Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians

Wikipedians who now use a new name
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)

edit requirement before qualifying for this list
Would you like to make a proposal, rather than make unilateral changes? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I realised it, and I was about to revert myself before you did. I was wondering if we should stop adding people who have declared leaving wikipedia/retirement. Maybe a differenet section or a subpage for such users? — usernamekiran (talk)  20:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this page was meant to include those that left in frustration, not simply those that stopped editing. While I agree we shouldn't include the confirmed deceased or those blocked for cause, I'm not sure I would also remove the ragequits. Let's be honest: anyone that posts a retirement notice on their userpage isn't gone for long. I always find those notices to be childish tantrums. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

TheWWEThunderbolt
User:TheWWEThunderbolt wasn't on Wikipedia since June 26, 2019 Should I add him TheProWrestlingFanatic (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * TheProWrestlingFanatic, I know this was from a while ago, but this talk page has been neglected. For your information, the short answer is no. This user edited much less than the required 1,000 edits to be on this page. Hope this helps, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Question
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)
 * Remove as they've become active and are no longer missing. Acalamari 03:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Asking
Is it good to capitalize the beginning of a user description? IMiss2010 (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The beginning of sentences should be capitalized. If the entry isn't a sentence, perhaps capitalization isn't needed. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I just wanted to be sure, as I am becoming more active here and wanted to clean up. IMiss2010 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Table
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)
 * I would be opposed to this for a couple reasons: first, each editor has their own narrative about the facts of their disappearance; this isn't meant to be a quantitative analysis of days, edits, etc. That sounds like a separate effort you might want to create as a sub-page to this, although I doubt you'd ever find meaningful conclusions. Second, as the point of each bullet is a narrative of disillusionment, there is little point in stating methodically how long an editor was active until they weren't. Third, a chart that doesn't give us much in the way of understanding is also going to be more difficult for those of us adding new entries. While a bot could start a table how would the bot keep adding new entries? Some editors return so how would the bot not keep re-adding them? Some editors don't even want to be listed here. I think a chart, were it to exist, needs to be on a different page. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . I didn't realize that was the point of this page, to create mini narratives of disillusionment. In which case it doesn't do that very well. This page contains two things: quantitative and qualitative data. They are not exclusive of one another. By creating a table you can sort columns ie. show me users sorted by most edits, tells us who the biggest contributors are. Sort by first edit date, tells the oldest and newest. Sort by days active, tells us the longest and shortest lived users. From these things arise narrative (hey, the oldest user has the least number of edits look at that). Tables don't need to be complete, there can be empty cells waiting to be filled. Textual prose can be part of the table as one of the cells. One cell might be their parting message. Another cell might be other notes or info. Sortable tables are a powerful tool that create multi-facted views from which narrative arises. --  Green  C  22:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the creation of such a table, I'm just opposed to it replacing the present bullets. If you want to make a table in addition to the bullets, that's fine with me. As you know everything is social sciences is probabilistic: there are too many factors weighing on why someone stops editing to think we can deduce meaningful patterns from the data we can collect here. I think the data would end up being misleading. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about Admins
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)
 * admin provides a link to their RfA, whereas formeradmin does not. I don't think it matters, as anyone who quit editing will be desysopped for inactivity before long. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

FFS
This is an alphabetical list. Edits of yours like, , , , 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)
 * What do you mean? I placed the users with the same first letters on the same letter list. IMiss2010 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical order means, for example, that "Berkut" comes after "Berean Hunter" because while both start with the three letters ber, k (the fourth letter of Berkut's name) comes after e (the fourth letter of Berean's name). It follows that Bernstein2291 comes after Berkut because Bernstein2291's fourth letter is n, which comes after k. Alphabetical order means that all names are sorted in this way, like the words in a printed dictionary are. I am deeply sorry if this concept in the English-language is new to you. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand now, I will fix the problems and I will not edit here again to prevent making more problems I am sorry for my errors IMiss2010 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a huge deal, ; everyone makes mistakes. There are assumptions regarding competence. Please feel free to ask questions if you don't understand, as we would prefer to encourage your editing. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:43, 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)

Question
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)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. The current rule on this page is editors who have ~1000 edits. We shouldn't be adding anyone who doesn't meet that threshold; do we need to purge a bunch of entries? not around is an entirely separate thing. Any editor who stopped editing for a year or so ought to be labeled with it and it has nothing to do with this page. There's only a natural overlap in the Venn diagram of those populations who are not around who might also be listed here. That diagram isn't a circle. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering as a user who was removed from here due to not meeting that requirement still had the template. Apologies if I disturbed you. IMiss2010 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IMiss2010, sorry no one has gotten back to you for a while. Any editor is allowed to put that (or pretty much anything else) on their talk page. It should be left unless done by a known act of vandalism or other extreme circumstances. This page is for editors to report fellow editors who meet the criteria as missing. So to answer your question, it should not be removed as these are 2 entirely different things. Thank you for asking though, happy editing Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

standardized and accurate?
Hi. This page carries a theme and is written by volunteers. Please discuss. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * talk, all pages on Wikipedia are written by volunteers. Why did you revert my edits? The “theme” if you want to call it that, is to provide information on editors who are not active anymore. I provided more detailed information on how many edits they made and when their last edit was. I also got rid of some sentences about editors that appeared to be opinion-based or biased. Since the editors are no longer active to correct this, we want to stick with facts we know about them instead of reasons we may have thought they were leaving. The article is currently a jumbled list with a jumble of information. I am trying to standardize it. I don’t see why you have a problem with that. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no value in changing this into a dry list of names, numbers of edits, and last date edited; much of that is visible from nav popups. For example, this page had described as "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.  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)
 * Chris Troutman, Chesterton's fence is a philosophical theory, not a Wikipedia guideline. The page currently is mainly mismatched information. It is almost entirely sentence fragments as it is. Your assumption that “Everyone else if fine with how this page has been historicaly written” is simply speculation. It appears this is a page that is not often edited and that no one has previously put a lot of time/effort into making this page better. Again, you say that you want something to be said about each editor, yet a lot of edits are simply “last edited on (date)”. The amount of information we have about each editor leaving is arbitrary. We can always find out how many edits they made and when their last edit was. It seems like leaving it this way would be most useful for this article. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can always find out how many contributions made and when Wikipedians stopped. That's exactly the information we do not need, because it is ubiquitous. What we need are those arbitrary narratives around each editor's departure. It says at top "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)
 * Chris Troutman, I am not sure why you have any need to protest. I have not redone your revisions and am kindly discussing with you on the talk page. It seems unnecessary and in bad faith to make any sort of protest over these actions. I am very aware of what consensus is. I don’t see the need for information such as “Final edits were unhappy farewells” are needed on this page. While the information you discuss is ubiquitous, so is almost anything on Wikipedia. The idea is to put it in encyclopedic format. I am not sure why we need a page on arbitrary reasons users left based on how users who currently use Wikipedia determine they left. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have changed content I added, as I provided a diff above. You are an inexperienced editor coming off a series of blocks, so it would help if you would cease insisting on your way beyond reason. Claiming my discussion is bad faith sounds a lot like WP:ASPERSIONS to me. I have pointed to the purpose of the page. I have explained my editing. You seem to think you know better. You were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing. As you do not have consensus for your changes, the page remains status quo ante. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chris Troutman, first please consider pinging another editor when in a discussion so they can see you responded. This is the comment you made which I reverted: “A 2006 editor of no accomplishment, Goldom was elected admin in an era where almost anyone could and it didn't matter.” How is that helpful? It is simply a negative opinion of yourself on an editor who is no longer active to refute what you said. I have provided reason for everything I have said, I’m not sure what makes you think you’re more “experienced” than me or how that would help your argument. I do not know where you have consensus on reverting my edits either. You should really read that aspiration article. I made it very clear that the reason I accused you of bad faith was because you stated that “I have to protest”. This seems unnecessarily excessive when I’m having a good faith discussion with you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't been pinging you because you should have this talk page on your watchlist. You do not need to ping me. If someone removes content I've added then it is fair to protest that removal. Again, I did not revert you regarding Goldom. The rest of it (like ACSE) you haven't provided a rationale for. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chris Troutman, it is my choice what to have on my watch list. And yes, I have provided a rationale. I stated that the current list is just an arbitrary list of facts based on 1 user’s view of another user. It doesn’t make sense as this isn’t encyclopedic content. I recommend you start an rfc on this issue because you clearly don’t want to listen to me. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not starting an RfC because you don't know how to be a Wikipedian. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chris Troutman, I am not the one refusing to engage in debate over content. You refuse to even acknowledge my points, threaten a “protest” whatever that entails, and claim I’m inexperienced as the reason you are right. If you refuse to listen to my arguments, and refuse to start an rfc, then I will be reverting your reverts as you have not had a solid argument backing them up and what I am doing is making the article look more encyclopedic Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add information but you have not convinced me it makes sense to remove information. Pinging other contributors to the page for their opinions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chris Troutman, see now there is consensus supporting your point. I will leave it at that, it is clear that the current status of the article is the way the community wants it. However, I will point out that this is all you had to do from the beginning. I’m not sure why you decided first to attack me for my previous blocks, all of which are from over a year ago, and say I don’t know how to be a Wikipedian. This gives the impression that you somehow know better than me. This type of interaction in my mind is not in good faith. However, I’ll look past this and say you were probably just having a bad day. Hope your days in the future are better and that we can work together productively to improve Wikipedia. Best, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * LBF, from your comments here, you're clearly harboring some misapprehensions. This page is not an article that 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)
 * Dr. Duh, thank you for your opinion. See that’s a good reason to leave the article as it is. I very much agree with this. Let’s see where consensus takes us but I definitely see your point here. Thank you for your input! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this discussion between Lima Bean Farmer and Chris troutman got so contentious. But I agree with Chris troutman that more information about "missing editors" is better, compared to just basic information on their number of edits. Natg 19 (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Natg 19, I wish it didn’t get contentious. I tried to keep it friendly but I don’t appreciate when others say they will “protest” over my edits. Also don’t appreciate attacks on my experience/history when I am clearly trying to move forward and being productive editing to Wikipedia. But that’s beyond the point, I will have good faith that maybe Chris Troutman was just having a rough day. Thank you for your input, this seems like something I would agree on. However, do you think that the date of last edit and edit total should be added maybe in addition to the other information? Just curious, happy editing Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand this page to be the equivalent of Deceased Wikipedians for editors who are gone for different or unknown reasons. It is a memorial to those who built this encyclopedia, then suddenly vanished or slowly faded away. It exists so that individuals who would otherwise be forgotten are not, at least not entirely. Data like their total number of edits and the date they last edited are welcome, but they are not the soul of this page; its soul is the souls of the people memorialized within, and a person is distinguished foremost by his passions and character: the subjective stuff. Ideally, every entry would have a blurb discussing these things written by someone who knew them while they were active. I generally never knew the people I add, but I always scan their talk page and their contributions to ascertain what they did and why they left, trying to capture who they were and convey that with the blurbs I write. I would oppose any attempts to remove details unless they are included in bad taste, although I welcome efforts to nicen blurbs by refactoring or expanding them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Compassionate727, thank you for your input! Happy editing, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adding info, nor reordering the info for consistency. Some info could be removed without harm, e.g. "As of [date] still in the top XX00 editors" is merely a function of edit count; we could instead have a link to these current stats at the top of the page. Some have detailed notes about their edit rate spiralling down, which are more than required, e.g. User:( could be more concisely reported as making a few edits 2013–2016. Long compliments such as those for user:Anna Frodesiak could perhaps be attributed and collapsed if the list was tabulated, but otherwise I suggest that they be pruned e.g. to "prolific and popular editor". There's no point stating that an editor did not state a reason for leaving, but I oppose removal of a reason where this was stated before leaving or was otherwise apparent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

List increasing
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)
 * The current format appears to work just fine. It is easy to understand and look through, and presents information clearly in most cases. IMiss2010 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, do not alter this page. As a projectspace reference page for Wikipedian, WP:Article size does not apply.
 * However, it would be great if someone clever with automation tools could make a derivative page that presents as a sortable table, sortable by alphabet, first edit date, last edit date, number of edits. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Pppery, would this be reasonably feasible to automate, to put on a subpage?
 * scrape the page for named users;
 * Return: 1 User; 2 First edit date; 3 last edit date; 4 Editcount.
 * Put the above into a sortable table
 * Update monthly.
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Missing Wikipedians/Table * Pppery * it has begun... 02:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thank you Pppery. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Jethro B
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)

Regulars who suddenly vanished years ago, without explanation, are probably deceased?
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)
 * Absolutely not, on all accounts. First, many editors come to Wikipedia as students. Once they've graduated, gotten employment, started a family, etc. these life changes take them away from the occasions they used to have to edit. They're probably not dead. Second, even if they were dead it's none of our business. Not only does each editor deserve some privacy hiding behind a pseudonym, but they also might not choose to tell anyone surviving that they edited here. We have plenty of editors who choose to vanish and now you want an opposite process to keep tabs on them? Third, we already announce the deaths of editors when we have some evidence; this page is for those who stop editing. Finally, Wikipedia is just a website. People join, contribute, and leave. Their edits are part of the encyclopedia, logged in our history tabs. Wikipedia is not a shrine to former editors, many of whom would find your suggestions gauche. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Listing
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)
 * Certainly not. Alphabetical listing is straight-forward and normal. We're not choosing criteria to "rank" missing editors by their usefulness and attempting to do so would probably be difficult if not impossible. I would sooner just list missing people with no alphabetical order at all or maybe list editors by when they went missing than doing what you suggest. I'd also be opposed to a sortable table, although I know others in the past have asked for it. Finally, all these missing editors chose their respective usernames, signed comments with their usernames, and are recognized in history tabs by those usernames so I see no reason not to sort them by such here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally, all these missing editors chose their respective usernames, signed comments with their usernames, and are recognized in history tabs by those usernames Missing wikipedians do many other important things after creating usernames.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E1:2:7FD8:89DA:ED00:9521:AD09 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You said above "...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)

Many, many additions by unregistered users starting with 2603:6081:7800...?
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 &#124; Брайен 02:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was somewhat surprised by the number of edits as well. They seem constructive but could benefit from edit summaries. IMiss2010 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal
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.). 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:
 * 1) Should this page be split into subpages for the starting letter of editors' usernames? (To match the way the page is currently organised)
 * 2) Should the page be split into subpages for the year an editor's last edit was made (or another timeframe) ? (In a similar vein to Deceased Wikipedians)
 * 3) Should this page simply be split (e.g.) in half?

I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 1 or 3, leaning more towards 3. I feel that 2 (the last edit idea) could be problematic in practice, as missing Wikipedians could rejoin briefly and disappear again, forcing them to be moved to a different year. Of course these moves wouldn’t be impossible to perform, but if they could be avoided then I’d say they should be. Dantus21 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2 Please. Unless you're looking for a specific user (in which case you'll find them regardless), having people who made 3000 edits before vanishing in 2005 next to longtime admins who slowly reduced activity to final edit of 200,000 in 2023 doesn't make sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it be viable to substitude all uses of Template:User2 instead and possibly instruct all future additions to the list to also be substituded?It will generate a lot of extra wikitext, but we won't need to split the page by any means.See example at User:Moon_darker/Sandbox/Missing_Wikipedians Moon darker (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Moon darker: Personally, I don’t think I’d be in favour of this. It would make the wikitext more complicated, and would increase the byte size of the page (which can already take a little bit of time to load on my computer, and is another indicator to me that this page would benefit from being split). It would also mean that any changes/improvements to the user-links templates wouldn’t be synchronised with this page. In addition, I’d worry that it might just be a ‘stop-gap’ measure - as Wikipedia grows, and as more editors decide to leave, it seems probable that this page will continue to grow (and attempting to avert a split now in this way may just lead to the page continuing to grow, and needing to be split in the future).All the best :) &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 14:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair assessment. In this case I'll support Ritchie3332, and it's better to split it in big chunks, around 10 years per subpage to ease scrolling through the list - it would be unfair to atomize such a list into a by-year chunks, imo.Also, I think it might be worth it to ask whether this is RFC-worthy to collect more input :)Have a good one. --Moon darker (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If subst'ing isn't practical then I'd support the 2a from Moon darker splitting the page up by decades. It seems the earliest entries depart Wikipedia around 2003 and hitting a high point by 2008. Each subsequent decade should be no larger as decreased new users and no mass departures would keep page size by decade stable and what few missing editors come back for a handful of edits will rarely span across decades.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  19:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I support option 1 to avoid the need of future splits after this. While option 3 sounds good in theory, this could eventually get bloated enough to require additional splitting. On the other hand, option 2 is inherently flawed when editors can come back after lengthy periods of inactivity only to later leave again after who knows how long, and I agree with Dantus21 that it's easier to save ourselves the trouble of such moves to year subpages when possible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2a per Chris. I think organizing foremost by time period makes the most sense for a page like this, and a split by decades should avoid becoming overwhelmingly diffuse. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Per 's comment above, and based on feedback I received at WT:RFC, I've added an RfC tag to the top of this discussion in order to gather input from more editors. I've also added (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, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 11:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2 in order for a split that makes more sense. I would support a timeframe of around one subpage for every 5-10 years relative to one's last edit. That way, new subpages would be created every once in the chosen timeframe.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 2 is a more sensible split, per Ritchie333. FWIW the list runs out of transclusions for me near the top of the R section. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, the mop merge proposal below resulted in the code for that icon being a bit longer, so the transclusions add up faster. All the more reason to split the list. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 2 or 2a so that the list eventually doesn't fill up for each starting character, if that ever happens. Then the list stops being updated after a decade or year, rather than being the same page forever for all users, not split in half that would probably fill up again the quickest. Sebbog13 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 2 per Ritchie333. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Restructure The templates don't seem useful and so can be dispensed with.  The information would be better as a sortable table with columns such as:
 * Account name
 * Edit count
 * Date of last edit
 * Role (admin, bureaucrat, coordinator, etc)
 * Reason for retiring
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

PAGE]]) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC) PAGE]]) 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) PAGE</b>]]) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2a. Separate pages by decade, so 2000s / 2010s/ 2020s.  Within each page, doesn't really matter, I'd be fine either with alphabetical or alphabetical-by-year (but would not recommend pure chronological to the hour).  SnowFire (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2a; by decade, or at the absolute least, one page for 00-20 and one page for after that. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I've tweaked User2 and formeradmin to have smaller post-expand include sizes, so WP:Missing Wikipedians now displays correctly without error. However, even with these tweaks, the page is still using 1.94MB of the 2MB PEIS limit so splitting may still be warranted. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * I also created Missing_Wikipedians/data.json from a quick API call, in case proposal 2 wins. It could also help if we want to prune by edit count. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * More importantly....why do we even have this document? There was never a really good reason for it; it was kind of like a memorial to editors past, but over the last couple of years, people just keep adding just about everyone who doesn't edit for a while. It's not a useful list, it does nothing to improve the project or the community, and it seems to be a make-work project. Risker (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Apparently the purpose of this list is to 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)
 * @Risker, Some1 I somewhat agree, although I could see an argument for keeping it for "high-profile" editors (something like administrators and/or editors with enough edits to appear at WP:MOSTEDITS). Ever since this page was created, back in 2003, people have been complaining about its existence. It's been 12 years since the last deletion discussion -- maybe it's time for another (see also 's comments below). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Is it wrong, though, to have a "memorial to editors past", when they have clearly expended time and energy for the project? We can definitely talk about enforcing some criteria - such as only adding folks who have been gone for 2+ years, not listing users with < 10k edits, and so on, but IMO the page is of value, and many people feel that way considering that the page has been continuously expanded over the years. – SD0001  (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Mop
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. &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 22:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Error in formatting entries
Beginning after the entry of 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)


 * See . —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Puzzling endeavor
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

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)


 * , another editor mentioned in the above RfC that it has been 12 years since the last deletion discussion; do either of you want to start another one? Some1 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yet Another Proposal
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)
 * Change the minimum edit count to 5,000 edits, not 1,000 edits. (If we want to be fancy, can have a "1K-5K is okay if these were really exceptional 1-5K edits, like made 3 FAs level, but maybe not worth this kind of trouble for the maybe two cases this will apply to.)
 * Change the minimum amount of time passed from 3 months to 1 year. Editors take wikibreaks of 6 months to a year all the time and come back.  Or possibly change it to "3 months - 1 year is okay if they left an explicit farewell, 1 year+ for any Wikipedians who are merely assumed missing."