Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Who's who


 * 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 keep. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's who
Unhelpful; suggests that some users are more important than others (for mostly arbitrary and meaningless reasons). We are a community, not a peerage. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No user is more important than one another. WikiFanatic 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fairly premature MFD this. I was looking for comments for over a week, and now someone immediately puts this up on MFD for discussion? That's nice. Dan, in fact you are sitting right next to me in an irc channel right now. As are you Wikifanatic! So... um, discuss? Kim Bruning 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And Weak Keep, by the way. I put this up because I got utterly frustrated having to explain WHY I asked people to talk with particular people. "Why should I go talk with this mysterious person called JamesF?" Kim Bruning 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. This could potentially be useful - In the Wikipedia community, there are certain people who have achieved things, and it's nice to record them. However, even without being able to add yourself, there's already two people on there without achieving much. It's probably going to become a whoring contest, but I think we should wait and see. I do like the idea of giving all Wikipedians more sense of value, though, because you can sometimes feel like your work goes unnoticed. Hedley 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And 3 people have just been removed by Radiant (who was doing a cleanup and fact check), including the two you mentioned :-) Kim Bruning 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Without doing much? *snort* WikiFanatic 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can truthfully say I've never had less of an opinion about whether a page stays or goes. I should say, however, that I don't think the thrust of it is that some users are more important than others, but that it's a way for newbies to get to know people they may hear from or about in important contexts. Demi T/C 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here I am replying to myself. Is that "pulling a Demi?" Never mind. This could also be a list of pointers to places that describe various important (vs. trivial) affiliations: as to User:Jimbo Wales, Arbitration Committee, the list of developers on meta or wherever that is, etc. Demi T/C 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for a while and see how it develops. I'm torn, this may give a n00b the impression of a elitist and cliquish community - and it is very self-referential. It might read like a cabal membership list. However, debates are often peppered with references to prominent wikipedians (sometimes ones now rarely encountered) - that isn't going to change, and so this might serve as an orientation course. However, who is included might be rather subjective.--Doc ask?  22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Who is who. Does that answer your question? Seriously though, this is probably useful but it was POV and partially unsourced so I did some snipping in it. It shouldn't list all old users (because we have plenty of those) or people with weird signatures (because it's too easy to weirdify your sig).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Too right. Yours is a bit long, Radiant. Mind shortening it so I don't have to sift through a few lines of markup? Ta. Rob Church (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's new and I rather like it, and I've seen several longer ones around. Ta.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, could be useful for new users but I question how they would find it in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Egalitarianism is all very well, but the fact is a guide to who's who on Wikipedia is useful especially for newbies.  Certain people DO have special positions (developers, board, stewards, etc etc) and others are notable for certain achievements. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What about ones that have certain achievements that are removed? WikiFanatic 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fun way to recognize particularly notable contributors. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete bogdan 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the "fun" things about the community is learning Who's who at your pace, and in your own way. A list is potentially controversial and POV.  Lists of admins, b'crats, arbiters, and presiding heads of associations are kept at the pages of the groups in question anyway.  This hurts more than it helps. Xoloz 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Xoloz. There's no possible way for this page not to be POV by nature.--Urthogie 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If this was an article, you might have a point. But hmm, it's not an article, so I don't think NPOV is required. Kim Bruning 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here the discussion should be more about fairness than about NPOV. bogdan 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on that and explain what you mean? (Wikipedia is not paper. We have all the space we need here, so please take your time to expand! :-) Kim Bruning 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There'd always be some people that would disagree with the inclusion or non-inclusion of someone. It would just generate another dispute and we hardly need that. :-) bogdan 18:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, but that's the case with practically anything :-/ Kim Bruning 18:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be even worse, as people would want to be on that "hall of fame". :-) bogdan 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great idea! People might strive to be nicer and write more articles :-) Oh Oh right, sorry, yes, then some seem more different than others, terrible shame.:-( This is why I'm torn. Having a who's who has good sides and bad sides. and they need to be weighed off against each other somehow. Kim Bruning 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy to whoever will take it, otherwise delete. Jtkiefer T   20:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no objection to the founder, board, lead developers and arbitration committee being listed somewhere, as new users have a right to know who these people are. However, I'm less comfortable with the idea of this being extended to other wikipedians, because of the clique/cabal issue. Furthermore, I don't like the title which implies some sort of prestige. We should strive to be equal as far as possible. --kingboyk 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the problem there is that there's some tension with wikipedia guidelines and policies too. This seems like a fairly mild way to get old wikipedians and young wikipedians to find each other and cooperate. If we can't get them to cooperate, then at some point people, cabals and cliques would move to zap entire sections of project namespace, a la Ed Poor or Kelly Martin. (Not kidding, I've had serious discssions about this ^^;;) Kim Bruning 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A worthwhile project, though I'd suggest that by necessity it should be voluntary (if someone doesn't want their details known, then they can opt out). We all hope that Wikipedia will be a major web resource for a long time. If it succeeds in this aim, it will only be a matter of time before researchers into web history will want to know some details about those whose edits made it what it is. While it would be impossible to detail every single editor, a Who's Who of those who have contributed a large amount over a long period of time is a worthwhile thing to have. And no-one is better placed to write that information that we are. Grutness...wha?  22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a fairly new user and I've found the article quite interesting - allows quick access to well known contributors' user pages... Mikkerpikker ... 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to a subpage of WP:WPY, as they might be the ones who want this. By the way, if you don't add me, my "vote" switches over to delete. :P Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I can't believe an issue has been made of this harmless template. Everyone is significant in their own way, it doesn't mean any one is better than another because of it.  But to learn who is more skilled or experienced in various areas is highly useful, for then we know who to direct our relevant questions to.  The persons on the page meet the requirement of notability. So by policy they are valid subjects for contributors to write about.  Show some perspective.  --Go for it! 10:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. If it were renamed to something NPOV like Committee members and admins, I'd have no problem with it. But the phrase "Who's Who" has a very specific connotation in the Western World, and that connotation is, "Here is a list of people who are more important than you are." And that's an insult to every regular editor on Wikipedia. --Aaron 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, do you mean move to some other name? Kim Bruning 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought "move" implies a transfer to a different namespace. I don't have any problem with it being in WP:*, but a rename is a must, IMHO. --Aaron 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It could be helpful.Thescientist 17:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

discussion:

I'd rather have had that people came with suggestions how to solve my problem, than come up with a delete or a keep. (see above: "Why should I go talk with this mysterious person called JamesF?" <- how do I answer Frequently Asked Questions similar to this, short of typing lots of stuff over and over, or cut and paste? ).

I don't mind if we have an alternative system, hence the weak in my weak keep above.

If you want to comment (but wish to stick with deletion discussion on this page), please post on Wikipedia talk:Who's who. Kim Bruning 18:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Make a standard template which you can subst, saying something along the lines of "An archive of biographical information about substantial contributors to Wikipedia is being created, and all editors who have been here X time and made Y edits are being approached. You have now reached those thresholds, and as such, we are interested in writing a biographical article on you for the archive. You will not have to write the article yourself, but if you can provide some information for it, it would be appreciated. Understandably, this is totally voluntary on your part - we will not add an article on you if you do not wish one to be written. If you are willing to give permission for such an article, please add your user name to the list at Page X. ~ " Grutness...wha?  22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a... great ... really great idea. Kim Bruning 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice idea, but not in the main namespace of course! It could be in the wikipedia namespace, on meta, or in a new namespace such as people: --kingboyk 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And another shining victory for editcountitis and accountageitis.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. Oh, good point. Gosh yes... some different objective criterium might be handy. At least we should have a list of strange posts and who holds them... maybe the office of the lord high assigner of titles :-) Though a who's who may yet be handy. :-/ Kim Bruning 12:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I did say that was only a rough. There don't need to be exact criteria listed - after all, I don't think that Jimbo himself has made more than a few thousand edits to WP, yet he would certainly be at the top of the list to approach for an article. perhaps changing "substantial contributors" to "significant major contributors", ditching the second sentence and rewording the third would be better. I still think that a substable template is the way to go, though. I'd also turn the whole Who's Who idea into a wikiproject, since it would be good to have a few enthusiastic biography writers helping out, and it would give it a slightly more official feel. Grutness...wha?  23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * *nod* :-) Kim Bruning

If consensus to delete, please move to my userspace, I'll convert it to a wiki-addressbook for myself. :) Kim Bruning 16:39, 10 February 2006 (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.