Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (4th nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 snowball keep Sceptre ^(talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to update this list on a regular basis. The number of edits one editor has can be mentioned through userboxes and categories can be created like Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 10,000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 15,000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 20,000 edits etc. But this list is not updated for a long time. This is a too long list which is not displayed in browsers properly, which is problematic to update and serves as a useless page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - the categories idea may be a good idea. This page was used as an example to close down more defined pages, so you may well run into problems there.Londo06 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I brought this up about a month ago, but I never look it to AfD. As the nominator said, it's impossible to update the list regularly, so the information is generally false. Overall, delete. King iMatthew 2008 12:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The information to update this page should be available soon. It is already at User:Betacommand/Edit count, but bot accounts are numbered just as user accounts are. If someone knows how to remove the numbers from the bot account names, he or she can do so and this page can then be updated. Captain panda 12:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it upsets some people for no apparent gain to the encyclopedia. Hesperian 12:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedians should be proud of their valid contributions. And the opt-out option should be removed too. Your work belongs to WP, so therefore, so does your edit count. However, the list should be updated more frequently. The categories aren't a good idea. I believe we used to have them before (or variants of), which were all deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've been waiting for this. 'Tis about time for this list to get nominated for deletion again. I have said it before, and I'll say it again now, and, I'll continue to say it for future nominations: there are no policy-grounded reasons for deleting this list. It is an interesting piece of material that provides the option for people to ask not to be on it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Any idea how to update this page? I have more than 20,000 edits, but I did not added my name here. How is it possible to update this list on regular basis? And if this list is not updated regularly, it turns into misinformation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually yes. In theory, I know how it's done. So do a good two dozen others. It's just that it's a big job to do, and only a few people (User:Disavian is one, I think) are willing to do it regularly. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, interesting, useful, lack of insta-update not an issue for me. Deiz talk 12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please see WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING, sincerely. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AADD is designed for use in debates covering the deletion of articles, not miscellaneous pages. Indeed, if you look at the top of the page it doesn't even claim to have any relevance to MfD discussions. Hut 8.5 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep edit counting is meaningless, I still have spellinh errors even after using preview. Statistical information can be useful though and its mostly harmless. The deletion process isnt intended for cleanup, if there are concerns about a regular update maybe the WP:BAG could be a pproach to create a bot for the purpose. Gnangarra 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but on the precondition that's it updated regularly, otherwise it's utterly redundant. I have no other objections to its existence outside that. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inaccurate, misleading, and per WP:NOTACOMPETITION. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such page (probably why you haven't linked it). This isn't a competition, it's some data. Al Tally ^talk 15:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if this is a bluelink? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. I don't know what can be achieved by nominating this page, yet again, for deletion. Has anything changed since the previous three attempts? I have no strong feelings about this page either way, and am hoping my "Keep" here will help reach consensus sooner, or at least make it obvious sooner that no consensus can be reached, thereby minimizing the time wasted on this futile vote. Owen× ☎ 14:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List serves a purpose, as has been recognized in all previous attempts at deletion. Issues with page size and frequency of updating can all be readily addressed without deleting this page, making this yet another attempt at deleting what you don't like, rather than makeing a legitimate attempt to fix it. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't mind that it takes ages to update. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It doesn't mind that it's not updated up the same day or week, see WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Positions on the list don't change that often anyways. Also, editors that don't want to appear on the list have an opt-out method. Notice that having a public edit count on your own account is not the same as someone publishing a mechanically compiled list of edit counts. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful interesting data. It's trivial to get it updated. It's irrelevant if people get upset over it; they should get a thicker skin if such a page gets them so upset. Let's never nominate this useful page again. Thanks, Al Tally ^talk
• Keep it can easily be displayed in my browser, it is not too difficult to update (you just need a database dump, which gets done every month or so - there'll be a new one out in the next few weeks), and serves as a mildly interesting collection of statistics. The nominator hasn't found any policy or guideline it fails. --Hut 8.5 15:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very useful page, someone can make a bot to update it if needs be. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All the arguments offered are nonsense or simply untrue. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.