Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused

 __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:  keep. There seems to be a strong consensus that this should be kept; numerous editors indicate that they think it is useful, and I'm not seeing any agreement that it is in violation of any particular policy. Girth Summit  (blether) 15:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused

 * – (View MfD)

This page was tagged (and deleted) as WP:G6 - "uncontroversial deletion". Since the page was created in good faith, I think deleting is controversial (I'm also certain did not intend this to be an attack page - so I don't think G10 applies either), so I'm bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: Renamed Editors with confusingly similar names Editors you might confuse WP:Editors who may be confused .


 * Keep Really, seriously, this is meant to be a place where editors can make note of groups of colleagues with confusingly similar names, so you can figure out just who it is you're vaguely remembering. Am I thinking of Mandruss? Masem? Wait ... Mandarax! I've renamed it from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of editors with really, REALLY confusingly similar names (like Dr.K. and DrKay) to Editors with confusingly similar names WP:Editors who may be confused so no one feels singled out. EEng 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the page, but I'm a little confused—am I am supposed to add myself to the list? ;) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete If anyone believes that people are going to come to this page to discover who they "might be confusing another editor with", they are sorely mistaken. And highlighting individual Wikipedians,  in however much good faith, is never useful. If there's a consensus that it's harmless, then userfy it, but there's no reason at all for it to be in project space.I can't think of any argument in favor  of keeping it as is except the rather weak "I just like it".  ——  Serial # 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone believes that people are going to come to this page to discover who they "might be confusing another editor with", they are sorely mistaken – Why would they be mistaken?
 * highlighting individual Wikipedians, in however much good faith, is never useful – Well you better get busy with the deletion nominations then: Lists_of_Wikipedians, Category:Lists of Wikipedians.
 * EEng 16:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They are effectively maintenance category lists, as opposed to taking the piss.  ——  Serial # 17:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, can't you take it in the spirit in which it's offered? And why are you Brits so obsessed with urinary function? E<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here is a plausible use-case, at least for me: I come across an edit by SNUGGUMS, in the process of which I become confused about SNUGGUMS versus Snooganssnoogans; however, not being able to remember how to spell Snooganssnoogans, I am unable to search directly for them.  This page allows reverse look-up by the editor you're confused about.  Is this something that will happen to me frequently?  No.  But is it something that could occasionally be of use to me?  Yes. --JBL (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeesh, until now I never realized they're different!Great catch. Duly added. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn, I've been confusing them, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Of some use to the project, no obvious harm. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ILIKEIT may be a lazy argument to keep an article, but this isn't an article, it's a harmless project space page. If people say it's useful, it's useful. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Useful + harmless = keep. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not seeing any reason for deletion. Natureium (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It’s a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest retitling to WP:Editors with similar names. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or we could reticle it. (See edit summary at ). ;P         <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an iOS feature of an unflagged autocorrect (sic) of the active word when pressing enter. There seems to be no AI to it.  Not only am I sure that I have never typed reticle, but I didn’t know what it meant before looking it up.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we aiming for a world record for most page moves of a Wikipedia essay? P-K3 (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep EEng is a Really Useful Engine and this is a Really Useful Page. Seriously. I may actually bookmark this because of how helpful it'll be for identifying editors with similar names.--WaltCip (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My only chance at everlasting fame is if I am added to this list, and I can't be added to the list if it doesn't exist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Bloquehead? User:Sloqlaria?  Or maybe one of User:Flocking birds, User:Flockofbirds45, User:Flockofpidgeons, or User:Flockmeal? --JBL (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per NPOV, in that it's impossible to list all such Wikipedians (there are too many Tonys alone to count) and this might thus force an editor on it to make a judgment call. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is in fact possible to list all Wikipedia editors with confusible(?) names. I think the word you're looking for is "improbable".--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that would require making a judgment call of what is "confusible", which might run afoul of NPOV. This isn't a really strong opinion, though, and I've edited the page myself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that it would. We could ID the names with an algorithm or by consensus by explicitly asking editors to WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete because I'm listed on the page and I'm not confused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, Bradv. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. – bradv  🍁  23:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure why it’s not in user space really, but if others find it useful no harm in letting it stay where it is. It’s just a list of editors with no comment on the editors themselves or their editing, so it’s hard to see how it could cause offence. P-K3 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, since it's actually useful. I would rename it, though, as suggested by SmokeyJoe.  My first thought at seeing the title was that it was some kind of WP:POLEMIC about editors with apparent cognitive dissonance or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely you must know I would never write anything admitting some hidden alternative reading. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a member of the list. While I don't predict this page will be overly helpful to many people, if we start deleting harmless essays without solid policy-based reasons, pretty much no essay is safe. And I should note that I was notified when added to the list and have no reason to believe my name would not be removed upon request, or that someone would re-add it if I removed it myself. So I can't see any harm being done. And I did find out about my name twin ElSidCampeador.  ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  13:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just realized I'm on this list. Now I know I've made it.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or userfy. The list seems too indiscriminate - is anyone really getting confused between "Modernist" and "Mattisse" or "Hell in a Bucket" and "Leaky caldron"? I guess inclusion criteria don't apply to project space lists, but entries like those limit the usefulness of the page. Incidentally I thought of adding L235 and L293D, which really confused me for a while, but it feels vaguely uncomfortable to do... I guess I agree with Serial's argument above that drawing attention to specific users without their consent isn't a great idea. Because of that concern and the fact that the usefulness of many of the entries is questionable I think it should be deleted or at least userfied. Spicy (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I am on the list, and am always confused :P No, but in all seriousness, this page is harmless, and bit fun. Perhaps it should be tagged as humour? I found it quite funny tbh. I've long thought about how many similar names there are, and have often confused users on this list. I thought Guy (JzG) and Guy Macon were the same person for a while...that was very confusing. So perhaps this an WP:ILIKEIT argument. But I'm not seeing a valid deletion rationale beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Project space has a lower bar for inclusion anyway, I don't think we need to be deletionists in the backend. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you're an inclusionist in the backend? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As might put it : is that some kind of innuendo? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I only just became aware of the page when I was added. And it has already proved useful to me. And I really can't see what the damage is of having it. If it doesn't help you, fine, we are all different and that is one of Wikipedia's strengths. But don't assume that just because it doesn't help you, it won't help anybody. And even more, just because you like doing things in a way that this page doesn't help, please don't try to enforce those likes on the rest of us. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for three reasons:


 * First, I do get confused with "The other Guy". I often have to stop and think about whether a comment that starts with "Guy, " or talks about Guy is referring to me. Anything that reduces confusion even slightly is A Good Thing.


 * Second, it is a colossal W.O.M.B.A.T. to even talk about deleting essays that don't hurt anyone. What comes next, attempting to delete The Most Important Page [ Citation Needed ] On Wikipedia?


 * Third, it won't work. Delete this page and I will recreate it in my userspace -- unless EEng wants it in his userspace. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep it seems moderately useful and there's no policy-based reason to delete. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 14:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but humour tag per . I'm not sure it serves much of any purpose in particular, but the title paired with the list is mildly amusing, and it doesn't really do much harm to keep it - seeing as this is project space, not mainspace. Speaking as a confused editor Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 18:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.