Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism/Participants

Inactive participants
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)


 * Agree, but am open to discussion on the time frame. -- SECisek 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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 ..

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

Alphabetizing the list
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Done!. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Why The Small Print?
The small print makes the page very difficult to read. Was this intentional?
 * JimCubb (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)