Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Participants

Number and alphabetize

I thought it would be nice if this participant list was alphabetized and the users were listed as such:

AUser
BUser
CUser

Any opinions on this?

But then you loose the order in which they joined. Lag 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I really care about all that much, but some lists of participants are alphabetical, some are chronological. Once it's made one way, it usually stays that way out of courtesy for the originator of the list. I don't see anything really useful from making this alphabetical because it's just a list of non-notable participants of a Wikiproject, and there are no real benefits from making this alphabetical. I say we leave it as is. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is better to leave it as it is. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Death Eater Dan

(Muahaha) 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining

The signing up page is a little confusing, can someone explain please?

BenjaminTeague123456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminTeague123456 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please can someone remove me from the inactive participants list - the page is too big to edit on my phone (no PC atm). Thanks. — Gary Kirk // talk! 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. John Reaves 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) — Gary Kirk // talk! 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually inactive

Should we remove people from the list who aren't actually active? John Reaves 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's good enough that they're listed as inactive. They were in the project once, and they may come around again. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I surely hope Hermione1980 comes back some day. She was the very first editor to revert one of my (apparently rather poor) early HP-related edits way back in the early days, which was upsetting at the time, but helped me to become a better editor after we discussed the reasons for the reversion. She along with EvilPhoenix became my HP mentors and role models, and now both are gone. Ah well. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll call

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the project isn't finished with 116 active editors! Time to call a roll call I think to see who's actually still going - any objections? Happy-melon 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting annoying. I've done this twice in the last several months. Is it so important to know exactly who is active and who is not? Shall we call this WikiProjectCruft? There is such a thing as participants who are only partially active (and no, don't make that another heading, this is getting crufty enough!) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 500% with DeathPhoenix. I am getting really tired of being forced to re-enlist every time someone new comes along and wants to find out who is still at the party. Why don't you take it upon yourself, Happy-Melon, to simply go through the list of known / past participants and see if they have made recent contributions, and then LEAVE THEM ALONE. If you see someone on the list that has not contributed to any HP-related articles in the last 6 months, then ask them individually if they plan to return any time soon. This blanket contacting of all current and past participants is extraordinarily stupid and tedious, especially when you are asking those that contributed even in the last 24 hours if they are "still active", and defaulting to the assumption that they are inactive. COME ON! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first of all, I AM sorry for having to call everyone. In my opinion the person who suggested that the list be sorted alphabetically deserves to be shot. However, could someone please point out when the last call was?? As far as I can tell, it was December 2006. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I can provide a substantial list of reasons for having an up-to-date list of participants if you'd like to see them. I'm sure, however, if you put your mind to it, that you can come up with plenty of your own. I am sorry for having to contact even the most active contributors. I am not sorry for wanting this list to be up to date and complete. I'm sorry for wasting one minute of your time. I'm not sorry for wondering what else you would have done with it. Happy-melon 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participant Number

I would like to introduce participant number to arrange the member list easily. KyleR Giggs 13:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a bit superfluous given that newest additions to the list always go at the bottom. In almost all cases the numbers would be in ascending order. If the list were alphabetical (god forbid!) then it would be extremely useful to identify the oldest members. However, with the introduction of your excellent formatting, I think it's unnecessary. Happy-melon 17:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, we could not set up a number for those participants who left the group easily. Raymond Giggs 19:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical??

I was under the impression that this list was to be maintained in chronological order, with oldest additions at the top and newest at the bottom. The reasons for wanting a chronological list are simple and multiple, principal among them are:

It enables the oldest (and hence longest-standing) members of the project to be identified
Oldest editors are most likely to be inactive, so future roll-calls can be targeted rather than mass-mailed
New-comers can identify older members to go approach for advice and assistance

There are other reasons that I can think of - I'm sure you can too. However I can see no such advantages to an alphabetical list save that it is easier to see if a particular user is a member of the project. With the miracle of Ctrl-F (aka the find function) that is not much of an advantage. Can we decide which system we're going to use before the list gets any longer? If we resume chronological, I will go back through the edit history and work out who came first, but I'm only going to do that once!! Happy-melon 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological

I like the idea of chronological ordering, but don't really feel strongly one way or the other. faithless (^speak) 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical

The WP:WPNAR#Participants list at the Narnia WikiProject is sorted by the date you joined, and it just looks all messy to me (albeit, the project has been rather inactive lately, so I haven't cleaned it up). Still, it just seems more right to list it alphabetically -- after all, saying that newer members to the project may not necessarily be advanced or ones to look up to would be wrong. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Member ID

Just to repeat my idea. Raymond Giggs 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we really need a specific order? I say we keep it simple, tell new users to add their names to the bottom of the list, and don't waste time reordering. :) PeaceNT 04:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, however, I do feel that it is necessary to remove the "potentially inactive" text at the top; those who are inactive have stated so, and the rest of us feel like we're not important...even if it says to feel otherwise. Just my two pence. BlackPearl14 ^{Hermione Granger's Muggle Alias} 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active?

Umm... why on Earth is everyone listed as inactive? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can someone please fix this? I am fairly new so I am not sure how to solve this issue where everyone is listed as inactive. R.M. 221 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]