Wookieepedia:AC/Log/2011 April 16

[23:39:12] <@Toprawa> Here we go. [23:39:22] <@Toprawa> Kilson, you may want this window open: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Meeting_Thirty-Four [23:39:33] <@Toprawa> First up is articles that were probed from last meeting. [23:39:41] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/GT-9R [23:39:46] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/GT-9R [23:39:50] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3479224 [23:40:27] <@ecks> the beginning still sucks tbh :P [23:40:36] <@ecks> "While serving Tirog, GT-9R's non-violent protocol droid programming and..." [23:41:13] <@CC7567> Doesn't clarify that he was a droid :P [23:41:16] <@Kilson> At a first glance, a few redirects. [23:41:27] <@ecks> It still looks pretty bad. [23:41:28] <@GrandMoffTranner> Redirects have been corrected. :p [23:41:43] <@ecks> Its appearance is ugly :P [23:41:45] <@Toprawa> I agree the beginning of the bio needs work. [23:41:51] <@Toprawa> That intro sentence is pretty rough [23:42:03] <@Toprawa> The article needs to establish the character. [23:42:08] <@GrandMoffTranner> Per Xd and Tope. [23:42:18] <@Jujiggum> Per Tran [23:42:28] <@Toprawa> I wouldn't just mind killing it and giving it a fresh review if the nominator wants to re-nominate it [23:42:31] <@Toprawa> Probably wouldn't be too much work [23:42:35] <@Tommy9281> I agree with that [23:42:44] <@Kilson> Per Tope and Tommy [23:42:47] <@CC7567> Kill, then? [23:42:49] <@Jujiggum> Works for me [23:42:51] <@Tommy9281> Yes [23:42:51] <@Toprawa> Kill [23:42:52] <@Jujiggum> Killify [23:42:53] <@GrandMoffTranner> Kill. [23:42:55] <@grunny> kill [23:42:57] <@Kilson> Kill [23:43:05] <@Toprawa> GT-9R removed. [23:43:06] <@GrandMoffTranner> Good. Our first kill of the day. [23:43:06] <@ecks> kill [23:43:08] <@ecks> heh [23:43:17] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Stewjon [23:43:19] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3479226 [23:44:10] <@Toprawa> to respond to MJ on the review page, only systems are mentioned in the Online Companion's index, not planets [23:44:11] <@Tommy9281> Who's objections were those originally? [23:44:18] <@Toprawa> the Companion makes that abundantly clear [23:44:27] <@Toprawa> It's on the review page, Tommy [23:44:44] <@Tommy9281> Graestan? [23:44:48] <@Kilson> Oh [23:44:57] <@Jujiggum> Still seeing a couple copy-edit things that could be fixed [23:44:58] <@Toprawa> Oh, I don't know who [23:45:00] <@Toprawa> Sorry [23:45:08] <@Jujiggum> For example, second sentence of History [23:45:24] <@Jujiggum> "and eventually to become a Jedi Master" seems just out of place [23:45:27] <@GrandMoffTranner> Yeah. [23:45:34] <@Toprawa> Could you fix that yourself? [23:45:48] <@Jujiggum> Sure [23:46:14] <@CC7567> While you're at it, could you source the Stewjon system in the Description? :P [23:46:18] <@Toprawa> I'm kind of worried that no one probably knows what Mysteries of the Jedi is. [23:46:22] <@ecks> 9_9 [23:46:24] <@Toprawa> It's not referenced at all in the article [23:46:28] * @GrandMoffTranner doesn't know what it is [23:46:34] <@Kilson> Does it exist? [23:46:42] <@Tommy9281> Let's remove it. [23:47:07] <@Toprawa> The more I look at it, the more I think this too probably needs a fresh review. [23:47:26] * IFYLOFD (~chatzilla@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-agricorps [23:47:26] * ChanServ gives channel operator status to IFYLOFD [23:47:31] <@ecks> about time, Floyd :P [23:47:33] <@IFYLOFD> Howdy fellas [23:47:36] <@Jujiggum> Hey Floyd [23:47:38] <@GrandMoffTranner> Welcome. [23:47:39] <@Jujiggum> Wlecome [23:47:40] <@Kilson> Hey Floyd [23:47:43] <@ecks> welcome [23:47:43] <@Toprawa> Hey Floyd, welcome to the AC :) [23:47:46] <@GrandMoffTranner> As I told Kilson, the alcohol is in the back. :p [23:47:46] <@CC7567> Welcome :) [23:47:50] <@IFYLOFD> Hah, nice [23:47:55] <@Tommy9281> No underage drinking. [23:47:57] <@IFYLOFD> Thanks for letting me in [23:48:05] <@Kilson> I don't feel so good anymore.....:P [23:48:07] <@Toprawa> We're currently looking at Stewjon, Floyd. [23:48:08] <@Tommy9281> We don't condone* [23:48:11] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Meeting_Thirty-Four [23:48:19] <@Toprawa> Second item in the first section [23:48:30] <@grunny> welcome, Floyd :) [23:48:30] <@IFYLOFD> Alright [23:48:50] <@IFYLOFD> Thanks for the welcomes, everyone :) [23:48:53] <@ecks> new guys, feel free to add you to the list and use the userboxes and whatnot if you haven't already [23:49:19] <@Jujiggum> Hmm...why do we allow redlinked sources/appearances anyway? [23:49:27] <@Tommy9281> I never have [23:49:53] <@Toprawa> Ok, let's decide this thing [23:49:54] <@Kilson> I'd say extend and just ask what is Mystery of the Jedi exactly. [23:49:55] <@IFYLOFD> Well, they shouldn't be allowed [23:49:57] <@Jujiggum> I'm still hesitant to just let this be kept [23:50:01] <@IFYLOFD> Just fucking lazy [23:50:04] <@GrandMoffTranner> Per Juicy. [23:50:16] <@IFYLOFD> I don't think we should allow redlinks at all in status articles, but that's just me [23:50:17] <@Toprawa> I can either extend or kill, personally [23:50:20] <@grunny> Well MJ added that source, so he should create it [23:50:22] <@Toprawa> I'd rather kill it and just give it a fresh review. [23:50:24] <@Jujiggum> Per Floyd [23:50:27] <@GrandMoffTranner> Per Tope. [23:50:28] <@Jujiggum> And Tope [23:50:29] <@GrandMoffTranner> On both points. [23:50:33] <@ecks> Floyd> we made the rules a bit stronger at the Mofference [23:50:43] <@IFYLOFD> Yeah, I know [23:50:50] <@IFYLOFD> I don't think they're strong enough [23:51:03] <@Toprawa> Let's vote on this, please. [23:51:07] <@Toprawa> What do we want to do with it? [23:51:23] <@Jujiggum> I vote extend, but I wouldn't mind a kill [23:51:28] <@IFYLOFD> Per Jugs [23:51:29] <@grunny> I'd say extend [23:51:32] <@Kilson> I still say extend, but I'm willing to kill it if you guys want. [23:51:35] <@ecks> Extend [23:51:35] <@CC7567> Extend [23:51:37] <@GrandMoffTranner> Might as well extend it. [23:51:37] <@Toprawa> I can extend then [23:51:42] <@IFYLOFD> I don't have a problem with either [23:51:47] <@Tommy9281> Fine by me [23:51:50] <@CC7567> Sorry guys, I gotta run [23:51:51] <@Toprawa> ok [23:51:53] <@Jujiggum> Later CC [23:51:54] <@Toprawa> Stewjoin extended. [23:51:54] <@IFYLOFD> Later CC [23:51:56] <@Toprawa> Later, CC [23:51:56] <@Kilson> Cya CC [23:52:02] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Korriban_(Great_Hyperspace_War) [23:52:03] <@CC7567> Save some paperwork (and some snacks) for me :P [23:52:04] <@GrandMoffTranner> Adios, CC. [23:52:07] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Second_Battle_of_Korriban_(Great_Hyperspace_War) [23:52:10] * CC7567 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 4.0/20110318052756]) [23:52:11] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Korriban_%28Great_Hyperspace_War%29&diff=cur&oldid=3404513 [23:52:20] <@IFYLOFD> Ah, one of my articles [23:52:24] * @IFYLOFD swallows [23:52:34] <@ecks> heh [23:52:37] <@Tommy9281> As well you should :P [23:52:44] <@ecks> wasn't that like re-re-extended? [23:52:49] <@Toprawa> Usually, we rely on Tommy to give us the 411 on TOTJ stuff. :P [23:52:52] <@Toprawa> Now we have two people. [23:53:03] <@IFYLOFD> Heh [23:53:04] <@Kilson> So we get 822 [23:53:07] <@Toprawa> So, what's the deal here, guys? [23:53:09] <@Toprawa> Is this fixed? [23:53:11] <@Tommy9281> It's good [23:53:32] <@ecks> yeah, keep [23:53:37] <@grunny> okay, then keep [23:53:40] <@Toprawa> Keep [23:53:43] <@GrandMoffTranner> Keepify. [23:53:47] <@IFYLOFD> Self-serving keep. [23:53:50] <@Jujiggum> Keep it [23:54:03] <@Toprawa> Second Battle of Korriban kept [23:54:04] <@Kilson> Keep [23:54:10] <@Jujiggum> Just add conjecture tag! [23:54:12] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Riiken [23:54:17] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Riiken [23:54:20] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Riiken&diff=cur&oldid=3446055 [23:54:26] <@ecks> per Jugs :P [23:55:32] <@ecks> Tm did a good job [23:55:36] <@ecks> and I kinda copyedited it [23:55:47] <@Tommy9281> I'll take your word then [23:55:53] <@Kilson> I'd say keep then. [23:55:57] <@ecks> keep [23:55:59] <@Toprawa> Keep [23:56:01] <@Jujiggum> keep [23:56:04] <@GrandMoffTranner> Keep. [23:56:09] <@IFYLOFD> Keep [23:56:14] <@grunny> keep [23:56:37] <@Toprawa> Riiken kept. [23:56:41] <@Toprawa> Moving on. [23:56:42] <@Toprawa> New articles [23:56:49] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sacking_of_Coruscant [23:56:53] <@Toprawa> I'll let you all read the discussion on the page. [23:56:57] <@Toprawa> Basically, he's taking this thing to FAN [23:57:02] <@Toprawa> we could Redux it, but it's kind of pointless [23:57:28] <@Toprawa> I'm content to just let it sit until he's done nominating it [23:57:35] <@grunny> yeah [23:57:38] <@Jujiggum> Aye [23:57:50] <@IFYLOFD> Yeah, sure [23:57:53] <@ecks> yeah, let it sit [23:57:58] <@GrandMoffTranner> Fine with me. [23:58:00] <@Kilson> Per above [23:58:27] <@Toprawa> Ok, Sacking of Coruscant sitted. :P [23:58:34] <@GrandMoffTranner> Alright guys, I have to run now. Tope has my vote. [23:58:37] <@ecks> later [23:58:39] <@Toprawa> Later, Tranner [23:58:40] <@Jujiggum> later Tran [23:58:45] <@IFYLOFD> Adios Tran Man [23:58:46] * GrandMoffTranner has quit (Quit: Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.) [23:58:58] <@Toprawa> Then next is a bunch of articles Jugs added to the list. [23:59:03] <@Toprawa> Would you like the floor, Jugs? [23:59:09] <@Jujiggum> Sure thing, one sec [23:59:20] <@Jujiggum> Here's the deal: [23:59:43] <@Jujiggum> basically, we have a load of droid articles that have infobox-exclusive information [23:59:45] <@Jujiggum> However [00:00:06] <@Jujiggum> We sometimes let this stuff go by on some articles, and some people don't believe it is necessary to add to the article [00:00:14] <@Jujiggum> /However/Howeve [00:00:19] <@Jujiggum> Bah [00:00:22] <@Jujiggum> /However/ [00:00:53] <@Jujiggum> Particularly in droid articles, all of the height information and stuff like that definitely belongs in a characteristics/description section [00:01:03] <@Jujiggum> Because that's exactly what those sections are for [00:01:14] <@Toprawa> FWIW, we kind of did agree at the Mofference to add in all infobox information to the article...but then we didn't agree to add it to the list. [00:01:20] <@Toprawa> the LG*, arther [00:01:32] <@Toprawa> I agree there is stuff in there that should be added in. [00:01:36] <@Toprawa> Like manufacturer. [00:01:47] <@Toprawa> There's nothing wrong with adding height info to the Characteristics section either [00:02:09] <@Kilson> So do we Redux the articles then? [00:02:17] <@Toprawa> Personally, I don't care if people want to add in colors, unless the droid is /specifically/ notable for being a certain color [00:02:26] <@Toprawa> Like, for ex, K-3PO is a noted for being a white 3PO droid [00:02:29] <@Jujiggum> No need to redux [00:02:35] <@ecks> Kilson> no, that's only for articles with large additions [00:02:38] <@Jujiggum> This is simple enough to probe if we decide to [00:02:47] <@IFYLOFD> Probe 'em all, I says [00:03:04] <@Jujiggum> IMO, leaving this stuff out is just laziness [00:03:14] <@Kilson> Per Floyd and Jugs. [00:03:22] <@Jujiggum> It can and should be put into the Characteristics section. That's what the section is /for/ [00:03:58] <@Kilson> It's quite easy too. [00:04:05] <@Jujiggum> Exactly [00:04:23] <@Tommy9281> Sorry bout that [00:04:24] <@IFYLOFD> Per Juggy [00:04:28] <@Tommy9281> Some kids needed pulverizing [00:04:35] <@Kilson> So probe them all then. [00:04:51] <@Toprawa> Each of these articles either doesn't mention manufacturer, height, or both. [00:04:57] <@Toprawa> I vote to probe on those grounds. [00:05:03] <@Jujiggum> Probe em [00:05:12] <@grunny> Probe 'em [00:05:17] <@ecks> Probe 'em [00:05:21] <@IFYLOFD> Probe 'em all [00:05:28] <@Tommy9281> Probe [00:05:47] <@Toprawa> All of those droids are probed. [00:05:49] <@Kilson> One of us can easily go around and fix these anyway. [00:05:53] <@IFYLOFD> It's just lazy [00:05:58] <@Toprawa> Last one. [00:06:02] <@IFYLOFD> Someone could fix them all in fifteen minutes [00:06:06] <@Toprawa> # Being Boba Fett - Kilson suggested bringing this to our attention. He notes that the summary is in serious need of expansion, and it could possibly use a Main characters section. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:17, April 5, 2011 (UTC) [00:06:16] <@Toprawa> Kilson, would you care to elaborate? [00:06:18] <@Kilson> Sure [00:06:30] <@Kilson> The main problem is the Plot Summary section. [00:06:44] <@Kilson> Compared to other promoted OOU articles, it is severely lacking. [00:06:58] <@Kilson> I would fix this but I don't have access to the comic at the moment. [00:07:03] <@Toprawa> yeah, this is one of our older OOU articles [00:07:08] <@Toprawa> one of the first OOU status articles, in fact [00:07:22] <@Toprawa> I don't doubt it could use some expansion and general new-age sprucing [00:07:29] <@Kilson> Yeah, I tried fixing it in the past, but didn't have the time. [00:07:46] <@Kilson> I'd say probe and hopefully I can find time to fix it up. [00:07:51] <@ecks> probe [00:08:03] <@Toprawa> Probe! [00:08:05] <@Jujiggum> Probe [00:08:25] <@Toprawa> Others? [00:08:33] <@grunny> Probe [00:08:39] <@IFYLOFD> Probe it [00:08:46] <@Toprawa> Being Boba Fett probed. [00:08:56] <@Toprawa> Anyone have anything else? [00:09:28] <@Toprawa> Oh, there are some things in the maintenance bin [00:09:40] <@ecks> Jayfon at least, iirc :D [00:09:45] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Jayfon&t=20110415032601 [00:09:48] <@Toprawa> Jayfon. [00:09:55] <@Toprawa> Needs an update from its non-canon LEGO appearance. [00:10:14] <@grunny> Probe [00:10:19] <@IFYLOFD> Proberate [00:10:19] <@Kilson> Probe then [00:10:20] <@Jujiggum> Floyd and Kilson: maintenance page is here, in case you don't know http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/GA_maintenance [00:10:21] <@Jujiggum> Probe [00:10:33] <@Toprawa> Probe [00:11:00] <@Toprawa> Jayfon probed. [00:11:06] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Malgus [00:11:09] <@Toprawa> Still has an update tag. [00:11:13] <@IFYLOFD> Probe [00:11:22] <@ecks> Probe [00:11:23] <@Toprawa> It's being worked on, but the progress is slow. [00:11:27] <@Jujiggum> Still needs plenty of updating [00:11:28] <@Toprawa> It hasn't been touched in a week. [00:11:31] <@Toprawa> Yeah, I could probe it too [00:11:35] <@Jujiggum> by the time it is updated though [00:11:35] <@Kilson> Trayus will probably FA it anyway. [00:11:38] <@Jujiggum> It'll need to be reduxed [00:11:40] <@Kilson> Probe [00:11:42] <@ecks> Poor Tranner :P [00:11:47] <@Jujiggum> per Kilson [00:11:52] <@Jujiggum> Or wait, nvm [00:11:55] <@Jujiggum> Tranner's article [00:11:57] <@Jujiggum> :P [00:12:02] <@Kilson> Oh, Tranner [00:12:03] <@Toprawa> Grunny, Tommy? [00:12:07] <@grunny> Probe [00:12:21] <@Toprawa> Darth Malgus probed. [00:12:41] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/3,955_BBY [00:12:43] <@Toprawa> This has an update tag. [00:12:50] <@Toprawa> But for what, I have no idea. [00:12:51] <@IFYLOFD> Probe [00:13:00] <@Kilson> Wait, let's figure this out. [00:13:03] <@Jujiggum> Anybody know what's missing? [00:13:04] <@IFYLOFD> An update tag is an update tag [00:13:10] <@Kilson> What's the update? [00:13:14] <@grunny> Probe it, and Tm T can work it out for us ;) [00:13:26] <@ecks> wait [00:13:28] <@Toprawa> This is from last meeting, IIRC [00:13:28] <@ecks> I remember that [00:13:33] <@ecks> we discussed it at the last meeting [00:13:41] <@Toprawa> Naru added the update tag, didn't specify why, and we ignored it [00:13:48] <@ecks> yep [00:13:49] <@Jujiggum> Oh yeah [00:13:51] <@Toprawa> Saying people need to specify what needs updating [00:13:53] <@grunny> oh, yeah, I remember now [00:13:57] <@Toprawa> Apparently the tag wasn't removed. [00:14:00] <@Kilson> I don't. :P [00:14:02] <@IFYLOFD> Hmmm [00:14:06] <@Kilson> Just remove it. [00:14:15] <@grunny> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:3,955_BBY [00:14:19] <@Kilson> Naru needs to specify in the future. [00:14:23] <@grunny> He did specify on the talk page [00:14:35] <@Jujiggum> Ah [00:14:49] <@Jujiggum> Probe, I suppose, then, now that we have something specific [00:14:56] <@IFYLOFD> Probe [00:15:05] <@Kilson> Probe [00:15:09] <@Toprawa> Sure, probe [00:15:12] <@grunny> I don't know why he didn't just add it though... [00:15:14] <@Toprawa> assuming it's right [00:15:15] <@grunny> Probe [00:15:15] * @Toprawa shrugs [00:15:25] <@grunny> someone can work it out while it's probed :P [00:15:38] <@ecks> probe, I guess... [00:15:44] <@ecks> grunny, did you volunteer? :P [00:15:49] <@Toprawa> 3,955 BBY probed [00:16:04] <@grunny> no, because I don't have KotORII available to confirm it :P [00:16:16] <@Toprawa> Ok, that's it. [00:16:20] <@Toprawa> A reminder that we still have a few articles on the redux page. [00:16:21] * @grunny hides his copy of KotOR II where no one can find it [00:16:26] <@Toprawa> So let's try and remember to look at those [00:16:34] <@Toprawa> Moving on to discussion. [00:16:43] <@Toprawa> I have to take a piss. So if anyone else wants to continue, you're welcome [00:16:46] <@Toprawa> I'll be back in a minute [00:16:49] <@Jujiggum> Haha [00:16:50] <@IFYLOFD> ...Alright [00:16:56] <@Kilson> Can I vote now for my own Redux articles? [00:17:05] <@ecks> nope :P [00:17:10] <@ecks> it's like a self-vote [00:17:15] <@IFYLOFD> Nope [00:17:25] <@Kilson> Oh well then. [00:17:31] <@IFYLOFD> Alright, we have some stuff in the "Mopping up" section [00:17:33] <@grunny> well, we can start discussing these items [00:17:37] <@Jujiggum> First discussion item was Tope's so I guess we wait for him to get back [00:17:39] <@IFYLOFD> Tope isn't here [00:17:43] <@grunny> I'd like to discuss the weak wording of Rule 9, and bringing a proposal to CT for rewording it. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:43, April 3, 2011 (UTC) [00:17:45] <@Jujiggum> Or we can skip and go to mine [00:17:46] <@grunny> Jugs? [00:17:48] <@Jujiggum> Okay [00:17:54] <@IFYLOFD> Bah, I thought I was taking over! :P [00:17:59] <@Jujiggum> Rule 9 reads: "…have significant information, especially a biography for character articles. For articles under 1000 words in length, comprehensive detail is required with all information covered from all sources and appearances. For articles over 1000 words, broad coverage addressing all major aspects of the topic is sufficient. " [00:18:11] <@Jujiggum> We've been enacting this as meaning [00:18:28] <@Jujiggum> that articles that ar elonger don't need to be quite as detailed [00:18:39] <@Jujiggum> But the wording is just too wishy-washy for my taste [00:18:51] <@Jujiggum> It makes it sound like you can leave a bunch of details out [00:19:01] <@Jujiggum> And considering the recent trend in laziness everywhere, I think we should try to amend that [00:19:02] <@IFYLOFD> Yeah, the rule kinda sucks as it is [00:19:10] <@IFYLOFD> There should /always/ be comprehensive detail [00:19:13] <@Toprawa> What do you propose? [00:19:20] <@grunny> what would you propose it be worded to? [00:19:31] <@Jujiggum> I say we change it to something as follows: [00:19:43] <@grunny> Floyd: there are broad coverage noms which can be GA but not FA [00:19:57] <@Jujiggum> "...have significant information, with comprehensive detail from all sources and appearances." [00:20:07] * @ecks shrugs [00:20:09] <@Jujiggum> Straightforward, simple, common sense [00:20:11] <@ecks> I've never liked this rule. [00:20:22] <@grunny> but that takes out broad-coverage noms [00:20:30] <@grunny> which we've always had [00:20:34] <@Jujiggum> Longer articles don't need to be as detailed as shorter articles, but comprehensive itself is already a bendy-enough term [00:20:37] <@Toprawa> Confusion: is this dealing with the over 1000 words part of that rule? [00:20:47] <@grunny> he's removing it [00:20:48] <@Jujiggum> No, I'm saying we rewrite the entire rule to say that [00:20:59] <@Jujiggum> "Comprehensive" is a relative term [00:21:03] <@Jujiggum> already [00:21:06] <@Toprawa> Can you write out the entire rule as you propose it, just so I'm clear? [00:21:12] <@Jujiggum> Sure [00:21:43] <@Jujiggum> 9. "...have significant information, with comprehensive detail from all sources and appearances." [00:22:02] <@Jujiggum> I eliminated the broad coverage rule because "comprehensive" is relative enough already, IMO [00:22:08] <@Jujiggum> And it's just common sense [00:22:21] <@Jujiggum> And I can see people trying to take advantage of "broad coverage" and being lazy [00:22:29] <@Jujiggum> And then pointing to the rule [00:22:36] <@Toprawa> yeah, I'm ok with that [00:22:38] <@IFYLOFD> Yeah [00:22:40] <@Kilson> Makes sense. [00:22:44] <@ecks> This will have to be CTd right? [00:22:49] <@Jujiggum> Yeah [00:22:51] <@grunny> yes [00:22:54] <@Toprawa> it gives people the opportunity to take would-be FANs to GAN as a learning curve thing, but still requires them to be comprehensive [00:22:55] <@ecks> oh well [00:22:57] <@ecks> support [00:23:02] <@Toprawa> and if it exceeds 3000 words, they take it to FAN anyway [00:23:09] <@Jujiggum> Indeed [00:23:21] <@Kilson> K, CT the proposed rule. [00:23:42] <@IFYLOFD> Alright [00:23:55] <@Toprawa> Ok, moving on. [00:24:00] <@Toprawa> Back to the first thing we skipped. [00:24:06] <@Toprawa> # A discussion of post-meeting paperwork and meeting-scheduling procedures. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:16, March 29, 2011 (UTC) [00:24:43] <@Toprawa> In the beginning, we used to assign a new person "paperwork bitch," and they were responsible for handling that meeting's post-meeting paperwork [00:25:06] <@Toprawa> The idea was getting a different person each week to keep it fair while also teaching people how to do this stuff. [00:25:26] <@Toprawa> We've sort of gotten away from that, and it's really been whoever just sort of takes care of it. [00:25:33] <@Toprawa> usually, though, it's the same few people doing it every week [00:25:40] <@Toprawa> And that goes for scheduling meetings too [00:25:54] <@Toprawa> I think it should be the responsibility of someone new each time to schedule the meeting [00:26:03] <@Toprawa> Instead of making the same few people keep doing it [00:26:11] <@Toprawa> It just keeps everyone fairly involved, IMO [00:26:18] <@Jujiggum> Makes sese [00:26:22] <@Jujiggum> *sense [00:26:32] <@Toprawa> Does anyone not like anything I've said? [00:26:35] <@Kilson> Makes sese to me too. :P [00:26:50] <@IFYLOFD> As long as I never have to do anything, ever. [00:26:52] <@IFYLOFD> :P [00:26:59] <@Jujiggum> brb sorry [00:27:01] <@ecks> lol [00:27:05] <@Toprawa> You're going to b the first one up :P [00:27:10] <@ecks> Tommy9281: still there? [00:27:40] <@Toprawa> Can we hold a vote on this? Do we like implementing this type of formal practice? [00:28:01] <@grunny> sure, sounds good [00:28:01] <@Kilson> Seems fair to me, I say we should do it. [00:28:06] <@Jujiggum> I say we just cycle through everyone's names, alphabetical order [00:28:19] <@Toprawa> That was going to be my next quesiton. :P [00:28:37] <@ecks> haha! [00:28:37] <@Toprawa> Alphabetical order, or pick names out of a hat, while making sure no one goes twice before everyone has gone once a round [00:28:41] <@Kilson> Well....Cav's is the first on the list. [00:28:47] <@Jujiggum> brb one more time, sorry :P [00:28:47] <@ecks> that means I get to schedule it next year :D [00:29:22] <@Toprawa> Let's vote: Alphabetical order or Randomly but evenly chosen? [00:29:54] <@ecks> randomly [00:30:02] <@Kilson> randomly [00:30:03] <@grunny> random [00:30:14] <@IFYLOFD> Randomly [00:30:14] <@Toprawa> I kind of like randomly too [00:30:37] <@Toprawa> Jugs, Tommy9281? [00:30:44] <@IFYLOFD> How would we do it randomly though? [00:30:51] <@IFYLOFD> Just pick names out of a hat? [00:31:01] <@grunny> I can just put it into a shuffle script :P [00:31:07] <@Toprawa> yeah [00:31:09] <@Toprawa> it's pretty easy [00:31:17] <@IFYLOFD> I don't know enough about computers to know what that is. :P [00:31:18] <@ecks> I can load a script on irssi to randomize :P [00:31:18] <@Toprawa> or roll a ten-sided Internet die or something :P [00:31:26] <@ecks> or then just get nuku in here :P [00:31:33] <@ecks> anyway [00:31:36] <@ecks> randomly it is [00:31:40] <@Toprawa> And we can announce who the new scheduler is at the end of every meeting so they know who they are. [00:31:46] <@IFYLOFD> Hell, I've only just begun to understand the concept of "hats". :P [00:31:51] <@Toprawa> hahaha [00:31:57] <@Kilson> lolz [00:32:41] <@Toprawa> ok, we'll do it randomly chosen for paperwork bitch and new meeting scheduler each meeting [00:32:42] <@Toprawa> agreed? [00:32:46] <@IFYLOFD> Sure [00:32:56] <@ecks> yep [00:33:03] <@Toprawa> ok [00:33:04] <@Toprawa> Moving on [00:33:18] <@Jujiggum> Okay I'm back, sorry [00:33:21] <@Toprawa> I'd also like to discuss CTing a rewording of Rule 7 in order to avert attempts at getting by the system; we shouldn't need to reword it, but the wording technically is misleading, so we might as well just fix it and end the debate now. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk)  00:33, April 12, 2011 (UTC) [00:33:22] <@Toprawa>    * Just a quick note that this isn't aimed at any particular user; but rather aimed at the occasional byproduct of slacking on the CAN, and avoiding letting it carry over to the GAN. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:01, April 13, 2011 (UTC) [00:33:32] <@Toprawa> You have the floor, Jugs [00:33:35] <@Jujiggum> Okay [00:33:51] <@Jujiggum> 7 currently reads: "…have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This is essential in articles over 1000 words but may not be appropriate on articles with limited content. " [00:34:07] <@Jujiggum> Again, this suggests that GAN doesn't actually need an intro [00:34:17] <@Jujiggum> "if" the article supports [00:34:23] <@Jujiggum> So, I suggest we change it to: [00:34:36] <@Jujiggum> "...have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic." [00:34:40] <@Jujiggum> And that's it [00:34:48] <@Jujiggum> Again, simple, straightforward, common sense :P [00:34:51] <@grunny> some articles don't need intros though [00:34:59] <@ecks> eh? [00:35:00] <@grunny> i.e. Bts heavy articles [00:35:09] <@ecks> not GANs either? [00:35:10] <@grunny> and yes, they did exist before CANs [00:35:10] <@Kilson> Per grunny [00:35:31] <@Jujiggum> Articles of GAN length? [00:35:31] <@Jujiggum> I disagree [00:35:36] <@grunny> yes [00:36:12] <@grunny> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Nevoota_%28species%29 so you think this should have an intro? [00:36:18] <@Kilson> They would have to be one hell of a Bts though. [00:36:22] <@Toprawa> I agree that there are few and far between GA examples where an intro probably isn't needed. [00:36:23] <@Kilson> But it is possible. [00:36:27] <@Toprawa> Nevoota is one of these rare examples. [00:36:28] <@Jujiggum> Besides, rule 4 requires intros, so we could technically dispose of rule 7 itself anyway [00:36:28] <@Jujiggum> Blarg, I've gotta run for real now, guys, I'm sorry. Tope has my vote [00:36:28] * Jujiggum has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224]) [00:36:36] <@Toprawa> Well. [00:36:40] <@Toprawa> To continue what I was saying :P [00:36:50] <@ecks> bleh [00:36:51] <@grunny> as I said on the SH forum: [00:36:52] <@grunny> There are cases when an intro isn't needed on a GAN, but they are few and far between, and generally restricted to articles that are nearly all Bts. Cheers, Grunny (talk) 09:42, April 12, 2011 (UTC) [00:37:12] <@Toprawa> I think we need to specify a hard percentage of overall text to BTS content for when an intro is required. [00:37:21] <@grunny> yes [00:37:30] <@Kilson> 80% Bts? [00:37:35] <@ecks> 75! [00:37:37] <@grunny> [07:37]  Besides, rule 4 requires intros, so we could technically dispose of rule 7 itself anyway [00:37:41] <@grunny> also, no it doesn't [00:38:11] <@grunny> that was a very interpretational view of the LG to say it /requires/ an intro [00:38:34] <@Toprawa> Nevoota, for the record, is 80% BTS. [00:38:35] <@Toprawa> Exactly. [00:39:11] <@Kilson> So, 80% Bts then. [00:39:24] <@Toprawa> Well, I don't know if that will work universally [00:39:25] <@Kilson> For 1 article out of 253. :P [00:39:35] <@grunny> 75% I think would be a kinda good guide [00:39:42] <@ecks> ^5 grunny [00:39:43] <@ecks> :P [00:39:45] <@Toprawa> One second... [00:39:45] <@grunny> 3/4 of it Bts would be substantial [00:39:47] <@Toprawa> Looking at another example [00:40:01] <@grunny> but it would also have the overall length taken into consideration [00:40:14] <@grunny> 1/4 of an article could still be 250 words [00:40:25] <@grunny> which could possible still have an intro [00:40:49] <@ecks> true [00:40:51] <@Kilson> Articles under 500 words? [00:41:03] <@Kilson> Overall, I mean. [00:41:05] <@ecks> That would be... [00:41:18] <@ecks> 125 words of IU prose [00:41:45] <@Toprawa> Yes, exactly [00:41:48] <@Toprawa> It needs to specify the overall content [00:41:57] <@Toprawa> I'm using Trey Callum as an example right now. [00:42:08] <@Toprawa> it's 1171 words long, not include the intro that's there now [00:42:31] <@Toprawa> the BTS is 72% of the article, for example [00:42:48] <@Toprawa> You couldn't convince me that article doesn't need an intro, because it does [00:42:53] <@Toprawa> it's just that the BTS is abnormally long [00:42:57] <@grunny> indeed [00:43:23] <@IFYLOFD> Yeah [00:43:38] <@Toprawa> Do you have a suggested parameter for these numbers, Grunny? [00:44:02] <@IFYLOFD> I think we should take this to a CT [00:44:07] <@grunny> It's hard to come up with something that isn't too open to interpretation [00:44:12] <@Kilson> How about when the IU prose is under 100 words [00:44:16] <@Toprawa> I do too, but I think we should have some hard proposal before we do [00:44:23] <@Toprawa> otherwise it's just going to go on debated forever [00:44:27] <@grunny> really it should just be as is, if the article supports it [00:45:16] <@Toprawa> I wish it were that simple, but it's clear to me at least that the subjectivity is just too severely divided [00:45:23] <@grunny> yes [00:45:28] <@Toprawa> there are some people who refuse to even acknowledge the Mofference CAN [00:45:52] <@Toprawa> I think we need to establish a hard figure, and then people will be forced to follow that [00:45:56] <@Toprawa> Or else they can go to hell. :P [00:46:18] <@grunny> where Bts makes up 75% of the article content and the body (i.e. bio, history, whatever) is less than 200 words ? [00:46:43] <@ecks> so that would be an 800 word article right? [00:46:54] <@Kilson> I'd say less than 150 or 100. [00:47:07] <@Toprawa> Grunny> is that for when an article /does/ need an intro? [00:47:15] <@grunny> where it doesn't [00:47:24] <@grunny> or where there is leeway rather [00:47:25] <@ecks> or the aforementioned less than 500 of which 125 IU prose [00:47:44] <@grunny> which wouldn't require an intro under my rule [00:48:37] <@grunny> they could have an 800word article that only has 100 words IU in theory [00:49:05] <@Toprawa> I'd rather rule specifies when an article does need an intro, rather than stating when it doesn't, FWIW [00:49:07] <@Toprawa> that's just clearer to me [00:49:19] <@grunny> I think the idea would be to take out the Bts, and look at the article to see if the article requires an intro [00:49:35] <@Kilson> I'd say any article with over 150 IU prose. [00:49:52] <@grunny> but what if the IU prose is all P&t? :P [00:50:09] <@grunny> and the bio is only 50 words [00:50:31] <@grunny> see this whole thing is far too open to different situations [00:50:40] <@ecks> brb [00:51:00] <@Toprawa> Look at this example. [00:51:01] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mazer_Rackus [00:51:08] <@grunny> P/T and P/A sections can sometimes be filled out a lot from RPG sources, but have very little bio content [00:51:08] <@Toprawa> The bio is only 107 words. [00:51:24] <@Toprawa> the bio and the P/t together is 326 words [00:51:26] <@Toprawa> that needs an intro, IMO [00:51:40] <@grunny> yes [00:51:55] <@Kilson> I'd say CT at this point. [00:51:59] <@Toprawa> No [00:52:03] <@grunny> but what if the P&t was that long but the bio was half [00:52:05] <@grunny> ? [00:52:13] <@grunny> Kilson: we need to come up with something to CT :P [00:52:17] <@Toprawa> We'd do better to discuss this and figure something out, and then CT it [00:52:19] <@Toprawa> going to CT with no plan is pointless [00:52:36] <@Toprawa> We don't have to come up with a plan at this meeting right this minute, but we need to consider it before going to CT [00:52:38] <@grunny> I'm playing the questioning person here, as I know people will bring this stuff up [00:52:56] <@Toprawa> Grunny> You mean if the bio was only, like 50 words? [00:53:06] <@grunny> yeah [00:53:32] <@grunny> don't know if we have any examples of that though :P [00:54:18] <@Kilson> So....what about 150 IU, at least 100 in the Bio. [00:54:22] <@ecks> I guess we could SH it? [00:54:36] <@Toprawa> there is an SH forum about this right now :P [00:54:47] <@Kilson> :| [00:55:01] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:SH:Weird_questions [00:55:05] <@ecks> :/ [00:55:05] <@Toprawa> I don't think we're going to establish a hard rule here right now. [00:55:12] <@Toprawa> so we're going to call this a meeting [00:55:29] <@Toprawa> we can continue to discuss this, though [00:55:30] <@Toprawa> We need to pick paperwork bitch and new meeting scheduler [00:55:40] <@Toprawa> Want me to just roll an Internet die? [00:55:45] <@Kilson> Sure [00:55:54] <@ecks> I volunteer :P [00:56:10] <@Toprawa> Damnit, Xd. [00:56:16] <@IFYLOFD> Internet die [00:56:17] <@Toprawa> The system doesn't work if people volunteer :P [00:56:18] <@grunny> ['Kilson', 'Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing', 'Cavalier One', 'CC7567', 'Grand Moff Tranner', 'Grunny', 'Tommy9281', 'Jonjedigrandmaster', 'Toprawa and Ralltiir', 'Xd1358'] [00:56:27] <@grunny> that's a shuffle of our list in python :P [00:56:33] <@IFYLOFD> ok [00:56:39] <@ecks> bah :( [00:56:43] * @IFYLOFD crosses fingers [00:56:47] <@grunny> I can do it again if anyone wants :P [00:56:50] <@Kilson> ..... [00:56:52] <@Toprawa> Can you shuffle that right now, Grunny, and choose a person for each? [00:56:56] <@Toprawa> Yeah, pick two people :P [00:56:58] <@Toprawa> Paperwork bitch first. [00:57:07] <@grunny> that was the shuffle :P [00:57:10] <@Kilson> Is that an official position now? :P [00:57:11] <@grunny> I'll run it again [00:57:13] <@IFYLOFD> Wait, eh? [00:57:25] <@IFYLOFD> Just tell us who comes out as paperwork bitch [00:57:30] <@Toprawa> shuffle it a bunch of times, and then do it for real :P [00:57:41] <@grunny> okay :P [00:57:46] <@grunny> so here we go: [00:57:51] <@grunny> paperwork bitch order: [00:58:05] <@grunny> ['Tommy9281', 'Cavalier One', 'CC7567', 'Toprawa and Ralltiir', 'Kilson', 'Xd1358', 'Jonjedigrandmaster', 'Grand Moff Tranner', 'Grunny', 'Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing'] [00:58:14] <@IFYLOFD> Hah! Last! [00:58:22] <@Kilson> Hah....middle..... [00:58:23] <@ecks> we can invert it... [00:58:38] <@Kilson> I'll still be middle. :P [00:59:20] <@grunny> meeting scheduling: [00:59:22] <@grunny> ['Jonjedigrandmaster', 'Grand Moff Tranner', 'CC7567', 'Tommy9281', 'Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing', 'Cavalier One', 'Xd1358', 'Grunny', 'Kilson', 'Toprawa and Ralltiir'] [00:59:27] <@ecks> hah! [00:59:31] <@Kilson> Second to last. :P [00:59:37] <@IFYLOFD> Middle. [00:59:42] <@Toprawa> Grunny, you're conveniently near the last on both. :P [00:59:48] <@grunny> haha :P [01:00:01] <@ecks> Coincidence? :P [01:00:09] <@grunny> I can let you do it if you want Tope :P [01:00:15] <@ecks> Can we finally end this? [01:00:17] <@Toprawa> No, I trust you :P [01:00:22] <@grunny> I'll put it up on a server and you can refresh :P [01:00:27] <@Toprawa> Tommy9281, you're paperwork bitch this time. [01:00:34] <@Toprawa> Jugs is scheduling the next meeting. [01:00:39] <@Toprawa> Meeting adjourned! [01:00:46] <@ecks> About time! [01:00:48] <@ecks> Two hours. [01:00:48] <@Kilson> Nice