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.

This was not a policy argument but a discussion as to whether this undoubtedly well-intentioned proposal would in practice actually benefit the project. Arguments were produced on both sides, but the majority view is clearly that the likely problems would outweigh any benefits. Since the author has said he is not interested in having it userfied, the outcome is delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Hall of Fame[edit]

Wikipedia:Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While this is a good faith effort, in general this is a terrible idea that promotes a certain kind of elitism that is simply discouraged and highly frowned upon, especially with the mess going on elsewhere in the project. Very similar to WP:Esperanza which was removed many years ago because of that issue, make this historical or Delete. Secret ^account 19:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This looks a lot like a reboot of the also very well-intentioned esperanza project. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Eerily similar to esperanza. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete exasperatingly naive proposal that should not get beyond the drawing board. Leaky Caldron 20:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although it doesn't matter in today's clueless Wikipedia environment. My good faith efforts towards editor retention weren't hurting anything, but the thoughtless dismissals of my work by others have severely dampened my interest in further wasting time here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My "dismissal" of this proposal was certainly not thoughtless. Are you just aiming that jibe at anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to your own? Leaky Caldron 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was referring specifically to you? Most people happen to dislike having their projects referred to as awful or terrible or "useless junk", which somebody did say back at AN. However, "exasperatingly naive" is also unnecessary, seeing as my idea doesn't have to affect you in any way, meaning you don't need to be exasperated. I, however, am exasperated and I don't think you have any right to complain about it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia, in my view, needs less video-game-like "leveling" and more hard work, which should be its own reward. The proposal for a HoF merely creates another layer of institutionalized shiny stuff to argue over and create more lasting drama around. AS, I assume you mean well, and I don't want you to feel rejected or annoyed, but we already have too many distractions around here. Leaky is being a bit cranky today, as any of us can be at times. Please let it all go and focus on more worthy matters, as I have seen you do well. Thanks. Jusdafax 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful delete - It has taken me until today before I was able to read this and ponder it significantly. It is a marvelous idea and if everyone who contributed here used it as it was intended and acted like a mature adult, it would be a great project. Unfortunately, as has been evident especially in the last week or two, everyone who edits here is not a mature adult, and consequently, I concur with Jusdafax that it is probably not feasible at the present time and would cause more drama. That said, I applaud ASO for his effort in creating the project and I have no concerns whatsoever about his intentions, they are always good, but I think that this project would likley nosedive rather than thrive. I wish I was wrong, and if this project remains, I hope I am wrong, but right now, I don't see this working, lamentably. Sorry. Go Phightins! 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete - Like Phightins, I also think that this is a good idea, though I am also worried about possible drama over who gets inducted. ZappaOMati 01:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First off, marking it as historical wouldn't be helpful — that's for old pages, not for things that were created four days ago. Meanwhile, this would be a useful setup if people could be dispassionate about it, but experience has shown that pages like this spawn competition and dissension over who should be included and who shouldn't. I wish that we could make such a page work, but human nature means that this will necessarily produce drama. Producing drama isn't always a reason to get rid of something, but when a page meant to improve morale has a net negative effect on morale, we mustn't keep it. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not mark as historical It doesn't even meet the definition of a "failed proposal" because rather than propose it, someone simply went ahead and created it thinking (unfortunately incorrectly) that it was the right thing to do. This is unworkable, untenable, and although well-intentioned, it will be impossible to work (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - should have been discussed before being created; a decent idea but simply a magnet for drama, and Wikipedia sure-as-hell doesn't need any more of them. GiantSnowman 12:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Though I wasn't around back then, I've seen enough about Esperanza in the old discussion archives I love to read to know that stuff like this is not a good idea! --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral comment - Looks like Wikipedia already has a Hall of Fame project. -- œ^™ 06:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That simply lists past recipients of EotW. Go Phightins! 20:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/No reason to Delete There really isn't any need to delete this project. Might just userfy it or something. It's obviously not a fan favorite and it'll never be endorsed as a community "Hall of Fame" but I see no harm in letting it exist as a pet project. I understand the reason for not accepting this as a community program, but we have lots of stuff in the Wikipedia space that arn't community endorsed.--v/r - TP 22:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I hate to say it, but when I first became aware of this page, my initial impression was basically the same as Secret's. The notion of promoting anything reminiscent of elitism among our editors through placing certain people on a pedestal runs counter to the principle goals of editor retention. I see it as likely that this project would only recognize editors with a high quantity of quality contributions, thereby giving off the perception that those with a smaller breadth of content contributions or maintenance activity are of less value to Wikipedia by comparison. This would alienate a broad segment of the community and shift the incentive from editing through inclination, to editing out of insecurity. I'm sorry, but this just has too many potential pratfalls for it to work in the grand scheme of things. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - rewarding editors encourages contribution and helps to recreate the project's history. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have tons of other pages and templates, like barnstars which encourages contribution and not elitism, Recreate the project history? Uhh.... explain how would that work. Secret ^account 01:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFACEBOOK Wikipedia is not a social club. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how "Not facebook" is a relevant policy in this regard. Could you care to elaborate? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social network, per WP:NOT. This leaderboard is a purely social activity, thus is not part of what Wikipedia should be doing. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, this isn't a leaderboard, this is a Hall of Fame, a proposed place of recognition. Second, even if it was a leaderboard, how would it be a social activity? People don't treat Halls of Fame or leaderboards as they would Facebook or Twitter, so it's really hard to tell where you're coming from. TCN7JM 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a form of leaderboard, leading members of the Wikipedia community are enshrined onto a list (board). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where we talk about how great other Wikipedians are, which is a social activity not related to the purpose of Wikipedia. Navel-gazing is not something Wikipedia should be doing. If you need something like this, move it to wikimedia:, but this should not exist on Wikipedia itself. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never !voted keep and am remaining neutral. TCN7JM 01:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "you" in the figurative sense, not literally 'you' the person I replied to. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP already has abundant awards and recognition processes for worthy editors. It does not need an horrendously sycophantic, celebrity oriented, popularity based weekly !vote, often based on nothing more than fawning admiration. There is nothing collaborative about this project and the stated goals are adequately covered by existing merit structures. Leaky Caldron 11:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already made your opinion clear. The repeated use of spiteful hyperbole (sycophantic?) is not helping anyone. Furthermore, your claim that there is nothing collaborative about this project is so incorrect as to be laughable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 14:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch where you are going with this. I am entitled to comment anywhere I wish - you do not impose restrictions because I fundamentally disagree with you. Your well intentioned idea is a magnet for those seeking to promote themselves and their non-encyclopaedic views. I note you do not choose to comment on the substantive point - that ability, effort and another 100 positive traits are already recognised by existing mechanisms without dreaming up more. You have condemned those who have been critical as "clueless" and as "thoughtless dismissals of my work by others". I don't think opposition to your project is thoughtless and to condemn those who have the temerity to disagree with it as being clueless and thoughtless needs to be repudiated. Leaky Caldron 14:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this equally disparaged idea of yours - Admin of the day! - suggests a pattern.) Leaky Caldron 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request you not to make any comments on the person, but on the project involved. And I find it noteworthy that WP:TAFI was also started by AS, a project which has been very successful. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, credit where credit is due; and accepting failure/rejection of your next idea with good grace is preferable to calling critics clueless and thoughtless. Leaky Caldron 16:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...exasperatingly naive proposal that should not get beyond the drawing board." is neither graceful nor condusive to collaborative discussion. It displays an initial intent to offend. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the clueless remark was uncalled for. The reason for my failure to comment on the "substantive point" is that I was so ticked off by the offensive and insultingly denigrating remarks that were made about my idea that I was no longer willing to even listen to the opposition. It's not that I have an issue with people opposing my ideas, it's more that I have an issue with people ridiculing them. The "thoughtless" reference was describing the way my ideas were rejected, not the reasons for the rejection. If my idea is truly not a good one, then it should not be implemented. But if people make that point in a harsh way, they should expect to get an unpleasant response. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster7. Don't lecture me about collaborative discussion. This project was announced as a fait accompli here [1] without following suggested project initiation as recommended here [2]. THAT would have been collaborative. Until you understand the full meaning of the word your rebuke will fall on deaf ears AFAIAC. It is an exasperatingly naive proposal because it had no prior discussion to support it and the proposer's previous experience with Admin of the Day should have alerted them to the likelihood of rejection. Leaky Caldron 19:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not follow the recommendation could very well be that I do not feel like having my ideas picked apart before I can even get started. Therefore, this is not an "exasperatingly naive proposal" as it is not a proposal. Furthermore, I do not intend to waste my time getting input on future ideas from the broader community, especially as the Editor of the Week project has done quite well, despite being met with similar backlash when it was mentioned at AN. If I want input, I will get it from people who have a positive outlook. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no reason to delete a WikiProject just because others do not like it. If the concern is over the name of the Project, then it certainly can be renamed. Likewise, a project deleted 5-6 years ago does not set a precedent for all the projects to come. It is a strong opinion among some, if not all of us, that Wikipedia needs to be more social, and such Projects help in doing the same. If strong opinion against HoF still persists, I support transferring it to userspace. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Humans are social beings. To expect editors to work for free without some personal interplay is demeaning. How does this effort to acknowledge the endeavors of hard-working, time-spending (away from family) editors hurt the Encyclopedia? If you don't see the value, Don't participate. Why stand in the way of another editors efforts to give something back to the editors that are doing their self-appointed, no-pay jobs? Kind of mean-spirited if you ask me. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep mostly harmless. Let people have their fun. Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • Well when the elitism over who the nominees becomes a drama magnet fest, which this certainly going to become if kept and noticed by the wrong users, where is the fun in that? Secret ^account 01:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say it as if it will certainly happen. I would like to see some proof to this regard before I am willing to accept that. Also, Editor of the week, a similar project focused on new editors has been there for 3 months now, and I see no signs of any drama on selection of nominees. I see no reason why HoF should not be allowed to start because of a possiblity of a drama fest. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This MfD is very premature. I'll note that there is no "leveling up" involved as the Hall of Fame is a forum to recognize other editors, not to achieve recognition. It confers no special treatment. There are some concerns that it would create elitism; however both Jusdafax and Bwilkins display tags on their userpages stating that "This user has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian and was awarded their own day." To the best of my knowledge, neither of the editors mentioned have engaged in elitist behavior as a result of that award. (On a related note, Jimbo hands out, or handed out, official days to editors, see Category:Wikipedia holidays) Finally, there are concerns that the Hall of Fame could cause problems/disagreements. A page shouldn't be deleted for what might occur. Instead, the project should be revisited either in a year or if the project actually does develop so much "competition and dissension" that it cannot work. Ryan Vesey 19:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it currently organized/formatted. Right now it looks far too much like an official (as in sanctioned by someone "on high") award instead of a user-maintained recognition program. And for those who think there won't be drama, I can think of a number of users whose nomination would spark drama, but that's not my main reason for oppose. I would support a program set up by an individual and done on that basis (as in the "awesome wikipedian" mentioned before or Gerda's "precious" award), but something that appears this official I just can't support. Sorry.Intothatdarkness 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be amicable to this project provided it is clear on the part that it is not an official recognition? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a project like this if it were formatted as, for example, ASO's Hall of Fame. As a Wikipedia Hall of Fame? Not so much. Intothatdarkness 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move under the scope of WER.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rich Farmbrough unless it actually proves harmful. Movind under the scope of WER is also a good idea.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy Users recognizing one another's contributions is a fine thing, and we already have many ways of doing so. Making it a formal process with winners and losers does not strike me as an appropriate way to go about it, and I explicitly reject the notion that it should eb incorporated into WER as I do not think any project should be involved in this. If the user who created this wants to do it int heir userspace, making it clear that it is not anything "official" and is not endorsed by the broader community I'm fine with that, if they don't want to play it that way then (striking as they have explicitly rejected this option) just delete the whole thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and allow him the time to actually develop the idea before we judge it. There are directions it could go in that I would like, others that I wouldn't like, but hard to tell at this early stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userify with explicit disclaimers. From experience, these things can't be made to work within the wiki model. As far as I can see there are only four possible models for generating a community-wide high score table (as opposed to individual tables like the "People I have declared an Awesome Wikipedian" fad of a few years ago, which were essentially just a list of barnstars given by the user in question), all of which are seriously problematic and potentially divisive:
  1. Open nominations with support-voting only and an explicit ban on opposition, along the lines of WP:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations. This is an open invitation to gaming, and (as with Merchandise giveaways and WP:QAI/missed users, for instance) would almost certainly be overrun with sockpuppets and long-term troublemakers voting in support of each other;
  2. Some kind of automated metric such as that used to generate WP:WBFAN or the "adminship suitability" script that was knocking around RFA a while back. This would be both easily gamed and constantly create problematic results; there are plenty of people near the tops of WP:WBE and WP:WBFAN, for instance, whom I wouldn't trust to count their legs and get the same answer twice;
  3. Open nominations with true support/oppose voting. This would have either to be on-wiki, and thus force your nominees into taking part in an RFA-style character assassination for the dubious privilege of adding your barnstar to their page; or it would need SecurePoll and all the time and effort that takes;
  4. A self-appointed group of "project coordinators" either running the whole decision process themselves, or wielding a veto over anyone who comes through an open process but is considered "unsuitable". (Don't kid yourself that unsuitable people won't get through—assuming WP:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations roughly reflects the same kind of "most valued user" mentality as this proposal, as things stand you'd have at least two community-banned long-term abusers in your Hall of Fame.) This kind of elitism is what got WP:Esperanza banned (I would strongly suggest ASO read the discussions around that ban), and I can't imagine anyone who remembers it wants a rerun.

Since there's no apparent benefit to this idea (if you think someone's doing a good job, tell them—you don't need an over-elaborate process to do so), and no mechanism I can see for making it work without easily foreseen negative consequences, either delete it or move it to ASOs userspace with explicit disclaimers that it reflects the opinion of ASO and his buddies, not the community as a whole.

(To those making the comparison with Editor of the Week, they're not comparable. EotW gives a snapshot, and no endorsement of the editor's actions following the week in question; a Hall of Fame is a permanent record. When one of your winners goes off the rails and starts spewing abuse, or turns out to be a Mattisse good-hand account, do you remove them? Who makes that decision?) – iridescent 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to do this on my own, so either keep it or delete, I don't want it userfied. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 16:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This project is not a form of social networking, but rather a recognition and collaborative area for Wikipedia's fine contributors. I would give this project some more time before arguing for deletion. However, even if there was a consensus to delete, placing a historical tag on the project page would be a good idea instead. Very simlar to the successful editor retention project at Wikipedia, and doesn't hurt the project in any way. If anything, it encourages great contributions to occur across the entire encyclopedia; the Hall of Fame should not be deleted for what could happen in the future, let's focus on the present please. Numerous other "awards" of this type also exist, including the Awesome Wikipedian effort (although it is located in the 'user' namespace). There are some relatively valid deletion arguments, but I disagree with many of them. TBrandley 05:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Well intentioned, but not appropriate. Though its not the same, to TBrandley, personally I found the Awesome Wikipedian effort to slightly cringy; a bit 'How to win friends and influence people'. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to meta:Hall of Fame - œ^™ 08:47, 29 March 2013 (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.