Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits (2nd nomination)

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator as this was updated and no longer is so stale that it is worth deleting. Technical 13 (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits

This hasn't been updated since March of 2011. It is either time to dispose of this uselessness OR update it. To be honest, I prefer to see it updated, but lacking that, let's get rid of it as it is harmful to the project in its current state. It discourages users that would otherwise be contributing (useful content, because I'm sure deleted edits don't count) in an attempt to gain one more position on the table. If it was decided that it should be kept and updated, this should be done by a bot as updating it is a menial task (monthly? quarterly? semi-annually?), it should hide rows that are bots by default (so that those that want to see that still can), and should be limited to the top 1,000 (instead of 5,000 currently on it). Technical 13 (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits as of March, 2011 and mark as historical. bd2412 T 20:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Move per BD2412 - Clearly needs updating yet seems a waste to get rid of. Davey2010Talk 21:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to make it clear that it's severely out of date. Depends upon Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits/Data being created off-wiki by somebody with the requisite technical ability (as well as a suitable database dump), and then manually uploaded (see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/How to generate the lists). Since this is non-automated, it's only updated as and when somebody with the ability actually wants to do it. History of the data subpage shows that "updates" have all been manual edits. If this report is to have any purpose other than to mislead, it needs to be updated automatically at fixed intervals - either monthly, or three-monthly. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move and mark as historical or Keep and maintain but in no case should it be deleted, there's too much history there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Updated per Legoktm's efforts to maintain the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical, because deleting it would obscure a useful part of our history. I'm not sure that we need to move it, since numerous historical pages remain at the titles they had when they were active, even for titles such as Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days with proscriptive names. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong do nothing MfD has to be hands-down the worst place to ask someone to update a dump report. And yet I still spent around an hour messing with labs trying to get it to work. It's currently telling me it's processed up to "36270000" whatever that means. Regardless of whether I manage to get fresh data, the page should not be moved, it's just fine where it is. If the out of date tag at the top isn't good enough, fix it. Legoktm (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ta-da! Legoktm (talk) 08:52, 22 September 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.