Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Highly Active Users/Unknown

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 debate was keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Highly Active Users/Unknown

The whole purpose of the Highly Active users page is to show active helpful users. Being listed under unknown isn't helpful, if there's an issue that needs dealing with that a user from that area may help with. Also, which user will pick someone under "unknown" to help them? I certainly wouldn't, I find it kind of intimidating personally. I'd likely pick a user from the same continent as myself, preferably in the same country, but that's just me. But I can't imagine anyone choosing someone from this list, hence why it needs to be deleted. If people on it still wish to help, they can list themselves under the relevant location. Thanks. Al Tally (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary keep. I suggest keeping for about a week or two, then deleting. Anyone who hasn't put their name in another place should be presumed unwilling to be on list. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - 5 parties, including myself, have decided not to indicate our whereabouts by including ourselves on this list. Maybe we would be better moved elsewhere, but that would be for later. I think it should be kept until and unless the creators or others merge the content in elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, it's eight parties who are listed on the page currently. As those parties have been requested to list themselves, and chose to list themselves here, I would presume that would be enough. Some of us may just not want to give the Review any information they could use to determine who we are. I do have a feeling that those individuals will ultimately be moved to another page, but such action should not be pressured by the threat of a deletion vote. Let the page develop as it wishes. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary Keep - Just what I was thinking, give users about a week, and if they do not add themselves into a different section, then they probably don't want to be there. iMatthew 2008 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep and rename As I understand it the creator of that page is removing all names who do not actively reply. Based on how John C. says he is using it, this particular subpage would be clearer if changed to "unspecified location" DGG (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - My personal choice would be to have the main page of listings contain those individuals who didn't specify their location, and links to the separate pages for those who specified specific continents. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If I'm interpreting you right, then the page would be better moved to "unspecified"? bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 04:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What I'm actually thinking of is making the page with names which haven't specified location datas as the main page for all the "location" pages. It might include something along the lines of, "to find editors who have specifically indicated their location, see (the following options)". That would address the concerns about no one seeking out the page, as it would be the first to appear, while at the same time allowing those who list themselves there to keep their locations undisclosed. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, in some form, but maybe not as this current page. I don't mind being included in these lists, but I do not wish to disclose my physical location, so that's why I listed myself under "unknown". I am happy to include my editing hours (wrt to UTC), and that should be sufficient. Might I suggest a better approach to allow users like me to participate in this project? Why not recombine everybody onto a single page, but make it into a sortable table, so that it is easy to seach for help by location, timezone, or area of interest? Right now, it would be awkward to use the area of interest as the primary seach criteria for a helpful editor. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly reasonable page, clear purpose, should be expected to be empty most of the time, this is no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2008 (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.