Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism/Participants

WikiProject iconAnglicanism Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/Participants is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Anglicanism WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Christianity project page talk
Participants talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Tasks
Articles needing attention talk
Article requests/to-do talk
Templates
{{Anglicanismproject}}
{{User Anglicanism WikiProject}}
{{Anglican-stub}}
{{Anglican-bishop-stub}}
{{Church-stub}}
{{US-anglican-church-stub}}
edit · recent Anglican-related changes

Inactive participants edit

I propose that participants be removed from the list if the editor has made no Wikipedia edits at all in the past three months. As most high school or university terms/semesters are about three months, and most businesses work on a quarterly basis, a Wikipedia break for real life probably won't extend past three months. Of course, if it does there is no reason an editor can't join the project again. Pruning the list of inactive editors - and there are a few - hopefully will make maintenance of the project easier. And, a definite time - three months no edit - will allow anyone to prune the list without endless - and pointless - discussion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agree, but am open to discussion on the time frame. -- SECisek 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agree, 3 to 6 months would be OK. How about alphabetizing the list? I'll do if there is a consensus. clariosophic 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've already pruned the list with a threshold of 07 Aug 2007. Almost all the participants in the list now have been active within the last week. If the threshold were moved back to May 2007, the effect on the list is surprisingly small. I don't have the figure at the moment but of the thirty or so editors I removed most had stopped by the spring;just speculation, but I guess at the end of the university / college year and never returned. I thought of alphabetizing the list which would have been trivial when I was working on it. I didn't want to inadvertantly give offence. An alphabetized list would make sense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment. A couple of days ago I posted a list of Anglicanism participants who created over 50 articles. Three of the twelve have left and one (Fishhead64) is barely active ..

Rank Editor Number of articles created Date of last Wiki edit
358 Badbilltucker 553 28 Jan 2007
2475 PMJ 104 06 June 2007
2924 Patricknoddy 88 05 June 2007/new username
3491 ExplorerCDT 73 8 February 2007

I've re-invited Patricknoddy under the editors new username. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alphabetizing the list edit

It was suggested a month (exactly) ago to alphabetize the list. This seems reasonable to me. The only objection would be the loss of 'seniority'. Does anyone care? Does seniority mean anything at all? Pesonally, I've been on and off the list so my own placement does not reflect seniority. Alphabetizing seems sensible. On a side note, should we prune for inactive particiants again or ,say, do it once a quarter? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Semi-annually should suffice. Alpha-order seems a little overboard, but if you will do the work, I don't object. Keep our beloved founder at the top, though. That would be a nice gesture. -- SECisek (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll create a founder sub-heading :-). I've just checked and pruning won't do much to the list. Most everyone is active. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done!. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Simplified list edit

I've simplifed the list for ease of maintenance with templates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply


Why The Small Print? edit

The small print makes the page very difficult to read. Was this intentional?

JimCubb (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply