List of Inactive Brickipedians

Forum page

Revision as of 19:57, August 19, 2011 by CJC95 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
30,099pages on
this wiki

This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index
List of Inactive Brickipedians

Hi all, my suggestion at the moment is to create a page with a list of Brickipedians that have left but have contributed much to Brickipedia. My suggestions for the name are Wall or Hall of Fame. Ideas, anyone? Jag 01:03, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

  • Like I said on chat, I think that anyone who has contributed for two years or longer at Brickipedia regardless of whether they are active or not should also be on this wall. Other than that, I fully support. :)
    SKP4472 Talk 13,998 Edits! Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 19:24, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support SKP's suggestion. •myk 19:25, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • i think it should be called the brick of fame. other than that i fully agree. Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 19:29, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
    • I like the idea Darth henry, however I personally would rather keep it original as 'Brick of Fame' to me is referring to Bricks that have earned fame and not the Brickipedians. Nice idea though. Oh and thanks for the support Mykheh. :) SKP4472 Talk 13,998 Edits! Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 19:33, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
      • what about "the bricki-wall of fame? Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 19:35, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
        • 'The Brickipedian Wall of Fame' perhaps? SKP4472 Talk 13,998 Edits! Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 19:42, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
          • I like it. •myk 19:48, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
            • sure i like it Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 20:48, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
              • Per above, but can we not do users who made like 200 edits or something? Because then we'd have to list wayyyyyy too many. Just sayin. -NBP 10:30, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
                • And half of the way too many would be users who made <10 edits 2 years ago. - nxt 08:12, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
                  • By two years he means was active for a period of two years, not that they made 2 edits in 2009. - Kingcjc 08:30, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh, I see now. But what about people like User:Construction Worker, User:Mariofighter3, and others? -NBP 12:30, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
                    • But how do we know? I'm not going through every user to see how long they were active for. - nxt 13:02, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • (Indentaion). How about voting for users who have been here for two+ years? •myk 13:05, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • NXT, I would go by the date that they joined. SKP4472 Talk 13,998 Edits! Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 15:54, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • I know of alot of users that I think would deserve to be on this wall, if you'd like I can take care of it. It would be easy, I could get the names and someone else would just work with the coding to fancy it up. :) -NBP 16:23, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • Mega-Oppose I like the idea of recognizing contributors but this brings up multiple issues. First, it splits people into "good" and "useless". I'm not saying that I don't find many people here to be useless, I'm saying that a lot of people here make good contributions, but only periodically. People like that form the majority of Wikipedia editors and without them Wikipedia would be a great deal smaller. Secondly, we have a great number of people who consider themselves to be helpful but in fact aren't/weren't. They would be offended by such a thing and since people here are so against anything offensive... Lastly, a hall/wall of fame just isn't right for a Wiki. This is an editing site. Badges were bad enough-they don't encourage productive editing, they encourage blogging uselessly and leaving spam messages, and they make editing into a game whereas without them editing was about information for its own sake, not for the sake of achieving something which is totally irrelevant and detracting from the wiki.

In summary: Not a good idea. It ostracizes those who think that they've been good but who are not deemed good enough (for many people 100 edits is a lot-I don't edit regularly on Wikipedia, but I edit whenever I'm browsing for fun and find mistakes in the grammar). It also says, point blank, "you're great", or "you're not great". And, again, we need less tools to encourage editing and more actual editing. BobaFett Talk Adventure logo MOCPages Group (Click)

I'm indifferent about this whole issue, but I have a response to your comment: encyclopedic edits aren't the only way of contributing to the wiki. FB100Ztalkcontribs 02:36, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that I said it was. Images, categories (to the extent that they aren't just being added for kicks), subpages, and forums (about useful things) are all valid ways of contributing. BobaFett Talk Adventure logo MOCPages Group (Click)
Okay, I must have misread your comment
/me tired
>_< FailB100Ztalkcontribs 00:14, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar worthy comment, don't you think? :P -NBP 14:46, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
Which comment? Or is that a joke? BobaFett Talk Adventure logo MOCPages Group (Click)
Mine, I believe >_> FB100Ztalkcontribs 02:38, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, I made this for start, just could use some sprucing up. Those are the users that really stood out IMO. -NBP 20:03, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

  • I like it! :) SKP4472 Talk 13,998 Edits! Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 08:40, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - BobaFett2 has convinced me. I think that it's not a good idea to honor some users and not others; we're all equal. If we included every inactive Brickipedian, that page would take at least 10 seconds to load. FB100Ztalkcontribs 03:16, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
Four supports, one mega-strong oppose, and one weak oppose. We need a neutral admin to close this. Jag 19:29, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


Well, both sides have points. While it is good to recognize users who have made great differences, the point Boba raises is valid. The idea of having a community endorsed list of those who we consider to have made good contributions, while a good idea in a sense, showing how we don't forget those who have left, it has a chance of alienating the active community, and those who left, and are not on the list.

A problem is the criteria, how do we decide? Do we vote? How do we decide candidates? Contributions? Time spent? What if they spent two years making "small" edits, are they less valuable than say someone who made thousands in a month? Everyone will view someone's "worth" in a different way. Is it just edits does matter? Or does bringing users to the wiki more important? How do we judge who is "good" enough?

On to the active community, who sees this list being created? People will wonder why we favour recognizing the inactive users, more than the active users who are continuing to improve Brickipedia as we read this? Boba makes a strong point about "ostracising" users. This applies also to users who have left, and are thinking of coming back. Firstly, if they are on the list, do they get removed? If not, then that again could affect how active users feel, but secondly, if they aren't on the list, how will they feel?

So what I am being asked to consider isn't about history or users. Yes it is important to remember our past, and to pay thanks to users. But is a hall of fame the right way? For every person on it, there will be those that aren't, which isn't fair on them, or their feelings.

The key question is, is it best to thank users when they are inactive, and so probably won't realise? The answer is, no. The best thing we can do for users is to thank them as they edit. So in response to the question, "Will this benefit Brickipedia?", my answer would be no. Not now anyway. At some point in the future, who knows, but currently, I cannot see how this would improve the wiki, and the community.

- Kingcjc 19:57, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki