Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest

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 no consensus. One hopes that interested users will keep the valid concerns raised by objectors in mind, and the stream-line the "contest." A little fun does assist the project: an overly-bureaucratic "walled garden" does not. No editor should spend too much time involved in this fanciful distraction. This question may always be revisited, especially if the contest proves disruptive to encyclopedic work. Xoloz 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest

"In this contest you shall show off your userpage in a contest to determine whose is best". This page seems at odds with the purpose of the project. That people would spend time perfecting their userpages rather than doing something else more productive is not a good idea. This raised my eye, I wasn't that impressed with a system that seems as bureaucratic as that talk page most made it out to be. "Championships" and "judging". Thus, I propose the deletion of this page. --Deskana (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - encourages people to populate userspace with useless shinies. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I personally think that a comment on Jimbo's talk page was wholly inappropriate. (→O - RLY?) 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - This is without a doubt a subject of controversy, like WP:BJAODN. This also make life hectic for both particapants and judges. Marlith 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Shall this deletion nomination be speedy closed because the creator vowed it to be deleted? (→O - RLY?) 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No. It is not the sole author requesting deletion, nor is it a userpage with the user it is attributed it to requesting deletion. Sitting this out for a bit longer is a better and safer idea. --Deskana (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

*Keep, but no edition allowed. This page is a great example of a non-big deal as it begins to become a big deal. It's like the RfAs. I think that it should not be deleted, it should be kept for historical purposes. (and so should the RfAs) A.Z. 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC) No, I changed my mind. It isn't hurting anyone, unlike the RfA's. I dislike it, though. A.Z. 19:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Quite honestly, I think this is having far too large a deal made about it. A little competition never hurt anyone, and so what if people like to adorn their userpages? I see no problem there. Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia; it is a community. Also, Deskana, I'm sure the summary could be less poorly worded. GlassCobra 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see anything that harms the wikipedia. Yes, wikipedia is meant to be a encyclopedia, but I believe this to be a major part of WP:DOF. --Hirohisat ^Talk 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment, if it is kept I shall make it less buracraticMarlith 01:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - we don't need this stuff in project space. We really need to start cleaning up things like this. Wikipedia: space is not encyclopedia space by any stretch of the imagination, but it still ought to be presentable. --B 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not want to enter this contest, but it does seem to me that MfD and UCfD in recent weeks is beginning to make WP a less fun place to be. Remember "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy" (and "Jill a dull girl" too). We do not want dull people editing WP. --Bduke 08:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too Esperanzan IMHO. Where is the encyclopedic value in something so trivial and subjective? Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Esperanzan? How so? Anyone can enter the contest. GlassCobra 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant Esperanzan as in meta:Metapedian, not as in the pedantic definition that this is members-only. I don't understand how this is needed for the "Wikipedia community." For over five years the "community" hasn't had this contest and there was no deteriation in the community. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've heard that "Wikipedia's best days are behind us." That means that our best days were when we had fun in the Wikipedia namespace while contributing to the encyclopedia. On a [possibly] unrelated note, FUN has been MFDed four times with results in keep in all four of them. (→O - RLY?) 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or mark as historical and retire. Wikipedia isn't MySpace, remember? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. I'm not trying to suck the joy out of this place, but I feel there's a distinction between having cartoons on your cubicle wall (important for morale) and inviting the CEO down to judge who's done a better job of making their cube look like a gingerbread house every week. I don't mind people being light of heart and joyful of spirit while they build the encyclopedia, but trying to start a massive weekly contest just seems likely to get in the way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but just because something isn't perfect as-is doesn't mean it should be deleted. I agree that a weekly contest is excessive, but what with this being a wiki, the rate at which awards are given out isn't set in stone. It could be shifted to a yearly or monthly event with relative ease. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not helpful in building an encyclopedia, esperanza had a simlar contest last year, and that helped for the deletion of the project. Wikipedia isn't myspace Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because my user page is probably going to win the grand prize.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And that isn't a reason for keeping Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha! That's the only reason for keeping.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, it doesn't build the encyclopedia, but completely ignoring the community that builds the aforementioned encyclopedia is silly at best, stupid at worst. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a deletion deleter I shall see to it that this will go with policy.Marlith 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Working on userpages has helped people to understand wikicode better and use such in articles at least a little bit. Wikipedia is a community, not just an encyclopaedia and user pages are an integral part of what makes us what we are. A little competition about it all isn't problematic and it encourages people to stay here when they might otherwise become disillusioned. That benefits the project. Plus it will likely be won by someone without userboxes on their page, so that would help to further promote their removal! I don't support a weekly competition, but a one-off or annual one would be fine. violet/riga (t) 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The focus of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia - not decorate userpages just to get barnstars. User pages normally are used for testing and briefly decribing one's goals in Wikipedia. Sure it doesn't hurt to organize your userpage, but don't make that your focus. This contest would have encourage me to focus on userpage decoration. NOTE: yes I have decorated my userpage - but not with the intent of getting barnstars - I really don't care what the results are - but it helps me keep things organized - and learn the wikilanguage. master son^{T - C} 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a community in its own right, it is a community as a means to the end of building an encyclopedia. User pages are an unnecessary endeavor. Having a "really good" user page is not something we should be focusing any effort on. And to add a bureaucracy and go asking people to be judges and such, it's ridiculous. This is a needless distraction. Mangojuice^talk 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A distraction that nobody has to involve themselves with. I don't think that if this page is deleted we'll suddenly see a surge of productivity from involved editors. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Distractions are never things people have to get involved in: people are capable of ignoring distractions but they often don't or have a hard time, and that's why distractions can be a problem. No, I don't think we'll see a sudden surge of activity either, but then, this initiative is still pretty new, and I don't want to see it growing. Mangojuice^talk 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. We disagree, but I can hardly say that you don't have valid concerns. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not too comfortable with having this. The issue isn't productivity. The issue is that this is an encyclopedic project. There should be some level of fun and games but, to me, this goes beyond that fine line in the sand. Someone also said that Wikipedia is a community as a means to build an encyclopedia. No debating that. But, one can't expect everyone to focus on just building an encyclopedia. Like I said, there can be some fun and games, but this goes to far in my book. --Son 00:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep to draw the venom, then delete - Seriously, each new generation of Wikipedians will reinvent things like this. Some will like it. Invested users will hate it. Get the balance right and enculturate people by pointing them to what went wrong last time. Keep the excessive contests and overblown bureaucracies as examples to point at and say "they got it wrong then, and you are getting it wrong now". Alternatively, let people learn by experience. Carcharoth 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with expansion in the metapedian, community-oriented side of Wikipedia. The way I see it, there are some users who rarely edit articles and don't have the time/inclination/skills to do so. Would we rather they got fed up and started vandalising and trolling, or would we rather they directed their energies into harmless activities such as designing pretty userpages? Walton^One 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - giving other editors marks for their user page isn't productive. Addhoc 14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is a rock farm. You came here to work, not to muck about doing "playful things" and "having fun" - there are OUTSIDE sources for this. Here the ethics are work, work, work, on building an encyclopedia that anyone can use. And Marx was right; individuality gets in the way of a working environment.--WaltCip 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I question the validity of any argument based on Marxism. :-) More to the point, I strongly disagree with the idea that "individuality gets in the way of a working environment". Quite the opposite; plenty of editors will not contribute if they are forced to abandon their individuality and become faceless edit machines. That's why we have community-building content such as Template:Smile, WP:MOTD, and WP:FUN. It encourages users (particularly younger users, though I'm wary of stereotypes) to stick around and contribute constructively, when they might not otherwise do so. Walton^One 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally don't like the idea of the Wikimedia Foundation, a registered charity, paying hosting fees so little kids can play their games. It's almost an insult to anyone who donates money to the Wikimedia Foundation. Donors pay to keep Wikipedia alive, they don't pay for contests like this that don't help further the encyclopedia. --Deskana (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Here's a couple of quotes from an ancient VfD on WP:FUN that more or less summarise why this page should be kept:
      • [1] Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia.
      • [2] I liken wikigames to the building of the great pyramids. Whole temporary towns were built to house, feed, rest, and entertain the workers.
      • Both far more eloquent than I could have achieved, and highly relevant to this issue. Basically, the "fun" stuff is part of the support infrastructure for the encyclopedia. Yes, the encyclopedia is the most important thing, but it can't exist without the community - so community-building is valuable. Walton^One 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd feel like going and working my arse off to build the encyclopedia if I was told "terrible userpage, shows no info at all, looks bad". That fun and positive reenforcement just gets me going. </sarcasm> --Deskana (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
          • If I'm reading the page correctly, that comment was for User:Example. Not one of our most prolific or easily-offended contributors. :-) Walton^One 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per EVula. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  Why? Please explain. This is not a majority VoteMarlith 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  You're correct that it isn't a majority vote, but "per X" is usually deemed acceptable as a rationale (hence not a case of WP:JUSTAVOTE). Walton^One 18:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  The comment that Marlith made was before the commenter added a rationale. (→O - RLY?) 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Really guys, a little competition never hurt anyone! What's the problem that is deemed worthy of all the fuss? I guess I may carry a little bias as one of the winners, but why not? Wikipedia is a community of Users, all of whom may adorn their userpage however they wish. In fact, many of my on-line associates are those I've designed Userpages for. FOr those reasons and more, I say keep. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Editing is not a zero-sum game. If someone makes fewer edits to userspace, they will not necessarily make that many more other edits. So, it's just a bit of fun. -Amarkov moo! 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Historify. I would say delete, but historification might make it less likely for someone else to do it again. Atropos 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't help build an encyclopedia, and we're not in the business of running competitions. --kingboyk 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As said above, a little competition won´t hurt anyone. Plus, other projects of the Department of Fun also don´t quite help, but they are still there... ♠TomasBat 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Deskana has a good point, but most of the users who even try in this contest either have the talent to make a good page in a few edits, or not. The arguments about the Department of Fun having other useless contests is a direct violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —« ANIMUM » 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- I have stated before, as I'm sure many people have, that it is too bureaucratic, but it is really not hurting anyone. It's just a way to get away from a conflict, create a nice, informative userpage, which ultimately helps Wikipedia, and then go back to editing instead of fighting, attacking, vandalizing, and leaving Wikipedia because of the stress, like I did. --Boricuaeddie 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A little fun won't hurt anyone. Miranda 11:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Violetriga. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per TenOfAllTrades additional comment. Garion96 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It would be just plain too difficult to have a place outside of Wikipedia, in order to imporve something in Wikipedia, just because it wouldn't be allowed to have a page in Wikipedia itself. It is also unlikely to have a place to improve wiki-style userpages outside of Wikimedia Foundation controlled wikis, because there are mainly the best place someone could have an effort by having a stylized user page. And linked onto that, having contests about user pages give absolutely no harm to anyone, but more like a gallery about how a great user page would be defined. ~Iceshark7 14:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Violetriga. Harmless and helps building mutual acquaintance. I see no reason to delete it. Peacent 15:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but reform - I like the idea, but it it too bureaucratic with the assigned judges (assigned by the creator) and the championships. Apart from that, however, a userpage contest seems fun. If maybe it was not like this, I may even participate - this is the reason why I have not participated in the past. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See also Marlith's comment above. (→O - RLY?) 17:41, 29 July 2007 (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.