Wookieepedia:Mofferences/Log/2011 April 2

[17:59] <@riffsyphon1024> I bid you all Dark Greetings. :) [17:59] <+Xd1358> o/ [18:00] * Toprawa changes topic to 'Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki - http://starwars.wikia.com - Site status: Welcome to the Mofference - Channel status: MOFFERENCE IN PROGRESS. Please stay on topic. Violation is subject to removal from the channel. Off-topic chat is welcome in #wookieepedia-social - Quotes: http://qdb.zervonn.net/' [18:00] <+Kilson> .... [18:00] <+Tyber> To you, too! [18:00] <+Olioster> and Dark Greetings to you? [18:00] <@riffsyphon1024> It's on people [18:00] <+Kilson> What's first? [18:00] <+Karohalva> Blessed be the name of Katarn. [18:00] <+Rubedo> Wewt! [18:00] <@Toprawa> Welcome tot he Mofference, everyone. [18:00] <+Xd1358> 15 seconds early [18:00] <@Toprawa> Just as a note: [18:00] <+Rubedo> And praised be his flowing beard [18:00] <@riffsyphon1024> darnit Tope, you already screwed it up ;) [18:00] <+Xd1358> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Mofferences for easy access [18:00] <@Toprawa> Some of Graestan's agenda items were rather personally aimed. [18:00] <@Toprawa> Meaning only he really knew what he was presenting [18:00] <@Toprawa> So we might just be skipping over some. [18:01] <@Toprawa> *First topic* [18:01] <@Toprawa> A revamp of the Main Page is long overdue. Our site is beginning to have a very dated look, and there is far too much plain text on the front page. Graestan(Talk) 17:43, March 4, 2011 (UTC) [18:01] <@Toprawa> This is one of those topics. [18:01] <@riffsyphon1024> Well that will need to happen occasionally [18:01] <+Kilson> Any ideas? [18:01] <@riffsyphon1024> keep up with the times, like going to 3-D [18:01] <+Jang|Away> I think it's fine [18:01] <+Karohalva> No. Content not cosmetics. [18:01] <@grunny> And Tm T has some ideas for it I believe [18:01] <+Xd1358> Fwiw, take it to the SH [18:01] <+Tyber> How about someone makes a design proposal? [18:01] <+Xd1358> grunny: he left for zzz [18:01] <@Toprawa> Unless anyone has some actual working models, we're going to turn this over to SH. [18:01] <+Olioster> I don't see anything wrong with it [18:01] <@Jujiggum> Per Xd [18:01] <+Olioster> I prefer simplicity [18:01] <@grunny> I agree I think it needs to be updated [18:01] <+QGJ> I think some changes may be in order, but nothing too extreme [18:01] <@Jujiggum> This would be much easier to deal with in SH [18:01] <+Omicron> I personally like the way it is [18:01] <+MasterJonathan> take it to the SH [18:01] <@Jujiggum> It could use some updating [18:01] <+Rubedo> We could allow old articles into Did You Know to shake things up [18:02] <+Kilson> SH it! [18:02] <@IFYLOFD> I think it's fine [18:02] <+Jang|Away> What needs to be updated [18:02] <@riffsyphon1024> any way someone can present their idea of what it should look like in image format? [18:02] <+SavageBob> I think it could use a revamp, but someone needs to make a proposed layout first [18:02] <@grunny> and it is something that would be better in a forum [18:02] <@Jujiggum> Per Grun [18:02] <@Toprawa> per grunny [18:02] <@grunny> people can propose changes and we can vote on them [18:02] <+Xd1358> SH it [18:02] <+Axinal> Per grunny. [18:02] <@CavalierOne> Per grunny [18:02] <@Toprawa> It's clear no one has any working models, except maybe Tm, and he's not here. [18:02] <+Karohalva> Per grunny [18:02] <@IFYLOFD> Per bandwagon [18:02] <+Xd1358> way to much to discuss here [18:02] <+Olioster> SH it, per grunny [18:02] <@riffsyphon1024> Did You Know should be a mixture of new and old, that way older articles don't get forgotten and could be expanded [18:02] <+Kilson> Per Grunny [18:02] <@Toprawa> This item is hereby forwarded to the Senate Hall. [18:02] <+Tyber> Per riffs and Grunny. [18:02] <+Ineedaname> Per IFLOYD [18:02] <@Toprawa> Moving on. [18:02] <@GreenTentacle> Per the other pers. [18:02] <@CC7567> Let's save specifics for the forum, but we can vote to explore possibilities now [18:02] <+Menkooroo> uh, yeah... per. [18:02] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [18:02] <+Rubedo> Tm_T had a tentative proposal in this vein [18:02] <@Toprawa> *Second topic* [18:03] <@Toprawa> Portals are proposed, something like the reader-oriented version of the WookieeProject pages. People show up here looking for TCW and TOR and other new projects, so this would be quite a boon to the site. Graestan(Talk) 17:43, March 4, 2011 (UTC) [18:03] <@riffsyphon1024> Main Page contest [18:03] <+Karohalva> Permission to make an observaton? [18:03] <+Rubedo> They can look up the episodes [18:03] <@riffsyphon1024> I've tried Portals on another wiki, they can be tricky unless you got code down [18:03] <+Jang|Away> Meh portals [18:03] <@grunny> Karohalva: go fot it [18:03] <+Omicron> yeah meh [18:03] <@grunny> for* [18:03] <@riffsyphon1024> it might benefit us with TCW though [18:03] <@IFYLOFD> I don't think they're necessary at all [18:03] <@Toprawa> Again, I think this is something only Graestan knew what he wanted to see exactly. [18:03] <+QGJ> Per Jang [18:03] <+Tyber> Portals are always hard to design. [18:03] <+SavageBob> If projects want to set up portals, I say have at it [18:03] <+Jang|Away> Riffs: :/ [18:03] <@Jujiggum> Per Tope [18:03] <+Karohalva> Portals in my experience tend to divide information from itself. [18:03] <+Karohalva> They subdivide wikis into multiple smaller wikis. [18:04] <+Xd1358> Jang|Away: we can't avoid the fan magnet of the century :P [18:04] <+Tyber> But since TCW and TOR are magnets for readers, those topics should be featured prominently. [18:04] <@CavalierOne> We will get a big influx for TOR, so directing new users would be beneficial. [18:04] <+Kilson> CC, you're in control the TCW project, what do you think? [18:04] <+Jang|Away> It's more like a noob magnet :P [18:04] <@riffsyphon1024> the only real difference though is the presentation of images versus text categories [18:04] <@CC7567> Can someone please explain exactly what a portal is? [18:04] <@CavalierOne> As well as to the TOR wiki for gameplay related issues. [18:04] <+Rubedo> They should not be given any more clout that other topics [18:04] <@riffsyphon1024> See Wikipedia's [18:04] <+Jang|Away> Yeah [18:04] <+Rubedo> *than [18:04] <@riffsyphon1024> Star Wars Portal for example [18:04] <+MasterJonathan> Wikipedia example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Law [18:04] <+Tyber> Rubedo: I tend to disagree. [18:04] <+Karohalva> They also tear things from their context. Chewie is in TCW and the OT. [18:04] <+Olioster> Were already divided amongst which areas of the canon interest us, why not have portals? [18:05] <@Jujiggum> Eh, portals could be helpful [18:05] <@riffsyphon1024> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Star_Wars more related ;) [18:05] <@Jujiggum> Or they could just be a burden [18:05] <+SavageBob> Per Olioster; who's it hurt? [18:05] <@grunny> I think it would be better to have some kind of way to make the WikiProjects more prominent so that people can find them easier when they're starting out [18:05] <+Jang|Away> Per Jugs [18:05] <+Menkooroo> This kinda harks back to the "featured topic" idea that was floated in the SH last fall [18:05] <+Xd1358> admins [18:05] <+Xd1358> vandalism [18:05] <+Xd1358> check the RC [18:05] <@riffsyphon1024> oh how they have fallen behind [18:05] <+QGJ> It's basically the same thing we do with Wookieeprojects. Why not link them on the main page instead? [18:05] <+Tyber> Just give them a chunk of space on existing portals. [18:05] <+Karohalva> But if we have portals, then what earthly use are the categories? [18:05] <@riffsyphon1024> Portals supposedly compliment the categories [18:05] <+Omicron> so it's like a mini-main page for a particular thing/subject? [18:05] <@riffsyphon1024> they're not meant to replace them [18:06] <@IFYLOFD> Omicron: Yup, pretty much [18:06] <+Tyber> riffs: In a graphical way, too? [18:06] <+Rubedo> They are just new sources. This does not make TEA is more important than the NEG. What differentiates them is their content [18:06] <@riffsyphon1024> its your more prominent items [18:06] <+SavageBob> Yeah, Omicron [18:06] <+Jang|Away> QGJ: That's what I thought too [18:06] <+Menkooroo> they draw readers in much more than a list of text. [18:06] <@riffsyphon1024> Categories have all the random junk in them, Portals showcase the best [18:06] <+Karohalva> Do we want readers only attracted by bright colors? [18:06] <+Xd1358> Wookieeprojects aim to write [18:06] <+Omicron> I withdraw my earlier Meh [18:06] <+Xd1358> portals are like navigational hubs [18:06] <+Jang|Away> Link the existing Wookieeprojects, but I will feel sorry for WP:TCW. :P [18:06] <+Olioster> Per riffy [18:06] <+SavageBob> If we draw ANY new editors, yes, Kar [18:06] <@riffsyphon1024> Perhaps we should start a new WP, WookieeProject Retcon ;) [18:06] <+Tyber> riffs: Portals need to direct the users. [18:07] <+Jang|Away> bah [18:07] <+Axinal> Per riff. [18:07] <+MasterJonathan> I like the idea [18:07] <@Jujiggum> Hah per riff, actually [18:07] <@riffsyphon1024> it's already a mess, right? [18:07] <+Karohalva> I'll abstain since I have no alternate solution. [18:07] <@Jujiggum> Would be...interesting, if nothing else [18:07] <+Menkooroo> We wouldn't only make them for things we have existing projects on, would we? [18:07] <+QGJ> riffsyphon1024:We could just rename WP:TCW :p [18:07] <+Jang|Away> XD [18:07] <@riffsyphon1024> of course :P [18:07] <@Toprawa> Menkooroo> Yes [18:07] <+Rubedo> The alternate solution is to leave out portals [18:07] <@Toprawa> That was the proposal [18:07] <@riffsyphon1024> Portals are a big step, either forward or backward [18:07] <+Xd1358> portals != wookieeprojects [18:08] <@Toprawa> OK, everyone. We're voting on this. [18:08] * Tommy9281 (~Darth_Som@unaffiliated/tommy9281) has joined #wookieepedia [18:08] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +v Tommy9281 [18:08] <+Menkooroo> So if we wanted a, say, "The New Jedi Order" portal, we'd need a WP:NJO? [18:08] <@Toprawa> Vote Yes or No on creating Portals for Wook Projects [18:08] <+Jang|Away> No [18:08] <@riffsyphon1024> you need dedicated people on it, if you're going to pull it off [18:08] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:08] <+Xd1358> yes [18:08] <@IFYLOFD> No [18:08] <+Olioster> Yes [18:08] <+Karohalva> No. [18:08] <@Jujiggum> No for now [18:08] <@riffsyphon1024> Meh? [18:08] <+Rubedo> No [18:08] <@CC7567> No for now [18:08] <+Axinal> Yes [18:08] <+Menkooroo> yes. I like it. [18:08] <+Omicron> yes [18:08] <+QGJ> No [18:08] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:08] <@Culator|Away> Meh. [18:08] <+SavageBob> Neutral: If someone sets one up, fine; otherwise, meh [18:08] <+Xd1358> :D [18:08] <@riffsyphon1024> I don't see any consensus [18:08] <@GreenTentacle> Meh. [18:08] <@CavalierOne> Explore further in forum for specifics, so no for now [18:08] <+Xd1358> you can use the neat SH to discuss further [18:08] <@grunny> No for now, needs more expanding on the idea [18:08] <+LO|Away> Per Bob [18:08] <+Karohalva> Try making a portal just for TCW and see what happens? [18:08] <@riffsyphon1024> Senate Hall it [18:08] <+Jang|Away> Karo: lol [18:08] <+Axinal> I change my vote to per Savagebob. [18:08] <+Xd1358> SH [18:08] <@IFYLOFD> Yeah, SH it [18:09] <+Menkooroo> SH would be a good place for a mockup. [18:09] <@Toprawa> I believe that's 7 Y to 8 N [18:09] <+Tyber> Per Karo [18:09] <@riffsyphon1024> TCW would probably be the place to start [18:09] <+MasterJonathan> SH it [18:09] <@Jujiggum> SH it, I suppose, since we have no consensus [18:09] <@Toprawa> This measure will be forwarded to an SH forum. [18:09] <+Rubedo> No need for profanity [18:09] <+Karohalva> ... [18:09] <@Toprawa> *Third topic* [18:09] <+SavageBob> lol [18:09] <+Olioster> heh [18:09] <@riffsyphon1024> Rubedo: nice [18:09] <@Toprawa> I would like to personally plead for knowledgeable, experienced volunteers to patrol the Knowledge Bank. There are a few notable recent examples of people asking legit questions only to be met with speculative and noobish answers where someone who knew what they were talking about could have been very helpful. I suppose this could turn into a larger discussion as to whether we should have a... [18:09] <@Toprawa> ...Knowledge Bank anymore if this is how it's going to go, and also what possible repercussions answering questions with fanon or false site information, based on inexperience or not, would warrant. Graestan(Talk) 01:25, March 15, 2011 (UTC) [18:09] <+Menkooroo> I'd volunteer. [18:09] <@Jujiggum> We just need to regulate it better [18:09] <@Toprawa> Since he's not here to personally plead for it, I'll take some general commentary [18:09] <@Jujiggum> Doesn't matter how [18:09] <+MasterJonathan> I try to answer questions when I can, but most of the questions are either beyond my limited area of knowledge are are just plain stupid. [18:10] <@IFYLOFD> So some sort of body? [18:10] <@Toprawa> This doesn't need to be a formal matter. [18:10] <+Rubedo> I've been doing that a bit [18:10] <@riffsyphon1024> I can't say anything here, I've violated this already before [18:10] <+Karohalva> I am willing to help, but I'm only available at night. [18:10] <@Toprawa> If people want to help enforce it, go a head. [18:10] <+Omicron> I frequently check KB and SH [18:10] <+Olioster> Per JJM [18:10] <@IFYLOFD> Like a Knowledge Bank Inq? [18:10] <+Menkooroo> I'm an EU buff. I could help. [18:10] <+Xd1358> I don't support any official team. [18:10] <+Tyber> Assign people to it. [18:10] <+Rubedo> Not another INQ [18:10] <@Culator|Away> ... [18:10] <+Rubedo> Maybe a GC [18:10] <+Xd1358> more Inqs [18:10] <+Xd1358> cabals [18:10] <+Tyber> Either admins or rollbackers [18:10] <@Jujiggum> We don't need a KB Inq [18:10] <@CC7567> No, let's not assign people. [18:10] <+Xd1358> I mean [18:10] <@riffsyphon1024> It's not even that official to begin with [18:10] <+Xd1358> we are not a cabal [18:10] <@Jujiggum> We just need to regulate the damn thing [18:10] <+Olioster> We don't need some new committee for the KB [18:10] <@CavalierOne> Either that, or attempt to shift OT discussion topics elsewhere. [18:10] <@Culator|Away> Not another committee. [18:10] <+Xd1358> exactly [18:10] <@Toprawa> This is *not* asking for a formal body [18:10] <@riffsyphon1024> and should we destroy it? [18:10] <+Axinal> I say let the Star Wars category of Wikianswers handle that. [18:10] <@Toprawa> This is asking for *volunteers* [18:10] <@Jujiggum> No, don't destroy it [18:10] <+Rubedo> Then people would ask crap questions in the Senate Hall [18:10] <@Jujiggum> We'd just get the same questions elsewhere [18:11] <@Jujiggum> ^^ [18:11] <+Menkooroo> On talk pages. [18:11] <+Xd1358> leave it to starwars.answers.wikia.com :D [18:11] <+Xd1358> redirect the KB there ;) [18:11] <+QGJ> I think KB is fine the way it is [18:11] <+SavageBob> I think it's a good way to lure traffic to the site, so don't do away with it [18:11] <+Rubedo> yeah, lolno [18:11] <+Karohalva> Or kill KB. [18:11] <+Karohalva> The wiki has articles, after all [18:11] <+Xd1358> enforce rule 11 harder [18:11] <+Tyber> Per Karo, again. [18:11] <@IFYLOFD> I've never liked the KB [18:11] <+Xd1358> no patrol team [18:11] <@riffsyphon1024> KB does produce some gems though, it can be quite entertaining [18:11] <+Jang|Away> lol [18:11] <+Xd1358> indeed [18:11] * _Bella_ (~twilight@[REDACTED]) Quit (Quit: We don't believe the words, we just love the way they sound...) [18:11] <+Tyber> Doesn't it bind to much effort to maintain it? [18:11] <@Toprawa> Everyone is encouraged to help better enforce the KB rules as volunteers. [18:11] <@riffsyphon1024> and occasionally someone does bring up a legitimate question [18:12] <@Toprawa> Moving on. [18:12] <@Toprawa> *Fourth topic* [18:12] <@Toprawa> We need to go over each item linked on the Community Portal. There are things on the page which probably do not belong, considering everyone who first touches the site has a wide avenue to biting off more than they can chew as it stands. Easing users into the community is best, so I am not sure community debates and requests for user rights belong on there. Graestan(Talk) 02:02, March 15,... [18:12] <@IFYLOFD> We're moving along splendidly [18:12] <@Toprawa> ...2011 (UTC) [18:12] <@Toprawa> We're not going over each item [18:12] <@Toprawa> Because we're not going to be here for four hours. -_- [18:12] <@riffsyphon1024> Not each letter? [18:12] <+Xd1358> I removed the CP from the sidebar [18:12] <+Xd1358> ^.^ [18:12] <@Toprawa> Does anyone have actual specific ideas for this? [18:12] <+Rubedo> Kill the links to Awards [18:12] <@riffsyphon1024> Because I'm all for removing the letter "G" from Wookieepedia ;) [18:12] <@Culator|Away> CP needs an SH redesign topic like the main page. [18:12] <+Olioster> I was unaware of the community portal...so yeah [18:13] <+Xd1358> it looks pretty dull [18:13] <+Xd1358> SH [18:13] <@CavalierOne> Does anyone actually use the CP? [18:13] <+Rubedo> Userbox proposals is defunct [18:13] <+Karohalva> No. [18:13] <+MasterJonathan> SH [18:13] <+Xd1358> o [18:13] <+Omicron> very rarely [18:13] <+Xd1358> it's obsolete [18:13] <@Jujiggum> I've never used it [18:13] <@riffsyphon1024> seriously though, CP is a placemark [18:13] <+Kilson> I don't. [18:13] <+Tyber> For longtime users. [18:13] <+SavageBob> It needs a revamp, agreed [18:13] <+Tyber> Maybe noobs use it? [18:13] <@IFYLOFD> Search icon proposals is pretty much defunct [18:13] <+Kilson> How though? [18:13] <@riffsyphon1024> its 2005-era [18:13] <+Karohalva> It still links to the Wookieecast, I think. [18:13] <+Ineedaname> Needs a complete overhaul [18:13] <+Xd1358> Indeed. [18:13] <+Xd1358> SH [18:13] <@Toprawa> I use the CP for anything not listed in the sidebar. [18:13] <@riffsyphon1024> gosh we need more Wookieecast! [18:13] <@Toprawa> It has some use [18:13] <+Xd1358> Because we can't sit her several hours [18:13] <@grunny> I'd say this is another case of move it to a forum for ideas, but we can vote that we need to update it [18:13] <@GreenTentacle> Same as Tope. [18:13] <+Rubedo> Basically, we could kill that whole thing except the Information for Users box [18:13] <+Xd1358> Tope> hence why you can add stuff to the sidebar :P [18:14] <+QGJ> I've never even heard of the CP until now [18:14] <+Tyber> SH it. [18:14] <@IFYLOFD> Per Grunny [18:14] <+Xd1358> SH [18:14] <@Toprawa> Most people don't add stuff to the sidebar, though [18:14] <@Toprawa> Very well. [18:14] <@riffsyphon1024> Didn't the Wikia skin remove the link to the CP? [18:14] <+SavageBob> Per tyber [18:14] <+Karohalva> SH itake mushrooms. [18:14] <+Rubedo> Add Trash Compacter to that section though [18:14] <@Toprawa> Forewarding item to the SH. [18:14] <+Xd1358> riffsyphon1024: yep [18:14] <@Jujiggum> Per Karo [18:14] <@Toprawa> Bring up specifics in the forum [18:14] <+Xd1358> guys [18:14] <+Xd1358> vandal [18:14] <+Xd1358> special:protectsite ;) [18:14] <@riffsyphon1024> So that explains why no one's seen it, that uses the Wikia skin at least [18:14] <@Toprawa> *Fifth topic* [18:14] <+Rubedo> Can't be trusted [18:14] <+Olioster> Per Xd :P [18:14] <@Toprawa> As we are planning to do an upgrade to the Main Page & Portal, I am proposing that we discuss and decide a direction for beautifying and "Wookifying" the new skin, and wether these changes should be extended to the monobook too at some part. Based on this discussion, we could then create a look or several looks the community would vote from at later point. –Tm_T (Talk) 19:00, March 31,... [18:15] <@Toprawa> ...2011 (UTC) [18:15] <+Xd1358> eww oasis [18:15] <+Xd1358> but seriously [18:15] <+Xd1358> why not [18:15] <+Tyber> Ew. [18:15] <@riffsyphon1024> Shut it down, shut it ALL down! [18:15] <+Tyber> If someone wants to put effort in it. [18:15] <+MasterJonathan> Unfortunately, you can't polish a turd. [18:15] <+Olioster> While I don't use it and refuse to ever do unless forced, I do think we should work towards making it look better [18:15] <@riffsyphon1024> oh that was just for the vandal [18:15] <+SavageBob> Per Tyber! [18:15] <+Rubedo> Tm_T is on this. [18:15] <+Karohalva> The site should be nigh Spartan in its simplicity. But that's just me. [18:15] <+Xd1358> can't we come up with some ugly hack to make oasis forward to monobook [18:15] <@Toprawa> Again, are there any actual specific ideas for this? [18:15] <@riffsyphon1024> We need more Wookiees clearly [18:15] <@CavalierOne> As much as we hate the skin, we need to remain relevant ... like it or not, most of our traffic will see the crap skin. [18:15] <+Tyber> Forward/leave it to Tm_T. [18:16] <+Xd1358> SH [18:16] <+Xd1358> :P [18:16] <+Jang|Away> Monobook is the best skin, of course. :P [18:16] <@Jujiggum> Bleh, but per Cav [18:16] <+Tyber> Then SH it when he has a design proposal. [18:16] <@IFYLOFD> This is another one we should send to SH [18:16] <+Kilson> Per Cav. [18:16] <+Karohalva> Toprawa: For one thing, the new skin makes finding Recent Changes difficult [18:16] <+SavageBob> Cav is right. We can't just ignore it because all of us know how bad it sucks [18:16] <@grunny> Once again, I agree and I think Tm T is the main driver behind this, so he and others can propose ideas :) [18:16] <@IFYLOFD> We don't have any real specific ideas [18:16] <+Omicron> I only use monobook, not familiar with the other skin(s) [18:16] <@riffsyphon1024> We're not going to SH everything tonight, are we? [18:16] <+Ineedaname> AFAIK, Tm_T's idea was to make Monobook and Oasis look similar [18:16] <+Olioster> I say still consider monobook our "official skin" but take ideas on SH about beautifying the Wikia look [18:16] * Nayayen (~josh_r8x@wikia/Nayayen) has joined #wookieepedia [18:16] * Culator|Away sets mode: +v Nayayen [18:16] <+Rubedo> He deleted the tentative drafts he showed me [18:16] <+Tyber> I say: Leave it to Tm_T. [18:16] <@grunny> Riffsyphon1024: the agenda items so far are ones that could only work on a forum really [18:17] <@Toprawa> Riff> Most of these are very general discussion items [18:17] <@Toprawa> We could be forever fielding ideas [18:17] <@Toprawa> that's what forums are for [18:17] <+MasterJonathan> SH [18:17] <@Jujiggum> SH it [18:17] <+Xd1358> SH [18:17] <@CC7567> SH [18:17] <+Kilson> SH it [18:17] <@Toprawa> Item is moved to SH. [18:17] <+Karohalva> SH [18:17] <@Toprawa> Discuss specifics there. [18:17] <+Tyber> Tm_T and SH it. [18:17] <@riffsyphon1024> Pardon, it's been a while for me [18:17] <+SavageBob> SH izznit [18:17] <@Toprawa> *Sixth item* [18:17] <@Toprawa> We have a number of ideas for changing the Signature policy. [18:17] <@Toprawa> Please bear with me while we lay out the specific items. [18:18] <@Toprawa> The SIG policy, firstly: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Signature_policy [18:18] <@Culator|Away> *Fifth [18:18] <+MasterJonathan> Can we take these one at a time? [18:18] <@Toprawa> Yes, we are. [18:18] <+MasterJonathan> OK [18:18] <@Toprawa> First item, proposed by MJ. [18:18] <@Toprawa> Enforcing that signature timestamps *remain in UTC* [18:18] <+Xd1358> support [18:18] <+Rubedo> Support [18:18] <@Toprawa> Vote Yes or No please. [18:19] <@Jujiggum> Support [18:19] <@CavalierOne> Support [18:19] <@Jujiggum> Yes [18:19] <@IFYLOFD> Support [18:19] <+Axinal> Yes [18:19] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:19] <+SavageBob> y [18:19] <+Karohalva> No. [18:19] <+Kilson> Yes. [18:19] <+Olioster> Yes [18:19] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:19] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [18:19] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:19] <+Ineedaname> Yes [18:19] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:19] <+Omicron> yes [18:19] <+Xd1358> Karohalva: elaborate [18:19] <+LO|Away> Yeah [18:19] <+Jang|Away> Ya [18:19] <+Menkooroo> yes [18:19] <@CC7567> Yes [18:19] <@Culator|Away> INDEED [18:19] <+Kilson> We need a set time for the site. [18:19] <@riffsyphon1024> can they still be overridden on a personal script? [18:19] <@Toprawa> Clear consensus reached. [18:19] <+Xd1358> they can [18:19] <+Karohalva> Oh, wait, time? [18:19] <+Xd1358> but it's annoying [18:19] <+Kilson> Yep. [18:19] <+Karohalva> Yes. [18:19] <@riffsyphon1024> Then yes [18:19] <@Toprawa> Timestamp will be enforced via UTC time. [18:19] <@Toprawa> Second item, proposed by MJ. [18:19] <@Toprawa> "they must retain all information present in the default timestamp" [18:19] <+Xd1358> support [18:19] <+SavageBob> Yes [18:19] <@Toprawa> MJ, what are these exactly, for the record? [18:19] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:19] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:19] <@Jujiggum> Yes [18:19] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:19] <+Axinal> Yes [18:19] <+Nayayen> yes [18:19] <+Omicron> yes [18:19] <+Xd1358> date, month, year, time [18:19] <+LO|Away> Yup [18:19] <@riffsyphon1024> Yes that being? [18:20] <+Olioster> He didnt ask for a vote yet! [18:20] <@Toprawa> Please hold on voting. [18:20] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:20] <+Kilson> Yes. [18:20] <@CC7567> *GUYS WAIT* [18:20] <@Toprawa> Until the vote is requested [18:20] <+MasterJonathan> Time, full date, and "UTC" declaration [18:20] <+Karohalva> Yes [18:20] <@Toprawa> Ok. [18:20] <@riffsyphon1024> The date coming before the time and UTC indicator? [18:20] <@Toprawa> Vote on measure. Yes or No [18:20] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:20] <+Olioster> Yes [18:20] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:20] <+Omicron> yes [18:20] <+Axinal> Yes [18:20] <+SavageBob> Yess [18:20] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:20] <@Jujiggum> Yes [18:20] <+Kilson> Yes. [18:20] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:20] <+Nayayen> again yes [18:20] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:20] <+Menkooroo> yes [18:20] <+Ineedaname> Yes [18:20] <+QGJ> Yes [18:20] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:20] <+LO|Away> Yes [18:20] <@Culator|Away> Bizarro no. [18:20] <@CC7567> Yes [18:20] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [18:20] <+Tyber> details kann man dann im wiki/forum diskutieren [18:20] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [18:20] <+Tyber> Oops. [18:20] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:21] <+Xd1358> Tyber: wrong tab thx :P [18:21] <+Jang|Away> No [18:21] <@riffsyphon1024> !peak [18:21] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached for enforcing Time, full date, and UTC declaration in signatures. [18:21] <@Nuku-Nuku> riffsyphon1024: Fiolli set a record of 42 people in #wookieepedia on July 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM EST. You'll need 2 more people to break the peak. [18:21] <+Tyber> Sorry. :P [18:21] <@Toprawa> Third item, proposed by MJ [18:21] <@Toprawa> "the month must be displayed as text, not numbers (to avoid confusion over MM/DD/YY and DD/MM/YY formats)" [18:21] <+Tyber> Isn't that default? [18:21] <+Karohalva> No. Let them learn to read. [18:21] <@Toprawa> Vote Yes or No [18:21] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:21] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:21] <@Jujiggum> Yes [18:21] <+Omicron> yes [18:21] <+Kilson> Very good idea, Yes! [18:21] <+Axinal> Yes [18:21] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:21] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:21] <+QGJ> Yes [18:21] <+Nayayen> yes [18:21] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [18:21] <@Culator|Away> EXCELSIOR [18:21] <@CC7567> Yes [18:21] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:21] <+Tyber> Yes, then. [18:21] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:21] <+Menkooroo> yes [18:21] <+Ineedaname> Yes [18:21] <+SavageBob> Abstain [18:22] <@riffsyphon1024> agreed, differences between Western and Eastern systems are unneeded [18:22] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to enforce month displayed by text, not numbers in signatures. [18:22] <+LO|Away> Per Bob [18:22] <+Olioster> Yes [18:22] <@Toprawa> Fourth item proposed by MJ [18:22] <+Kilson> Good job MJ! [18:22] <@Toprawa> "Amendment of the color restriction to read, "You may only have one explicitly defined font color, one explicitly defined background color, and one border color in your signature." " [18:22] <@Toprawa> Vote Yes or No [18:22] <+Xd1358> Strong oppose [18:22] <+Omicron> no [18:22] <+Jang|Away> NO [18:22] <+Axinal> Yes [18:22] <@CavalierOne> No [18:22] <@IFYLOFD> No [18:22] <@CC7567> No [18:22] <+Tyber> Cull graphic signatures. :P [18:22] <@Culator|Away> The color restriction was always too vague. [18:22] <@Jujiggum> No [18:22] <+Kilson> I don't see the point, no. [18:22] <+Karohalva> No, get rid of signatures instead. Just names. [18:22] <+SavageBob> I'm not sure why this is necessary, so no vote [18:22] <+Xd1358> No border nor bg color [18:22] <+Olioster> No [18:22] <+Tyber> Per Culator. [18:22] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:22] <+QGJ> Yes [18:22] <+Xd1358> allow two font colors instead [18:22] <+Rubedo> No to the one defined font color [18:23] <+Olioster> Per Xd [18:23] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [18:23] <+Nayayen> no to background or border [18:23] <@Jujiggum> Per Xd [18:23] <+LO|Away> Abstain [18:23] <+Omicron> per Xd [18:23] <+Axinal> Is this one color aside form default blue, or one color total? [18:23] <@CC7567> Per Xd [18:23] <+SavageBob> What's the argument for the proposal, MJ? [18:23] <+Xd1358> two font colors: either one default + one defined or two defined [18:23] <+Kilson> Finally, some actual voting. [18:23] <+Tyber> Abstain. [18:23] <+Xd1358> default would count as one [18:23] <+Menkooroo> any discussion? [18:23] <+Menkooroo> before voting? [18:23] <+SavageBob> Per Menk [18:23] <+Karohalva> Why must there be gaudy signatures anyway? [18:23] <+MasterJonathan> Bob: simply to keep sigs from getting too elaborate [18:23] <@Toprawa> The vote is 12-4 no. [18:23] <+Xd1358> MJ's sig is hard to read [18:23] <+Rubedo> We should allow at least two colors for text [18:23] <@riffsyphon1024> Yes, keep it simple [18:23] <@grunny> I'd say we either define and enforce one font color only, or allow two font colors explicitly [18:23] <+Jang|Away> PER XD [18:24] <@Toprawa> Please discuss alternative ideas [18:24] <+Xd1358> CC has two font colors, for example, which is nice and clean [18:24] <@Jujiggum> Per Grunny [18:24] <@grunny> but I would not go above two font colors [18:24] <+SavageBob> In that case, I vote no. Bad taste is not absolute [18:24] <+Tyber> MJ: Just look at the attendance list at Wookieepedia:Mofferences. :P [18:24] <+QGJ> I've always thought that the policy allowed one defined color+the default [18:24] <+Ineedaname> TBH, everyone having a MJ sig would be too elaborate [18:24] <+Kilson> I mean, I don't see the point of signitures. [18:24] <@grunny> per INAN [18:24] <+Rubedo> MAX should be three, IMO [18:24] <+Axinal> I say keep as default blue plus max one defined. [18:24] <+Xd1358> grunny, "one font color" or "one defined + default"? [18:24] <+QGJ> The wording's just kinda vague [18:24] <+Karohalva> I propose the elimination of colored signatures. There's only one black man in the Galaxy anyway. [18:24] <@Toprawa> per INAN [18:24] <+Omicron> 2 font colors, one for name, one for usertalk link [18:24] <@grunny> Xd: one font color [18:24] <+Xd1358> k [18:24] <@grunny> no dodging around policy with technicalities [18:24] <+Xd1358> I would support this two color system [18:24] <+Rubedo> I like Omicron's idea [18:24] <+Xd1358> like CC's [18:24] <@Toprawa> One font color is already the existing policy rule, FTR [18:24] <+Jang|Away> Jonathan: I'm sorry, but your sig is annoying. :P [18:24] <@grunny> so either one or two [18:24] <+Tyber> MJ's signature is how it should not be in general. [18:24] <@IFYLOFD> Per Omicron [18:25] <@Toprawa> Even though some people abuse it [18:25] <+Kilson> Per Tyber. [18:25] <+Kilson> Sorry MJ. [18:25] <@grunny> Tyber: agreed [18:25] <+Tyber> MJ: Nothing personal. [18:25] <@riffsyphon1024> Wait, I use two colors, so then I'm against this [18:25] <+Xd1358> :p [18:25] <@grunny> okay, vote to kill MJ's sig? [18:25] <+Karohalva> Fine, but no yellow. Can't see that against white backgrounds. [18:25] <@grunny> :P [18:25] <+Xd1358> :D [18:25] <+Olioster> lol [18:25] <@GreenTentacle> Per Tyber. [18:25] <+Jang|Away> YES [18:25] <+SavageBob> There's a Rainboh in the galaxy, so colors are good [18:25] <+Axinal> No, I'm fond of MJ's sig. [18:25] <@riffsyphon1024> sorry to flip flop there [18:25] <+MasterJonathan> Modification of my signature shall commence at the conclusion of the Mofference. [18:25] <+Tyber> Where's Jaymach? :P [18:25] <+Karohalva> Scotland [18:25] <+Xd1358> have as many font colors as you like, but no background or border plz [18:25] <+Kilson> lol [18:25] <@riffsyphon1024> plotting [18:25] <+Jaymach> I'm here [18:25] <+Xd1358> :D [18:26] <+Jaymach> I'm just busy :P [18:26] <+Xd1358> what's more important? [18:26] <@Toprawa> OK, holding vote now: Specifically to bar background or border colors. [18:26] <@Toprawa> Vote Yes or No [18:26] <+Rubedo> No. People would abuse an unilmited color system like no other [18:26] <@IFYLOFD> He's eating haggis and fighting people at soccer games [18:26] <+Olioster> Yes [18:26] <+Nayayen> yes [18:26] <@Jujiggum> YES [18:26] <+Karohalva> Yes. Bar background colors [18:26] <+Jang|Away> NO [18:26] <@CC7567> Yes [18:26] <+SavageBob> No [18:26] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:26] <+Xd1358> Strong support to disallow those [18:26] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [18:26] <+Axinal> No [18:26] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:26] <@grunny> yes, no background colors [18:26] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:26] <+Kilson> Yes. [18:26] <+LO|Away> Yes [18:26] <+Tyber> Yes is disallow? [18:26] <@riffsyphon1024> No background [18:26] <+Ineedaname> Yes [18:26] <+Jang|Away> Wait, no to background colors? Support, sorry [18:26] <@Toprawa> Yes is disallow [18:26] <@Culator|Away> Yes to no. [18:26] <+Tyber> Yes then. [18:26] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:26] <+QGJ> Yes, then [18:26] <+Menkooroo> yes to no. [18:26] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [18:27] <+Kilson> Yes to Yes. [18:27] <+Ineedaname> Yes to barring [18:27] <@Toprawa> Consensus in favor barring background and border colors in signatures. [18:27] <@Toprawa> Last signature voting item: [18:27] <+SavageBob> The Jeby is crying. [18:27] <@Toprawa> I would also like to add one to this list. Specifically, requiring the timestamp to be included in all signatures used on all public forum pages. The Sig policy doesn't specifically require this, and in fact actually includes wording that allows people to get away with only the version. Using the timestamp is really just common sense for basic date referencing and timekeeping purposes.... [18:27] <@Toprawa> ...Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC) [18:27] <+Tyber> Bob: Let it drown. :P [18:27] <@Toprawa> Vote for requiring timestamps in all forum sigs. Vote Yes or No [18:27] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:27] <+Olioster> Yes [18:27] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:27] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [18:27] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:27] <+QGJ> Yes [18:27] <+Kilson> Yes [18:27] <@Culator|Away> CAPITAL [18:27] <@Jujiggum> YES -- common sense [18:27] <+Karohalva> Yes. [18:27] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:27] <+Axinal> Yes [18:27] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:27] <+Ineedaname> Yes, definitely [18:27] <@IFYLOFD> Strong Yes [18:27] <+SavageBob> yes [18:27] <+Nayayen> yes [18:27] <+Jang|Away> Of coruse [18:27] <+Menkooroo> Yes! [18:27] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:27] <@CC7567> Yes [18:27] <+LO|Away> Yes [18:28] <@grunny> Yes [18:28] <@Toprawa> Consensus in favor of requiring timestamp in all public sigs. [18:28] * LO|Away is now known as Lord_Oblivion [18:28] <+MasterJonathan> Tope: was a decision made about number of font colors? [18:28] <@grunny> I'd say the next vote should be one or two colors then [18:28] <@Toprawa> We can vote on that now. [18:28] <@Jujiggum> Yes, let's [18:28] <+QGJ> Yeah [18:28] <+Xd1358> yes please [18:28] <+MasterJonathan> And are we counting default colors [18:28] <+MasterJonathan> ?* [18:28] <+Kilson> Vote now. [18:28] <@grunny> no [18:28] <@IFYLOFD> Two colors should be allowed [18:28] <@Toprawa> Vote for enforcing one font color in sigs, which is already policy, for the record. Vote Yes or No. [18:29] <+Jaymach> I vote 42 colours [18:29] <@IFYLOFD> No [18:29] <+Xd1358> discuss [18:29] <@grunny> no to MJ's question btw [18:29] <+Rubedo> No [18:29] <+Karohalva> Yes. [18:29] <+SavageBob> No [18:29] <+Tyber> No. [18:29] <+Olioster> No [18:29] <@grunny> wait, before everyone votes [18:29] <+QGJ> No [18:29] <+Xd1358> default + one defined [18:29] <+Lord_Oblivion> No [18:29] <+Axinal> One defined plus default? [18:29] <@Toprawa> STOP [18:29] <@grunny> *STOP* [18:29] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [18:29] <+Menkooroo> discuss! [18:29] <@CC7567> *WAIT GUYS* [18:29] <+MasterJonathan> No. Two colors [18:29] <@Toprawa> We'll do this again [18:29] <@Toprawa> Stop. [18:29] <+Xd1358> halt [18:29] <@Toprawa> Everyone stay on topic, please. [18:29] <@Toprawa> Vote once, and let everyone else vote [18:29] <@Toprawa> Then be quite [18:29] <@Toprawa> quiet* [18:29] <@Toprawa> Measure is: Enforcing pre-existing rule for *ONE* font color in sigs. [18:29] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:29] <+Rubedo> No [18:29] <+QGJ> No [18:29] <@IFYLOFD> No [18:30] <@grunny> Yes [18:30] <+Xd1358> No [18:30] <+Olioster> No [18:30] <+MasterJonathan> No [18:30] <+Lord_Oblivion> No [18:30] <+Axinal> No [18:30] <@Jujiggum> No [18:30] <+Kilson> No [18:30] <+Nayayen> yes [18:30] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [18:30] <+Omicron> no [18:30] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:30] <@CC7567> No [18:30] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:30] <+SavageBob> No [18:30] <+Menkooroo> If no wins, do we amend? Or do we just... not enforce? [18:30] <+Xd1358> we can discuss :P [18:30] <@grunny> we vote on how to ammend [18:30] <+Menkooroo> ah, OK [18:30] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:30] <+Rubedo> We're gaving the follow-up vote for two colors, right? [18:30] <+Menkooroo> I vote yes [18:30] <@Toprawa> Ok, new vote based on No outcome. [18:30] <@Toprawa> Vote to remove completely from WP:SIG the rule stating one font color in sigs. [18:31] <+Xd1358> Can I make a proposal? [18:31] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:31] <@Toprawa> After, Xd [18:31] <+Rubedo> NO [18:31] <+Xd1358> No [18:31] <@Jujiggum> No [18:31] <+Menkooroo> no [18:31] <+MasterJonathan> No [18:31] <@Culator|Away> No [18:31] <+Karohalva> No [18:31] <+Axinal> No [18:31] <+Nayayen> no [18:31] <@Toprawa> No [18:31] <+Olioster> No [18:31] <@CavalierOne> No [18:31] <@grunny> No, that would just be messy [18:31] <+Tyber> No. [18:31] <@CC7567> No [18:31] <+Omicron> no [18:31] <+QGJ> No [18:31] <+Kilson> No [18:31] <@GreenTentacle> No. [18:31] <+Lord_Oblivion> No [18:31] <+SavageBob> yes [18:31] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:31] <@Toprawa> OK, outcome for votes is that we don't want to remove the one-color rule, but we dont' want to enforce it either. [18:31] <@Toprawa> As contradictory as that is [18:31] <@Jujiggum> Xd's proposal, please [18:31] <+Rubedo> Vote on two colors [18:31] <@Toprawa> Other ideas now. [18:31] <+QGJ> We don't want to remove it [18:32] <+MasterJonathan> Two colors [18:32] <+Olioster> Xd's proposal [18:32] <@GreenTentacle> Democracy at its best. :P [18:32] <+Xd1358> My proposal: [18:32] <+QGJ> We want to amend it [18:32] <@grunny> I say vote on two colors [18:32] * @riffsyphon1024 (~chatzilla@[REDACTED]) Quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [18:32] <+Kilson> Everyone quiet. [18:32] <+Olioster> Two colors: one definite + one undefined or 2 defined [18:32] <+Kilson> Xd has the floor. [18:32] <+Xd1358> Allow two font colors: a) the default + one defined ; b) two defined [18:32] * riffsyphon1024 (~chatzilla@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia [18:32] * ChanServ sets mode: +o riffsyphon1024 [18:32] <+Xd1358> for example, CC's, Floyd's, Jang's sigs [18:32] <@riffsyphon1024> sigh, what did I miss? [18:32] <+Xd1358> a hectic sig debate [18:32] <@Jujiggum> Xd> Allow two font colors: a) the default + one defined ; b) two defined [18:32] <+Rubedo> Reff: <+Xd1358> Allow two font colors: a) the default + one defined ; b) two defined [18:32] <@Jujiggum> For Riff [18:32] <@riffsyphon1024> stinkin kick and name change [18:32] <@CC7567> Is this including the timestamp, Xd? [18:33] <@riffsyphon1024> okay we didn't get to the next topic? [18:33] <+Xd1358> yes, ffs, don't modify the timestamp color :P [18:33] <+Ineedaname> There definitely needs to be a limit to how many colours someone can use, but I'm abstaining from figuring out what that number is [18:33] <@grunny> the timestamp really should be left in default text color [18:33] <@riffsyphon1024> I always assumed the timestamp color was in black [18:33] <+MasterJonathan> There are multiple defaults: link, interwiki link, text [18:33] <+Jang|Away> Per Grunny [18:33] <@Jujiggum> Timestap should be left in default [18:33] <@riffsyphon1024> I don't want a rainbow of comments [18:33] <+Jang|Away> and Jugs [18:33] <+Tyber> Per Grunny. [18:33] <@riffsyphon1024> Yes per Grunny [18:33] <+Xd1358> per grunny [18:33] <@CavalierOne> Per grunny [18:33] <+Xd1358> but that was not the point :P [18:33] <+Axinal> Per grunny [18:34] <+Kilson> Per Grunny. [18:34] <@Toprawa> I'll admit I'm kind of confused here. [18:34] <@Jujiggum> The sig--meaning the user and talk page links, can contain up to two colors, with either 1 default and 1 defined, OR 2 defined [18:34] <+SavageBob> me too, tope [18:34] <@Jujiggum> Am I correct? [18:34] <@Jujiggum> Xd? [18:34] <+Rubedo> I think we should also hold a vote for disallowing Yellow, per someone [18:34] <+Kilson> I just go with the crowd. [18:35] <+Xd1358> Yes. [18:35] <+Tyber> Yeah. [18:35] <@Toprawa> I don't understand what "default and defined" mean. [18:35] <@riffsyphon1024> The difference between default and defined? [18:35] <@Jujiggum> Default is the normal light blue [18:35] <+Xd1358> default = default link color, like yours [18:35] <+Kilson> Default is what I use. [18:35] <@Jujiggum> Defined is a specific color, like mine [18:35] * @CC7567 (~chatzilla@wikia/CC7567) Quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 4.0/20110318052756]) [18:35] <@Toprawa> Gotcha, gotcha [18:35] <+Karohalva> I just use ~. [18:35] <+Tyber> Default = blue Username [18:35] <+Nayayen> default also doesn't require any modification of the sig [18:35] <@Jujiggum> So 1 default + 1 defined =Axinal's [18:35] <+Xd1358> yes [18:36] <+Xd1358> and two defined = Jang's, for example [18:36] <@Jujiggum> Aye [18:36] <@riffsyphon1024> I have light gray and dark gray for both links to my User and Talk Pages, so that is two defined colors [18:36] <+Xd1358> Karohalva: that's what we all do [18:36] <@Toprawa> OK, let's vote. Measure = Vote to amend the one-color rule to allow *1 default color + 1 defined color + timestamp remains in black* [18:36] <+Olioster> Perhaps we should SH this too? We still have 6 topics left to discuss [18:36] <+Tyber> Or Grunny's. [18:36] <+Rubedo> I'm defined and default [18:36] <+Olioster> Yes [18:36] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:36] <@Jujiggum> YES [18:36] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:36] <+Axinal> Yes [18:36] <+QGJ> Yes [18:36] <+SavageBob> Abstain. [18:36] <+Nayayen> yes [18:36] <+Menkooroo> yes [18:36] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:36] <@Culator|Away> AFFIRMATIVE [18:36] <+Xd1358> wait [18:36] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [18:36] <+Kilson> Yes, going with the crowd. [18:36] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:36] <@grunny> Yes [18:36] <+Omicron> yes [18:36] <+MasterJonathan> WAIT [18:36] <+Xd1358> wait [18:36] <+Olioster> Wait [18:36] <@Jujiggum> Oh wait [18:36] <+Kilson> Wait? [18:36] <@Toprawa> Why are we waiting. [18:36] <@Toprawa> Please go ahead [18:36] <@riffsyphon1024> Not 2 defined colors? [18:37] <@Jujiggum> should be "1 default + 1 defined OR 2 defined" [18:37] <+Xd1358> it needs to be 1 default color + 1 defined color *OR* two defined [18:37] <+MasterJonathan> I thought it was 1+1 OR 2 defined [18:37] <@Jujiggum> Yeah [18:37] <@grunny> How about this for a vote: [18:37] <@Toprawa> Oh, I thought that was meant as an alternative option [18:37] <@Toprawa> OK. [18:37] <@riffsyphon1024> I support IF it includes 2 defined [18:37] <@Toprawa> Sorry about that [18:37] <+MasterJonathan> You can pick one or the other [18:37] <+MasterJonathan> for your sig* [18:37] <@Jujiggum> Yep, Riffs, it does [18:37] <@Toprawa> RE-Vote: *1 default color + 1 defined color + black timestamp* OR *2 defined + black timestamp* [18:37] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:37] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [18:37] <+Olioster> Yes [18:37] <+Omicron> yes [18:37] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:37] <@Jujiggum> YES [18:37] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:37] <+SavageBob> Abstain again! [18:37] <+MasterJonathan> YES [18:37] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:37] <+Axinal> Yes [18:37] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:37] <+QGJ> Yes [18:37] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [18:37] <@Culator|Away> FINE [18:38] <+Kilson> Yes. [18:38] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:38] <+Nayayen> Yes [18:38] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [18:38] <+Jang|Away> K [18:38] <+Karohalva> Abstain [18:38] <+Menkooroo> yeah [18:38] <@grunny> yeah [18:38] <@Toprawa> Consensus is to amend one-color WP:SIG rule to allow for *1 default color + 1 defined color + black timestamp* OR *2 defined + black timestamp* [18:38] <@Toprawa> MOVING ON! [18:38] <+Rubedo> Vote on disallowing yellow? [18:38] <+Karohalva> Please [18:38] <+Kilson> Agreed. [18:38] <@Toprawa> Fine. [18:38] <+Karohalva> And light green. [18:38] <@riffsyphon1024> if it hurts the eyes, oh wait, we just did that yesterday.. [18:38] <@Jujiggum> NO [18:38] <+Xd1358> and that [18:38] <+Xd1358> and that [18:38] <@Jujiggum> Let's just MOVE ON [18:39] <@Jujiggum> :P [18:39] <@Culator|Away> Per Jujiggum. [18:39] <+Axinal> Per Jujiggum. [18:39] <@grunny> Per Jugs [18:39] <+Olioster> Move on, we've spent enough time on this [18:39] <@Toprawa> We're moving on. [18:39] <+Kilson> No, I agree. [18:39] <@IFYLOFD> Per Jiggles [18:39] <+SavageBob> Move along, move along [18:39] <@riffsyphon1024> nothing to see here [18:39] <+Tyber> Nothing to see here. [18:39] <+Rubedo> We need to disallow the kind of font doubling we used on AFD [18:39] <+Karohalva> These aren't the colors you're looking for. [18:39] <@Toprawa> *Next item. Whatever number this is. Seventh? Sixth? Fortieth?* [18:39] <@grunny> 7th [18:39] <+Jang|Away> 7th [18:39] <@Toprawa> In light of recent TCW episodes airing in the UK before the US, and not forgetting the same thing with episodes 15-21 in Season 2, we need to establish what is done with differing/earlier foreign release dates for products. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 16:24, March 20, 2011 (UTC) [18:39] <+Xd1358> ignore UK [18:39] <+Xd1358> :P [18:39] <+Menkooroo> I was wondering about this one, too. I saw Wookiee Hunt (the most recent “The Clone Wars” episode) a week before it aired in the US, and I was wondering if I could make edits about it and say “Trust me” in the edit summary. Is “I have seen the episode” confirmation enough? [18:39] <@GreenTentacle> Xd1358: Don't make me kick you. :P [18:39] <@riffsyphon1024> if it appears at all, it's considered released, correct? [18:40] <+Omicron> I agree Riff [18:40] <@riffsyphon1024> There's lots of things the UK got before the US [18:40] <+Axinal> Per Riff. [18:40] <@Jujiggum> Per Riffs [18:40] <+SavageBob> Per riff. List both release dates in the infobox and be done with it. [18:40] <+Karohalva> But if it's in one location then it can't be verified by the rest of the community. [18:40] <+QGJ> If it's released, it's released. Simples [18:40] <@Jujiggum> Per Bob [18:40] <+Jang|Away> Per Bob [18:40] <@CavalierOne> Indeed. You've trusted us Brits with info from the FFs and other exclusive publications. [18:40] <+Kilson> Per Riff. [18:40] <+Xd1358> can't see why not [18:40] <@Toprawa> per Riff and Bob [18:40] <+Tyber> If it's released, it's released. [18:40] <+Xd1358> per them [18:40] <@grunny> just list both in the release date field [18:40] <+Lord_Oblivion> Karo: Internet [18:40] <+Tyber> Spoiler tag and go for it. [18:40] <+SavageBob> we have to trust our UK editors, then [18:40] <@IFYLOFD> Per Riffs, I guess [18:40] <+Nayayen> Right, essentially I was thinking that we either add foreign release dates if they're earlier OR all of them [18:40] <@riffsyphon1024> Wookieepedia is not Americentric [18:40] <+Omicron> per Tyber too [18:40] <@grunny> UK: date US: date [18:40] <+Kilson> Per Grunny. [18:40] <+Axinal> Per Riff, again. [18:40] <+Karohalva> Riff: Of course not. We're Humanocentric. [18:40] <@Jujiggum> Per Riffs again [18:40] <+SavageBob> Assume good faith on the UK-only stuff, and we can eventually confirm [18:41] <@Culator|Away> Yes it is, but we can allow UK stuff anyway. [18:41] <@grunny> though then we'd have to list all others potentially... [18:41] <+Jang|Away> Kara: XD [18:41] <+Tyber> Per Grunny [18:41] <+Rubedo> Would we list it with flags alaWikipedia or, say, "(US)" "(UK)" [18:41] <+Xd1358> Finland: A year later [18:41] <@riffsyphon1024> We're Coruscentric ;) [18:41] <@Toprawa> OK. Vote on item: *Allow and specify both US and UK dates in TCW and TCW-like situations/articles* [18:41] <+Ineedaname> I'd add if they're earlier, for clarification when people see edits being made before something's supposed to have happened [18:41] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:41] <+Menkooroo> yes! [18:41] <+Tyber> Yes. [18:41] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:41] <@Jujiggum> Yes [18:41] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [18:41] <+Kilson> YES! [18:41] <@grunny> yes [18:41] <+Jang|Away> Y [18:41] <+Karohalva> Yes. [18:41] <+Axinal> Yes [18:41] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:41] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:41] <+Omicron> yes [18:41] <+Olioster> Yes [18:41] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [18:41] <+QGJ> Yes [18:41] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:41] <+Nayayen> Yes [18:41] <+Lord_Oblivion> Yes [18:41] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:41] <+SavageBob> yes [18:41] <+Ineedaname> No, that proposal's too specific [18:41] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [18:41] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to specify US and UK dates in these types of articles. [18:42] <+MasterJonathan> How does spoiler tagging tie into this? Would we time the month from the first release or the U.S. release? [18:42] <+Xd1358> good point [18:42] <+Axinal> First release, I say. [18:42] <+Kilson> ....good question. [18:42] <@Jujiggum> Whichever is the latest [18:42] <@riffsyphon1024> The internet changed that [18:42] <+Ineedaname> US release [18:42] <+Olioster> From first release sounds best [18:42] <+Kilson> U.S. release. [18:42] <@grunny> I'd go with the latest [18:42] <@Toprawa> US is probably best [18:42] <+Xd1358> yes, ignore UK [18:42] * +Tyber shrugs [18:42] <+Xd1358> US [18:42] <@Jujiggum> I'd say last release, bu [18:42] <+SavageBob> Perhaps the later English-language release, whichever that is [18:42] <+Rubedo> I think we should time it by the latter brand new release, whatever country it is [18:42] <@riffsyphon1024> after the UK release, did it not hit the net? [18:42] <@Toprawa> Allows for more leeway [18:42] <+Axinal> Home page makes it clear that WP has spoilers. [18:42] <+Menkooroo> last release [18:42] <+Ineedaname> Or what Jujiggum said [18:42] <+Jang|Away> Keep the spoiler tag on after it's released in the UK, remove when it passes a month after the US airing [18:42] <+Axinal> If people don't want spoilers, they shouldn't read. [18:42] <@grunny> so if the US is released later, wait a month from that [18:42] <+MasterJonathan> I say U.S. release. [18:42] <+Karohalva> Hold on, what if the argument gets made to include release dates for more than just US and UK. [18:42] <+Nayayen> The first release, didn't someone just say we're not Americacentric ? [18:42] <+SavageBob> We don't need to worry about Japanese releases and such since the language barrier is there [18:42] <@CavalierOne> Official release stated on SW.com? [18:42] <+Kilson> The majority of views are in the US. [18:42] <+Menkooroo> yeah, official release [18:42] <+Kilson> So US. [18:43] <@Toprawa> Vote on item: *Enforce spoiler tag based on last release date, which is pretty much always US* [18:43] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:43] <+Axinal> No [18:43] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:43] <@grunny> yes [18:43] <+Omicron> yes [18:43] <@Jujiggum> Yes [18:43] <+Karohalva> Yes. [18:43] <+Tyber> Abstain. [18:43] <@riffsyphon1024> We still speak the same language right? [18:43] <+QGJ> No [18:43] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:43] <+Kilson> Yes [18:43] <+Olioster> Abstain [18:43] <+Ineedaname> Yes [18:43] <@Culator|Away> No [18:43] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:43] <+Lord_Oblivion> Yes [18:43] <+Nayayen> No, on first [18:43] <+Ineedaname> Wait, when you say enforce [18:43] <+SavageBob> No: last English-langauge release date [18:43] <+Menkooroo> ehhhh I don't like the wording. 'Official' would be better than 'last', IMO. [18:43] <+Ineedaname> Do you mean adding or removing the tag? [18:43] <@riffsyphon1024> Hmm... abstain here [18:43] <+SavageBob> Things often come out much later in French, or Japanese, or Finnish, or whatever [18:43] <@Toprawa> Removing. [18:43] <@Jujiggum> INAN: removing I believe [18:43] <+Ineedaname> Yes then [18:43] <@grunny> Menkooroo: but there would be two official release dates [18:44] <+Kilson> Last English release date then. [18:44] <+Jang|Away> Yes [18:44] <@grunny> this is just going for the last of those two [18:44] <+Kilson> This is an English wiki. [18:44] <+Nayayen> Add it for the first date and keep it on until the end of the last English release date [18:44] <+Rubedo> Per Savage Bob, though Japanese covers are much better [18:44] <@Jujiggum> I'd be down with last English release [18:44] <@riffsyphon1024> Case by case basis? [18:44] <+Karohalva> What about Canada and South Africa? [18:44] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to enforce/remove spoiler dag based on last US release date [18:44] <+Kilson> They don't matter. [18:44] <+Xd1358> don't forget Finland [18:44] <+Tyber> ... [18:44] <@Toprawa> No one cares about any other country :P [18:44] <+Menkooroo> last US release date? Ah, I'm coolw ith that. [18:44] <@IFYLOFD> Forget Finland [18:44] <+Kilson> US is best. :p [18:44] <+Xd1358> :( [18:44] <+Tyber> Move on. [18:44] <+SavageBob> Boo to American Imperialism! [18:44] <+Rubedo> AMERICA [18:44] <@Toprawa> MOVING ON [18:44] <+Jang|Away> XD [18:44] <@riffsyphon1024> This is an English Wookieepedia though [18:44] <@Toprawa> *Eighth item?* [18:45] <+Jang|Away> Yes [18:45] <+Xd1358> yep [18:45] <+Rubedo> Sure [18:45] <+Kilson> Si [18:45] <+Tyber> Something on that note, yeah. [18:45] * Nayayen is now known as Nayayen|Away [18:45] <@Toprawa> Before everyone erupts on this, I'm giving Xd the floor to clarify this for all ofus. [18:45] <@Toprawa> So let him speak. [18:45] <@Toprawa> # As per AC Meeting 33, clarifying GAN rule #14 and possibly revisit the redlink rule. 1358 (Talk) 19:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC) [18:45] <+Xd1358> well yeah [18:45] <+Rubedo> Quote GAN Rule 14 for the record, please [18:45] <+Xd1358> we discussed it at the last meeting [18:45] <+Olioster> …ideally include a "powers and abilities" section on relevant character articles, especially for Force-sensitive characters where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated. [18:45] <@riffsyphon1024> Please motion to the floor [18:45] <+Xd1358> ?ideally include a "powers and abilities" section on relevant character articles, especially for Force-sensitive characters where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated. [18:45] <+Xd1358> yes [18:45] <@Toprawa> Everyone shut up except Xd, please [18:46] <+Xd1358> as you know, non-Force sensitives do not have P&A [18:46] <+Xd1358> they have Skills and abilities [18:46] <+Xd1358> so that rule is incorrect [18:46] <+Xd1358> proposal: ...ideally include a P&A for Force-sensitive individuals and S&A for non-Force sensitive characters. [18:46] <+Xd1358> of course, do not abbreviate those sections [18:46] * +Tommy9281 (~Darth_Som@unaffiliated/tommy9281) Quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [18:47] <+SavageBob> What about folks like Nightsisters in TCW, who are supposedly not using the Force but "Magic"? [18:47] <@IFYLOFD> That sounds fine [18:47] <+Xd1358> and that last characters > individuals [18:47] <+Axinal> Xd, may I make an amendment? [18:47] <+Xd1358> Axinal: sure [18:47] <+Kilson> It's the Force. [18:47] <+Jang|Away> Bob: P&A, tbh. :P [18:47] <+Karohalva> The Force is the Force of course, of course. [18:47] <+Ineedaname> It's still using powers of some variety [18:47] <+Axinal> Not an amendment per say, but, are we assuming that Ewoks with magic powers like Teebo are Force-users? [18:47] <@riffsyphon1024> Yeah, still a power [18:47] <+Axinal> basically, per Karohalva. [18:47] <+Kilson> Yep [18:47] <+Axinal> Okay, I'm satisfied. [18:47] <+Menkooroo> The "ideally" still leaves room, then, for cases where skills and abilities can be kept inside "Personality & traits" for non-Force sensitives? [18:47] <+SavageBob> I agree with Axinal -- this requires us to assume too much [18:47] * Tommy9281 (~Darth_Som@unaffiliated/tommy9281) has joined #wookieepedia [18:47] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +v Tommy9281 [18:47] <@Jujiggum> If there's anything "mystical" about it, it's a power [18:48] <@riffsyphon1024> our Earth article states that magicians and psychics are Force users [18:48] <+Jang|Away> Hey Tommy [18:48] <@Jujiggum> Ideally means, if there's no information, then it's not required [18:48] <@Toprawa> per Menkooroo [18:48] <@Jujiggum> As I understand it anyway [18:48] <@Toprawa> S/A can often be squeezed into P/T [18:48] <+Rubedo> Juji is right [18:48] <@riffsyphon1024> whether that's canon, that's another thing [18:48] <+Kilson> Per Tope: [18:48] * Nayayen|Away is now known as Nayayen [18:48] <+Menkooroo> Yeah. If there are a couple of relevant sentences, they're often more at home inside p&t. [18:48] <+Kilson> Except for big FAs [18:48] <+QGJ> Per Menk and Tope. That's how I've done it most of the time [18:48] <@Toprawa> Yeah [18:48] <+Menkooroo> "He could pilot a starship." [18:48] <@Jujiggum> Aye [18:49] <+Xd1358> This is GAN rule, Kilson. [18:49] <@CavalierOne> The Character LG already allows for a Skills and abilities section in lieu of a P&A skill for non-Force sensitives. Its just a rare section. [18:49] <+Kilson> P&a [18:49] <@riffsyphon1024> I'm for the separation/clarification [18:49] <+Rubedo> Same as Riff [18:49] <+Kilson> Shouldn't this also apply to the FAN though. [18:49] <@Jujiggum> On that note... [18:49] <@Jujiggum> Apply this to FAN rule 15 [18:49] <+MasterJonathan> per Jugs [18:49] <+Rubedo> Kilson: They are separate entities [18:49] <+Kilson> Per Jon and myself. ;p [18:49] <+Axinal> Per Jujig. [18:49] <+Xd1358> yeah [18:49] <@Jujiggum> heh :P [18:49] <+SavageBob> What, exactly, is the change again? (Sorry) [18:49] <+Rubedo> Per Juji [18:50] <@Toprawa> We'll vote on these separately. [18:50] <+Xd1358> GAN is more important :P [18:50] <+Tyber> I'll abstain on both. [18:50] <+Kilson> Per Xd. [18:50] <@Toprawa> Ok, vote on measure: *Revise GAN Rule 14 to read: " ...ideally include a P&A for Force-sensitive individuals and S&A for non-Force sensitive characters." * [18:50] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:50] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:50] <+Rubedo> Yes [18:50] <+Omicron> yes [18:50] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [18:50] <+Nayayen> Yes [18:50] <@Jujiggum> YES [18:50] <+Karohalva> Yes. [18:50] <+Kilson> Yes [18:50] <+Olioster> Yes [18:50] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:50] <+QGJ> Yes [18:50] <+Jang|Away> Yes [18:50] <+Menkooroo> yes [18:50] <+Axinal> Yes [18:50] <@grunny> yep [18:50] <+Xd1358> Yes, but that 'characters' > 'individuals' ;) [18:50] <+SavageBob> No, because non-Force-users can have powers too [18:50] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to revise GAN Rule 14 as appropriate. [18:50] <+Karohalva> That's why the section isn't labeled /Force/ powers. [18:50] <+Kilson> What about the FAN though? [18:50] <@riffsyphon1024> explain that later Bob [18:51] <+Kilson> Let's vote on that too. [18:51] <@Toprawa> Ok, before we vote on teh FAN thing, is it the exact same worded proposal? [18:51] <@Jujiggum> Kilson: we're getting there :P [18:51] <@Jujiggum> Tope: It should be [18:51] <@Jujiggum> No reason it can't be [18:51] <+Kilson> Jujiggum:I don't listen well. [18:51] <+Xd1358> agreed [18:51] <@riffsyphon1024> while we're at it, lets go for the CAN too [18:51] <+Axinal> SavageBob, can you propose better wording? [18:51] <+Rubedo> No [18:51] <+Xd1358> lolCAN [18:51] <+Kilson> CA don't have those though. [18:51] <@Toprawa> Ok, vote on measure: *Revise FAN Rule 15 to read: " ...ideally include a P&A for Force-sensitive individuals and S&A for non-Force sensitive characters." * [18:51] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:51] <+Jang|Away> Per Xd [18:51] <+Omicron> yes [18:51] <+Olioster> CANs are never long enough to include that section [18:51] <+Jang|Away> Yes [18:51] <+Menkooroo> yes [18:51] <@Jujiggum> Yes [18:51] <+Nayayen> Yes [18:51] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [18:51] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:51] <+Axinal> Yes [18:51] <+Kilson> Yes [18:51] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:51] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:51] <+Rubedo> CAN can omit the sectionsl [18:51] <+Olioster> Yes [18:52] <+Rubedo> yes [18:52] <+QGJ> Yes [18:52] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [18:52] <+SavageBob> abstain, 'cuz I'm not understanding [18:52] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to revise FAN Rule 15 as appropriate. [18:52] <@Toprawa> are we doing this for CAN too? [18:52] <+Menkooroo> Bob: "Ideally" leaves some wiggle room. [18:52] <@riffsyphon1024> Rubedo/Olio/Kilson: yes I know [18:52] <+Menkooroo> Teebo could probably have a P & A with no objections. [18:52] <@riffsyphon1024> I was joking Tope [18:52] <+QGJ> Does the CAN even have that rule? [18:52] <+Xd1358> no [18:52] <+Rubedo> CAN alread pretty much entails that it should ideally have all relevant sections [18:52] <@Jujiggum> No, it does not [18:52] <+Rubedo> *already [18:53] <+Xd1358> it only has that "screw LG guys" [18:53] <@Toprawa> do we want to add it to CAN? [18:53] <+MasterJonathan> NO [18:53] <+Xd1358> no [18:53] <+Menkooroo> no [18:53] <+Jang|Away> Don't really care for the CAN [18:53] <+Nayayen> No point doing it for CAN methinks [18:53] <@Jujiggum> Because of "Ideally" [18:53] <+QGJ> No, lets just move along [18:53] <@Jujiggum> I'm going to say YES [18:53] <+Rubedo> Emphasis on IDEALLY [18:53] <+Kilson> Well, we might as well. [18:53] <+Xd1358> Jang|Away: get involved, go there and vote ;) [18:53] <+Kilson> Just in case. [18:53] <@riffsyphon1024> Watch the caps, guys [18:53] <@Jujiggum> If there's enough info [18:53] <+Jang|Away> Per Jugs :P [18:53] <@Jujiggum> Then yes [18:53] <+Jang|Away> Xd: and No :P [18:53] <@Toprawa> The ideally leaves wiggle room, as noted. [18:53] <@Toprawa> It's not a bad layout option, IMO [18:53] <@Jujiggum> Exactly [18:53] <+Kilson> Per Tope. [18:53] <+Kilson> Somewhat [18:53] <+Axinal> Per Tope. [18:53] <@riffsyphon1024> well if you would like to submit it [18:53] <+MasterJonathan> If a CAN is has enough info for a P/A or S/A, then it's probably over 250 words anyway. [18:53] <+Olioster> CAN rule 4 [18:54] <@Jujiggum> Oli: fair point [18:54] <@Jujiggum> That does kinda cover it [18:54] <+Rubedo> That's right MJ, which is why most do not make these sections. THere's not enough info [18:54] <+Xd1358> indeed [18:54] <@Toprawa> per Oli and Jugs [18:54] <+Xd1358> it says to follow LG if possible [18:54] <@Jujiggum> Hmm...leave as is then, I suppose [18:54] <+Xd1358> and the LG says to do the stuff [18:54] <+Xd1358> yeah, don't modify CAN rule [18:54] <+MasterJonathan> per Xd [18:54] <+SavageBob> There can be, so I'd say CAN should follow FAN and GAN if they're making these changes [18:54] <+Axinal> Per Xd. [18:54] <+Kilson> Fine don't modify. [18:55] <+Menkooroo> yeah, CAN points to the LG (Life is Good). [18:55] <+Olioster> Moving on? [18:55] <@riffsyphon1024> I apologize, I led everyone astray with the CAN idea [18:55] <+SavageBob> No, it was worth discussing [18:55] <@Jujiggum> Aye [18:55] <+Rubedo> Nice way to end Hour 1 [18:55] <+Karohalva> Not good enough. Riff. Now die for our sins. [18:55] <+Xd1358> :P [18:55] <@Toprawa> Ok, we're moving on. Note that the LG includes these specific sections if necessary. [18:55] <@Jujiggum> So moving right along [18:55] <+Kilson> And who said this wouldn't take up time. [18:55] <@IFYLOFD> Righty-o [18:55] <@Toprawa> *Ninth item* [18:55] <+MasterJonathan> whoa! [18:55] <@Toprawa> whoa? [18:55] <+MasterJonathan> What about the redlink rule? [18:55] <+Xd1358> Tope, redlink rule? [18:55] <+Tyber> On we move! [18:56] <+Xd1358> yes [18:56] <@Toprawa> oh, yeah :P [18:56] <@Toprawa> Sorry :P [18:56] <@Jujiggum> :O [18:56] <@IFYLOFD> :| [18:56] <@Toprawa> Xd, you have the floor once more. [18:56] <+Ineedaname> What's the redlink rule? [18:56] <@riffsyphon1024> Clarify the redlink rule again? [18:56] <+Xd1358> can I has floor :P [18:56] <+Karohalva> *haz [18:56] <@Jujiggum> Take it away Xd [18:56] <+Xd1358> GAN rule 8: ?have no more than 3 redlinks for articles less than 500 words, no more than 5 redlinks for articles 500 words or more, and no redlinks in the introduction, infobox, or any templates. [18:56] <+Xd1358> I find it ridiculous that GAs under 500 words can have three redlinks [18:56] <@riffsyphon1024> Kinda derr on this one [18:56] <+Xd1358> so, basically, amend to ?have no more than 1 redlink for articles less than 500 words, no more than 3 redlinks for articles 500 words or more, and no redlinks in the introduction, infobox, or any templates. [18:56] <+Kilson> So what, one redlink for under 500 [18:56] <+Tyber> It's a stupid rule. [18:56] <+Olioster> I find it ridiculous we allow any redlinks [18:57] <+MasterJonathan> How about zero redlinks on all status articles, whether FA or GA? CAN rules already require zero redlinks, and redlinks = laziness. It only takes a minute, if that, to write a stub to fill in a redlink, and if you can write the redlink into the status article, you have the material to create a stub, so there's no reason it can't be done. [18:57] <+SavageBob> I like redlinks. They encourage new contributors to add to the encyclopedia and are thus not as bad as foks make them out to be [18:57] <+Omicron> per Olio [18:57] <@Jujiggum> Per Oli [18:57] <+Menkooroo> let's make the redlink rule stricter. I'd support a "no redlinks at all" proposal. [18:57] <+Olioster> A stub is better than a redlink [18:57] <@Jujiggum> Per MJ! [18:57] <@IFYLOFD> Fuck redlinks [18:57] <@Toprawa> Order, please. [18:57] <+Rubedo> Get rid of the limit altogether [18:57] <@Toprawa> We all have separate ideas, clearly [18:57] <+Kilson> I guess I'll have to right 3 articles for HOB-147 [18:57] <+Tyber> Against Olio. [18:57] <@riffsyphon1024> We've gotten to a point where redlinks on GAN and FAN related articles are exceedingly rare [18:57] <+Xd1358> There were a bunch of GAs that had redlinks, but none would violate my proposed rule. [18:57] <+Menkooroo> Redlinks took my baby! [18:57] <@Jujiggum> May I have the floor for a moment? I'd like to say somethin' [18:57] <@CavalierOne> I'd support no redlinks at all. [18:57] <@Toprawa> *ORDER IN THE COURT* :P [18:57] <+Rubedo> It does not always take a "minute" [18:57] <@Toprawa> *XD1358 has the floor* [18:57] <@Toprawa> It's his proposal [18:57] <@riffsyphon1024> by the time an article has reached that level, so would associated articles around it have been created [18:58] <@Toprawa> We can vote on his idea, and then discuss others if need be. [18:58] <+Axinal> Jugs has an idea. [18:58] <@Toprawa> Xd, please repeat your proposal. [18:58] <+Olioster> Sorry :( [18:58] <@riffsyphon1024> especially when said article requires those articles to exist to fill in information [18:58] <+Xd1358> amend rule 8 to ?have no more than 1 redlink for articles less than 500 words, no more than 3 redlinks for articles 500 words or more, and no redlinks in the introduction, infobox, or any templates. [18:58] <@Toprawa> Vote on Xd's proposal [18:58] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [18:58] <+Rubedo> No [18:58] <+SavageBob> No [18:58] <+Menkooroo> yes [18:58] <+MasterJonathan> No [18:58] <+Omicron> no [18:58] <+Xd1358> Yes [18:58] <+QGJ> Yes [18:58] <+Kilson> Yes [18:58] <+Axinal> Yes [18:58] <@CavalierOne> Yes [18:58] <@Jujiggum> Yes, but I want it stricter [18:58] <@riffsyphon1024> I can just see someone inserting random redlinks here [18:58] <+Nayayen> No, stricter [18:58] <+Olioster> Per JJM [18:58] <@Toprawa> Yes [18:58] <+Xd1358> Jugs> good start eh? :P [18:58] <+Lord_Oblivion> Yes [18:58] <@Jujiggum> Xd> yep :) [18:59] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [18:59] <@Toprawa> I believe it's 9-4 in favor. [18:59] <@riffsyphon1024> Abstain as well [18:59] <+Karohalva> Abstinence is the answer. [18:59] <@Toprawa> Some supports say they want it more strict. [18:59] <+Kilson> Relatively close one. [18:59] <@Toprawa> Please discuss making it more strict. [18:59] <+Tyber> Abstain. [18:59] <@Jujiggum> May I have the floor? [18:59] <+Menkooroo> I'd support "no redlinks at all." [18:59] <+Omicron> no redlinks at all [18:59] <@Toprawa> Jugs, go ahead, please [18:59] <+Xd1358> zero for under-500 and 1 for over-500 [18:59] <+Menkooroo> Give Juggy the floor! [18:59] <@Jujiggum> Okay: [18:59] <+Olioster> As I said, no redlinks at all [18:59] <+Xd1358> shush everyone [18:59] <+Rubedo> Some redlinks are not so simple to make. It can take a lot of time to find enough obscure material to make certain articles [19:00] <@CavalierOne> No redlinks. If you're taking an article to featured/good status, then you are technically the best qualified and most informed to create a redlink article. [19:00] <+Kilson> Shush! [19:00] <@Jujiggum> Status articles are supposed to be the best we have to offer [19:00] <+Rubedo> Lightsaber components, for example [19:00] <@Jujiggum> Essentially, the idea is that they don't have any glaring mistakes or problems [19:00] <@Jujiggum> A redlink is something that is incomplete [19:00] <+Rubedo> The Wook is incomplete, not the article [19:00] <@Toprawa> Naru, please shut up [19:00] <@Jujiggum> It's essentially saying, this should exist, but we're too lazy to fix it [19:00] <+Tyber> Per Rubedo. [19:00] <@Toprawa> Jugs has the floor [19:01] <@Jujiggum> Linking is part of the article [19:01] <@Toprawa> What is your proposal, then, Jugs? [19:01] <@Jujiggum> It's integral --- and having incomplete linking isn't allowed [19:01] <@Jujiggum> Redlinks=incomplete linking IMO [19:01] <@Jujiggum> So no redlinks in any status articles anywhere is my proposal [19:01] <+Menkooroo> Completely agree with Jugs. There are cases where a wikilink is used in lieu of context. A redlink is, essentially, missing context. And missing context is fair game for an objection. [19:01] <@riffsyphon1024> Redlinks do allow Wookieepedia to grow [19:01] <@Jujiggum> I just wanted to explain why [19:01] <+SavageBob> The first time I ever edited a wiki was to turn a redlink blue. Why take that away from our readers? Status articles are seen by more readers than non-status articles, so leaving a few redlinks acts a recruitment tool for new editors. [19:01] <@grunny> plus, making a stub takes like two seconds [19:01] <@Jujiggum> Per Grunny [19:02] <+MasterJonathan> Entirely per Jujiggum. [19:02] <+Kilson> It's not the article's fault if no page exists. [19:02] <@Jujiggum> Kilson: it's poor linking [19:02] <+Olioster> Per grunny and JJM [19:02] <+Rubedo> Grunny: Not always [19:02] <@grunny> Kilson: no it's the writer's fault [19:02] <+Kilson> It's the Wook's fault. [19:02] <@Jujiggum> And linking is a rule for status articles [19:02] <+SavageBob> Nothing poor about expanding our pool of editors [19:02] <+Tyber> I disagree. [19:02] <@Toprawa> Ok, vote on Jugs' measure: *No redlinks in any status article. Period.* [19:02] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:02] <@riffsyphon1024> first we should make sure the link points in the right direction [19:02] <+Axinal> No [19:02] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [19:02] <+Rubedo> NO [19:02] <@grunny> YES!!!!! [19:02] <@Jujiggum> Yes please! [19:02] <+Omicron> yes [19:02] <+Nayayen> Yes [19:02] <+SavageBob> no [19:02] <+Menkooroo> yes [19:02] <+Xd1358> Yes [19:02] <@IFYLOFD> No [19:02] * Lord_Oblivion is now known as LO|Away [19:02] <+Ineedaname> No [19:02] <@GreenTentacle> Super mega strong no. [19:02] <+Tyber> NNO [19:02] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:02] <+Olioster> Yes, [19:02] <+QGJ> No [19:02] <+Karohalva> Abstain. [19:02] <@Culator|Away> No [19:02] <+Kilson> No [19:02] <@riffsyphon1024> Abstain again, this is a matter for the GAN/FAN nom people [19:03] <+Xd1358> perhaps make the voting area smaller [19:03] <@Toprawa> I think it's 9-9 even [19:03] <+Xd1358> to only cover GANs [19:03] <@Toprawa> So no consensus [19:03] <+Karohalva> I'll sell my vote for a muffin. [19:03] <+Xd1358> or GANs under 500 [19:03] <+Rubedo> I count 10 nos [19:03] <+Kilson> Can we argue a little more and then revote? [19:03] <@Toprawa> No [19:03] <+Olioster> If you want to argue more, SH [19:03] <+Menkooroo> If you still don't think guns are great, we'll argue some more. [19:03] * @grunny throws Karohalva a muffin [19:03] <+Olioster> or something [19:03] <@riffsyphon1024> brb [19:03] <@Toprawa> If you have other alternative suggestions, please voice them [19:03] <+Kilson> Fair enough. [19:03] <+Kilson> SH it then. [19:04] <+Kilson> Or let the AC and Inq take care of it. [19:04] <+Rubedo> NO [19:04] <+Xd1358> ... [19:04] <@Jujiggum> I'll throw together an SH if no one else does :P [19:04] <+Karohalva> Fo SH izzle. [19:04] <@grunny> well I think we had close to consensus on the first vote [19:04] <+Tyber> SH it. [19:04] <+MasterJonathan> SH it. [19:04] <@Toprawa> Meanwhile, let it be clarified that Xd's redlink measure did pass consensus. [19:04] <@Jujiggum> Yes [19:04] <+Rubedo> SH is far superior to AC/INQ "consensus" [19:04] <+Olioster> Alright [19:04] <@grunny> ya [19:04] <+Omicron> better than nothing [19:04] <+Olioster> So next? [19:04] <@IFYLOFD> SH [19:04] <+Tyber> Move on. [19:04] <+Kilson> So wait, did the first redlink vote pass? [19:04] <+Olioster> Yes [19:04] <+SavageBob> Yes, it did [19:04] <@riffsyphon1024> ok back [19:04] <@Jujiggum> Kilson: yep [19:04] <+Kilson> OK, good. [19:05] <@Toprawa> Ok, moving on. [19:05] <@Toprawa> *Tenth item* [19:05] <@Toprawa> Discussion on potentially disabling the Wikia welcome bot. Welcome messages left by an automated process are IMO impersonal and don't allow the newbie to follow up with the user who left the message the way they can with human-delivered messages. Having all welcome messages left by actual humans would help show users that we care, which bot welcomes don't do, and it would also eliminate the... [19:05] <@Toprawa> ...problem of the welcome bot welcoming vandals and leaving us with useless talk pages to delete once the vandalism-only account is permabanned. Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Thursday, March 31, 2011, 20:22 UTC [19:05] <@riffsyphon1024> Yes [19:05] <+Ineedaname> Please do [19:05] <+MasterJonathan> Tope: you missed item 9 [19:05] <@Toprawa> damnit [19:05] <+Kilson> .... [19:05] <+Nayayen> No, this was 9 [19:05] <+Tyber> Cull the damn thing. [19:05] <+Xd1358> we can come back [19:05] <@Toprawa> I'm losing my mind! [19:05] <+Tyber> We have SFH for that purpose. [19:05] <@Toprawa> Let's go back [19:05] <+Nayayen> Wait, no, you did. My bad... [19:05] <@Toprawa> We'll stay in order. [19:05] <@Toprawa> I propose applying the activity requirements listed in Wookieepedia:Administrators#Extended leaves of absence to Wookieepedia:Rollback as well. And Wookieepedia:Bureaucrats, as well—although we can't just stroll in and swipe someone's BC rights; I'm just talking fairness, here. No one is above the rules. Graestan(Talk) 04:59, March 21, 2011 (UTC) [19:06] <+Kilson> I don't understand this. [19:06] <@Toprawa> I can explain. [19:06] <@Jujiggum> Strong yes [19:06] <+Kilson> Can someone explain this. [19:06] <@grunny> let's be honest, this is basically about one absent BC [19:06] <+Karohalva> As much as I dislike automation, the bot greetings are there because folk don't actually send welcome messages. [19:06] <+Kilson> Per Grunny. [19:06] <+Xd1358> Karohalva: wrong topic [19:06] <+Kilson> I think. [19:06] <@Toprawa> We have standards in place for removing people who are admins who go inactive for long periods of time. [19:06] <+Rubedo> If a user is inactive for a long period of time, they lose their status [19:06] <@Toprawa> But nothing for people who have Rollback [19:06] <@Jujiggum> Per Tope [19:06] <@riffsyphon1024> that being the other co-founder, right? [19:06] <+Kilson> OK, I see. [19:06] <+Axinal> Can we define rollback? [19:06] <@Toprawa> or BC either, for that matter [19:06] <@Jujiggum> We need to clarify [19:06] <@grunny> Riffs: this is making the rules apply to everyone [19:06] <@Toprawa> Rollback = people with Rollback rights [19:06] <+SavageBob> Despite any pointedness to the proposal, it does sound fair [19:07] <+Xd1358> Axinal, rollbackers have faster undo button [19:07] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Rollback [19:07] <+Kilson> Sounds good. [19:07] <+Axinal> Ah. [19:07] <+Axinal> Thank you. [19:07] <@grunny> so, the admin activity policy will apply to BCs and rollback [19:07] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:07] <+Karohalva> Can you allow them to receive their rights again if they return? [19:07] <+Xd1358> yes please [19:07] <+Xd1358> vote again IMO [19:07] <@Toprawa> No [19:07] <+Kilson> Does everyone understad? [19:07] <+MasterJonathan> Just to clarify, why do the activity requirements exist in the first place? [19:07] <@Toprawa> They would have to be re-voted on [19:07] <+Nayayen> Can we vote on applying to BC and Rollback separately? [19:07] <@Jujiggum> TO Karo's question: I think they should have to go through the voting process again [19:07] <@grunny> Karohalva: they'd have to get voted on again [19:07] <+Kilson> *understand [19:07] <@Jujiggum> Per Grun [19:07] <+Rubedo> One vote [19:07] <@Toprawa> Nayayen> We will be, yes [19:07] <+Ineedaname> Is removing the rights as pressing a need for people with rollback? One of the reasons for removing rights from absent admins is so that newbies don't ask them questions and not get answers [19:07] <@CavalierOne> Well, the admin activity policy technically already includes BC since you can't take away admin rights but leave BC, no? [19:07] <+MasterJonathan> per INAN [19:07] <+Xd1358> you can [19:08] <+Karohalva> But what if they are absent because of work or something? We do (sorta) have lives. [19:08] <@Toprawa> Ok, people aren't clear on this. [19:08] <+Tyber> Per INAN [19:08] <@Toprawa> So we'll clarify [19:08] <+Xd1358> but the bureaucrat can't do anything except for assign rights [19:08] <@grunny> CavalierOne: well you can, but they could just add it back [19:08] <+Xd1358> and deleterevision [19:08] <@grunny> :P [19:08] <@Toprawa> Here is what the admin idle removal rules state: [19:08] <+Rubedo> There are provisions for extenuating cirdcumstance [19:08] <@Toprawa> People have to make X amount of edits in Y amount of time...unless they give us a notice explaining their reason for absence [19:08] <@Toprawa> People who just disappear without word are the ones who are subject to this [19:09] <+Kilson> OK. [19:09] <+Kilson> Makes sense. [19:09] <+Kilson> Let's vote then. [19:09] <@Toprawa> So if people have work or vacation or something, they drop us a line and they're good [19:09] <+Tyber> Fine. [19:09] <@Toprawa> Ok, we will vote on this in separate items, then [19:10] <@Toprawa> First measure: *Extending admin activity requirements to users with Rollback rights* [19:10] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:10] <@Jujiggum> Yes [19:10] <+MasterJonathan> No [19:10] <+Axinal> Yes [19:10] <+Nayayen> Yes [19:10] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:10] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:10] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:10] <+Ineedaname> Meh [19:10] <+Menkooroo> yes [19:10] <+Tyber> No. [19:10] <+Xd1358> Yes [19:10] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:10] <+Omicron> yes [19:10] <+Olioster> Yes [19:10] <@grunny> yeah [19:10] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:10] <+Karohalva> Abstain. [19:10] <@riffsyphon1024> Meh [19:10] <+SavageBob> yes [19:10] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to extend activity requirements to Rollback users. [19:10] <+Kilson> Is "meh" a yes or no? [19:10] <@Toprawa> men is neither [19:10] <@Jujiggum> It's an abstain [19:10] <@Toprawa> meh* [19:10] <@riffsyphon1024> Abstain then [19:11] <+Kilson> K, just wondering. [19:11] <@Toprawa> Second measure: *Extending admin activity requirements to Bureaucrats* [19:11] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:11] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [19:11] <+Nayayen> Abstain [19:11] <+Olioster> Yes [19:11] <@Jujiggum> Yes [19:11] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:11] <@grunny> yes [19:11] <+Axinal> Yes [19:11] <+Omicron> yes [19:11] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:11] <+Rubedo> Hell yes [19:11] <@riffsyphon1024> Mehhhhh [19:11] <+Tyber> Yes. [19:11] <+Xd1358> Yes [19:11] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:11] <+SavageBob> y [19:11] <+Menkooroo> yeah [19:11] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:11] <+Ineedaname> Yes [19:11] <@Toprawa> I'm interpreting *y* as yes, Bob :P [19:11] <+Kilson> I wonder who won. ;p [19:11] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached o extend activity requirements to BCs. [19:12] <@Toprawa> to* [19:12] <+Olioster> This is not about winning! THIS IS ABOUT POLICY! [19:12] <+SavageBob> Y = yes, yes [19:12] <+Olioster> :p [19:12] <@Toprawa> Ok :P [19:12] <@Toprawa> MOVING ON [19:12] <+Kilson> Lolz [19:12] <@grunny> haha [19:12] <@riffsyphon1024> Olioster: Tiger blood [19:12] <+Tyber> Now the bot. [19:12] <@Toprawa> *The Bot* [19:12] <@Toprawa> Discussion on potentially disabling the Wikia welcome bot. Welcome messages left by an automated process are IMO impersonal and don't allow the newbie to follow up with the user who left the message the way they can with human-delivered messages. Having all welcome messages left by actual humans would help show users that we care, which bot welcomes don't do, and it would also eliminate the... [19:12] <@Toprawa> ...problem of the welcome bot welcoming vandals and leaving us with useless talk pages to delete once the vandalism-only account is permabanned. Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Thursday, March 31, 2011, 20:22 UTC [19:12] <+Tyber> As I already said: We have SFH for that purpose. [19:12] <+Olioster> :) [19:12] <+Xd1358> Support [19:12] <@riffsyphon1024> Yes, because it is impersonal [19:12] <+Menkooroo> SFH is on the ball. Other users help him out. [19:12] * +QGJ (jalxander9@[REDACTED]) Quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) [19:12] <+Karohalva> Reiteration: "As much as I dislike automation, the bot greetings are there because folk don't actually send welcome messages." [19:12] <@riffsyphon1024> and I see plenty of users handing out welcomes [19:12] <+MasterJonathan> Per Menk. [19:12] <+Xd1358> it is annoying if it is vandal [19:13] <+Xd1358> a vandal* [19:13] <+Kilson> Kill the bot! [19:13] <@Jujiggum> I'm kinda indifferent on how "personal" it is. But I'll support based on the "Let's not welcome vandals" principle [19:13] <+Olioster> Per Riffy's comment to this [19:13] <+Tyber> Kill the bot with fure and fire! [19:13] <@riffsyphon1024> Put a leash on the bot at the very least [19:13] <+SavageBob> He'll be deactivated for sure! [19:13] <@IFYLOFD> Kill the fucking bot [19:13] <+Olioster> Kill it [19:13] <+Rubedo> Do androids dream of electric sheep? Kill the bot [19:13] <+Kilson> Kill and feast on his parts. [19:13] <+Ineedaname> *User:Vandal guy replaces page with "PENIS PENIS PENIS"* WikiaBot: "Welcome!" [19:13] <+Karohalva> Add a "Welcome unless you're a kriffing vandal!" to the message? [19:13] <+Omicron> bye bye bot [19:13] <@riffsyphon1024> can the bot recognize vandals, that is? [19:13] <+Xd1358> no [19:13] <@Toprawa> Vote on item: *Disable Wikia welcome bot* [19:13] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:13] <+Olioster> Yes [19:13] <+Menkooroo> yes! [19:13] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [19:13] <+Kilson> No, it's impossible. [19:13] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:13] <+Tyber> YES [19:13] <+Menkooroo> first! [19:13] <+Omicron> yes [19:13] <+Xd1358> it welcomes upon edit [19:13] <+Ineedaname> Yes [19:13] <+Nayayen> Yes, with fire [19:13] <+Xd1358> yes [19:13] <@riffsyphon1024> YES [19:13] <+Axinal> Abstain [19:13] <+Kilson> Yes [19:13] <@Jujiggum> Yes [19:13] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:13] <@grunny> ya [19:13] <+Rubedo> I have no mouth, yet I must scream. Yes [19:14] <+Karohalva> Bah. Stain. [19:14] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:14] <+Karohalva> +5 points for Rubedo for knowing that story. [19:14] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to deactivate Wikia welcome bot. [19:14] <@Toprawa> MOVING ON [19:14] <@riffsyphon1024> We should program it to send a automatic virulent threat to vandals upon using the word "penis" [19:14] <+Rubedo> Karo: THere's a video game [19:14] <+Kilson> Per Rif. lol [19:14] <+SavageBob> yes [19:14] <+Xd1358> riffsyphon1024: abusefilter [19:14] <@Toprawa> *Item 11 on the list* [19:14] <@Toprawa> # Proposal to reduce the CAN page duration limit for removing idle noms from two weeks to one. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:54, April 2, 2011 (UTC) [19:15] <@Toprawa> FAN is 3, GAN 2, CAN is...1? [19:15] <+Karohalva> Actually, is there a way to program the bot to react to profanity? [19:15] <@riffsyphon1024> I'm just saying [19:15] <+Xd1358> logical [19:15] <@Toprawa> Stay on topic, please. [19:15] <+Olioster> The CAN moves far too fast to wait two weeks to remove a nom [19:15] <@Jujiggum> Per Tope [19:15] <+Xd1358> Karohalva: not the bot [19:15] <+Olioster> Full support [19:15] <+Kilson> Per Tope. [19:15] <+MasterJonathan> support [19:15] <@Jujiggum> And per Oli [19:15] <+Menkooroo> per Oli. [19:15] <+Xd1358> support [19:15] <@Jujiggum> Support [19:15] <@grunny> support [19:15] <+MasterJonathan> and per Oli. [19:15] <@Toprawa> Vote on item: *CAN duration limit reduced to 1 week* [19:15] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:15] <+Olioster> Yes [19:15] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [19:15] <+Nayayen> Yes [19:15] <+Menkooroo> yes [19:15] <@Jujiggum> Yes [19:15] <+Rubedo> No. There are times when people take unexcpected breaks [19:15] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:15] <+SavageBob> No [19:15] <+Xd1358> Yes [19:15] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [19:15] <+Omicron> no [19:15] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:15] <+Rubedo> No [19:15] <+Tyber> Meh. [19:15] <+Axinal> No [19:15] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:15] <@riffsyphon1024> Huh? [19:15] <+Olioster> They can just nom it again [19:15] <+Karohalva> Meh because do we even need Comprehensive Articles? [19:16] <+MasterJonathan> per Oli [19:16] <+Xd1358> lol [19:16] <+Rubedo> There's no reason to force them to restart after a single week [19:16] <+Kilson> Per Oli [19:16] <@riffsyphon1024> Per Oli then [19:16] <+Xd1358> if you leave your nom, goodbye [19:16] <+Axinal> Can we apply some exceptions, like posting an unexpected leave of absence? [19:16] <@Jujiggum> If you can'tt ake care of objections on a CAN after 1 week, you've got a problem [19:16] * QGJ (~jalxander@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia [19:16] <@Toprawa> Riff, you're the deciding vote, then [19:16] <@Jujiggum> And that problem is you don't care about your nom [19:16] <+MasterJonathan> Actually, per Axinal [19:16] <@Toprawa> 10-5 in favor [19:16] * Culator|Away sets mode: +v QGJ [19:16] <+Rubedo> Sometimes they are as sophisticated as on GAN or FAN [19:17] <+Rubedo> SBob does a good job with that [19:17] <+Kilson> How about this, if they leave a message asking for a week off, give it to them. [19:17] <+QGJ> Sorry, my PC locked up [19:17] <+Xd1358> not per Axinal [19:17] <+QGJ> I hate this piece of junk [19:17] <+Xd1358> no exceptions please [19:17] <@Jujiggum> Kilson: we do that anyway [19:17] <@riffsyphon1024> Some people are devoted to their CANs [19:17] <@Jujiggum> On FAN and GAN too [19:17] <+Kilson> OK then, 1 week. [19:17] <+Kilson> Makes sense. [19:17] <+SavageBob> Per Rupedo. :) [19:17] <@Toprawa> Clarifying that original proposal passed. [19:17] <+Axinal> Admins have exceptions if they alert the community they're taking time off. [19:17] <@Toprawa> We can vote on this now. [19:17] <+SavageBob> *Rubedo [19:17] <@Jujiggum> Riffs: if they are, then they'll get to those objections in less than a week [19:17] <@riffsyphon1024> Yes fair enough then [19:18] <+Rubedo> Nothing implied by that inverted letter? [19:18] <@Toprawa> Vote on item: *Allow one-week leeway for people who request it, given they specify a legitimate reason* [19:18] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:18] <+Xd1358> Axinal: adminship is a bit different than a CAN... [19:18] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [19:18] <+Axinal> Yes [19:18] <+Omicron> yes [19:18] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:18] <+QGJ> Yes [19:18] <+Kilson> Yes [19:18] <@Jujiggum> Yes [19:18] <+Nayayen> Yes, 1 week [19:18] <+Menkooroo> yes [19:18] <+Olioster> I thought this was implied, but yes [19:18] <+Ineedaname> Yes [19:18] <+SavageBob> yes [19:18] <+Xd1358> No [19:18] <+Xd1358> kill me, mob :P [19:18] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:18] <@riffsyphon1024> They must have a doctor's notice [19:18] <+Kilson> ...... [19:18] <+Tyber> Yes. [19:18] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to allow one-week leeway requests provided they give a real reason [19:19] <+SavageBob> Or jury duty [19:19] <@riffsyphon1024> I just did that [19:19] <+Kilson> The ECs can decide what a real reason is. [19:19] <+Menkooroo> I'll see that Freddie Quimby burn! [19:19] <+Axinal> Per Kilson. [19:19] <@Toprawa> *Last agenda item* [19:19] <+Xd1358> EC = win [19:19] <@Toprawa> # A discussion of a possible minor TC thread closing procedure revision. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:46, April 2, 2011 (UTC) [19:19] <@riffsyphon1024> whew [19:19] <+Rubedo> Not a review body [19:19] <@Toprawa> Allow me to explain this. [19:19] <@Toprawa> One second. [19:19] <+Kilson> Tope has the floor. [19:20] <@Toprawa> Ok, the TC forum rules state that all TC decisions are governed by WP:Consensus rules. [19:20] <@Toprawa> This is nothing new to anyone. [19:20] <+Kilson> Sure.... [19:20] <@Toprawa> WP:CON defines the duration of time for when these forums can be closed, including snowball votes. [19:20] <@Toprawa> We have been applying these time durations to TC closings forever. [19:20] <@Toprawa> However. [19:21] <@Toprawa> WP:CON includes this wording: "These length guidelines do not apply to CSD threads." [19:21] <@Toprawa> Which is just completely contradictory [19:21] <@Toprawa> I propose revising that to read "These length guidelines also apply to TC threads." [19:21] <+Menkooroo> shouldn't it still be noted that they don't apply to csd threads? [19:21] <@riffsyphon1024> Um, CSD is what, again? [19:22] <+MasterJonathan> support [19:22] <@Toprawa> We don't have CSD threads. [19:22] <@Toprawa> CSD threads = TC threads [19:22] <+Xd1358> candidate for speedy deletion [19:22] <+Menkooroo> Can't you contest a CSD? [19:22] <+Ineedaname> Candidate for speedy deletion [19:22] <+Rubedo> Riff: Instant delete [19:22] <+Menkooroo> ...in a thread? [19:22] <@Toprawa> CSD isn't a thread [19:22] <@riffsyphon1024> okay okay [19:22] <+Xd1358> Menkooroo: template [19:22] <@Toprawa> it's a template added to an article [19:22] <+Menkooroo> ahhh OK. [19:22] <+Rubedo> That's merely a discussion though, not a vote unless absolutely necesary [19:22] <@riffsyphon1024> I really can't remember the last time I saw CSD implimented [19:23] <+Kilson> It happens all the time. [19:23] <@Jujiggum> Riffs: it happens all the time [19:23] <@Jujiggum> In the last two weeks I [19:23] <+Rubedo> Every few hours [19:23] <@Jujiggum> *I've deleted several [19:23] <+Kilson> Every hour. [19:23] <@Jujiggum> That were CSD'd [19:23] <@riffsyphon1024> I'm clearly not editing enough then [19:23] <@Toprawa> Vote on item then: *Revise noted WP:CON wording to read: "These length guidelines also apply to TC threads." [19:23] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:23] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [19:23] <+Nayayen> Yes [19:23] <+Menkooroo> yes [19:23] <@Jujiggum> Yep [19:23] <+QGJ> Yes [19:23] <+Axinal> Yes [19:23] <+SavageBob> yes [19:23] <@Toprawa> Bold didn't work :( [19:23] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:23] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:23] <+Olioster> Yes [19:23] <+Xd1358> riffsyphon1024: duh :P [19:23] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:23] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye [19:23] <+Tyber> Abstain. [19:23] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:23] <+Xd1358> Yes [19:23] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:23] <+Omicron> yes [19:23] <+Ineedaname> Abstain [19:23] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached to revise WP:CON wording as appropriate [19:23] <+Xd1358> lol, !yes triggers "NOOOO" [19:24] <@Toprawa> That's it for the agenda. [19:24] <@Toprawa> If anyone has anything else, speak now. [19:24] <+Rubedo> I've one extra item, if you guy'll hear it [19:24] <@riffsyphon1024> Good job Tope [19:24] <+QGJ> I have something too [19:24] <+Xd1358> pay rise for AC [19:24] <+Xd1358> and per riff [19:24] <+Kilson> Yes, nice job Tope. [19:24] <@Toprawa> Naru now has the floow. [19:24] <@Jujiggum> Go ahead Rubedo [19:24] <+Olioster> Yay Tope! [19:24] <+Menkooroo> Three cheers for Tope! [19:24] <@Toprawa> :P [19:24] <+Xd1358> shush :P [19:24] <@grunny> Horray! [19:24] <+Kilson> Cheer [19:24] <@IFYLOFD> *NARU HAS THE FLOOR* [19:24] <@riffsyphon1024> We still have a speaker [19:24] <+Kilson> Sorry, Naru it's your's. [19:24] <+Tyber> Cheers to Tope. [19:25] <+Karohalva> Tope off your glasses, everyone, and let's have another round. [19:25] <+Tyber> Speak now! [19:25] <+Rubedo> OK. The CAN has had a lot of articles bein gexported to GAN lately. Many of there aren't like my Obitoki article in that they could have been put up for GAN at the start with just the adding of an intro [19:25] <+Xd1358> shaddap :P [19:25] * Axinal_ ([REDACTED]@gateway/web/freenode/ip.[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia [19:25] <+Kilson> And.... [19:26] * Culator|Away sets mode: +v Axinal_ [19:26] <+Rubedo> I propose that we set an arbitrary word count at which a *tentative* intro must be written to prove that the article can't make it to the GAN [19:26] <+Rubedo> 220-230 or so [19:26] <@Toprawa> I like that, and that's been discussed before. [19:26] <+Karohalva> How much redundancy is permissible? [19:26] <+Kilson> I like it too. [19:26] <+Kilson> Good just Naru. [19:26] <+Rubedo> Just a standard intro [19:26] <@riffsyphon1024> so if it doesn't reach the threshold, no GAN nom? [19:26] <@Jujiggum> Karo: case by case [19:26] <@Jujiggum> But I likey [19:26] <+Kilson> I have to warn you though, the CA is going to shrink fast. [19:26] <@Toprawa> To clarify, this would mean, for example, articles X words or more must go to GAN? [19:27] <+Rubedo> Maybe enforce that a link must be posted in the comments to prove it has been done [19:27] <+Olioster> I think that's a good idea, as I am guilty of trying to pass a easy GA off on the CAN :p [19:27] <@Jujiggum> Kilson: if that's the case, then it's only because it should [19:27] <+Rubedo> No [19:27] <+Menkooroo> Yeah, I'm also guilty of that. :P [19:27] <+Menkooroo> I like this idea. [19:27] <+Tyber> Redundancy Department of Redundancy [19:27] <@Toprawa> I'm kind of confused. [19:27] <@riffsyphon1024> I'd like to try it out, see where this goes [19:27] <@Toprawa> What is this word count defining? [19:27] <+Rubedo> It must be proved that after an article has reached a certain length that the author has attempted to add an intro to it [19:27] * +Axinal ([REDACTED]@gateway/web/freenode/ip.[REDACTED]) Quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) [19:27] <+SavageBob> I'm unsure a rule is necessary and wouldn't mind leaving it to discretion on a case-by-case basis [19:27] <+Karohalva> What constitutes proof? [19:28] <@Jujiggum> aT 200 WORDS, THE AUTHOR SHOULD AT LEAST ATTEMPT AN INTRO [19:28] <+Menkooroo> It's already getting to the point where every case is "Try out an intro." [19:28] <+Tyber> Per Bob. [19:28] <@Jujiggum> Oops sorry caps lock :P [19:28] <+Rubedo> A link to the revision in the comments section [19:28] <+Rubedo> That'd work, IMO [19:28] <+Nayayen> No, if it is at 230-249 words, an intro must be written for it (unless less it already has). If that still keeps the word count under 250 then it stays on CAN, else goes to GAN. I think. [19:28] <+Nayayen> *ignore the no there [19:28] <@Toprawa> I think Nayayen's suggestion [19:28] <@riffsyphon1024> The Jedi Trials of CAN, if you cannot pass, you shall not become a GA [19:28] <@Jujiggum> 230? if you get an article to 220, you better be able to give it a damn intro and take it to the GAN [19:28] <+Axinal_> Per Naya, except lower than 230 I say. [19:28] <@Toprawa> Though I would reduce that minimum word count a little [19:28] <@CavalierOne> The problem is that articles go to CANs being underwritten in the first place to comply with the word limit. After review, since they have been lazily written, the word count increases massively. So, despite this, an article may still be redirected to GAN regardless of the initial length. [19:28] <+Kilson> Good idea. [19:29] <+MasterJonathan> Let's go with 200. [19:29] <@Jujiggum> 200, even 225 is much mroe reasonable IMO [19:29] <@Toprawa> I like 200, per MJ [19:29] <+Nayayen> Yeah, I just picked an arbitrary number [19:29] <+Rubedo> It's an arbitrary figure. The final proposal can be anything [19:29] <+Kilson> 200. MJ [19:29] <@Jujiggum> 200's my fave [19:29] <+Tyber> Per Bob: Case-by-case is sufficient. [19:29] <+Axinal_> 200 [19:29] <+Rubedo> 200 would work. It makes the outcome uncertain [19:29] <@Jujiggum> So shall we vote? [19:29] <@Toprawa> Case-by-case is what we've been doing, and that's caused a lot of subjectivity, which is why we're proposing this [19:29] <+Kilson> OK, 200 it is. [19:29] <+Xd1358> 223,2. [19:29] <+Xd1358> 200 [19:29] <+Menkooroo> Yeah, 200 with an intro could still fall under 250. [19:29] <+Menkooroo> WAIT [19:29] <@Toprawa> This helps us come to a standardized pracxtice [19:29] <+Menkooroo> If it gets an intro and is still under 250 --- must it keep the intro? [19:29] <@riffsyphon1024> 200 just below the 250 threshold, but on the verge [19:29] <@IFYLOFD> 200 seems a little low [19:30] <@Jujiggum> Menk: No, it doesn't have to as I understand it [19:30] <@IFYLOFD> How about 215 [19:30] <+Nayayen> 210? [19:30] <+Axinal_> Case by case, I say, Menk. [19:30] <+Xd1358> 220 [19:30] <@Jujiggum> 200! [19:30] <+QGJ> I say 210 [19:30] <@riffsyphon1024> round numbers please [19:30] <+Karohalva> Beware redundancy. [19:30] <@Jujiggum> Per Riffs [19:30] <@IFYLOFD> 220 [19:30] <+Rubedo> I'd just like proof it was attempted. It would not be neccisary that it be kept [19:30] <+SavageBob> 207 [19:30] <+Kilson> I have a headache. [19:30] <@Jujiggum> Karo: all intros are redundant by nature [19:30] <+Tyber> Arglebargle. [19:30] <@IFYLOFD> Actually, I guess 200's fine. [19:30] <@Jujiggum> You just have to word things carefully/the right way [19:30] <@riffsyphon1024> No it's not going to be 207 or 213 [19:30] <+Tyber> So vote yes or no for 200. [19:30] <@Jujiggum> Per Tyber [19:30] <+Olioster> I think this is a good idea, but an idea for an SH [19:30] <+MasterJonathan> per Tyber [19:31] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye for 200 words [19:31] <@Jujiggum> Let's just vote on 200 now, and if it doesn't pass, we can take it to CT [19:31] <+Olioster> Ok [19:31] <+Axinal_> Per Jugs. [19:31] <+Kilson> Per Jugs. [19:31] <+Menkooroo> I love jugs! [19:31] <+MasterJonathan> per Jon [19:31] <@Jujiggum> :D [19:31] <+Rubedo> Per juji. No need to dredge this through if it would pass here [19:31] <+Xd1358> per him [19:31] <@Toprawa> Ok, vote on measure: *Establishing rule stating that articles 200 words or more must include an intro* [19:31] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:31] <+Karohalva> Per pull. [19:31] <+Menkooroo> waity [19:31] <+MasterJonathan> Wait [19:31] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:31] <@Jujiggum> YES! :D [19:31] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:31] <+Menkooroo> wait [19:31] <+Rubedo> WAIT [19:31] <@Toprawa> Wait [19:31] <+Axinal_> No, poor wordeing. [19:31] <@Jujiggum> waiting [19:31] <+Menkooroo> include, or "attempt" ? [19:31] <@Toprawa> What? [19:31] <+Axinal_> wording* [19:31] <+Tyber> What now? [19:31] <+Kilson> :| [19:31] <+Rubedo> How about I draft it? [19:32] <@Toprawa> Why does it need "Attempt"? [19:32] <@Toprawa> It's not hard to write an intro :P [19:32] <@Toprawa> One doesn't need to attempt. [19:32] <@Toprawa> Do or do not. :P [19:32] <@riffsyphon1024> ;) [19:32] <+Kilson> There is no damn try. [19:32] <+Menkooroo> What i mean is... if it gets an intro and still falls under 250, does it need to keep the intro? [19:32] <+Olioster> No [19:32] <+Kilson> Or attempt in this case, right Yoda? [19:32] <@Jujiggum> Eh, case by case IMO. Usually, I would say yes, HOWEVER [19:32] <@Toprawa> I think it should...but maybe that's what should be left up to case-by-case [19:32] <+Menkooroo> then the wording should be changed. [19:32] <@Jujiggum> If the article's material is mostly just BTS stuff... [19:32] <+MasterJonathan> How about this proposal: *Establishing that if a CAN is at least 200 words, proof must be shown that addition of an intro will not put it over 250.* [19:32] <+Axinal_> Articles without an intro with 200 words must be given a tentative intro" [19:32] <@riffsyphon1024> use that quote for the CAN template [19:33] <@riffsyphon1024> a 50 word intro? [19:33] <+Menkooroo> MJ, I like that. [19:33] <@Jujiggum> MJ: I like that [19:33] <+Rubedo> *Establishing rule stating that if a CAN article reaches 200 words or more, the author must draft an intro and provide a link to this revision if this addition does not elevate the article to 250 words* [19:33] <+Axinal_> Per rubedo. [19:33] <+MasterJonathan> Naru's is even better [19:33] <@Jujiggum> Rubedo's works for me too [19:33] <+Kilson> Per Naru's alter ego. [19:33] <+Tyber> Just do it now. :P [19:33] <@Jujiggum> Let's vote baby! [19:33] <+Rubedo> My alter ego is Albedo [19:33] <@Toprawa> I'm fine with that, provided we all make an effort to write a genuine intro [19:33] <+SavageBob> Good point; Should it be 200 words of NOT-BTS stuff? [19:33] <@Toprawa> Some people purposely try to come in under 250 words. [19:33] <@riffsyphon1024> Gah, now I'm confused [19:34] <@Jujiggum> Bob: no [19:34] <+Rubedo> 200 words TOTAL [19:34] <@Jujiggum> Yes [19:34] <+Kilson> Try not to make it 250. [19:34] <+Axinal_> Total, yes. [19:34] <+Kilson> Never! [19:34] <+Kilson> Lol [19:34] <@Toprawa> BTS is always included [19:34] <@Jujiggum> Okay, so voting on Naru's wording? [19:34] <@riffsyphon1024> 250 is the threshold for GA, 200 is the threshold for CA, but there's not much wiggle room in between is there? [19:34] <+Kilson> Yeah Bts needs to included. [19:34] <@Jujiggum> Riffs: incorrect [19:34] <@Jujiggum> CAs can be as small as anythinbg [19:34] <@riffsyphon1024> correct me please [19:34] <@grunny> I think the Bob's point was that somethings might a have a two sentence body, but an epic Bts [19:34] <@Jujiggum> Don't have to be 200 [19:34] <+Menkooroo> If the article is mostly bts, then the addition of an intro likely won't put it over 250. [19:35] <@Jujiggum> Menk: exactly [19:35] <@riffsyphon1024> Stub length articles can be CAs? [19:35] <+Karohalva> CAs should be killed. GAs and FAs are good enough. [19:35] <+Xd1358> yes [19:35] <+Menkooroo> then again, if it's 249 words with a massive bts... [19:35] <+Olioster> Alot of my SWG painting CAs have BTS which are twice the size of the main body [19:35] <@Jujiggum> Riffs: that was the whole point ofmaking CAs in the first place [19:35] <+Axinal_> If it includes all relevant information, yes. [19:35] <@Jujiggum> So that all articles could reach some sort of status [19:35] <+Rubedo> I point to the Max article from Dark Forces [19:35] <@riffsyphon1024> *facepalm* [19:35] <+SavageBob> Grunny, that's right. [19:35] <+Xd1358> riffsyphon1024: as long as they are completely comprehensive [19:35] <@Jujiggum> haha :P [19:35] <+Tyber> ... [19:35] <+Kilson> I HATE THE CA! [19:35] <+Rubedo> I HATE PIE [19:35] <+Kilson> It's too complicated. [19:35] <+Xd1358> Kilson: I hate you [19:35] <+Olioster> SH! [19:35] <@riffsyphon1024> I'm starting to dislike this idea of CA as well [19:35] <+Xd1358> :P [19:35] <@riffsyphon1024> SH it! [19:36] <@Toprawa> Ok, damnit [19:36] <+Kilson> Blasphemy. [19:36] <+Nayayen> Could vote on that too? :P [19:36] <@Jujiggum> Can we just vote on Naru's wording now please? [19:36] <@Toprawa> We've voting on this. [19:36] <+Karohalva> Articles should be complete regardless of status. [19:36] <+Kilson> SH it! [19:36] <@Toprawa> Vote on Naru's measure: *Establishing rule stating that if a CAN article reaches 200 words or more, the author must draft an intro and provide a link to this revision if this addition does not elevate the article to 250 words* [19:36] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:36] <+MasterJonathan> Yes [19:36] <@Jujiggum> YES [19:36] <+Axinal_> Yes [19:36] <+QGJ> yes [19:36] <+Nayayen> Yes [19:36] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:36] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:36] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:36] <+Tyber> Abstain [19:36] <@riffsyphon1024> Abstain [19:36] <+Menkooroo> yes [19:36] <+SavageBob> no [19:36] <@grunny> No, as worded [19:36] <+Omicron> abstain [19:36] <+Olioster> Meh [19:36] <@grunny> can I say something before we finish this? [19:36] <+Karohalva> Abstain. I'm waiting til marriage. [19:36] <+Kilson> We're going to have to revisit this next time. [19:36] <@Toprawa> Sure, Grunny [19:37] <@grunny> as I said above some CANs might a have a two sentence body, but an epic Bts [19:37] <@grunny> taking them over 200 words [19:37] <@riffsyphon1024> example? [19:37] <@Jujiggum> But that's why we'd treat this as case-by-case [19:37] <+Kilson> How about this, it's up the ECs. [19:37] <@grunny> and intro in that case would be riciulous, and this wording doesn't account for that [19:37] * @Jujiggum mentioned that earlier :P [19:37] <+Axinal_> Per Jugs. [19:37] <@grunny> Jugs: the wording of the proposal doesn't address case-by-case, it needs to [19:37] <@Jujiggum> Point [19:37] <+Kilson> Couldn't the ECs just decide when an intro is necessary. [19:38] <@Toprawa> Can you give us an example of a revised proposal, Grunny? [19:38] <+Kilson> It's their page. [19:38] <+Rubedo> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Max_(bunny) http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Obitoki It happens and it should getr no special provision [19:38] <+Rubedo> The EC is not a review body, Kilson [19:38] <@grunny> well, I'm trying to come up with something that isn't too open to interpretation [19:38] <@Jujiggum> *200 words, with over half of them not in the BTS*?? [19:38] <+Kilson> Per Jugs. [19:38] <@Jujiggum> So basically, it would have to have more than 100 outside of BTS [19:38] <+Menkooroo> Or [19:38] <+Menkooroo> add an amendment [19:38] <+MasterJonathan> No [19:38] <@Jujiggum> And more than 200 total [19:39] <+Menkooroo> "Exceptions can be made for articles with a huge bts blah blah: [19:39] <+Tyber> This stretches far too long. :P [19:39] <+Xd1358> Rubedo, it is [19:39] <+MasterJonathan> It's fine as voted on. [19:39] <+Rubedo> Xd: No it isn't [19:39] <@grunny> *Establishing rule stating that if a CAN article reaches 200 words or more, the author must draft an intro and provide a link to this revision if this addition does not elevate the article to 250 words* [19:39] <@grunny> with the addendum [19:39] <@riffsyphon1024> Max has more going on in its main field than Obitoki does [19:39] <+Rubedo> The point is the epic BTS [19:39] <@Jujiggum> Rubedo: by definition, it reviews articles. It's a bloody review body. [19:40] <+Karohalva> Has Jaxxon been FA yet? [19:40] <+Xd1358> yes [19:40] <+Nayayen> They're just not /required/ to review [19:40] <+Menkooroo> Jaxxon is totally an FA. [19:40] <+MasterJonathan> They don't have to keep the intro, they just have to prove it can't make 250. [19:40] <@grunny> *Exceptions can be made for articles where the majority of the text is in the Bts* [19:40] <@Toprawa> Let's stay on topicm please. [19:40] <+Menkooroo> Grunny: I like it. [19:40] <@Jujiggum> Per Grunny [19:40] <+Menkooroo> Simple but effective. [19:40] <+Kilson> I like it. [19:40] <@riffsyphon1024> grunny: I can agree with that [19:40] <@Jujiggum> That's good [19:40] <+Menkooroo> Vote now! [19:40] <@Toprawa> Ok, we're voting *on Grunny's revised proposal* [19:40] <+Menkooroo> Kudos to Bob and Grunny for pushing the point. [19:40] <+Tyber> Vote! [19:40] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:40] <+Menkooroo> yes [19:40] <@Jujiggum> Yes! [19:40] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:40] <+Rubedo> I'll acept that because of its acceptable vagueness [19:40] <@Toprawa> Yes [19:40] <+Axinal_> No [19:40] <+Tyber> Abstain, still. [19:40] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:40] <+Nayayen> Yes [19:40] <+QGJ> Yes [19:40] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:40] <+SavageBob> Still no [19:40] <+Xd1358> yes [19:40] <@riffsyphon1024> Aye with the attached parameters [19:41] <+Karohalva> Abstain. [19:41] <+MasterJonathan> Meh [19:41] <@Toprawa> Consensus reached for Grunny's revision to this item. [19:41] <+Kilson> Finally! [19:41] <+Tyber> Fine. [19:41] <@Toprawa> We have one more agenda item from QGJ. [19:41] <@Toprawa> Then we're done. For realz. [19:41] <@riffsyphon1024> but then we might want to look at destroying CANs altogether [19:41] * +Rubedo high fives grunny [19:41] <+Menkooroo> QuiGon had something, didn't he? [19:41] <@Toprawa> QGJ, you have the floor. [19:41] <+Tyber> Man... [19:41] <+QGJ> It's the issue I raised at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Meeting_Thirty-Four. [19:42] <+QGJ> I know it's too long, so I'll sum this up. It's regarding the infobox-only stuff rule. [19:42] <+Kilson> I fully support Jinn. [19:42] <+QGJ> It's been enforced for a long time that nothing in the article should be exclusive to the infobox. However, we're currently allowing double standards with this. 95% of the time things like height, hair color, and eye color are overlooked and allowed to be exclusive to the infobox. But sometimes this just comes up during the nomination process. [19:42] <+Menkooroo> I agree. [19:42] <+QGJ> I just think that stating "this droid's red" is disrespectful toward our readers, because we essentialy assume that they're too dumb to figure this out by looking at the picture. To clarify, my main concern is the three areas I've listed. [19:42] <+Menkooroo> Things like "this starship was not for sale" are, IMO, good in just the infobox. [19:42] <+QGJ> I agree that stuff like species and gender should be explained in the article, cuz there are possibilities in Star Wars. But color is color, and measurement is measurment. There's no alternative that would require additional explanation. [19:42] <+Rubedo> Sometimes there is no picture [19:42] * Eyrezer_ (~daniel@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia [19:42] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Eyrezer_ [19:42] <@riffsyphon1024> You have to consider colorblind users [19:42] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o Eyrezer_ [19:42] <@Jujiggum> Per Rubedo [19:43] <+Tyber> Eyre! [19:43] <+QGJ> So I can see two options. We either try to always enforce the rule more strictly, or officially give writers some leeway with those sections and make the inclusion of content from those sections in the body optional. [19:43] <@riffsyphon1024> Sorry Eyre, it's almost over [19:43] <+Nayayen> Menk: You could explain why it wasn't on sale in the body, for example [19:43] <@Jujiggum> Per Nayayen [19:43] <@Eyrezer_> That is okay. Just got home [19:43] <+Rubedo> Height can easily be added to a P&T [19:43] <+Kilson> I support leeway. [19:43] <+Tommy9281> I include hight hair color etc in my articles. [19:43] <@Jujiggum> Per Rubes [19:43] <+Xd1358> screw this [19:43] <+Axinal_> I support leeway with case-by-case basis. [19:43] <+Tommy9281> Not hard to do at all. [19:43] <+Nayayen> Leeway [19:43] * Xd1358 is now known as Xd1358|zzz [19:43] <@Jujiggum> Per Tommy [19:43] <@Toprawa> I think there are specifics, especially starship technical specifics, that should always be included in an article, not just nifobox [19:43] <+Kilson> Case-by-case works for me. [19:43] <@Toprawa> Like manufacturer [19:43] <@Toprawa> Length [19:43] <+SavageBob> I'm just as guilty of overlooking those things, but I think they ideally SHOULD be spelled out in the P&T sections of character articles. [19:43] <@Toprawa> Weight [19:43] <+Tyber> The second option, please. [19:43] <@Toprawa> Etc [19:43] <+Menkooroo> leeway. [19:44] <@Jujiggum> If it's in the infobox, it belongs in the bloody article [19:44] <@Jujiggum> Enough laziness people! [19:44] <+Rubedo> Per Juji! [19:44] <+MasterJonathan> support leeway case-by-case [19:44] <+SavageBob> We have visually imparied readers who use screen readers, for example [19:44] <@Jujiggum> It's not that damn hard to do! [19:44] <+Tommy9281> I can give a bunch of examples. I believe it should be touched upon in the article. [19:44] <@Toprawa> I'm with Bob. [19:44] <@CavalierOne> Per Jugs [19:44] <+SavageBob> *imparied [19:44] <+Tyber> Jujiggum: Not every item. [19:44] <+SavageBob> *IMPAIRED [19:44] <@riffsyphon1024> Idk about including height, weight, other stats outside the infobox [19:44] <@Jujiggum> yes, every item [19:44] <@Jujiggum> Give me one example [19:44] <+Tyber> No. [19:44] <+Xd1358|zzz> support including everything for the record [19:44] <+Menkooroo> I don't know about height. [19:44] <+Rubedo> If we do case-by-case too much, we won't have any real rules [19:44] <+Kilson> How do you propose to add the "Era" field then? [19:44] <+Tommy9281> Cognus [19:44] <+Menkooroo> This clone trooper was 1.83 metres tall... [19:44] <+Tyber> The body height of a clone. [19:44] <+Xd1358|zzz> now, night [19:44] <+Tommy9281> Gobee [19:44] <+Kilson> It's impossible. [19:44] <@Jujiggum> Kilson: by mentioning the damn date [19:44] <+Tommy9281> Zannah [19:44] <@riffsyphon1024> You would be stating that a lot [19:45] <+Karohalva> What about Jango? Do we include his height before or after? [19:45] <+Axinal_> Era is added in the template up top. [19:45] <+Tommy9281> Thalleus Tharn [19:45] <+Rubedo> Easily added. It could also be mentioned that this wwas because he is a clone of Jango Fett [19:45] <+Tyber> Karo XD [19:45] <+Kilson> That's not in the body. [19:45] <@Toprawa> A lot of this is as easy as adding one or two sentences to the end of a P/T [19:45] <@Toprawa> Is this really that big of a deal? [19:45] <@Jujiggum> Per TOpe [19:45] <+Tommy9281> Nope [19:45] <@Toprawa> If someone wants to see it in the article, who cares? [19:45] <+Tommy9281> Just do it. [19:45] <+Tyber> I say leeway. [19:45] <@Toprawa> Just add it in [19:45] <@Jujiggum> DEATH to laziness! [19:45] <@riffsyphon1024> Boba Fett 1 meter (19 BBY), 1.83 m (0 ABY) [19:45] <+Kilson> I say leeway, case by case. [19:45] <+SavageBob> It's possible. We describe this stuff all the time: Like other clones, CC-cccc was 1.83 meters tall and had brown hair and eyes... [19:45] <+Tommy9281> No leeway [19:45] <+Tommy9281> IF its there impklement it [19:45] <@Jujiggum> No leeway [19:45] <+Tommy9281> implement it [19:45] <+SavageBob> Per Tope [19:45] <+Tyber> Per Kilson [19:45] <@Toprawa> I don't think there needs to be any kind of policy on this. [19:46] <@Jujiggum> There shouldn't need to be [19:46] <+Kilson> It needs to be case by case. [19:46] <@Toprawa> I think people just need to agree that you don't own your own nomination [19:46] <+Tommy9281> Per Jugs [19:46] <@Jujiggum> It's kind of ridiculous [19:46] <+Menkooroo> But then people will argue "There's no policy!" [19:46] <@Toprawa> If someone wants to see something in an article, be a team player [19:46] <@riffsyphon1024> this is some strangeness [19:46] <@CavalierOne> Laziness is pervading the issue; we don't want to add info to the articles, we don't want to create redlinks, and we don't want to write articles over 250 words! Enough! [19:46] <+QGJ> Per menk [19:46] <@riffsyphon1024> SH it! [19:46] <@Jujiggum> Status article rules state: [19:46] <+Kilson> .... [19:46] <@Jujiggum> The article must be completely comprehensive [19:46] <+Rubedo> The redlink issue is sometiomes about inability, not laziness [19:46] <@Eyrezer_> LOL re 250 words. [19:46] <@Jujiggum> If the prose does not contain full information [19:46] <@Jujiggum> It is not comprehensive [19:46] <@Jujiggum> Period. [19:46] <@CavalierOne> Its laziness [19:46] <+QGJ> Comprehensive, not redundantly redundant [19:46] <@Toprawa> I'm with Cav, btw [19:46] <@Jujiggum> The end. [19:47] * Olioster is now known as Olio|Away [19:47] <@IFYLOFD> Per Cav [19:47] <+Menkooroo> The infobox is part of "the article," isn't it? [19:47] <@Jujiggum> It's not redundant if it's mentioned once! [19:47] <@CavalierOne> Its laziness, not inability. You write the article, you fill the redlinks. [19:47] <+SavageBob> If redlinks are bad, ignoring this stuff is too! ;P [19:47] <@Jujiggum> Per Cav!!!! And Bob! [19:47] <+Tyber> Menk: Yes [19:47] <@Jujiggum> :D [19:47] <+Rubedo> Sometimes trhe redlink has to do with a different source [19:47] <+Nayayen> Make it mandatory to include all infobox info. I just re-read the earlier part [19:47] <@riffsyphon1024> You know, it's not like we're getting paid to edit these articles, so if people are lazy, it's not hurting anybody ;) [19:47] <@Toprawa> Why is this even an issue, though? Because someone doesn't want to say a character was "a red-plated droid."? Why is this so difficult? [19:47] <+QGJ> Let's just take a vote [19:47] <+MasterJonathan> *sigh* [19:47] <+Tyber> No! [19:47] <+Tommy9281> lol [19:47] <+Kilson> I just think it doesn't fit in well. [19:47] <@Jujiggum> Per Tope again! [19:47] <+Kilson> It's not that I like arguing. [19:48] <@Toprawa> But people do argue about it. [19:48] <@Jujiggum> But it does [19:48] <@Toprawa> They argue about it for a week straight [19:48] <@Toprawa> When they could fix the objection in 2 seconds [19:48] <@Jujiggum> Look at any of Tommy's articles, particularly [19:48] <@Toprawa> It's so petty and pointless [19:48] <@Jujiggum> It fits perfectly fine every single time [19:48] <+Kilson> I just think it doesn't sound right, I could be wrong though. [19:48] <+Axinal_> Jugs and Tope have convinced me. [19:48] <@riffsyphon1024> I call for the Chewbacca Defense [19:48] <+Tyber> It's just not necessary in every case. [19:48] <+Kilson> It's really just a style you though. [19:48] <@Jujiggum> Riffs: XD [19:48] <+Axinal_> I hereby rescind my previous "leeway with case-by-case basis" statement. [19:48] <+Rubedo> Wording can always be smoothed until it reads like Lando Calrissian [19:48] <@Jujiggum> No, it's called being comprehensive [19:48] <@Toprawa> I just look at it this way: if an objector wants to see something in an article, and it's as insignificant as this, just add it in. [19:48] <@Jujiggum> THat's not a style [19:49] <+Nayayen> Man up and include the info however redundant it may be [19:49] <@Jujiggum> That's what you're supposed to do [19:49] * +Rubedo had toi make sure he was name-dropped [19:49] <@riffsyphon1024> and remember Be BOLD guys? [19:49] <+Kilson> Fine, I change my statement. [19:49] <+QGJ> So creating a section with just the sentence "Bob had brown eyes" is comprehensive? [19:49] <+Menkooroo> Do we need to say that every Gotal had brown skin? [19:49] <@Jujiggum> No [19:49] <+Tommy9281> yES. [19:49] <+Tyber> That's ridiculous. [19:49] <@Jujiggum> QGJ: if that's all [19:49] <@Jujiggum> the info there [19:49] <+SavageBob> Bob has blue eyes, FYI. [19:49] <@Toprawa> QGJ> But why is that so bad to add it to a P/T? [19:49] <+Kilson> No....yes....I don't know. [19:49] <@Jujiggum> Then just include it in the bio [19:49] <@riffsyphon1024> But how do you know every Gotal has brown skin? [19:49] <@Toprawa> It's one sentence in the whole P/T. [19:49] <@Toprawa> Why is that a problem?> [19:49] <+Rubedo> "As a Gotal, he had brown skin..." [19:49] <+Kilson> I'm so confused. [19:49] <+Axinal_> It doesn't necessarily have to be in a P/T. [19:49] <@Jujiggum> If there's more info, then make it a P&T [19:49] <+Tommy9281> That's where it should go. [19:49] <+Axinal_> If it's only one sentence, it can easily be added ot the biography. [19:49] <@Jujiggum> Not that complicated, folks [19:49] <+QGJ> Toprawa:That's the exact problem [19:49] <+Karohalva> The Gotal could be Michael Jackson. [19:50] <+Tommy9281> It's part of the "Traits" [19:50] <@Jujiggum> Per Axinal! [19:50] <+Tyber> That's hyperinclusionism! [19:50] <@riffsyphon1024> no you didn't.. [19:50] <+QGJ> It does not have any relation to his personality and/or traits [19:50] <@Toprawa> QGJ, you're making a debate out of something so minor, though. [19:50] <+Nayayen> Riff: Because this is about info already in the infobox, that's how [19:50] <+Kilson> Well, Traits could mean physical traits. [19:50] <@Toprawa> It does, though [19:50] <+Tommy9281> Traits yes [19:50] <@Toprawa> it's his "traits" [19:50] <@Jujiggum> QGJ: that's a definition of "Traits" [19:50] <@riffsyphon1024> I personally don't see the need for that kind of redundancy, its just filler [19:50] <@Toprawa> P/T is left pretty broad [19:50] <@Jujiggum> Per Kilson, exactly [19:50] <@Toprawa> it covers a lot of material [19:50] <+Tommy9281> I can't believe that this is any thing other than common sense [19:50] <+SavageBob> Physical appearance is traits [19:50] <+Kilson> Fine, all infobox stuff must be in the article. [19:50] * +Rubedo wants to be clear that that is only when brown skin is explicitly mentioned, unless that truly is the only skin color (which he doubts) [19:50] <+Kilson> Sorry for my previous arguing if that's what I'm doing. [19:50] <+QGJ> Whatever. I surrender. [19:51] <@riffsyphon1024> if you're trying to use filler to get to the word threshold, then that IS being lazy [19:51] <@Toprawa> Is this even worth holding a vote on? Personally, I don't think so. [19:51] <+Tommy9281> Per Rif [19:51] <+Axinal_> Infobox info must be in article. Whether or not it should have a P/T is subject to case-by-case, especially with comprehensive articles. [19:51] * @Jujiggum (~chatzilla@[REDACTED]) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) [19:51] <+Tommy9281> Per TOpe too [19:51] <+Kilson> No vote then. [19:51] <+Kilson> Wait, let's make it official policy. [19:51] <+Rubedo> A reinforcement vote [19:51] * +Omicron (~chatzilla@[REDACTED]) Quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224]) [19:51] <+SavageBob> This has to include common sense, of course. Saying someone is a Gotal should stand as shorthand for "he looked like a Gotal" without having to go into the fact that he had fur, horns, etc. [19:51] <+Kilson> Infobox stuff must be included. [19:51] <+Kilson> Make it a rule. [19:51] <+Rubedo> This needs cement so it doesn't needlessly come back up again [19:51] <@Eyrezer_> When it comes to adding skin colour etc to Character artciles, I do so if there is variation. Ie if the species - - including Humans -- have different colour skin, then include. But if there is no variation across the species, I would not include it in the P&T [19:51] <+Tommy9281> Lol Bob, duh [19:51] <+Rubedo> And the vote will take 2 seconds, so do it nao :P [19:51] <+Menkooroo> That kind of info isn't in the infobox, Bob :D [19:52] <+Tommy9281> If it's mentioned in a source then it's mentioned in the article [19:52] <+Tommy9281> Proper [19:52] <@riffsyphon1024> treat it like a speciality, if there's something different about it, then you can expand on it [19:52] <+Axinal_> Per Menk. [19:52] <+Tommy9281> Infobox [19:52] * Jujiggum (~chatzilla@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia [19:52] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Jujiggum [19:52] <+Tommy9281> Wherever [19:52] <+SavageBob> Per Eyre [19:52] <@riffsyphon1024> Duck test [19:52] <+Nayayen> Can we vote on this already? [19:52] <+Tommy9281> NO! [19:52] <+Tyber> -.- [19:52] <+Menkooroo> There's not even policy about skin color being in the infobox, so s'all good. [19:52] <+Kilson> What Tommy? [19:53] <@riffsyphon1024> And not all species can say they have skin [19:53] <@Jujiggum> We don't need to vote IMO. It's just enforcing what /should/ be done [19:53] <+Tyber> We're almost at 2 hours. [19:53] <+Tommy9281> No for anarchy's sake lol, and per JonJedi [19:53] <+Tyber> Let's vote already! [19:53] <+Rubedo> There is a policy because the field for skin exists. I remember when we implemented that [19:53] <@Toprawa> Are we voting on this or not? Let me get a general idea. [19:53] <+Tommy9281> We should have been enforcing this already. [19:53] <+Rubedo> Vote on voting! [19:53] <+Tommy9281> It shouldn't require a vote [19:53] <+MasterJonathan> I don't care. [19:53] <@CavalierOne> Per Tommy [19:53] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:53] <@Jujiggum> Per Tommy [19:53] <+Axinal_> Per Tommy, enforce preexisting rules. [19:53] <+Nayayen> Either vote to make it compulsory to add infobox info or make it a wishy-washy case-by-case affair [19:53] <+Kilson> Case-by-case [19:53] <@riffsyphon1024> okay so what are we actually voting on then? [19:53] <+Tyber> Per Kilson [19:54] <@Toprawa> If we're adding a formal item, it should be included in the Layout Guide [19:54] <+MasterJonathan> Riff: We're voting on whether to vote [19:54] <+Tommy9281> Really, guys? [19:54] <+Kilson> No vote. [19:54] <+Rubedo> Mark my word, this will resurface if we don't vote now [19:54] <+QGJ> Per Naru [19:54] <@Jujiggum> This is gettting ridiculous [19:54] <+Kilson> I've changed my ideas at least 5 times here. lol [19:54] <@Toprawa> *Vote on whether to vote on this or not* [19:54] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:54] <@riffsyphon1024> We need more Mofferences anyway [19:54] <@Jujiggum> NO! [19:54] <+Menkooroo> no [19:54] <+QGJ> yes [19:54] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:54] <+Nayayen> Tommy: Consider it a vote to reinforce existing polciy then [19:54] <+Nayayen> Yes [19:54] <+MasterJonathan> Meh [19:54] <+Karohalva> No. [19:54] <+Axinal_> Yes, for the sake of finallity. [19:54] <+Kilson> Maybe. Abstain. [19:54] <+Axinal_> finality* [19:54] <+Tyber> Yes, for God's sake. [19:54] <@riffsyphon1024> I support further discussion at a later time [19:54] <+SavageBob> no [19:55] <+Tommy9281> Do we not see that voting on this is like saying "vote to enforce preexisting policy" [19:55] <+Tommy9281> ? [19:55] <@Jujiggum> YES! [19:55] <+Karohalva> Roll for it. [19:55] <@Jujiggum> Which is why I voted no :P [19:55] <+Axinal_> No, it's vote to change policy. [19:55] <+Menkooroo> I support the team player idea. If someone asks you to add something to the article that's a canon fact, just smile and do it. [19:55] <@Toprawa> For clarification, this would be whether to enforce policy by adding an item to the LG. [19:55] <+Kilson> Someone can always SH it all over the site. [19:55] <+Tyber> Whatever you want to do - decide! [19:55] <@Jujiggum> Oh [19:55] <@riffsyphon1024> I don't want to change anything right now, I vote no, go to SH [19:55] <+Kilson> It's going to wind up in the toilet anyway. [19:55] <@Jujiggum> In that case, we can add an item to the LG [19:55] <@riffsyphon1024> or CT [19:55] <+Karohalva> Kilson.... [19:55] <@Jujiggum> That's cool [19:55] <+Karohalva> That was perfect. [19:55] <+Kilson> Gracias. [19:55] <+Tommy9281> Loophole, heh [19:55] <@Toprawa> Ok, we're re-voting on this. Because people aren't clear. [19:56] <@Toprawa> Vote on *whether to add an item to the LG* [19:56] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:56] <+QGJ> yes [19:56] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:56] <+Axinal_> No [19:56] <@riffsyphon1024> well this idea is going to SH it, isn't it? [19:56] <+Menkooroo> no [19:56] <@Jujiggum> Yeah [19:56] <+Nayayen> yes [19:56] <+Tyber> Meh. [19:56] <@IFYLOFD> Yes [19:56] <+Tommy9281> Sure, for clalrity's sake [19:56] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:56] <+Kilson> .....yes [19:56] <@Toprawa> I would be ok with Yes myself [19:56] <+MasterJonathan> Meh [19:56] <+SavageBob> no [19:56] <@grunny> sure [19:56] <@riffsyphon1024> again, further discussion elsewhere [19:56] <@Toprawa> the vote is 9-3 in favor [19:57] <@Toprawa> Ok, secondary vote: [19:57] <+Tommy9281> Obviously people have a question about it, so let's just say it so that there is no further question on whether it's required or not [19:57] <@Toprawa> Add following proposal to LG: *All infobox material must be detailed in the article proper.* [19:57] <@Toprawa> Yes or No [19:57] <+Tommy9281> Yes [19:57] <+Tyber> No. [19:57] <+Rubedo> Yes [19:57] <+QGJ> no [19:57] <@IFYLOFD> No [19:57] <+Nayayen> Yes damnit [19:57] <+MasterJonathan> No [19:57] <@Jujiggum> YES [19:57] <@CavalierOne> Yes [19:57] <+Kilson> Yes. [19:57] <+Axinal_> Yes, but isn't that already there? [19:57] <@riffsyphon1024> This is still iffy [19:57] <@Toprawa> It is not in the LG already. [19:57] <+Tommy9281> Yes Axinal, just not in those words [19:57] <+Axinal_> Ah. [19:57] <+Menkooroo> Let's be bold about retroactively implementing this. If a preexisting FA is missing something, add it instead of bringing it to the next Inq meeting. [19:57] <@Jujiggum> It's just in the "write your article comprehensively" rule [19:57] <+Menkooroo> Such as "he had brown hair." [19:57] <@Toprawa> It just says articles need to be comprehensive, which clearly is subjective [19:57] <+Tommy9281> More of a broad statement [19:57] <@riffsyphon1024> We have to be redundant? [19:58] <@riffsyphon1024> I say No [19:58] <+Tommy9281> We already are redundant [19:58] <@Eyrezer_> Yes. [19:58] <+Tommy9281> Several ways [19:58] <@Jujiggum> It's not redundant dammit!! [19:58] <+Kilson> The intro is redundant. [19:58] <@Toprawa> I vote Yes myself [19:58] <@Jujiggum> :P [19:58] <+SavageBob> yes? [19:58] <@Toprawa> Eyrezer> Is that a vote for Yes? [19:58] <+Kilson> The databank is redundant. [19:58] <+Kilson> This is site is redundat. [19:58] <+Tommy9281> C'mon guys, let's stay on track [19:58] <+Menkooroo> no [19:58] <+Kilson> Everything is redundant. AHHHH [19:58] <+Kilson> kidding. [19:58] <@Toprawa> Kilson, please be quiet [19:58] <+Tyber> Tope: Count? [19:58] <@riffsyphon1024> This site makes things redundant [19:58] <@grunny> Yes [19:58] <@Toprawa> I don't now what the count is. [19:58] <@Toprawa> People aren't answering [19:58] <@Toprawa> Eyrezer, was that a vote for Yes? [19:58] <+MasterJonathan> Can we hurry up and get this over with? I have to go to the bathroom. [19:58] <@Eyrezer_> Yes, a vote for yes. [19:59] <@Toprawa> Thank you [19:59] <+Tommy9281> I said yes [19:59] <+Rubedo> Restart? Single answers only? [19:59] <+Tommy9281> Take your laptop with you MJ [19:59] <@Culator|Away> Per MJ. [19:59] <+Tommy9281> You too CUlator lol [19:59] <@Toprawa> Riff, what is your vote again? [19:59] <@grunny> 10-6 in favor from my count [19:59] <+Nayayen> I saw 11-6 [19:59] <+Tyber> He said no. [19:59] * @riffsyphon1024 (~chatzilla@[REDACTED]) Quit (Read error: No route to host) [19:59] <@Toprawa> ugh [19:59] <@grunny> I might have missed one :P [19:59] <+Tommy9281> Heavens. [20:00] <+Tyber> 	We have to be redundant? [20:00] <+Tyber> 	I say No [20:00] <+Karohalva> I can't tell on what we're voting anymore. [20:00] <+Kilson> OK, sorry for my previous outburst. [20:00] <+Kilson> At this point we can just SH it. [20:00] <+Rubedo> Hour 2 [20:00] <+Kilson> We can argue there. [20:00] <@Toprawa> We're not SHing it. [20:00] <@Toprawa> We have a vote that I'm trying to count. [20:00] <+Rubedo> We already did the vote, Kilson [20:00] * riffsyphon1024 (~riffsypho@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia [20:00] * ChanServ sets mode: +o riffsyphon1024 [20:00] <@Toprawa> And it makes it more harder when people say new things :P [20:00] <@Jujiggum> Bloody hell... [20:00] <@riffsyphon1024> and we're at two hours [20:00] <+Nayayen> Repeat your votes? [20:01] <+Rubedo> SILENCE THEN WAIT WITH BATED BREATH [20:01] <@riffsyphon1024> I need to see what I missed again [20:01] <+Tyber> Nothing, riffs [20:01] <@riffsyphon1024> then my vote remains No [20:01] <@Jujiggum> Repeat the vote, with single-word answers only, for clarity? One post from everybody? [20:01] <+Tommy9281> Yes [20:01] <+Rubedo> I Second Juji [20:01] <+MasterJonathan> Per Jugs [20:01] <+Kilson> Per Jugs. [20:01] <+Axinal_> Per Jugs, let's get this over with. [20:02] <@riffsyphon1024> No [20:02] <+Karohalva> Abstain [20:02] <+Tyber> No [20:02] <+Nayayen> Yes [20:02] <+QGJ> no [20:02] <+MasterJonathan> No [20:02] <+Rubedo> Yes [20:02] <@grunny> Yes [20:02] <@CavalierOne> Yes [20:02] <+Kilson> No [20:02] <@Toprawa> Yes [20:02] <+Axinal_> Yes [20:02] <+Menkooroo> no [20:02] <@IFYLOFD> No [20:02] <@Jujiggum> YES [20:02] <+SavageBob> abstain [20:02] <@Toprawa> Now everyone shut up so we can count :P [20:02] <+Tyber> 7-7 [20:02] <+Tommy9281> hahaha [20:02] <@Jujiggum> I have 7-7 [20:03] <@Eyrezer_> Yes [20:03] <@grunny> Eyrezer voted yes, last time as well [20:03] <@grunny> there we go :P [20:03] <+Tommy9281> Got dammit a tie? [20:03] <+Karohalva> Then I vote yes just to break it. [20:03] <+Tyber> 7-8 then. [20:03] <@Toprawa> well, it was only 9-5 last time by my count [20:03] <@riffsyphon1024> that is not consensus [20:03] <@Toprawa> which isn't enough to pass anyway [20:03] <+Tommy9281> Heavens to mergatroid. [20:03] <+Axinal_> No consensus, take it to SH. [20:03] <+Rubedo> Fine, let the issue dredge in the SH/CT [20:03] <@Toprawa> So we agreed to add somethign to the LG...but we didn't agree to add it. [20:03] <+Kilson> SH it! [20:03] <@Jujiggum> Per Tope... [20:03] <+Nayayen> Give up and go home/SH [20:03] <@grunny> glol [20:03] <+MasterJonathan> per Kilson [20:03] <@Toprawa> wtf people? [20:03] <+Rubedo> Indeed. Per Koilson [20:03] <@Jujiggum> NO SH! [20:04] * Kilson is now known as Koilson [20:04] <+Rubedo> Per Juji [20:04] <+QGJ> Yeah. Per Kilson. [20:04] <+Tommy9281> This is our own fault for not enforcing this in the first place. [20:04] <+Tommy9281> Shame on us. [20:04] <@Jujiggum> Per TOmmy! [20:04] * +Rubedo was referencing "SH it" [20:04] <@Jujiggum> Except we do enforce it....just not well enough [20:04] <+Tyber> SH it, for Katarn's sake! [20:04] <@IFYLOFD> SH [20:04] <+Tommy9281> Yeah [20:04] <+SavageBob> No SH [20:04] <+Koilson> So Tope, what is it? [20:04] <@riffsyphon1024> Holy SH/CT this thing [20:04] <@Toprawa> Just SH the damn thing. [20:04] <@Toprawa> You people failed miserably :P [20:04] <+QGJ> Ok guys I seriously have to go now. Whatever the case, my vote remains on SHing this thing [20:05] <+Koilson> I already know. [20:05] * +QGJ (~jalxander@[REDACTED]) has left #wookieepedia [20:05] <+Tommy9281> Well let it be said that all of the currently present machines are on notice [20:05] <@riffsyphon1024> Tope: that's democracy for you [20:05] <@Toprawa> Note in the log that we agreed to add something to the LG...and then reached no consensus on actually adding it :P [20:05] <+Tommy9281> You all know that such info is a given requirement [20:05] <@Jujiggum> Boo. Okay, we can forum this. But CT, not SH [20:05] <+Tommy9281> We will have no mercy [20:05] <@Jujiggum> There are two straightforward options [20:05] <+Rubedo> How did the first measure pass if the secoind wasn't going to? [20:05] <@Jujiggum> No need to waste more time in SH [20:05] <@riffsyphon1024> Is there anything else? [20:05] <@Toprawa> Because people changed their vote, Naru [20:05] <+Koilson> I changed mine. [20:05] <+Rubedo> Angryface [20:05] <@Toprawa> Good job, Kilson. You ruined it. :P [20:06] <+Tyber> Whatever. [20:06] <+Koilson> I always do. [20:06] <+Tyber> Are we done? [20:06] <@riffsyphon1024> Kilson Killed it [20:06] <@Toprawa> The Mofference is over. [20:06] <@Toprawa> I'm tired of this already :P [20:06] <+Rubedo> That's it, I suppose [20:06] <+Axinal_> Huzzuh [20:06] <+Koilson> And its Koilson. [20:06] <+Tyber> Yay! [20:06] <@riffsyphon1024> I bid thee Dark Goodbyes [20:06] <+Rubedo> Dark Farewells [20:06] <+Axinal_> Per Riff, good time, everyone. See you later. [20:06] <@riffsyphon1024> yes Dark Farewells