteering to be that "someone else"? We are in the process of writing step-by-step directions for merging templates.  Unfortunately, this does sometimes mean that we reach a certain step and need to stop and figure out what should happen next. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Either myself or someone else at TfD can do these things, which is why we have WP:TFD/H. Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Defunct
Read: Help desk told me to come here. 48JCL ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @48JCL, I suggest that you merge those projects. Based on your description, the process should look like:
 * Leave friendly notes at both talk pages, asking whether they'd like to merge. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Living People Patrol is an example of one such message.
 * Wait a month. You want to give people plenty of time to respond.
 * If nobody objects, then WP:MERGE or WP:MOVE pages together.
 * It's helpful if you can update WikiProject Council/Directory and other pages. I suggest checking Special:WhatLinksHere to find any places that should link to the new page.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

New process
Hi. I was just wondering when the new proposals process will be ready, because after looking at the archived discussion, I found no specific time mentioned. Thanks.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * CanonNi, thanks for your note, and for searching the archives. I don't think we have a timeline.
 * We haven't fully figured out what the new process should be. I think the main goal is to discourage creations that are likely to end up defunct within a year.  That probably means that the group needs to have half a dozen experienced editors (you would count as experienced).   It probably also means discouraging people from creating new WikiProjects.
 * I wonder what sort of rules be most useful to you. Would it be more helpful to have a rule that says "Do not create a WikiProject about a single person, business, sports team, or similar organization"?  Or one that is more generic and says something like "The scope of a WikiProject should be more than 1,000 articles." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sharing some of my recent WikiProject skunkworks results
Using the Database report tool and my growing understanding of the database, I've been able to create useful pages/tools for use in a WikiProject:
 * 1) Tracking old issues in articles (over 10 years old) - this is a good supplement to what the CleanupWorklistBot produces
 * 2) Knowing which articles are possibly undercategorized
 * 3) Viewing articles edited the most over the past 30 days
 * 4) Project-wide and focused change patrol

I've also used PetScan and Quarry to generate other useful lists to aid in project work. (Note: not everything in the table was created by me)

Any of the above can be copied over to almost any WikiProject with minor tweaks. Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 01:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Since this post, I added two more features based on the Database report template:
 * Viewing project-included articles newest to Wikipedia to see if they need cleanup, tagging or improved categorization
 * Viewing the most volatile articles, size-wise, over the past 30 days
 * Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 22:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Inactive national history projects
Since my first attempt to merge inactive projects in the history topic was well received, I'm now looking to the remaining inactive projects in WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society (i.e. almost all of them!) There is a subset that are about the history of modern nation states:


 * WikiProject Australian history
 * WikiProject History of Canada
 * WikiProject Indian history
 * WikiProject Chinese history
 * WikiProject Pakistani history
 * WikiProject Russian history
 * WikiProject United States History

Would it make more sense to propose merging these into Wikiproject History, or to the respective countries (e.g. Australian history into WikiProject Australia)?

Similarly, there's WikiProject Women's History, which I can see fitting into history, but also into WikiProject Women, which is more active and organised at the moment. Where's the best place to discuss these kind of issues? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Question 6 above in the header of this page. But there are probably a heap of caveats that as a long term talk page tagger would in turn ask of the proposer for merges etc.  A large amount.  As for sense in merging proposals, it would be very useful to look at the history of the processes of the council in the last 18 years or so, and where some over time merges/changes might be looked at for the efficacy of such moves. JarrahTree 02:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will of course propose the merge to the affected wikiprojects; as I did with the last batch. What I'm asking for here is input on which projects to propose it to. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I previously converted WikiProject Philippine History into Tambayan Philippines/Philippine history task force; as broad as country wikiprojects can be they're less broad than all of history. CMD (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge of business and companies WikiProjects
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to see any relevance to this talk page? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples
I was surprised that we have two separate projects: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Perhaps these would be better merged? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There's also WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia, and none of the three are particularly active. I'd suggest merging them all to WikiProject Indigenous peoples, if not an even broader project (WikiProject Ethnic groups? WikiProject Anthropology?) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe. Can you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America because that has generated some discussion? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Several recently-created WikiProjects nominated for deletion
Please see the discussions at:


 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject SZA (2nd nomination)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Jerusalem
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Major League Cricket
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Dardistan
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Wolf
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ledisi

–&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge of inactive education wikiprojects
I'm proposing to merge a number of inactive education-related wikiprojects to WikiProject Education. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge of inactive higher education wikiprojects
I'm proposing to merge a number of inactive higher education-related wikiprojects to WikiProject Higher education. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)