Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Members/Archive 2

So why aren't there separate sections? And purging
I think it would reduce the chance for confusion if the two tables were in separate sections. Is there a reason why they are not?

Also has the list really not been purged for over two years? It might be something to set a wikignome onto.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peter. I ended up adding myself twice due to the lack of sections. I propose that we add sections to this list. UnknownThing (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree: the same happened to me a few weeks ago. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I've been WP:BOLD and split the page into sections. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert and start a discussion here. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Improved layout of the Member list
After recently having joined the WikiProject Football (WPF) as a new member, and getting the time to further check out the entire forum, I found an apparent need, to add a few improvements to the overall structure of the project. By using a couple of wikignome tricks, I was able as of the 30 November 2010, to identify a total of 36 taskforces/sub-projects within the WikiProject Football field (with 25 of them however appearing to be currently inactive or stubs). In comparison, our main page right now only list 30 of the current taskforces/sub-projects, while these additional websites feature an even lower number: WikiProject Council=28, Association Football Portal=25, and WikiProject Football Template=19.

During the next couple of weeks, I will slowly work my way through, to make sure that each of these four important WikiProject pages are getting updated, so that they depict the full and correct status of all taskforces/sub-projects. A long the way, I today also found the need to improve the layout of the current "Active member list", so that it better promote the current activity of members and their ongoing work in the forrest of taskforces/sub-projects. These improvements and/or proposal for upcoming change, will now be highlighted below in some numbered bullet points. Feel free to chime in for each point, if you want to post a relevant comment, or a counter proposal.

Improved layout of the Member list:


 * 1. Enforced the Wiki standard to hide all prefix/subfix nomenclature in the name of clubs (ie FC).
 * Minor change, but yet I found it was important that our member list comply with the existing WikiProject Football MOS and Naming conventions (sports), so that we always help reminding each other, that club names should always be listed without the FC nomenclature in tables and article text, while the full official name including prefix/subfix, normally only should be allowed to appear in our article titles.


 * 2. Made all coloumns sortable.
 * Enabling all WPF members a fast path, to identify fellow members with expertice inside a special taskforce, geographical region, or with knowledge and dedicated interest to help answer a question about a certain Club / National Team.


 * 3. Encouraged all WPF members, to also consider membership of a taskforce/sub-project.
 * This has now been done, by posting a short line in the "Introduction chapter", of how easy it is for all WPF members to also join a taskforce.


 * 4. Add of a brand new "Member of a taskforce/sub-project" coloumn
 * A new extra coloumn has been added, to show each WPF members additional membership of a taskforce/sub-project. For those who are curious about the statistics, I can reveal that approximately 50% of todays active members, also opted to become a member of one -or several- taskforces/sub-projects. After extracting this info from the local member lists, being published at all the 36 taskforce pages, I have now added all of these additional memberships to the table, for each WPF member. Beside of adding some "navigational value" to the table, for those who want to target certain WPF members with a special question, the new membership info also help to promote all current taskforces, and make them more visible to all new members.


 * 5. Merged the former coloumn "Secondary clubs" with the "Club support" coloumn.
 * After making an official anouncement of this member list change at the main talk page, with a seven day window to post any objection to the change, there was no filed objection to the proposal of merging the two coloumns. Thus, I have now merged the two coloumns. The reason behind merging the coloumns, was to create more room and space for the new "Member of a taskforce/sub-project" coloumn. When merging the "Secondary clubs" coloumn with the "Club support" coloumn, all previous data was maintained, but will from now on, just be shown by one single "Club support" coloumn.


 * 6. Deleted all data in the previous "Status" coloumn, and added a link to check "latest activity".
 * The data in the previous coloumn was arbitrary, and had no value at all. What we normaly seek in regards of "Status", is to check: How active the member currently is. Going forward with the recently implemented change, that members are now only automaticly delisted as active members, if being inactive for 12 months, the need of having a link to check each members "current activity", is even bigger. Therefore I have now added a link for all members, that will show their current activity, in form of a total edit count for the past 30 days. This way we now have an easy way, to identify the currently "most active" members inside the "Active members list". With this new tool in hand, we can in example opt to "cherry pick" all currently active members that specificly declared support for a certain club/nation, to help answer/solve a specialized question, that dont belong to the scope of any current taskforce/subproject talk page, and where there is no need to disturb all members at the main talk page of WikiProject Football. In those cases, it is now -through the sortable coloumns- possible to first identify the members with a possible knowledge inside the specific subfield of WikiProject Football, and then target -through the "check activity link- those who are "currently active", with the question posted directly at their personal talk page. To say it short, this way we can now start to use the "member list" as a new kind of tool, to allow for a targeted personal informal conversation/debate for those WikiProject Football fields, which are not already covered by one of the specialized taskforce/sub-project forums. All general questions should of course continue to be posted at the main talk page. But if we have a special subquestion without any value for the main forum -ie about footballers in Singapore-, then we might consider posting this question directly at the personal talkpage of the "currently active" members, who listed themself as supporters of the Singapore National Team -and thereby will be likely to posses expert knowledge to answer/help with all Singapore related questions.


 * 7. Encouraged all WPF members, to promote their membership with the Userbox template.
 * The introduction chapter now also feature info about how all members can help to promote WikiProject Football, by adding the official Userbox template to their personal user page. According to a transclusion count, we currently have a total of 343 members using the official Userbox template, 72 members using the unofficial Userbox template  , 33 members using another unofficial Userbox template  , and finally 7 members using the third unofficial Userbox template  . The aim should however be, that we only use the official standard of the template, and that is why I opted only to mention the official version in the Introduction chapter.

Danish Expert (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative to improvement nr.6:

 * During the last week, I also started to consider some alternatives to improvement 6. You probably already noticed the extra change, that I recently made to the user names in the member list, so that they now are shown by the standard user template: . Thus we now automaticly also get a link in the table, to the "talk page" and "contributions" of each WPF member. One could however then argue, that the additional link to check "latest activity" for each WPF member, is no longer really needed. Simply put, the majority of us will most likely opt to click the "contributions link" instead of the "latest activity link", as we thereby get feeded with more details about the users most recent activity. I learned that myself, the moment I started to work with the member list. As the recently added "latest activity link" is also putting quiet a few extra KB to the Member list page, and thus causing additional load time for slow computers, I think we would be better off, to now remove it again! As we have several alternatives at hand, I would however like to hear your opinion, about the alternative soloution you would now prefer:
 * Alternative A: No change. Meaning that we continue to show the KB heavy "latest activity link" in the WPF member table.
 * Alternative B: We simply delete the "latest activty link" coloumn to save KB, and dont include any edit count link in the table.
 * Alternative C: We simply delete the "latest activty link" coloumn to save KB. But if you appreciated the value of also having a link for a statistical edit count in the WPF member table, this can now instead be achieved, if we use the alternative version of the "user template": . This version, will also show the standard "edit count link" to http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec. A webpage that provides a far more detailed "edit analysis", compared to the previous "latest activity link", that only showed the monthly number of edits. The user names will then be showed like this example:.
 * Alternative D: Equal to alternative C, except that we create our own new version of the, to show an "edit count link" for one of the alternative "edit counters". In example the webpage http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/ is slightly different to the standard edit counter, as it doesnt show "edit categories" + "top edited pages" + "monthly graphs", but instead just show the total edit count and the percentage of each users "autoedits". Another example could be, that we opt to show the link for the webpage Wikichecker. This link has the advantage compared to the "standard edit counter", that it also show a historical edit counting graph for all users, without requiring the user first to subscripe for this (but doesnt include additional lists of "top edited pages", and is perhaps presented with a slightly worse layout).


 * Personally I havent decided yet, but prefer to pick either alternative B/C/D. Please let me know which alternative you prefer?
 * Danish Expert (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I just did a quick calculation. If we remove the "latest activity link" from the table, the page size will decline from 185KB to 110KB. Unfortunately the load time however remain the same (on my old computer it take 8s to load). After checking the load time of the old member list version without the link, I found out, that the load time only depend on the number of lines at the page -and not the overall data size (as long as you have a high speed Internet connection). So if we opt to remove the "latest activity link", the major reason should not be a concern about the data size. Instead I think we more need to evaluate these other two possible reasons:
 * - "low quality/usability" = If we believe none of us will opt to click at the link, or think we will get more value by clicking at one of the other available "edit count link"?
 * - "layout reason" = If we instead want to create a sligtly broader "club coloumn" and "task force" coloumn.


 * Today I considered the listed alternatives one more time, and now made up my mind. I think there is no "layout reason" and no longer any valid technical "load reason", to remove the link. However, I have a growing concern about the "low quality/usability" of the link. To say it short, I think the most valuable "edit count statistic" is provided by Alternative C (rather than Alternative A or D). Thus, I now vote to replace the "latest activity link" (Alternative A), with the new "count link" provided by the "User9 template" (Alternative C). If none of you chime in during the next week, and declare support for one of the other alternatives, then the next update will convert the table from "Alternative A" to "Alternative C". Danish Expert (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

New maintenance procedures for the Member list
Along with the 7 layout changes described above, I now also propose, that we agree to run the following 3 new maintenance procedures, for the Member list.


 * Procedure 1: All WPF members are now asked in the introduction chapter, to run a proper "self maintenance" of the "Active member list".
 * After checking the entire member list, I found several examples of members listed twice, members not being delisted as inactive -despite no longer having an active user account, and several members who simply just lost the interest to edit anymore football related articles. If we can get the majority of all WPF members motivated, to help perform the appropriate "self maintenance" of the "Active member list", meaning that we all remember to remove ourself to the inactive members list in case of inactivity, then it will become several times more easy for one of us, to occationaly run a still needed seasonal "activity check" of the member list. Even in the best of all best worlds, a seasonal "activity check" will still be needed, to ensure that the few who dont comply with the "self maintenance" procedure, are still being "automaticly removed" from the list (as described by procedure 3).


 * Procedure 2: All WPF members will now be checked towards a new "definition of inactivity", to decide if they should be moved to the Inactive member list.
 * I believe the majority of members, from time to time will experience a shorter while of inactivity, without being an expression of "loosing their interest to stay as a contributer and member of WikiProject Football". To allow for these seasonal changes in activity throughout the year, I found it was more appropriate, to only enforce a "membership removal" in those cases, where member accounts were found inactive for a roling period of 12 months. Previously the page suggested "automatic removal" after inactivity in only 3 months, but this is way too short, if we want to allow for "seasonal fluctuation" in the members contribution. Thus, the new enforced "definition of inactivity" is:  Whenever someone fail to post minimum 1 edit to a football related talk page or article, within the last 12 months. 


 * Procedure 3: We start to perform a "seasonal activity check" once every second month, to make sure that all inactive members automaticly will be removed.
 * As of 30 November 2010, the list of inactive WPF members did not receive any major update throughout the past 3 years! We therefor need to hurry up a bit, and soon perform the awaiting clean-up task of the Active Member List. It can either be done manualy, simply by checking each users contribution, or be automaticly computed by a java program. The automatic solution might be the fastest one, but also demand you to first install and compile the java program (plus downloading a 14GB datadump file from the Wikipedia server), before being able to perform the job. Next weekend, I will dedicate some time to perform the activity check for all the current 612 WPF members in the "Active members list". For the future, it would however be a good idea, if we all help to perform the "activity check" once every second month. When the member list is updated at regular intervals, the job of doing it, become fairly fast and easy. Yet we still need all members to help run the "update procedure", to avoid that one member become overly burdened by the task. :-)

Danish Expert (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Result of the first complete "activity check" in 3 years
Now the time has come, where I can also report the result from the first complete "activity check" of the "Active member list" in 3 years. The check and update of the member list was completed at December 20, and made the number of active members decline from 612 to 312. This mean, that we today have a total of 342 inactive members and 313 active members of WikiProject Football. In regards of the best method to conduct the "activity check", I found out this was actually to run a manuel check of each WPF member, by clicking at their "contribs link" in the member table. Because by doing that, we get a full set of data to evaluate; meaning that we both can judge by visible inspection, if any football related edits were performed in the past 12 months, and at the same time learn if the seemingly "dead" accounts, perhabs suffered from being recently blocked/renamed (by also clicking at the user page link). The previously suggested "automatic edit calculation" performed by a Java program, will only reveal if the wikipedia user account is dead/alive, and therefor is not suited to perform the more narrow activity check. Moreover I found out, it was also rather fast to click and check the contributions link manually. So I will definately recommend this method for all upcoming activity checks, in the future.

The performed "acitivity check" also revealed, that among the 342 inactive members, we currently have 19 blocked user accounts and 14 renamed user accounts. In regards of the blocked accounts, they had all been given an "indifinite" time stamp, and thus I immedeately classified them as "inactive", irrespectively of when the blocking occured. Those 14 user accounts that had been renamed, and had not subsribed to any additional taskforces in WPF, were also automaticly delisted as "inactive members". The fact that they didnt care to rename their user names in the member table, to show the new correct one, is in my point of view, just another sign of inactivity, and justify they are also listed as such. At least until the time, where they decide to visit the WPF member list, and subscribe as a new WPF member again, with their new renamed user account.

As a last statistical information, I can also reveal, that among the 342 inactive user accounts, approximately 50% of them had a total Wikipedia edit count for the past 12 months at 0 edits, while the remaining 50% had a few/many Wikipedia edits within the past 12 months -but not a single of those edits being related to articles/talk pages within the Football field. This last type of "inactive members", both include the group of former members, who suddenly lost interest to edit football related pages, but also include a relatively big group of WPF member wannabes. In example I found out, that one of these wannabes, had opted to subsribe to no less than 40 various WikiProjects, but in the last 12 month dedicated all his 100 edits, to only update his own user page, and had no Wikipedia related edits at all!

Now when the "Active member list" has received a full "activity check", I propose one us run the next activity check of the list, by the end of February 2011. When running the check every second month, there will be no need each time to conduct a narrow check of any football related edits, for those accounts with a very high current edit activity (meaning above 100 edits in the past 12 months). As that part of the "activity check", is probably the most time consuming part, I think its perfectly okay, to leave those accounts only to be checked at yearly intervals. If the next who run the activity check, limit himself only to check all Active member accounts with less than 100 edits in the past 12 months, for any "football related edits", then it will be possible to perform this seasonal activity check, within only 1 hour. :-)

Danish Expert (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)