GuildWiki talk:Fansite status/Elite Status Request

I just lifted the signees from the earlier Fansite Status/Official Status Letter. The inactive/unwilling users from this list should be removed, and some new active ones might want to sign on also. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 16:16, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I feel that we should remove all signatures that were copied over from the prior letter. While they may support this one as well, it's technically not the specific issue they were supporting.  Most who are still active we quickly re-sign it, I'm sure.  We should also figure out which other articles / community pages should link to this discussion so that we get more visibility among the regular contributors. --161.88.255.140 17:26, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Stabber is quick, I went to edit them off, and they're already gone. :-) --161.88.255.140 17:28, 27 April 2006 (CDT)


 * After thinking about it for a bit, I think adding individual signees is just a bad idea. Contributors to a wiki disclaim authorship, and therefore the Wiki should not feature any users more prominently than others in any official communication to a third party (except maybe the admins). Unless there are objections, I will remove the list of signees and leave just "the contibutors at GuildWiki". &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 08:03, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't really see the point in the names at first, but I think it might make the request more believable when real wiki contributors sign it willingly. Ofcourse it could be signed by admins only or something. I don't really care, just putting my thoughts here. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 08:24, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I think list of names could be helpful. However, change it from "Contributors" to "Users" should address Stabbie's concern.  We don't care if the people signing actually ever contributed to GuildWiki.  It could be that signing this form is the only "contribution" ever that they have made.  The list shows people who use GuildWiki as a resource, shows that the community cares.  -PanSola 18:48, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

So, whats happening with this one? -- 05:47, 17 May 2006 (CDT)