- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Walton One 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This hasn't been updated for a long time (nearly a year), and I don't really see a need for this list. We already have the general list of Wikipedians by number of edits, and while we have a list of non-admins with high edit counts, that page serves a purpose (listing experienced editors who haven't yet gotten the mop and may be considered for RFA). Why this page when we have the list of Wikipedians by number of edits? Most administrators are on that list anyway. Mel sa ran 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'd be willing to delete all lists of Wikipedians by edit count. Unless there's an automated method to update the edit counts without human intervention - and I don't think so - it's a waste of anyone's time to maintain these lists of Wikipedia trivia. Shalom Hello 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Such lists as this help foster the idea that edit counts matter, that with higher edit counts you are somehow more important to the project or have a higher status simply by virtue of higher edit counts. This is inherently anti-wiki. Even if this list was routinely updated, it would still be a highly negative presence on the project. All good faith editors, whether making their first edit or 100 thousandth edit, are equals. -- Durin 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Mark as historical. Created at a time when wikiholicism was more of an "in" concept, and people didn't take stupid things like edit count so damned seriously. Gracenotes T § 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete we already have Wikipedia: List of Wikipedians by number of edits, which is better. This page is way out of date, as a few of the users listed there are no longer administrators. Also, there are numerous new administrators who would be on there that aren't. Administrators really don't need their own edit list; stick to the main list please. Acalamari 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. Administratorship is no big deal. Durova Charge! 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical per Gracenotes. ~ Wikihermit 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as Historical There is no reason for deletion (in my opinion of course), but tag as historical because it might have intrest for people who like to read historical pages.-- Pre ston H 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical/inactive. I don't see any harm in keeping this page around, and there are people who are interested in these sorts of statistics. --- RockMFR 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Durin and Durova. ElinorD (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Kbdank71 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many Wikipedia statistics are kept in userspace these days (wouldn't be all that bad if all were). Therefore, userfy if anyone cares to update it (since it might be of statistical interest to some), otherwise delete. Миша 13 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete edit counting isn't great, but separating lists and having a special one for admins isn't right.
Majorly (
talk)
20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite get the "having a special one for admins isn't right" argument - it's just another statistic, derived from a
bigger sample and cut down to a
smaller population. Being a matematician I may be biased (as all I see are figures representing certain truths), but still, where's the logic that makes it "not right"?
Миша
13
21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think what Majorly is getting at is that pages like this make adminship seem more like a "rank" when it's not supposed to be, and shouldn't be treated as such. I may be wrong of course about Majorly's deletion reasoning. :)
Acalamari
22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Acalamari, that's what I meant. Apologies if I wasn't clear. Majorly ( talk) 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think what Majorly is getting at is that pages like this make adminship seem more like a "rank" when it's not supposed to be, and shouldn't be treated as such. I may be wrong of course about Majorly's deletion reasoning. :)
Acalamari
22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite get the "having a special one for admins isn't right" argument - it's just another statistic, derived from a
bigger sample and cut down to a
smaller population. Being a matematician I may be biased (as all I see are figures representing certain truths), but still, where's the logic that makes it "not right"?
Миша
13
21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical/inactive. Dfrg. msc 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, don't tag - Per what Majorly meant to say (see Acalamari's clarification) - we really don't need adminship to be treated like a "rank" - and this list does that. Giggy Talk 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical, not something that should be deleted. – sebi 02:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I voted delete to increase my edit count ~ Riana ⁂ 13:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and do not mark historical, not up to date and unlikely to be used given that we have Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Possibly redirect this there since admins are included on that list, although I don't see the need for it either (there are edit counters for this). -- Core desat 18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete straight up, and perhaps replace with a redirect to list of Wikipedians by number of edits. I don't see why an administrator's edit count matters any more than any other editor's. If it were a list of administrators by number of blocks/deletes/protections (which I think I've seen somewhere) then I could understand, but not edits. - Zeibura ( Talk) 18:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was about to MfD this myself. Delete, though i historical tag is acceptable. Wizardman 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedians by edits already has this, and so does ST47 (in a more detailed fashion). Miranda 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, do not tag as historical. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and a proliferation of "historical" pages carries no benefit. If this was a proposed policy or something of that nature, I'd agree. However, it's an outdated list of outdated statistics. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Tag as Historical – promotes editcountitis, plus, it's hardly even updated. —
«
ANIMUM
»
22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) - Tag as Historical/Inactive. Some users might find this information useful, albeit in a historical context. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Holy crap! I had over 64,000 edits last November? I haven't seen a count in so long, I had no idea I'd even passed 50k! Tag as Historical, might be useful to future Wikiologists. bd2412 T 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, anything that encourages editcountitis is a bad idea. >Radiant< 08:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- {{ historical}}-ize, maybe useful for some statistics, but no longer being maintained. — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, do not tag The idea of the page is so bad that it doesn't need to be archived; if some Wikipedian historian of future needs it, they can ask an admin then to userfy it. Xoloz 05:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical, as it will probably won't be updated, and some people may find this info useful.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)
06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Why would you want a separate list for administrators? Administrators are not supposed to be a separate "division" within Wikipedia. We do already have the
list of Wikipedians by number of edits. It's like creating a "list of male Wikipedians from Australia with brown hair by edit count".
Mel
sa
ran
15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the point of his comment, methinks. This page was once of interest, and it is no longer of interest to most people. Therefore, it should be tagged as historical. This is common procedure.
Gracenotes
T §
16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- But I cannot understand why it was once if interest. The page is inactive, yes, but I also think that it has to go because it is an unnecessary separate list for the editcounts administrators, implying that it is some special "division" within Wikipedia and encouraging editcountitis. Mel sa ran 17:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the point of his comment, methinks. This page was once of interest, and it is no longer of interest to most people. Therefore, it should be tagged as historical. This is common procedure.
Gracenotes
T §
16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Why would you want a separate list for administrators? Administrators are not supposed to be a separate "division" within Wikipedia. We do already have the
list of Wikipedians by number of edits. It's like creating a "list of male Wikipedians from Australia with brown hair by edit count".
Mel
sa
ran
15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete' (not tag as histotical). See no reason to keep this list. Garion96 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Walton One 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This hasn't been updated for a long time (nearly a year), and I don't really see a need for this list. We already have the general list of Wikipedians by number of edits, and while we have a list of non-admins with high edit counts, that page serves a purpose (listing experienced editors who haven't yet gotten the mop and may be considered for RFA). Why this page when we have the list of Wikipedians by number of edits? Most administrators are on that list anyway. Mel sa ran 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'd be willing to delete all lists of Wikipedians by edit count. Unless there's an automated method to update the edit counts without human intervention - and I don't think so - it's a waste of anyone's time to maintain these lists of Wikipedia trivia. Shalom Hello 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Such lists as this help foster the idea that edit counts matter, that with higher edit counts you are somehow more important to the project or have a higher status simply by virtue of higher edit counts. This is inherently anti-wiki. Even if this list was routinely updated, it would still be a highly negative presence on the project. All good faith editors, whether making their first edit or 100 thousandth edit, are equals. -- Durin 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Mark as historical. Created at a time when wikiholicism was more of an "in" concept, and people didn't take stupid things like edit count so damned seriously. Gracenotes T § 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete we already have Wikipedia: List of Wikipedians by number of edits, which is better. This page is way out of date, as a few of the users listed there are no longer administrators. Also, there are numerous new administrators who would be on there that aren't. Administrators really don't need their own edit list; stick to the main list please. Acalamari 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. Administratorship is no big deal. Durova Charge! 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical per Gracenotes. ~ Wikihermit 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as Historical There is no reason for deletion (in my opinion of course), but tag as historical because it might have intrest for people who like to read historical pages.-- Pre ston H 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical/inactive. I don't see any harm in keeping this page around, and there are people who are interested in these sorts of statistics. --- RockMFR 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Durin and Durova. ElinorD (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Kbdank71 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many Wikipedia statistics are kept in userspace these days (wouldn't be all that bad if all were). Therefore, userfy if anyone cares to update it (since it might be of statistical interest to some), otherwise delete. Миша 13 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete edit counting isn't great, but separating lists and having a special one for admins isn't right.
Majorly (
talk)
20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite get the "having a special one for admins isn't right" argument - it's just another statistic, derived from a
bigger sample and cut down to a
smaller population. Being a matematician I may be biased (as all I see are figures representing certain truths), but still, where's the logic that makes it "not right"?
Миша
13
21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think what Majorly is getting at is that pages like this make adminship seem more like a "rank" when it's not supposed to be, and shouldn't be treated as such. I may be wrong of course about Majorly's deletion reasoning. :)
Acalamari
22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Acalamari, that's what I meant. Apologies if I wasn't clear. Majorly ( talk) 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think what Majorly is getting at is that pages like this make adminship seem more like a "rank" when it's not supposed to be, and shouldn't be treated as such. I may be wrong of course about Majorly's deletion reasoning. :)
Acalamari
22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite get the "having a special one for admins isn't right" argument - it's just another statistic, derived from a
bigger sample and cut down to a
smaller population. Being a matematician I may be biased (as all I see are figures representing certain truths), but still, where's the logic that makes it "not right"?
Миша
13
21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical/inactive. Dfrg. msc 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, don't tag - Per what Majorly meant to say (see Acalamari's clarification) - we really don't need adminship to be treated like a "rank" - and this list does that. Giggy Talk 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical, not something that should be deleted. – sebi 02:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I voted delete to increase my edit count ~ Riana ⁂ 13:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and do not mark historical, not up to date and unlikely to be used given that we have Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Possibly redirect this there since admins are included on that list, although I don't see the need for it either (there are edit counters for this). -- Core desat 18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete straight up, and perhaps replace with a redirect to list of Wikipedians by number of edits. I don't see why an administrator's edit count matters any more than any other editor's. If it were a list of administrators by number of blocks/deletes/protections (which I think I've seen somewhere) then I could understand, but not edits. - Zeibura ( Talk) 18:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was about to MfD this myself. Delete, though i historical tag is acceptable. Wizardman 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedians by edits already has this, and so does ST47 (in a more detailed fashion). Miranda 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, do not tag as historical. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and a proliferation of "historical" pages carries no benefit. If this was a proposed policy or something of that nature, I'd agree. However, it's an outdated list of outdated statistics. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Tag as Historical – promotes editcountitis, plus, it's hardly even updated. —
«
ANIMUM
»
22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as Historical/Inactive. Some users might find this information useful, albeit in a historical context. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Holy crap! I had over 64,000 edits last November? I haven't seen a count in so long, I had no idea I'd even passed 50k! Tag as Historical, might be useful to future Wikiologists. bd2412 T 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, anything that encourages editcountitis is a bad idea. >Radiant< 08:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- {{ historical}}-ize, maybe useful for some statistics, but no longer being maintained. — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, do not tag The idea of the page is so bad that it doesn't need to be archived; if some Wikipedian historian of future needs it, they can ask an admin then to userfy it. Xoloz 05:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag as historical, as it will probably won't be updated, and some people may find this info useful.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)
06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Why would you want a separate list for administrators? Administrators are not supposed to be a separate "division" within Wikipedia. We do already have the
list of Wikipedians by number of edits. It's like creating a "list of male Wikipedians from Australia with brown hair by edit count".
Mel
sa
ran
15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the point of his comment, methinks. This page was once of interest, and it is no longer of interest to most people. Therefore, it should be tagged as historical. This is common procedure.
Gracenotes
T §
16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- But I cannot understand why it was once if interest. The page is inactive, yes, but I also think that it has to go because it is an unnecessary separate list for the editcounts administrators, implying that it is some special "division" within Wikipedia and encouraging editcountitis. Mel sa ran 17:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the point of his comment, methinks. This page was once of interest, and it is no longer of interest to most people. Therefore, it should be tagged as historical. This is common procedure.
Gracenotes
T §
16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Why would you want a separate list for administrators? Administrators are not supposed to be a separate "division" within Wikipedia. We do already have the
list of Wikipedians by number of edits. It's like creating a "list of male Wikipedians from Australia with brown hair by edit count".
Mel
sa
ran
15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete' (not tag as histotical). See no reason to keep this list. Garion96 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.