This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Missing Wikipedians page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
![]() | This page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
There may be Wikipedians who long ago used one name to make Wikipedia edits, but now use a new name owing to technological difficulties (N.B. this is not a use of sock puppetry). For example, I used to make edits under the name ACEOREVIVED, but owing to problems I was off-line and now that I am back online, I edit under the name Vorbee. Could this explain how some of these so-called missing Wikipedians could be revived? Vorbee ( talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
To editor Usernamekiran: Would you like to make a proposal, rather than make unilateral changes? Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
User:TheWWEThunderbolt wasn't on Wikipedia since June 26, 2019 Should I add him TheProWrestlingFanatic ( talk) 04:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
If a user that is on this list edits in the recent month, should that be mentioned or should the user be removed? IMiss2010 ( talk) 15:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it good to capitalize the beginning of a user description? IMiss2010 ( talk) 13:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Basic information for most users is missing: first edit date, last edit, number of edits, number of days active. This could be solved by converting to a table, thus encouraging blank cells to be filled in - a bot probably could. Plus a Notes column for any misc info. Then you can sort the columns. -- Green C 00:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
On users who have been marked as admins, should they be marked as formeradmin instead if they have been desyopped for inactivity or other reasons? IMiss2010 ( talk) 12:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
To editor IMiss2010: This is an alphabetical list. Edits of yours like this, this, this, this, and perhaps hundreds of others are not in alphabetical order and so have created errors to fix. Please correct what you misplaced. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes I only thought I would put new users on the bottom and on the list with the same first letter, I am sorry for the bad edits I will fix them soon IMiss2010 ( talk) 21:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
If a user who does not meet the required 1,000 edits has a not around template added on their talk page, should it be removed? IMiss2010 ( talk) 18:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
To editor Lima Bean Farmer: Hi. This page carries a theme and is written by volunteers. Please discuss. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"Japanese Wikipedian with 42,000 edits over 5 years. Last edit October 19, 2011. Requested for his user page to be deleted on the same day."which tells us something more than you recitation:
"Last edit was on October 19, 2011. Made a total of 41,870 edits.". Those are sentence fragments and useless. In another case I didn't revert you, but I don't think your complaint about text I wrote is reasonable. The theme here is who is quitting (what sort of editors) and why. Everyone else if fine with how this page has been historicaly written so you've made a Chesterton's fence error. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"The purpose of this list is to provide a reminder of those who have left and their reasons for doing so."What you're doing isn't that. If you want to list more editors, I won't argue over how you do that, as you point out many present entries are sparse. However, when you remove content others took the time to add I have to protest. Just in the past 500 edits (past year) a bunch of other editors have contributed as the history tab shows. Please also read WP:CONSENSUS. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
articlethat needs to be
encyclopedic, it's a relatively obscure ( less than 30 views on most normal days) project-space list, informally maintained by a small group of regulars and whoever else randomly comes by. You can argue that it technically really isn't of much use to anyone since it is neither comprehensive, cohesive, or (I have to assume, in many cases) up-to-date. But more important than any of these is the fact that on a very fundamental level, it is completely harmless. Let people have their little walled gardens, it's helping this place not totally fall apart. Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
As many users are getting added, the criteria should be increased, like minimum edits, featured articles, mainspace.
The list is written alphabetically.
So those who have name start with A will be most viewed.
I suggest instead of albhabets, use edit count or mainspace edits. 2402:3A80:1A4E:5F7:4869:E6AA:BBDF:47D5 ( talk) 10:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, hope someone add User:Jethro B who was a very active editor to the list. Because I'm not familiar with the process. His/her last edit is dated 10 June 2013. Thank you, Egeymi ( talk) 19:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Editing regularly for a long time then just vanishing without explanation has the unfortunate ring of death about it. Should Wikipedia have some responsibility to reach out to these people's families using details they may have provided, or through their ISP? It may not be possible to stop something bad from happening but the community could then at least properly honour them for their work over the years, rather than just dropping their usernames into this somewhat clinical list. Thanks. 2A00:23C8:512:4401:9994:9A79:84BE:2C51 ( talk) 23:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Missing Wikipedians should be listed based on non-automated edits or a list of FA GA, not alphabetically.
There should be a separate group for former missing administrators, check users, oversights, and Arb members.
If editors want to remember them remember them based on their contribution, not their username alphabetically. 2409:40E1:2:7FD8:89DA:ED00:9521:AD09 ( talk) 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
"...remember them based on their contribution, not their username alphabetically"and my point is that the username is not some happenstance attribute by which we sort. I can list a bunch of editors I've interacted with but except for Tony the Tiger, I couldn't tell you offhand if they did much regarding GAs, DYKs, and the like. It's also worth noting that DYK and Four Award have halls of fame while we have multiple ways to track edit count. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed an addition to this page, and I see there are mass additions being made by anon IPs starting with 2603:6081:7800.... I'm assuming that some of you who are watching this page will know if this is good, bad, or indifferent!
Thanks, BCorr| Брайен 02:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This page is currently hitting the
post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the W
section. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.)
Template:User2
. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be.
A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
(or another timeframe)to option 2 of the original post, as there have been responses in favour of a length of time different than a year. I've also left an invitation to this discussion at WP:VPR. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 11:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Rsection. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
provide a reminder of those who have left and their reasons for doing so.But most of the people on the list didn't even announce their reasons for leaving. This page is very... creepy. Some1 ( talk) 22:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Mop has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Icon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —
a smart kitten[
meow 22:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Beginning after the entry of RattBoy ( talk · contribs · count) in the list of WP:Missing Wikipedians, there appears to be a formatting error where subsequent entries show a "template" but no name of editors. I'm seeing this in both Chrome browser and Microsoft Edge browser. Could someone figure out what the problem is? Thanks. Woodlot ( talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this list is to provide a reminder of those who have left and their reasons for doing so.
Why? Bear with me here, but I really do struggle to see the actual point of this collation. It seems it can do little but annoy editors listed. Suffice it to say that
Leave a message on the person's talk page to let them know that you have added them to this list; they can remove themselves if they ever return. Retired Wikipedians who do not wish to be listed may also remove themselves.
reads as really smarmy and borderline unacceptable as a guideline. I shouldn't have to remove myself if someone added me to this list: if I don't want to be on Wikipedia anymore, no one should be increasing my footprint here for the thrill of having done so.
Let people leave in peace, I guess? It's simply none of my concern other than to respect their stated wishes rather than imposing my own, and the default response should not be to put them into a spreadsheet they then have to opt out of. It's just odd to treat reminiscence as data, and should probably not happen by default. Remsense 诉 12:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
To the extent that this list has any merit at all... and this is awkward because this involves work from the people who aren't very trusting that this list DOES have merit (maybe as a guess at "Deceased Wikipedians where their death is unknown"?)... I'd say strengthening the inclusion requirements might also help make this more about "key figures not around" rather than "creepy stalking":
Of course, we'd then need a volunteer to go through the list... maybe it'd help with the size concerns above some, at least. SnowFire ( talk) 19:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Missing Wikipedians page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
![]() | This page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
There may be Wikipedians who long ago used one name to make Wikipedia edits, but now use a new name owing to technological difficulties (N.B. this is not a use of sock puppetry). For example, I used to make edits under the name ACEOREVIVED, but owing to problems I was off-line and now that I am back online, I edit under the name Vorbee. Could this explain how some of these so-called missing Wikipedians could be revived? Vorbee ( talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
To editor Usernamekiran: Would you like to make a proposal, rather than make unilateral changes? Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
User:TheWWEThunderbolt wasn't on Wikipedia since June 26, 2019 Should I add him TheProWrestlingFanatic ( talk) 04:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
If a user that is on this list edits in the recent month, should that be mentioned or should the user be removed? IMiss2010 ( talk) 15:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it good to capitalize the beginning of a user description? IMiss2010 ( talk) 13:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Basic information for most users is missing: first edit date, last edit, number of edits, number of days active. This could be solved by converting to a table, thus encouraging blank cells to be filled in - a bot probably could. Plus a Notes column for any misc info. Then you can sort the columns. -- Green C 00:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
On users who have been marked as admins, should they be marked as formeradmin instead if they have been desyopped for inactivity or other reasons? IMiss2010 ( talk) 12:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
To editor IMiss2010: This is an alphabetical list. Edits of yours like this, this, this, this, and perhaps hundreds of others are not in alphabetical order and so have created errors to fix. Please correct what you misplaced. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes I only thought I would put new users on the bottom and on the list with the same first letter, I am sorry for the bad edits I will fix them soon IMiss2010 ( talk) 21:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
If a user who does not meet the required 1,000 edits has a not around template added on their talk page, should it be removed? IMiss2010 ( talk) 18:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
To editor Lima Bean Farmer: Hi. This page carries a theme and is written by volunteers. Please discuss. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"Japanese Wikipedian with 42,000 edits over 5 years. Last edit October 19, 2011. Requested for his user page to be deleted on the same day."which tells us something more than you recitation:
"Last edit was on October 19, 2011. Made a total of 41,870 edits.". Those are sentence fragments and useless. In another case I didn't revert you, but I don't think your complaint about text I wrote is reasonable. The theme here is who is quitting (what sort of editors) and why. Everyone else if fine with how this page has been historicaly written so you've made a Chesterton's fence error. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"The purpose of this list is to provide a reminder of those who have left and their reasons for doing so."What you're doing isn't that. If you want to list more editors, I won't argue over how you do that, as you point out many present entries are sparse. However, when you remove content others took the time to add I have to protest. Just in the past 500 edits (past year) a bunch of other editors have contributed as the history tab shows. Please also read WP:CONSENSUS. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
articlethat needs to be
encyclopedic, it's a relatively obscure ( less than 30 views on most normal days) project-space list, informally maintained by a small group of regulars and whoever else randomly comes by. You can argue that it technically really isn't of much use to anyone since it is neither comprehensive, cohesive, or (I have to assume, in many cases) up-to-date. But more important than any of these is the fact that on a very fundamental level, it is completely harmless. Let people have their little walled gardens, it's helping this place not totally fall apart. Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
As many users are getting added, the criteria should be increased, like minimum edits, featured articles, mainspace.
The list is written alphabetically.
So those who have name start with A will be most viewed.
I suggest instead of albhabets, use edit count or mainspace edits. 2402:3A80:1A4E:5F7:4869:E6AA:BBDF:47D5 ( talk) 10:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, hope someone add User:Jethro B who was a very active editor to the list. Because I'm not familiar with the process. His/her last edit is dated 10 June 2013. Thank you, Egeymi ( talk) 19:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Editing regularly for a long time then just vanishing without explanation has the unfortunate ring of death about it. Should Wikipedia have some responsibility to reach out to these people's families using details they may have provided, or through their ISP? It may not be possible to stop something bad from happening but the community could then at least properly honour them for their work over the years, rather than just dropping their usernames into this somewhat clinical list. Thanks. 2A00:23C8:512:4401:9994:9A79:84BE:2C51 ( talk) 23:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Missing Wikipedians should be listed based on non-automated edits or a list of FA GA, not alphabetically.
There should be a separate group for former missing administrators, check users, oversights, and Arb members.
If editors want to remember them remember them based on their contribution, not their username alphabetically. 2409:40E1:2:7FD8:89DA:ED00:9521:AD09 ( talk) 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
"...remember them based on their contribution, not their username alphabetically"and my point is that the username is not some happenstance attribute by which we sort. I can list a bunch of editors I've interacted with but except for Tony the Tiger, I couldn't tell you offhand if they did much regarding GAs, DYKs, and the like. It's also worth noting that DYK and Four Award have halls of fame while we have multiple ways to track edit count. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed an addition to this page, and I see there are mass additions being made by anon IPs starting with 2603:6081:7800.... I'm assuming that some of you who are watching this page will know if this is good, bad, or indifferent!
Thanks, BCorr| Брайен 02:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This page is currently hitting the
post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the W
section. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.)
Template:User2
. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be.
A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
(or another timeframe)to option 2 of the original post, as there have been responses in favour of a length of time different than a year. I've also left an invitation to this discussion at WP:VPR. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 11:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Rsection. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
provide a reminder of those who have left and their reasons for doing so.But most of the people on the list didn't even announce their reasons for leaving. This page is very... creepy. Some1 ( talk) 22:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Mop has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Icon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —
a smart kitten[
meow 22:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Beginning after the entry of RattBoy ( talk · contribs · count) in the list of WP:Missing Wikipedians, there appears to be a formatting error where subsequent entries show a "template" but no name of editors. I'm seeing this in both Chrome browser and Microsoft Edge browser. Could someone figure out what the problem is? Thanks. Woodlot ( talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this list is to provide a reminder of those who have left and their reasons for doing so.
Why? Bear with me here, but I really do struggle to see the actual point of this collation. It seems it can do little but annoy editors listed. Suffice it to say that
Leave a message on the person's talk page to let them know that you have added them to this list; they can remove themselves if they ever return. Retired Wikipedians who do not wish to be listed may also remove themselves.
reads as really smarmy and borderline unacceptable as a guideline. I shouldn't have to remove myself if someone added me to this list: if I don't want to be on Wikipedia anymore, no one should be increasing my footprint here for the thrill of having done so.
Let people leave in peace, I guess? It's simply none of my concern other than to respect their stated wishes rather than imposing my own, and the default response should not be to put them into a spreadsheet they then have to opt out of. It's just odd to treat reminiscence as data, and should probably not happen by default. Remsense 诉 12:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
To the extent that this list has any merit at all... and this is awkward because this involves work from the people who aren't very trusting that this list DOES have merit (maybe as a guess at "Deceased Wikipedians where their death is unknown"?)... I'd say strengthening the inclusion requirements might also help make this more about "key figures not around" rather than "creepy stalking":
Of course, we'd then need a volunteer to go through the list... maybe it'd help with the size concerns above some, at least. SnowFire ( talk) 19:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)