Wookieepedia:EduCorps/Meeting 1/Log

2013-08-31T22:59:50 Welcome to the first EduCorps meeting everyone... 2013-08-31T23:00:54 * Cade has snacks. We may begin. 2013-08-31T23:00:59  Hello, everyone. 2013-08-31T23:01:12  Hi 2013-08-31T23:01:19  I would first like to thank everyone who helped get this started, especially Tope. 2013-08-31T23:01:26  Agreed 2013-08-31T23:01:32  round of applause 2013-08-31T23:02:10  He'd prefer a round of shots. 2013-08-31T23:03:00  So, agenda time? 2013-08-31T23:03:04 The first point we should discuss is the creation of responsibilities for EduCorps-only users. 2013-08-31T23:03:33 Because right now, there aren't any... 2013-08-31T23:04:05  I think that while the EC isn't a formal review board to the extent that the AC and the Inq are, the ECs should still have to review. 2013-08-31T23:04:23  why not make the responsibilities the same as the other panels 2013-08-31T23:04:25  Don't make me do stuff! 2013-08-31T23:04:35  review, archive, 2013-08-31T23:04:39 * Cade throws paperwork at Olioster 2013-08-31T23:04:46  :( 2013-08-31T23:04:57   I'd say let's focus just on the reviewing part. 2013-08-31T23:05:08  Currently there's not any responsibility to review, archive, or maintain the CA review board... 2013-08-31T23:05:18  Reviewing is the primary concern though... 2013-08-31T23:05:51   if we can even get more people reviewing, archiving isnt that bad 2013-08-31T23:06:01   Is anyone here (other than Olioster) opposed to making reviewing a requirement for the EduCorps? 2013-08-31T23:06:22   Just a joke, I have no opposition. 2013-08-31T23:06:30   :P 2013-08-31T23:06:32  <Toprawa> Hey, everyone, sorry, I was a few minutes late. 2013-08-31T23:06:37  <Toprawa> Before we begin, I wanted to make a quick proposal. 2013-08-31T23:06:37  +1 for impeaching Olioster 2013-08-31T23:06:41  <Toprawa> If no one minds 2013-08-31T23:06:43  *** ecks <ecks!ecks@wookieepedia/administrator/pdpc.active.ecks> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps 2013-08-31T23:06:43 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o ecks 2013-08-31T23:06:51 Go ahead Tope. 2013-08-31T23:07:01 <Toprawa> I wanted to quickly propose we set a 90-minute length on this meeting. 2013-08-31T23:07:10 <Toprawa> So we don't kill ourselves right away :P 2013-08-31T23:07:11 Sounds good to me. 2013-08-31T23:07:18 <Toprawa> Then we can pick up with wherever we're at during Meeting2 2013-08-31T23:07:18 <Olioster> Sounds good 2013-08-31T23:07:33 <Supreme_Emperor> agreed 2013-08-31T23:07:35 <Cal_Jedi> Yes, please. 2013-08-31T23:07:48 <Supreme_Emperor> we should have a mid meeting break so i can eat supper when its ready XD 2013-08-31T23:07:50  * Cade nods 2013-08-31T23:07:54 <Cade> And no. 2013-08-31T23:08:17  <Toprawa> Ok, 90-minute limit it is, then 2013-08-31T23:08:24 <Toprawa> EJ, back to you :P 2013-08-31T23:08:40 All right, back to the discussion of EduCorps-only requirements. 2013-08-31T23:08:59 How would we make reviewing a requirement? 2013-08-31T23:09:23 <Cade> Add a section similar to the Roles of the Agricorps. 2013-08-31T23:09:25 <Cade> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AgriCorps 2013-08-31T23:09:30 <Toprawa> I think we just need to amend the CAN page wording, which currently says no one is required to actually review. 2013-08-31T23:09:31 We can't make everyone review every CAN... 2013-08-31T23:09:47 <Toprawa> We should reword it to say ECs have a responsibility to regularly maintain the CAN page 2013-08-31T23:09:59 <Supreme_Emperor> should be the same as the other panels 2013-08-31T23:10:00 <Toprawa> That responsibility should be only for EC members, though 2013-08-31T23:10:06 <Toprawa> not for Inq-ECs or AC-ECs 2013-08-31T23:10:08 <Cade> Oh, I didn't mean the exact section, but per Tope. 2013-08-31T23:10:24 The same should also be done for the CA article review page. 2013-08-31T23:10:42 <Toprawa> yes, that's what I meant 2013-08-31T23:10:43 <Cade> If no one is required to review, then we end up with a bottleneck, as CAs need ECvotes to pass. 2013-08-31T23:10:44 <Toprawa> WP:CAN vs. WP:CA 2013-08-31T23:11:02 <Toprawa> actually, I'm sorry 2013-08-31T23:11:05 <Toprawa> I meant on the EC page itself 2013-08-31T23:11:07 http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Comprehensive_article_review 2013-08-31T23:11:11 <Toprawa> but anywhere else that wording is found also 2013-08-31T23:11:15 How about this page? 2013-08-31T23:11:30 <Toprawa> "The EduCorps is not analogous to either the Inquisitorius or the AgriCorps, in so far as it is not a review panel, it is not subject to continual internal meetings and operations, and most importantly, it is not the obligation of those on the list to review nominations." 2013-08-31T23:11:35 <Toprawa> The last clause of that sentence ^ 2013-08-31T23:11:38 <Toprawa> That needs to change 2013-08-31T23:11:41 <Cade> Yes 2013-08-31T23:11:41 <Supreme_Emperor> agreed 2013-08-31T23:11:43 Yes 2013-08-31T23:11:44 <Toprawa> It *is* the responsibility of the EC to review :P 2013-08-31T23:12:05 <Toprawa> Ultimately, this need to be approved in a CT, however. 2013-08-31T23:12:15 *** CavalierOne <CavalierOne!~chatzilla@wookieepedia/administrator/CavalierOne> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps 2013-08-31T23:12:15 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o CavalierOne 2013-08-31T23:12:25 <Toprawa> Since we're in agreement on this, motion to create a CT, then? 2013-08-31T23:12:26 <Supreme_Emperor> to the emergency Mofference XD 2013-08-31T23:12:31  <Toprawa> hey Cav 2013-08-31T23:12:33 <Supreme_Emperor> support 2013-08-31T23:12:33 *** CavalierOne is now known as SirCavalier 2013-08-31T23:12:34 <Cade> To a vote. 2013-08-31T23:12:37 <Cade> !support 2013-08-31T23:12:37 <Cal_Jedi> support 2013-08-31T23:12:41 <Toprawa> support 2013-08-31T23:12:42 <Cal_Jedi> yo Cav 2013-08-31T23:12:42 <Supreme_Emperor> !support 2013-08-31T23:12:43 <SirCavalier> Tope, assorted people 2013-08-31T23:12:48 <SirCavalier> Cal 2013-08-31T23:12:51 <IFYLOFD> !support 2013-08-31T23:12:53 !support 2013-08-31T23:13:06 support 2013-08-31T23:13:10 <Olioster> !support 2013-08-31T23:13:19 <Toprawa> Motion passed, then 2013-08-31T23:13:19 <Cade> I think that's everyone. 2013-08-31T23:13:31 On to point two... 2013-08-31T23:13:33 <Cade> Ecks, do we have a voting bot, or is that just GT's thing? 2013-08-31T23:13:41 <Supreme_Emperor> i see no bot XD 2013-08-31T23:13:47  <Toprawa> that's GT 2013-08-31T23:13:50  <Toprawa> We just count votes here 2013-08-31T23:14:00 ain't nobody got time fo dat 2013-08-31T23:14:01 <Cade> Alright. 2013-08-31T23:14:42 Should we discourage the cutting of words to keep article under 250 words (or under 200 to avoid writing an introduction)? 2013-08-31T23:14:50 <Supreme_Emperor> discourage it 2013-08-31T23:14:54  <Toprawa> Absolutely 2013-08-31T23:15:05 <SirCavalier> Totally 2013-08-31T23:15:07 <Supreme_Emperor> if it can be brought to GAN, it should be 2013-08-31T23:15:16  <Toprawa> The emphasis should always be looking forward 2013-08-31T23:15:17 <SirCavalier> It harms the article to write for a specific word target 2013-08-31T23:15:31 <Supreme_Emperor> also comes off looking lazy 2013-08-31T23:15:42 <Cade> Absolutely. 2013-08-31T23:15:49 *** Toprawa changes topic to "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:EduCorps/Meeting_1 NOW! | Meeting Theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyGzPmgR1QY" 2013-08-31T23:16:06 <Cal_Jedi> So, to a vote? 2013-08-31T23:16:13 <Cade> It'll be an uphill battle to change the culture, but yes. 2013-08-31T23:16:17 <Cade> Question first 2013-08-31T23:16:18 Should we add a rule stating that an EC or other reviewer can object to an article that is close to 250 words (or 200 for articles without introductions). 2013-08-31T23:16:35 <Cade> Well, that was sort of my question. :P 2013-08-31T23:16:38 <Toprawa> Unless there's not a unanimous response, I think we can just infer support without the need for a vote for expediency here 2013-08-31T23:16:48 <Toprawa> Meaning if you disagree with something, speak up 2013-08-31T23:17:28  <Toprawa> EJ> You mean if the reviewer believes the article can and should be longer? 2013-08-31T23:17:35 Yes 2013-08-31T23:17:42 <Toprawa> Don't we already do that already? 2013-08-31T23:17:51 <Toprawa> I support, but I wonder if we need a literal rule for that 2013-08-31T23:18:13 I've had people complain about expanding an article before. 2013-08-31T23:18:24 <Cade> I was thinking more along the lines of something like "it is recommended that articles close to 250 words be expanded and taken to the GAN" 2013-08-31T23:18:32 Some insisted that the intro would just repeat information. 2013-08-31T23:18:51 <Cade> We can tack that on to point #14 2013-08-31T23:18:59 <Cade> "…if the nominated article reaches 200 words or greater, the nominator must either provide an intro or draft an intro and provide a link to the revision in the nomination, showing that the intro does not elevate the article over 250 words. Exceptions can be made for articles wherein the majority of the text is in the "Behind the scenes" section." 2013-08-31T23:18:59 <Toprawa> Maybe just a note saying that "articles that approach the 250-word length for Good article nominations should not deliberately make an effort to avoid meeting that word limit." 2013-08-31T23:19:11 <SirCavalier> ^^ 2013-08-31T23:19:18 Yes, that sounds good. 2013-08-31T23:19:24 <Cade> Yeah, 2013-08-31T23:19:30 To the CT then? 2013-08-31T23:19:38 <Toprawa> Yeah 2013-08-31T23:19:41 <Cade> Yep. 2013-08-31T23:19:50 <Cade> That could be added as point #15. 2013-08-31T23:20:01 <Cade> In the CA requirements, I mean. 2013-08-31T23:20:24 <Toprawa> Very good 2013-08-31T23:21:02 <Supreme_Emperor> TO THE CT 2013-08-31T23:21:02  All right, any other EduCorps rule issues before we move on? 2013-08-31T23:21:10 <Toprawa> Yes 2013-08-31T23:21:11 <Supreme_Emperor> do all the works 2013-08-31T23:21:15 <Toprawa> Unless you discussed this and I missed it. 2013-08-31T23:21:35 <Toprawa> Did we want to review the EC page wording about not having regular meetings? 2013-08-31T23:21:44 <Toprawa> or did we want to save that for Meeting 2, after we have a meeting 2013-08-31T23:21:53 Oh yes, forgot about that one... 2013-08-31T23:21:59 <Supreme_Emperor> imo, there should be regular meetings 2013-08-31T23:22:12 <Cade> Hmmm. 2013-08-31T23:22:14 <Toprawa> I figure there are two choices: regular meetings or meetings as we require them 2013-08-31T23:22:19 <Toprawa> Meaning not necessarily regular 2013-08-31T23:22:23 I think the meetings should be fairly regular, but not as often as AC meetings... 2013-08-31T23:22:23 <Toprawa> But when needed 2013-08-31T23:22:32 <SirCavalier> I'd say regular meetings, but maybe not monthly 2013-08-31T23:22:36 <Supreme_Emperor> should be fairly regular 2013-08-31T23:22:45 <Cade> Maybe something like 4 per year? 2013-08-31T23:22:47 <Cade> Or 3? 2013-08-31T23:23:06 We'll need more now than we will later hopefully... 2013-08-31T23:23:08 <Supreme_Emperor> more regular than that XD 2013-08-31T23:23:28  <Supreme_Emperor> how about monthly until stuff gets caught up 2013-08-31T23:24:00  I could go for that. Maybe once every three months after that? 2013-08-31T23:24:10 <Cade> Seems good. 2013-08-31T23:24:13 <Supreme_Emperor> sounds good, and more could always be scheduled if needed 2013-08-31T23:24:19 <Toprawa> I'm ok with that 2013-08-31T23:24:30 <Toprawa> Something else, also 2013-08-31T23:24:39 *** Jangeth_ <Jangeth_!~JangFett@wookieepedia/administrator/JangFett> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps 2013-08-31T23:24:39 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Jangeth_ 2013-08-31T23:24:46 <Toprawa> The current review system right now is handling everything on the page. 2013-08-31T23:24:47 <Supreme_Emperor> O_O Jangeth 2013-08-31T23:24:50 <Supreme_Emperor> quick look busy 2013-08-31T23:24:53 <Toprawa> Do we want to transition that into meeting reviews? 2013-08-31T23:25:04 <Cade> What do you mean? 2013-08-31T23:25:09 I think that meeting reviews would be better. 2013-08-31T23:25:19 <Jangeth_> yes I am here 2013-08-31T23:25:20 <Toprawa> Like the Inq and AC does right now, we review problem FAs and GAs at meetings, not on a page 2013-08-31T23:25:22 <Supreme_Emperor> you mean like how the other panels regularily review old articles? 2013-08-31T23:25:27 <Supreme_Emperor> definitely 2013-08-31T23:25:28 *** Jangeth_ is now known as Jangeth 2013-08-31T23:25:29 <Toprawa> Right now, the EC handles problem CAs on a problem review page 2013-08-31T23:25:33 No one pays attention to that page... 2013-08-31T23:25:35 <Cal_Jedi> Jang ;D 2013-08-31T23:25:51 <Toprawa> Since we're doing meetings right now, reviewing problem CAs on a page seems obsolete 2013-08-31T23:26:05 <Toprawa> We could do away with the page altogether 2013-08-31T23:26:11 <Cade> So, we'd have something similar to what Meeting 1 has on its page? 2013-08-31T23:26:13 <Supreme_Emperor> tbh how many people even know that page exists :P 2013-08-31T23:26:20 <Toprawa> Ugh 2013-08-31T23:26:20 I guess that would require another CT? 2013-08-31T23:26:22  <Toprawa> Cade. 2013-08-31T23:26:24 * away with the review page 2013-08-31T23:26:25 <Toprawa> What do we do at Inqmoots? 2013-08-31T23:26:29 sorry could not resist 2013-08-31T23:26:30 <Toprawa> We review FAs that have issues. 2013-08-31T23:26:34 <Cade> Like normal Inq/ACmoot pages, with lists of articles that need updating/etc. 2013-08-31T23:26:48 <Toprawa> Yes. 2013-08-31T23:26:51 <Supreme_Emperor> nice away, nice 2013-08-31T23:26:53 <Toprawa> And then we review those articles at a meeting 2013-08-31T23:26:59 <Cade> ^ That's what I was trying to say, yeah. 2013-08-31T23:27:01 <Toprawa> Right now, the EC does that on a page 2013-08-31T23:27:12 <Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Comprehensive_article_review 2013-08-31T23:27:14 <Toprawa> That 2013-08-31T23:27:17 <Cade> Yeah. 2013-08-31T23:27:18 <Supreme_Emperor> CT it, then transition it into the meetings 2013-08-31T23:27:22 <Toprawa> as EJ says, we ignore that page 2013-08-31T23:27:30 <Jangeth> Cal :DD 2013-08-31T23:27:41 Even I rarely check that page... 2013-08-31T23:27:45 <Cade> So we'd likely have an Old Articles & New Articles section on the meeting page like Inq/ACmoots. 2013-08-31T23:27:50 <Toprawa> Yes 2013-08-31T23:27:58 <Toprawa> We'd basically become synonymous to the Inq and AC in that regard 2013-08-31T23:28:08 <Toprawa> Reviewing problem articles at meetings in a real-time setting 2013-08-31T23:28:09 <Cade> That seems like it'd work a lot better. Just look at all the work that's been done with the Meeting 1 page. 2013-08-31T23:28:12 <Supreme_Emperor> sounds quite reasonable 2013-08-31T23:28:13 <Toprawa> instead of on an ongoing page 2013-08-31T23:28:32 <Supreme_Emperor> may take time to catch up, but overall it will make things run smoother 2013-08-31T23:28:37 <Toprawa> Definitely 2013-08-31T23:28:42 <Toprawa> General agreement, then? 2013-08-31T23:28:45 <Cade> Yep. 2013-08-31T23:28:46 yes 2013-08-31T23:28:47 <Supreme_Emperor> !support 2013-08-31T23:28:48 <Toprawa> This will all need to go to CT 2013-08-31T23:28:49  <SirCavalier> Si 2013-08-31T23:28:51  <Olioster> Yar 2013-08-31T23:29:15 <Cal_Jedi> rar 2013-08-31T23:29:21 <Supreme_Emperor> gar 2013-08-31T23:29:23 <Toprawa> Ok, keep us moving, EJ :P 2013-08-31T23:29:45 All right, there is one more rule related question left... 2013-08-31T23:30:17 How many CA votes are required to remove an article from the nomination page before 1 week? 2013-08-31T23:30:30 <Cade> I only asked this because of the Ao Var issue. 2013-08-31T23:30:31 It just happened with three yesterday. 2013-08-31T23:30:37 <Toprawa> Do we have a set amount right now? 2013-08-31T23:30:38 <Cade> Three? 2013-08-31T23:30:42 <Cade> I didn't see one. 2013-08-31T23:30:46 <Toprawa> It should be three 2013-08-31T23:30:49 <SirCavalier> Three is standard 2013-08-31T23:30:57 Three is fine with me. 2013-08-31T23:31:01 <Supreme_Emperor> i vote 4, just to be different XD 2013-08-31T23:31:01  <Cade> Oh, you mean three votes. I thought you meant three instances. 2013-08-31T23:31:21 Three votes... 2013-08-31T23:31:45 Does this need to go to a CT as well? 2013-08-31T23:31:46 <Toprawa> I think this is something we can implement on our own outside of a formal CT, since it encompasses our internal procedures 2013-08-31T23:31:55 <Toprawa> We do the same for the Inq and AC 2013-08-31T23:31:56  <Supreme_Emperor> internal EC affair 2013-08-31T23:32:04 <Cade> This is for issues where the nomination is not inactive, but there's an alterior reason that it needs to be removed. 2013-08-31T23:32:14 <Jangeth> per Tope 2013-08-31T23:32:23 <Cal_Jedi> Per Jangeth 2013-08-31T23:32:26 <Cade> And yeah, agreed. 2013-08-31T23:32:31 <Toprawa> Does this not also cover inactivity? 2013-08-31T23:32:32 <Jangeth> and SE the non EC 2013-08-31T23:32:35  <Cal_Jedi> But yeah. Sounds good. 2013-08-31T23:32:40 <Toprawa> This should cover all circumstances for removal 2013-08-31T23:32:41 <Cade> There's a current rule about inactive noms 2013-08-31T23:32:46 <Toprawa> What rule is that? 2013-08-31T23:32:49 <Toprawa> Remind me :P 2013-08-31T23:32:57 This really should apply for everything... 2013-08-31T23:33:02 <Cade> "All nominations will be considered idle and are subject to instantaneous removal by EduCorps members if objections are not addressed, or at least not answered, after a period of 1 week." 2013-08-31T23:33:10 <Toprawa> Ah, right 2013-08-31T23:33:16 <Toprawa> And this is for extraneous reasons. 2013-08-31T23:33:19 <Toprawa> Gotcha 2013-08-31T23:33:24 <Cade> It's a bit harsh, imo... 2013-08-31T23:33:36 <Toprawa> Well, let's stick to the first issue. 2013-08-31T23:33:41 <Cade> Yeah. Never mind. 2013-08-31T23:34:12 <Toprawa> Ultimately, this kind of thing should go into a page like this. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/AC_Bylaws 2013-08-31T23:34:21 So, should we apply the three vote rule for all nomination removals? 2013-08-31T23:34:29 <Cade> Wait, you guys actually //use// that page? o_O 2013-08-31T23:34:33 <Toprawa> Yes. :P 2013-08-31T23:34:38 <Jangeth> oshit the EC is getting powah 2013-08-31T23:34:46 <Supreme_Emperor> ultimate Powah 2013-08-31T23:35:01 <Toprawa> Do we want to vote to ratify a page like that for the EC? The first thing to add could be for these votes. 2013-08-31T23:35:17 I think that would be a good idea. 2013-08-31T23:35:20 <Cade> Yeah. 2013-08-31T23:35:26 <Toprawa> It's just a reminder page so people can see how things are done properly 2013-08-31T23:35:28 <Supreme_Emperor> definitely 2013-08-31T23:35:37 <Cade> I haven't seen an inactive CAN in a while, actually 2013-08-31T23:35:54 <Toprawa> Ok, let's vote: Support for creation of EC Bylaws page? 2013-08-31T23:35:59 <Cade> Support. 2013-08-31T23:35:59 <Supreme_Emperor> support 2013-08-31T23:35:59 support 2013-08-31T23:36:01 <Jangeth> \o/ 2013-08-31T23:36:05 <SirCavalier> suppoty 2013-08-31T23:36:12 <Toprawa> Support 2013-08-31T23:36:32 <Toprawa> Others? 2013-08-31T23:36:39 <Toprawa> Disagreement? 2013-08-31T23:36:41 <Supreme_Emperor> they all support :P 2013-08-31T23:36:44 <Cal_Jedi> Support 2013-08-31T23:36:45 <Supreme_Emperor> by default 2013-08-31T23:36:52 <Cade> Supreme, hush. 2013-08-31T23:36:55 <Jangeth> so will the EC archive noms only? :P 2013-08-31T23:36:56 <Olioster> Support 2013-08-31T23:37:01 <Toprawa> Ok, EC Bylaws page ratified. 2013-08-31T23:37:06 <Toprawa> No, Jang, one thing at a time :P 2013-08-31T23:37:06 <Cade> No, I think anyone can archive CANs 2013-08-31T23:37:20 <Jangeth> Ok so "Paperwork and meeting scheduling duties" is out of the question? :P 2013-08-31T23:37:21 <Toprawa> The EC Bylaws page is blank right now. 2013-08-31T23:37:25 <Jangeth> Oh 2013-08-31T23:37:25  <Cade> They're just a drag, like all archiving. 2013-08-31T23:37:27 <Toprawa> Now we need to ratify what to put into it :P 2013-08-31T23:37:29 <Supreme_Emperor> mind if i bring up a small side note? 2013-08-31T23:37:36 <Toprawa> Go ahead, SE 2013-08-31T23:37:44  <Jangeth> This is the bylaws page ~ 2013-08-31T23:37:57 <Jangeth> 10/10 would read again 2013-08-31T23:38:09 <Supreme_Emperor> Seeing as we already display FA and GA articles on the main page, now that the EC is moving up, should we consider showing some of them on the main page as well? 2013-08-31T23:38:21 <Cal_Jedi> XD 2013-08-31T23:38:23  <Cade> Meh. 2013-08-31T23:38:29 <Cal_Jedi>  @ Jang 2013-08-31T23:38:30 <Toprawa> I think it's something to consider, but I wouldn't support it right now. 2013-08-31T23:38:35 <Toprawa> I would have to see a vast improvement in CA quality 2013-08-31T23:38:35 <Cal_Jedi> and per Tope 2013-08-31T23:38:37 <Supreme_Emperor> just something to think about 2013-08-31T23:38:39 Not yet, maybe later... 2013-08-31T23:38:50 <Supreme_Emperor> and agreed, not now but sometime down the road 2013-08-31T23:39:01 <Toprawa> Yeah, we could monitor it 2013-08-31T23:39:06  The quality needs to be higher first. 2013-08-31T23:39:06 <Toprawa> When the time feels right, we could discuss it more seriously 2013-08-31T23:39:38 <Toprawa> Ok, back to the voting removal thing. 2013-08-31T23:39:39 So should we get to work on the Bylaws page now? 2013-08-31T23:39:45 <Toprawa> Yes :P 2013-08-31T23:39:55 <Toprawa> let's vote on the required number of votes needed to remove something from the page 2013-08-31T23:40:09 <Toprawa> Support 3 votes for removal of a nom for extraneous reasons outside of idleness. 2013-08-31T23:40:14 <Toprawa> ?* 2013-08-31T23:40:17 <Supreme_Emperor> support 2013-08-31T23:40:20 support 2013-08-31T23:40:22 support 2013-08-31T23:40:24 <SirCavalier> support 2013-08-31T23:40:24 <Olioster> Aye 2013-08-31T23:40:51 <Cade> support 2013-08-31T23:41:01 <Cal_Jedi> support 2013-08-31T23:41:06 <Toprawa> Support 2013-08-31T23:41:16 <Toprawa> Ok, motion granted, and this will be added to the Bylaws page 2013-08-31T23:41:19 <Toprawa> passed* 2013-08-31T23:41:34 <Toprawa> Ok, second 2013-08-31T23:41:35 <Toprawa> Cade's thing 2013-08-31T23:41:42 <Toprawa> Do we want to change that idle policy? 2013-08-31T23:42:08 <Cade> I don't care, really. My thing was the extraneous reasons removal. 2013-08-31T23:42:11 <Supreme_Emperor> i vote 2 weeks idle, a vote for removal can be started 2013-08-31T23:42:12 Consistency is nice... 2013-08-31T23:42:23 <Toprawa> I think two weeks is way too long, considering how short the nominations are. 2013-08-31T23:42:25 <Toprawa> A week at most. 2013-08-31T23:42:30 <Olioster> 1 week is a bit harsh, per Supreme 2013-08-31T23:42:31 <Supreme_Emperor> good point 2013-08-31T23:42:36 <Toprawa> The idea is to keep the CAN page moving at a brisk pace 2013-08-31T23:42:48 One week and then a vote for removal? 2013-08-31T23:42:50 <Supreme_Emperor> week and a half, to meet in the middle XD 2013-08-31T23:42:55  <Toprawa> It's already one week right now. 2013-08-31T23:43:03 <Toprawa> But do we want to change it to require three EC votes to remove it? 2013-08-31T23:43:05 <Toprawa> That was the issue 2013-08-31T23:43:19 <Toprawa> Right now they're just removed automatically after one week of being idle 2013-08-31T23:44:15 Seems like a good idea. 2013-08-31T23:44:17 <Olioster> A vote would be good, me thinks 2013-08-31T23:45:01 <Toprawa> Disagreement? 2013-08-31T23:45:08 <Cal_Jedi> none 2013-08-31T23:45:54 <Toprawa> Ok, let's vote, then: Support to change the requirements for removing an idle nom. This would now require support from three EC members, who would vote on the nomination. 2013-08-31T23:46:03 support 2013-08-31T23:46:06 <Cade> support 2013-08-31T23:46:11 <SirCavalier> support 2013-08-31T23:46:13 <Olioster> support 2013-08-31T23:46:15 <Cal_Jedi> support 2013-08-31T23:46:50 <Toprawa> Motion passed, then 2013-08-31T23:46:55 <Toprawa> We'll add this to the Bylaws page as well 2013-08-31T23:47:19 <Toprawa> Do we also want to add a note saying this vote may also be obtained via IRC? 2013-08-31T23:47:26 <Toprawa> The Inq and AC also do it this way 2013-08-31T23:47:37 <Toprawa> Example: 2013-08-31T23:47:37 That would be fine with me. 2013-08-31T23:47:39 <Toprawa> "Likewise, a consensus of at least 3 AC support votes is needed on the GAN page to strike an objection from a reviewer that is deemed otherwise invalid (For what constitutes an invalid objection, refer to the accompanying section below). This consensus of 3 support votes can alternatively be obtained from present users in IRC, in which case a note will be left on the GAN page that the... 2013-08-31T23:47:41  <Toprawa> ...objection has been stricken via AC consensus. However, if the nominator of the article in question is an AC member, he/she cannot be included in the 3 support votes. " 2013-08-31T23:48:08 <Cade> Agreed/ 2013-08-31T23:48:13 <Supreme_Emperor> sounds reasonable 2013-08-31T23:48:37 <Toprawa> Vote Support or Oppose 2013-08-31T23:48:44 <Olioster> support 2013-08-31T23:48:45 support 2013-08-31T23:48:47 <SirCavalier> support 2013-08-31T23:48:50 <Cade> support 2013-08-31T23:48:55 <Cal_Jedi> support 2013-08-31T23:48:59 <Toprawa> Support 2013-08-31T23:49:05 <Toprawa> Motion passed 2013-08-31T23:49:42 Ok, now we can move on to more general article issues... 2013-08-31T23:50:13 A lot of CAs assume that a species in non-sentient... 2013-08-31T23:50:47 The question is: Are there situations where non-sentient can be inferred without being stated? 2013-08-31T23:51:09 <SirCavalier> I think non-sentience can be inferred, definitely. If, for example, the animal is described as a herd or livestock animal, or is used for food and clothing. 2013-08-31T23:51:54 Any other opinions? 2013-08-31T23:52:21 <Cade> I think in the absence of that, there just shouldn't be any mention of sentience. 2013-08-31T23:52:41 <Supreme_Emperor> if nothing is mentioned, assuming anything is speculation 2013-08-31T23:53:00 What about plants? 2013-08-31T23:53:14 <Cade> I'd say leave out sentience. 2013-08-31T23:53:20 <Cal_Jedi> There have been plenty of non-sentient plants in SW. 2013-08-31T23:53:22 <Cal_Jedi> er 2013-08-31T23:53:23  <Cal_Jedi> sentient* 2013-08-31T23:53:26 <Cal_Jedi> just sayin. 2013-08-31T23:53:27 <Cade> O 2013-08-31T23:53:29  <Jangeth> wat 2013-08-31T23:53:42 What about the categories? 2013-08-31T23:53:43 <Cade> *I'd say treat it like we do unspecified gender/species 2013-08-31T23:53:48 <SirCavalier> Are there any truly sentient plants that we would deal with as being separate from an alien species? 2013-08-31T23:54:06 <Cade> EJ: Category:Species of unspecified sentience? 2013-08-31T23:54:52 Yeah, I was making checking to see if you meant that we should include that. 2013-08-31T23:55:23 So, how do we want to handle this? 2013-08-31T23:55:52 <Cade> Does anyone object/disagree with my proposal of leave-out-unless-stated-or-herd/livestock ? 2013-08-31T23:57:06 Anyone? 2013-08-31T23:57:19 <Cade> Okay, does anyone /support/ that proposal? 2013-08-31T23:57:33 support 2013-08-31T23:57:37 <Olioster> Support 2013-08-31T23:57:42 <SirCavalier> Support 2013-08-31T23:58:00 <Cal_Jedi> support 2013-08-31T23:58:07 support 2013-08-31T23:58:47 <Cade> Tope/Supreme/Jang/Floyd? 2013-08-31T23:58:53 <IFYLOFD> Support 2013-08-31T23:58:54 <Supreme_Emperor> support 2013-08-31T23:59:05 <Supreme_Emperor> does my vote even really count here XD 2013-08-31T23:59:11  <Supreme_Emperor> seeing as im the only non EC here :P 2013-08-31T23:59:16 <Jangeth> +m : 2013-08-31T23:59:17 <Jangeth> :P 2013-08-31T23:59:18 <Cal_Jedi> XD 2013-08-31T23:59:22  <Cal_Jedi>  /kick 2013-08-31T23:59:30 <Jangeth> Sounds fine, Cade 2013-08-31T23:59:31 <Supreme_Emperor> nnnnnnoooooooooo 2013-08-31T23:59:32 *** Cade was kicked by IFYLOFD (Cade) 2013-08-31T23:59:33 *** Cade <Cade!~Cade_Calr@wookieepedia/Cade-Calrayn> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps 2013-08-31T23:59:33 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Cade 2013-08-31T23:59:36 <Supreme_Emperor> :P 2013-08-31T23:59:38 per floyd 2013-08-31T23:59:39 <Jangeth> :D 2013-08-31T23:59:40 <Cade> o_O 2013-08-31T23:59:43 <Jangeth> dat Xd 2013-08-31T23:59:44  <Cade> What just happened? 2013-08-31T23:59:45 <IFYLOFD> To truly inaugurate the EC 2013-08-31T23:59:50  <Jangeth> Continue please :P 2013-08-31T23:59:51 <Cade> >_> 2013-08-31T23:59:51 All right, the next part also involves species: Should plants that are food have a food or species infobox? 2013-09-01T00:00:28 <Olioster> Species should probably override food. 2013-09-01T00:00:29 Food: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Takhal_nut 2013-09-01T00:00:29 <Supreme_Emperor> both XD 2013-09-01T00:00:33  <SirCavalier> At the risk of overdoing infoboxes, I would consider creating a separate plant infobox 2013-09-01T00:00:40 <Cade> ^ 2013-09-01T00:00:53 <Olioster> or per Cav 2013-09-01T00:00:55 <Cade> Well, first, let's see how many that would apply too 2013-09-01T00:00:58 Species: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Antarian_pea 2013-09-01T00:01:23 <Cade> Oh, there's a lot of plans. 2013-09-01T00:01:25 <Cade> *plants. 2013-09-01T00:01:28 I've got 15 cases on the CA page. 2013-09-01T00:01:28 <Cade> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Plants 2013-09-01T00:01:40 <SirCavalier> The current species infobox is heavily boased towards actual humoanoid and animal species 2013-09-01T00:01:45 <Cade> 237 stubs. 2013-09-01T00:01:56 So, should we create a plant infobox? 2013-09-01T00:02:00 <Cade> Yeah. 2013-09-01T00:02:05 <Supreme_Emperor> yep 2013-09-01T00:02:06 <Cade> support. 2013-09-01T00:02:11 <Toprawa> support 2013-09-01T00:02:15 support 2013-09-01T00:02:18 <SirCavalier> Support 2013-09-01T00:02:40 <Supreme_Emperor> suooort 2013-09-01T00:02:41 support 2013-09-01T00:02:47 <Olioster> support 2013-09-01T00:02:51 <Cal_Jedi> support 2013-09-01T00:02:55 <Cade> I'll get on that 2013-09-01T00:03:17 Next, should articles  like Dining at Dex's be italicized, in quotes, or neither? 2013-09-01T00:03:28 This also applies to short stories. 2013-09-01T00:03:38 <Toprawa> This is really something that should be discussed in a wider forum 2013-09-01T00:03:41 <Toprawa> Since this affects all articles 2013-09-01T00:03:44 <Toprawa> not just CAs 2013-09-01T00:03:47 <SirCavalier> Per Tope 2013-09-01T00:03:48 <Supreme_Emperor> CT 2013-09-01T00:03:51  <Olioster> yeah 2013-09-01T00:03:59 <Cade> I know Naru's a stickler for quotes instead of italics 2013-09-01T00:04:02 CT or SH? 2013-09-01T00:04:07 <Cade> SH 2013-09-01T00:04:08  <Supreme_Emperor> SH* 2013-09-01T00:04:09 <SirCavalier> SH first 2013-09-01T00:04:17 Ok, we'll move that to SH... 2013-09-01T00:05:48 Next: Should we contact people about their articles, or should we figure they already know or don't care. 2013-09-01T00:06:02 <Toprawa> Contact them regarding what? 2013-09-01T00:06:14 <Cal_Jedi> outstanding objections, I'm assuming. 2013-09-01T00:06:17 If their article goes under review... 2013-09-01T00:06:21 <Cal_Jedi> ah 2013-09-01T00:06:23  <Cal_Jedi> nevermind, then. :{ 2013-09-01T00:06:25 <Cal_Jedi> :P* 2013-09-01T00:06:28 <Toprawa> We don't do that for Inq or AC 2013-09-01T00:06:44  <Toprawa> We figure if someone wants to maintain article, it's their responsibility to monitor it 2013-09-01T00:06:52  <Olioster> per tope 2013-09-01T00:06:54 <Toprawa> They should have their article on a watchlist anyway 2013-09-01T00:06:57 <Cal_Jedi> indeed. 2013-09-01T00:07:01 Ok, that should work... 2013-09-01T00:07:03 <SirCavalier> We assume nominators watch their articles and are aware of clean up tags and the like being added 2013-09-01T00:07:10 <Supreme_Emperor> one day ill actually bother using that watchlist XD 2013-09-01T00:07:24  <Toprawa> I honestly don't know how anyone doesn't have one 2013-09-01T00:07:31 <Toprawa> I can't possibly monitor everything I need to without one 2013-09-01T00:07:37 <SirCavalier> ^^ 2013-09-01T00:07:41 <Cal_Jedi> The watchlist is like the thing I look at the most on Wookieepedia :P 2013-09-01T00:07:48 <Supreme_Emperor> i normally do a check of the RC for the last 12 hours or so whenever im here anyway 2013-09-01T00:07:52 I haven't used a watchlist... and I've been here for 4 years 2013-09-01T00:08:12 <Supreme_Emperor> i just check back till i reach my last edit 2013-09-01T00:08:13 <Cade> I mostly use Special:RelatedChanges for Project Hero. 2013-09-01T00:08:16 <Olioster> well arent you special ecks 2013-09-01T00:08:19 Should we pursue the Star Wars Galaxies TCG dating thing that Mauser brought up on a SH thread? 2013-09-01T00:08:20 <Toprawa> XD 2013-09-01T00:08:25  a special snowflake 2013-09-01T00:08:28 <Cal_Jedi> XD XD 2013-09-01T00:08:38  <Toprawa> We could discuss it briefly, but ultimately that probably deserves a wider audience as well 2013-09-01T00:08:55 <SirCavalier> Aye 2013-09-01T00:09:09 <Supreme_Emperor> ^ 2013-09-01T00:09:41 He says that it happened in an undefined era, while I think that the main storyline occurred during the Galactic Civil War after the Battle of Yavin... 2013-09-01T00:09:47 <Cade> ^^ 2013-09-01T00:10:09 <Toprawa> I have no idea personally 2013-09-01T00:10:11 Hanzo already changed his articles to remove the mention of the Rebellion era. 2013-09-01T00:10:32 <SirCavalier> From what I can see, a lot relates to the actual game itself which is 0 ABY - 3 ABY 2013-09-01T00:10:42 <Cade> Yeah, that's what I've seen. 2013-09-01T00:10:50 <SirCavalier> Maybe some individual cards are sketchy, but as a whole ... 2013-09-01T00:11:16 <Cade> What I've been saying is go with the Rebellion era as a default unless the card says different 2013-09-01T00:11:45 There are a very few cards that seem to appear in the Clone Wars, plus a couple that might be due to dating inconsistencies. 2013-09-01T00:12:02 So, take this to SH thread? 2013-09-01T00:12:07 <Toprawa> yeah 2013-09-01T00:12:58 So, what all CTs and SH threads do we need to create? 2013-09-01T00:13:06 We're done with the agenda. 2013-09-01T00:13:09 <Toprawa> We'll go back in the log and make a list :P 2013-09-01T00:13:11 ALL the threads 2013-09-01T00:13:24 <Toprawa> I think that's pretty good for a first meeting. 2013-09-01T00:13:27 One last thing: When will the next meeting be held? 2013-09-01T00:13:29 <Toprawa> Unless anyone else has anything else they want to bring up 2013-09-01T00:13:37  <Cade> I'll have the plant infobox done in a moment. 2013-09-01T00:13:38 <Toprawa> Two weeks? 2013-09-01T00:13:45 <Supreme_Emperor> seems reasonable 2013-09-01T00:13:55 <Toprawa> That way, some of these procedural things might be decided in a CT by then 2013-09-01T00:14:05 <Cade> Question. 2013-09-01T00:14:09 <Toprawa> Answer. 2013-09-01T00:14:17 <Cade> Template:Plant or Template:Plant_infobox? 2013-09-01T00:14:44 <Toprawa> whatever you do will affect the way it looks in the preload list 2013-09-01T00:14:49 <Toprawa> most include "infobox," I think? 2013-09-01T00:14:57 <Olioster> Infoxbox plant? 2013-09-01T00:15:01 <SirCavalier> Characters do 2013-09-01T00:15:07  <Cade> We've got Template:Species and Template:Food_infobox 2013-09-01T00:15:11 <Supreme_Emperor> plantboxinfo 2013-09-01T00:15:17 <Olioster> lol 2013-09-01T00:15:21 * Cade slaps Supreme 2013-09-01T00:15:40 <Olioster> So much physical abuse from Cade 2013-09-01T00:15:46 How about the 21st of September at the same time for the next meeting? 2013-09-01T00:15:47 <Olioster> We should have a meeting about that 2013-09-01T00:15:48 <Supreme_Emperor> i shall stand my ground 2013-09-01T00:15:53 <Cade> Only because I receive so much, Olioster 2013-09-01T00:15:56 <Cade> And sounds good 2013-09-01T00:16:00 <Supreme_Emperor> indeed 2013-09-01T00:16:04 <Olioster> Deserved, Cade 2013-09-01T00:16:08 <Cade> False 2013-09-01T00:16:24 <Cade> I did nothing to deserve Floyd's treatment of me 2013-09-01T00:16:27  * exiledjedi pounds the gavel... 2013-09-01T00:16:30 <IFYLOFD> Fuck off, Cade 2013-09-01T00:16:33 <Cade> o_O 2013-09-01T00:16:38 <Supreme_Emperor> O_O 2013-09-01T00:16:40 k/ick Cade 2013-09-01T00:16:41 <Toprawa> EJ> either 21 or 14 2013-09-01T00:16:41 er 2013-09-01T00:16:44  <Toprawa> whichever you think is best 2013-09-01T00:17:02 <Toprawa> Thanks for coming, everyone 2013-09-01T00:17:04 <Toprawa> This was pretty good 2013-09-01T00:17:12 Three weeks would give more time for things to get handled in CTs and SH threads. 2013-09-01T00:17:17 <Toprawa> That's true 2013-09-01T00:17:25 Thank you for coming... 2013-09-01T00:17:31 <Cal_Jedi> Good meeting, everyone. 2013-09-01T00:17:40 that left me hungry 2013-09-01T00:17:45 This meeting is done.