Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NickBerlin87

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was:  delete.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User:NickBerlin87

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is a huge userpage whose essence is the continuation of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data, which since this edit by is done in a completely different way. It thus serves no purpose for the encyclopedia; it seems to me that the editor since this short conversation has given up on the project; they have made no mainspace or talk page edits since then, though they made a whopping 20,771 edits to their user page. ,, I hope this makes you see why I asked for speedy deletion per U5, though I understand why you pointed me this way: since October of last year, the editor is really just using their user page as a web page, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - this is blatantly not what user space (or Wikipedia for that matter) is for. It seems that what happened here is that a template that used to have to be updated by hand was automated and a bot took over updating the statistics. This user then spent 20,000 edits creating and maintaining an unused, useless duplicate of the old manually updated template on their user page. User space is not supposed to be used for hosting templates and is not supposed to be used to get around community discussions on how templates should work. If this were located in template space (where it actually belongs) it would have been deleted as an unused duplicate, and this "creating fork pages because you don't like changes" behaviour is disruptive. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to confirm that this happened after a previously manually-updated template (Template:COVID-19 pandemic data) was automated. The first sentence of Drmies's nomination statement is accurate. I would also agree that this is an unhelpful fork and should be deleted, but also note that I am involved in this area (as the person who created the automatic update system and implemented it for the template). Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 17:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I objected to the deletion over at Steward requests/Miscellaneous because it clearly doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion, but this is a useless template fork. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on this, but you said, "U5 doesn't apply since the user has too many edits to pages outside their own userspace"--that was true in October, but before that they really only edited the template, and after the change they didn't edit anything outside their user page at all. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading of the U5 criterion does not place any time restriction on the few or no edits outside of userspace part; the fact that all of the outside-userspace edits are not recent does not mean they don't exist. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like the user blanked the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As there's an MfD open and the blanking removes the content that the MfD was on, contradicting the MfD tag's instructions's to "please ... not blank" the page, I've reverted the blanking and notified the user that speedy deletion can be requested (user request). Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as G7 now. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If the user is happy with Special:Diff/1077872123 and others are happy with this stuff being blanked, then that's the happy medium that we should let stand, no need for outright deletion, unless there's something objectionable in the edit history; which I suspect there is not given that this is simply a continuation of a manual (or semi-automated) practice that was automated, by one of the persons who was doing it manually, not some sneaky subterfuge. I disagree with any connotation of bad faith that might be inferred from "web host". The automated replacement seems to have been working for 5 months, now, NickBerlin87.  I think that you can let go.  I understand that that might be hard. Thank you for volunteering your effort last year.  There's probably something else that you can do with all of those hours every day that you were spending on this.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that maybe it would be useful when we can get more Wikipedians around the world to update the COVID-19 case data. For now, keep for future reference or trans to v:? --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your comment or what you are suggesting. We already have a template that contains the same information, Template:COVID-19 data, which gets its figures from Template:COVID-19 data/data which is updated automatically by a bot. The whole point is that we don't need users to update this template by hand and haven't done for months, it's been automated; there's no need to get "more Wikipedians around the world" to spend hours each day copy pasting values from sources anymore. I also don't see why we would want to transwiki a duplicate of an outdated template to Wikiversity? It doesn't seem to be in scope of that project and if wikiversity does want this we have a much better template that does the same thing. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (Why isn't that stuff in Data namespace on Commons, btw? That is exactly where tabular data should go after all). --Base (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Base: I wasn't aware of tabular data on Commons when I created the automatic update system. I'll investigate whether moving it there would be feasible. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 16:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong; I love the idea of automated updates. It undoubtedly saves us much time and, at the same time, keeps the data updated(duh.) Also, I would like to convey my appreciation for Tol's work of programming and running the robot on several Wikipedias. But I just don't very much like the data Our World In Data provides us. For example, where are the recovered cases? Why is the European Union listed? Where are the 712 on Diamond Princess, 58 in Antarctica, 2 at Guantanamo Bay? Why are Taiwan and Northern Cyprus listed separately, but Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk, Somaliland, Transnistria, and others are not? Are the clinically diagnosed cases and deaths in Hubei counted? (Yeah I know the manual one doesn't tell me that, but still.) Is Crimea counted in Russia's total or Ukraine's? Yeah, you get the idea; the two templates are not exactly the same thing. As for Wikiversity, if the template is not in its scope, then forget about it. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @魔琴. OWID doesn't include recovered cases because they are often estimates, and local criteria for counting recoveries vary considerably. Their data source for cases and deaths, JHU CSSE, also removed data on recoveries because they were found to be unreliable. The EU is included because it provides consolidated data (from the ECDC); they've also had a rather unified response to the pandemic. I believe Diamond Princess passengers are listed under the US (repatriated US nationals) or Japan (most other passengers). The cases in Chilean nationals in Antarctica are counted under Chile. Reported data from the US military before they stopped reporting is included in the US data. JHU CSSE generally makes decisions on whether to include unrecognised states; you can contact them to inquire about this. I'm not sure about Hubei. Crimea is included in Ukraine's total. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2022 (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.