Association of Structurist Wikipedians/Members

To join the structurists, add yourself. Please add new entries at the end of the list.

1. Tlogmer 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
2. I join on the terms that no formal leadership is ever elected. Al-Kadafi 05:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. If "Structurist" implies that one enjoys "sectionizing" articles, then I'm in. Sjschen 23:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
4. I live to divide articles into meaningful chunks. It's really easy to spot the not-so-meaningful stuff that way. User:Evil Twin Skippy 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
5. I particularly like Jakob Nielsen's Writing for the Web, already linked to in the tenets. People do not read Wikipedia as much as they scan it. Structure can accommodate this while creating quality and trust. --Slac 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
6. 4.252.29.244 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. I was looking for some people with such ideas. A long time ago I realized that I am often tired by trying to get just the quick info or some particular detail information in macropedic articles in en:. (I suppose macropedic articles should always have a 3 tiered structure of information depth. 1-The definition. 2-Overview PARAGRAPH with short abstract of all/most important information. 3-more structured text.) And I also like all the others tenets, particulary the third one (disc. merging). Reo On 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Utcursch 11:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Salt Yeung 17:41, 10 June 2006
10. Statmaster
11. It's good to know that other Wikipeians support proper organization of articles--Whytecypress 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Epolk 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Organizing is fun. Gotta love the equals sign. = Peregrinefisher 04:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Wikifying articles for organizational purposes as well as proper grammar, citation, and spelling. Mkdw 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Information Center 07:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Endless blue Glad to join. I definitely agree that Wikipedia should be "object oriented". Endless blue 16:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
17. This works for me. --*Kat* 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)--*Kat*
18. Structure makes a good article even better and easier to read, understand, and gain more information about. Captain panda 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Xastic 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Organization is key! Structure = ease of use. M. F. Gaede 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Atemperman 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
22. --Benfeig 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
23. No Knowledge without structure|Kein Wissen ohne Form --Der Rabe 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
24. I think users should be able to surf the categories hierarchy indefinitely; and having found an article to read, go directly to the sections that interest them. A good structure permits the knowing of many things! Bards 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
25. CredoFromStart 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC) The accessibility of the content is paramount in both function and form
26. Oh yes, most definitely! So much more rational than the Inclusionist/Deletionist twiffle. I'm also a Categorist, for similar reasons. Rubywine 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Your tenets are my tenets, glad to have found like minds - Diarmada 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Glad not to be part of the Inclusionist/ Deletionist debate Yamaka122 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Sounds reasonable. Sarnalios 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Captain panda 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Good structure is essential in a Wikipediac article.--RekishiEJ 06:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Camilo Sanchez...hey now!...
33. Bennylin 10:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC) I'm in
34. Just read my mind Leujohn ^(talk)
35. I hereby join. It would be nice if adding the userbox to your page automatically put you on the list.Noraft 10:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Familiae Watts 08:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
37. Erebedhel I strongly believe that structurism is the way to go.
38. Everyone could use a little extra structure. If not, why not? Piano non troppo 08:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
39. WeijiBaikeBianji 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I especially like the idea of considering both human readability, especially for second-language readers, and machine readability. A good set of tenets for effective editing.
40. Rolyatleahcim 06:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
41. "Only connect". Colonel Warden 10:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
42. Fridae'sDoom 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
43. Like minded fellows, how comforting! :)Efiiamagus 11:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
44. Minnecologies 15:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) As an avid book reader who only skims online material, this is where I belong
45. Miller's Garage 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
46. Most definitely. Mr. Stradivarius 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
47. Bittersweet-Nostalgia 06:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
48. --GoldenGlory84 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
49. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 22:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
50. w:User:Orfeocookie 6 February 2012
51. RubenSchade (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I honestly believe the best thing we can do to ensure long term viability of Wikipedia is to structure pages well. This includes using appropriate and valid templates, metadata, web standards and markup. In my opinion, more than any other policy, it has implications for accessibility, maintainability and future growth. I'm glad to be a part of this like-minded group, thank you for having me :).
52. JHunterJ (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC) , focusing on the navigational structure.
53. Ashley thomas80 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC) : Support expandable stubs and sections
54. The Grumpy Hacker (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
55. Doctree (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Cheers for boxes and tables and charts and graphs and maps.
56. Without structure and context, knowledge is but mere voluminous data. Morgan Riley (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
57. Tables bring discipline to data, highlights areas that need work, and enforces a common standard across the information.NiD.29 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
58. Libcub (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
59. Rptaylor12 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Clear organisation makes everything substantially easier to understand, use and cite.
60. --Ochilov (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
61. Tentonbricks (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
62. AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
63. SoSivr (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
64. Nkrita 18:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
65. Green Giant (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
66. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC) I feel somewhat out of place because I'm really quite excellently garrulous and at times overly verbose.... but I do appreciate good structure. :)
67. Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
68. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
69. Guywan (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
70. PointyOintment (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
71. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
72. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Form follows function. I am also a member of Wikipedia: Article Rescue Squadron
73. Nebhos2019 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
74. Ex Parte (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
75. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
76. W.G.J. (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
77. Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
78. GeogSage (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
79. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
80. 12xii (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
81. Modern organization is the best part of this encyclopedia. SpacePod9 (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
82. Dissident93 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
83. Mousefood (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
84. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policies and I'm not a good structurist contributor, but I'm open to improving! PeregrinusAmericae (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
85. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
86. E247G (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC) structure good we like structure :)