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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: True, it is better to leave it as it is. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number and alphabetize 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Joining 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed it.  John Reaves 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) — Gary Kirk // talk! 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Should we remove people from the list who aren't actually active?  John Reaves 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it's good enough that they're listed as inactive. They were in the project once, and they may come around again. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Actually inactive 

message: I would like to introduce participant number to arrange the member list easily. KyleRGiggs 13:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Participant Number 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. BlackPearl14Hermione Granger's Muggle Alias 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetical??

message: Umm... why on Earth is everyone listed as inactive? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active?