Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test

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 weak, nearly no consensus keep. Daniel Bryant 00:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test

This page, whilst well meaning and good humoured, has become a huge bloated stain on the face of Wikipedia. I know that all Wikipedians experience a bit of burnout every now and then, and that humour can be a good thing, but there are ways to make people laugh without creating a huge mess of useless text. I think the bolded sentence at the top of a page says it all:

"Give yourself at least an hour and 45 minutes (2 hours and 45 minutes with the manual version) because there are more than 1,302 questions!"

Do we really need something that can waste over an hour of people's time without producing anything productive? I'm not saying that by taking this away people will use their procrastination time doing something useful, but I don't think that there is anything positive to be gained from having a page like this around. BJAODN is bad enough. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A potential positive gained for the numerous editors who take the time to go through the entire test is that it helps them realize that there may be a problem. The number of questions can always be cut down or split into sections. –Pomte 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are only 394 questions. "1,302" is a joke. Nobody needs to do the whole test, or even any of the test if they don't want to. In addition to its value as humor to readers, it's a place for restless and creative thinkers to contribute OR appropriately. Matchups 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think if you count all the subquestions, there's probably more than 1,302. —Doug Bell 08:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipediholism is a dangerous fact users must be warned of. This page guides them to stay away a while from wikipedia and you know, better to have a life than a wikilife. cheers --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's always WP:HOLIC, which takes up considerably less time to read than it does to take the test. · AO ^Talk 10:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This was on my list of pages to nominate for deletion. I know there is going to be the chorus of "It's humor" and "It's not doing any harm" voices, but really, it's not funny, so the humor thing fails, and per the nom, it's just one more thing that makes Wikipedia a joke. Sometimes I think that too many people here have become more interested in the Wikipedia culture than in the encyclopedia, and this is just one more example of that attitude. —Doug Bell 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Honestly, it's like Wikipedia doesn't have a sense of humor sometimes--$UIT 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak delete. Wikipedia culture is interesting, and I have no issue with people who spend a lot of time with it. But to spend time on culture to the exclusion of things which improve the encyclopedia should be discouraged. And this seems to be encouraging spending too much time with the culture. Very weak, though. -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wow, we really fail at funny. Keep iff severely pruned. >Radiant< 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a few things like this lying around don't do any harm and may even lighten up the mood a bit when we seem to have a lot of problems at the moment. Metamagician3000 11:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very good test for everybody. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really think this is a valid deletion rationale. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For articles, it isn't. Please explain how the rationale at WP:ILIKEIT applies to project space. (You know, this is why shortcuts similar to WP:ILIKEIT were RFD'd...) Gracenotes^T § 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but cut it down. It too long. Simply south 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• The last time I took this test (some time ago), I wanted to delete some questions, rather badly. All of the "you get points if you're offended by the above question" items can be a rather inhumane form of torture, after a while. So keep and refactor, because it's quite a part of Wikipedia culture, but please allow the bold removal of unfunny questions, and encourage people to add funny, and oh noes, even useful indicators of wikipediholism. Not so much culture, but more emphasis on accomplishments. If the best indicator of wikipediholism is taking the time to take this test, then ugh. Gracenotes^T § 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete I used to think that this test was good for new users to learn the in and outs of wikipedia, but not anymore. This test has gotten out of hand; I tried to shorten it about a month ago, but it's even longer now. My recommendation? Either delete, or restore the archived version (top left corner of the talk page). Eventually, it's going to get big again though. · AO ^Talk 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to Keep because of Gracenote's edits. Good work shortening it! · AO ^Talk 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - An interesting trend to see the dvelopmend of wikipediholicism over time (I.E. the growth, and the sheer inasnoity of some of the questions). I get a good lauch out of it every time i read it and it really ise not hurting anything. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't consider it's growth funny; anyday now, wikipedia's servers will crash because of the enormity of this one huge page. :-) · AO ^Talk 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It's fun and interesting, but it is also much too large. It should be either deleted or shortened. RyGuy 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I encourage people to remove content from the test. Not good content, but basically content that was put there to make the test-writer sound smart (which gets annoying after a while). Gracenotes^T § 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what I tried to to, but it didn't work. You'd have to delete over half the test if you want it to be just Wikipedia-related, but then of course, it would grow back. · AO ^Talk 17:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, this is always going to be a problem in terms of growth. And who decides what stays and what goes? Humour is subjective. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, all that's funny on that page is the big purple sign with Felix the Cat at the top. :-P · AO ^Talk 17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Veesicle: well, I'll just be bold. After all, someone has to implement consensus. It may grow back, but I'll be there. Gracenotes^T § 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh God. I want to smash the "meta-questions" section into little tiny bits...

• Strong keep. I like it, and that rationale is valid outside of articlespace. Abeg92contribs 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet, it's still a very weak argument. · AO ^Talk 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- This test could be used to determine who is and who is not capable of being an admin. It has also helped me laugh after a full day of reverting vandals. --Starnestommy, A.K.A. King Grue (Talk • Contribs • Uncyc) 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this test could determine who'd make a good admin; could you please explain this a bit more clearly? · AO ^Talk 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This test serves as a way to tell you either "You're not a Wikipediholic; good job on balancing your life" or "You're editing too much, get a life!" However, I feel that there are too many questions. Therefore, I think that we should establish a process in which we condense the questions into a short quiz.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's always the archived version... · AO ^Talk 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but shorten by 5 - 45 %. This test has been around for so long, I don't think it should be deleted. Recently, I have been unable to add questions because its length was preventing my interest of editting. Seriously, you don't have to take the test, nobody's really saying you have to. However, only shorten it a little, as removal of questions and lowering of possibility of gaining many points may cause it to further lose popularity among users. I suggest reducing it by, say, 10%, and encourage removal of some nonsencial questions and discourage some large additions of questions. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  Well, we certainly wouldn't want it to lose popularity...how would Wikipedia survive?  ;-) —Doug Bell 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that shortening by 10%—45% will make some users go back, add questions, and increase it by 15%—50%. It has to either be deleted, or be cut down by some 70% (that's how much junk it has). · AO ^Talk 10:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. How are some of my cuts working for you? Are they enough, in your opinion? Gracenotes^T § 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a good effort... I think much more should be deleted. A better solution IMHO would be to replace the current revision with this one, and then add the important questions back (ie. the ones new users can learn from, such as AIV, RfA, ER, PR, etc). · AO ^Talk 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can help with that, since it would probably be difficult to sort out the good from the bad. · AO ^Talk 14:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP I agree with AstroHurricane on this Shindo9Hikaru 03:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but shorten. I am a very busy student (Three compositions a day, 5 projects a week), yet I still have time for this test. It really isn't that long. However, there are some questions that could be deleted. They have no relation to Wikipediholism. I would like to keep the test, but we could shorten it a bit. Also, Wikipedians get to know other Wikipedians through this test, therefore this is a community-building exercise. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - bloated is an understatement. Addhoc 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep shortened version neatly trimmed by Gracenotes. Speedy delete any meta questions. Addhoc 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I would prefer to vote Keep, but I've really given up trying to save all the humorous pages on Wikipedia from MfD. There's no point, since everyone seems to want to delete them. At least (unlike some recent MfD nominations) this one doesn't involve tearing apart someone's userspace. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless shortened. It was funny a while back when 500 points was a lot, and it only took 15 minutes to complete. If we need wikihumor, just have a look at WP:BJAODN or Uncyclopedia. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: when this MFD started, the test was 89459 characters long. Now, it's 42082. There's still a bit more to clear, but I'm working on it... Gracenotes^T § 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best at around 20000 (ie. not take more than 30 minutes to take). Good work though. · AO ^Talk 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - Wikipedia is a serious project. This page has wasted our time doing something that is productive and therefore must be deleted; however, the main background of this page focuses whether or not to see if you're Wikipediholic or not so it's best to archive this page as a historical page. — zero » 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I don't like the idea of four hours of Gracenotes' time going to waste – Gurch 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless. "Do we really need something that can waste over an hour of people's time without producing anything productive?" Why don't we just delete article namespace entirely and start over? People spend far too much time reading wrong articles. Here I am, reading about Ottoman Empire instead of reading about TCP like I should if I want to get myself educated. The main namespace is very dangerous - reading wrong articles could lead to wasted time! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Ottoman Empire? :-) · AO ^Talk 09:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nothing, it's just that after spending hours of reading the article, I fail to understand what they have to do with the TCP window/buffer sizes. The article is therefore completely irrelevant to the learning goal at hand, and counts as wasted time! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep: We need humor. (Why does the community try to delete everything that is even remotely enjoyable (Wikipedia:Esperanza, WP:BJAODN?!?!))

• Speedy keep- this is certainly a bad faith AFD nomination. Possibly by a sockpuppet of a banned user like what happened on the AFDS of WP:FUN. Darkness of meta

• LOL, this is the first time I've ever been accused of being a sockpuppet. Are you not a sock yourself? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I gather he was being ironic. Addhoc 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see how this fits into the reasons for deletion in the policy, and there are certainly alternatives to this. Many questions are asked more than once, and many others could easily be removed without affecting the character of the test. If people want to waste their time, let them. It's not a reason to delete the page. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but trim mercilessly - it may not really have 1302 questions, but it really does take an hour and 45 minutes. --Random832 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tried it a couple of times on the automatic and at the original length, before this AFD went up, it took nearly 4 hours. Simply south 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but cleanup. I have no problem with the principle of it, but 1,300 questions is a little too many. The reductions of the past few days are good. Hut 8.5 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It should be a part of WP:-D. I was just about to take it again. It has helped me build much confidence in myself as an editor, and if it weren't for this test, I probably wouldn't be here typing this right now. A•N•N•A hi! 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but cleanup: Its too long. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 21:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but cleanup Definately promise in this article, but the crap questions must be removed. Captain panda 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and don't cleanup → If you aren't that wikipediholic, then you won't finish the test. Its lenght is crucial. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 09:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - What relevance does this have to do with wikipedia? This is more suited for a humor web site than here, should be taken out.--LifeStar 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Delete the deletionists! - I skimmed the test in a few minutes, and love the results scoring interpretation. I also saw the lame, humorless, delete votes, and therefore had to vote myself to keep it. Deletionists are EVIL! :) --Timeshifter 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Extreme Keep. Per Snowolf. You don't have to complete it. If you shorten it, it isn't a test of wikipediholicism. Leave it the way it is. And just reading a page doesn't do it. Please don't jump in and start shortening it yet. At least propose it somewhere. That starts edit wars if you don't. I think the test is G-R-E-A-T the way it is. Chrishyman 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, for the sake of retaining a sense of humour in this place. ~Inkington 20:31, 6 April 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.