Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of administrators

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. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of administrators[edit]

redundant with the Category:Wikipedia_administrators and Special:Listusers/sysop, which are updated and more accurate. David Fuchs^(talk) 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very difficult-to-manage list. Much easier to use Special:Listusers. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Keep in some form. Outright deletion isn't the answer here -- if the page is unmanageable, redirect it softly to the category. One can do this editorially, without an MfD. Xoloz 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in some form, because it is incredibly helpful for editors to determine who the administrators all are. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We have Special:Listusers and that list is hard to maintain. Redirect to Category:Wikipedia administrators.--PrestonH 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Special:Listusers/sysop. This is a good, intuitive page title, but we shouldn't duplicate the better special page. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or soft redirect. It's easier to use then listusers imo, albeit slightly. Wizardman 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several differences between this page and the special: page.
1. This page allows admins to include other data with their entry (former nicks, alternate contact addresses, cheery messages, etc.)
2. This page separates admins by recent activity levels (active, semi-active, and inactive), and for inactive admins lists the date of their last edit (this aspect of the page is maintained by a tool I run but haven't run in a while, note that when I run this tool it adds any admin who hasn't been added yet).
Since this page includes more information, I'd suggest we keep it. The maintenance issues can be addressed by me running my update tool more often. I have been intending to make the update one of user:Rick Bot's daily tasks, but haven't gotten around to it yet. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten around to it now. The list will be update daily (not on a scheduled basis, but when I run my bot). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Amen'DGG (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rick Block. Maintain automatically. --Bduke 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was leaning toward soft redirection when I first read this, but Rick Block provides a compelling rationale for keeping this page outright, especially if a bot can take care of a lot of the grunt work. — TKD::Talk 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is more informative than the automatic list, and it provides a good top level page for the other similar pages linked from there. --- RockMFR 01:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Special:Listusers/sysop can not be edited to improve its usefulness, this list can, and obviously there are many people doing so. NoSeptember 09:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Last time I checked, I wasn't even on this list, and I have better things to do than add myself. Special:Listusers and the relevant category perform the same function, and don't need people to waste time updating them. Unless someone can write a bot to automatically update this list, it seems pointless. Walton^One 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just run my update tool (which like I say above, is not connected to a bot yet) - you're there now. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then, provided we go ahead with the update bot. Walton^One 11:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Special:Listusers/sysop cannot be edited, and this page should be updated more frequently, but is not. Rick block's suggestion is a good one: an automated update is useful for this sort of page. Also, the list of active/semi-active/inactive admins is a good thing too. Both this page and the special: page have their uses. --SunStar Net ^talk 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with what Rick Block said. Acalamari 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to Special:Listusers/sysop I'm afraid. The inactivity/semi activity stuff is nice, but I don't think it matters much whether the user is here or there. If a user needed an admin, they'd find one eventually (and not by this list). Majorly (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rick Block.--Sandahl 04:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty, redundant list, if you need to contact an admin, go to WP:AN, for proposal go to WP:VP ect. -Flubeca^Talk 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Rick Block. Also, the active/semi-active/inactive distinction is useful and should be maintained by humans, not by bots analyzing data; it gives people who need to contact admins a better chance of having their questions answered by the people they are contacting. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rick Block makes the case for keeping the list, speaking as a sysop who has undergone a name change. I just edited the list to reflect this, there is no way make such a note to the Special: page. Keegan^talk 05:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting because it isn't updated doesn't meet our criteria for deletion. Like every project, the only thing required to do would be tagging it as historical. It's not historical and is very helpful to find active/semi-active/etc. administrators, which the special page and the category doesn't do. — Moe ε 18:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff, as someone on this list, you know this is not a vote.--Chaser - T 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jeff made me think long and hard, but I'll have to say per Moe and Rick Block above. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some admins may not have an admin userbox, menaing they would not necessarily be added to the category. Better to have a list. The list should, however, be updated whenever an admin is desyooped or whenever a WP:RFA discussion is closed in the future.--Sefringle^Talk 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we don't have that many promotions. Secretlondon 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list contains information that could not easily be included in a category and is therefore not redundant. Hut 8.5 11:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we should keep this page. DS 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as {{historical}} – with a short explanation of how to use Special:Listusers to find individual user classes. –Animum 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as historical, ditto. –sebi 05:37, 21 August 2007 (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.