Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius/Log/2008 May 17

[20:03] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Pre-agenda agenda adjustment.�' [20:04] <@Gonk|Smash> you want a minute at the end, Tope? [20:04] <@Toprawa> Sure [20:04] <@Gonk|Smash> ok [20:04] <@LordHydronium> I move for a pre-pre-agenda agenda discussion. :| [20:04] <@GreenTentacle> Gonk's being Ataru I take it. [20:04] <@Gonk|Smash> You take it right [20:04] <@LordHydronium> Poor Gonk. :P [20:05] <@The4dotelipsis> I move for the creation of a committee to approve a pre-agenda agenda discussion of the pre-agenda typeface. [20:05] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Padme. Probed last meeting.�' [20:05] * @LordHydronium would like to mention that if we're being logged, Ataru is a wonderful person about whom nothing ever is said bad about. [20:05] <@The4dotelipsis> Probe to hell. [20:05] <@The4dotelipsis> Missing WTS info, for starters. [20:05] <@Gonk|Smash> She is probed. This vote is to remove [20:05] <@The4dotelipsis> Which, I will add, is easy to access and is there for everyone and is not out of print. [20:05] <@GreenTentacle> Where's the dark greetings, dammit? :P [20:05] <@Gonk|Smash> woops [20:05] <@The4dotelipsis> Gonk: I mean push the prove in further to the point of removal. [20:06] <@LordHydronium> Missing WTS info? Then that's a remove right there it is. [20:06] <@The4dotelipsis> *probe. [20:06] <@Gonk|Smash> I, er, bid you all Inq Greetings [20:06] <@Toprawa> Things are still unsourced. [20:06] <@The4dotelipsis> Inq is dark. This will do. [20:06] <@Chack> Needs a relationships section. [20:06] <@LordHydronium> I bid you all Kark Greetings. [20:06] <@The4dotelipsis> Relationship sections are not required. [20:06] <@The4dotelipsis> Optional. [20:06] <@Toprawa> source list isnt in chronological order. :P [20:06] <@Gonk|Smash> Might be redundant in her case, too [20:06] <@Chack> Oh, says it needs one on the Inq/Padme page. [20:07] <@GreenTentacle> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Padm%C3%A9_Amidala&diff=1975687&oldid=1923539 [20:07] <@LordHydronium> Ah good, difference links. [20:07] <@Chack> But then, i'd say it's unneeded. [20:07] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, I'm not interested in the trivial, easily fixed things. [20:07] * @Gonk|Smash always reads "Padm%A9" as "Padm-*choking sound*" [20:07] <@Toprawa> can someone invite Fiolli? [20:07] <@The4dotelipsis> I'm interested in the absence of easily accessed info. [20:08] * Grey-man (n=Janitor@wikia/Greyman) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius [20:08] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o Grey-man [20:08] <@The4dotelipsis> Cutting long story short, Remove. [20:08] * Fiolli (n=chatzill@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius [20:08] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o Fiolli [20:08] * Grey-man sets mode: -o Grey-man [20:08] <@Gonk|Smash> Ataru and I vote Remove [20:08] <@Toprawa> Remove [20:08] <@GreenTentacle> Got a on it. [20:08] <@Fiolli> Kill. [20:08] <@GreenTentacle> Kill. [20:08] <@Chack> Remove. [20:08] <@Gonk|Smash> Looks unanimanimous [20:08] * Madclaw (n=chatzill@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius [20:09] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Imperial-I Star Destroyer. Probed last meeting.�' [20:09] <@Gonk|Smash> Some stuff still unsourced on this one. [20:09] <@Chack> Kill! [20:09] <@Darth_Culator> Blow it to hell. [20:09] <@The4dotelipsis> Kill. [20:09] <@The4dotelipsis> Incomplete too, I'll wager. [20:09] <@Fiolli> per Darth Culator [20:09] <@Gonk|Smash> Ataru and I vote to Base Delta Zero it [20:09] <@Toprawa> Imperial-I is...kind of a joke [20:09] <@GreenTentacle> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer&diff=1979300&oldid=1923537 [20:10] <@Toprawa> Kill with extreme prejudice [20:10] <@Chack> Worst FA we have, maybe? It's pretty bad. [20:10] <@Toprawa> Without a doubt [20:10] <@GreenTentacle> Kill it quickly. [20:10] <@Gonk|Smash> I hear more consensus [20:10] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Kreia. Probed last meeting.�' [20:11] <@Gonk|Smash> Icky prose abounds. [20:11] <@The4dotelipsis> Hmm... [20:11] <@Gonk|Smash> Ataru and I vote to strip Kreia. :D [20:11] <@Chack> Remove. [20:11] <@Fiolli> per Gonk sans Ataru. [20:11] <@The4dotelipsis> Weak remove. I could be convinced to keep. [20:11] <@Toprawa> Kreia still has unsourced sentences. [20:11] <@GreenTentacle> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Kreia&diff=1979326&oldid=1923536 [20:11] <@The4dotelipsis> Which would probably be pretty easily sourced. [20:11] <@Toprawa> whole sections are unsourced [20:12] <@Fiolli> Kreia is unsourced, arguably incompelete, has PoV issues. [20:12] <@GreenTentacle> Plenty unsourced. [20:12] <@GreenTentacle> Not much changed since FAR. [20:12] <@GreenTentacle> Kill it. [20:12] <@Darth_Culator> Remove, but don't ever associate "Kreia" and "strip" in the same paragraph ever again. [20:12] <@Toprawa> people did have 2 weeks to source it [20:12] <@Gonk|Smash> No terribly emphatic objections> [20:12] <@Gonk|Smash> *? [20:13] * @Toprawa emphasizes his objections :D [20:13] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: The sweet smell of a Mount Sorrow lies over the land.�' [20:13] <@The4dotelipsis> Now, this one raises an interesting question. [20:13] <@Toprawa> Did anyone even touch it since last time? [20:13] <@Fiolli> Ummm. . . ok. [20:13] <@The4dotelipsis> And not just because I wrote it. [20:13] <@Gonk|Smash> :) [20:13] <@Chack> It's only at 870 words by my count. [20:13] <@The4dotelipsis> It's really an unresolvable objection. [20:14] <@Fiolli> Well . . . we could try building a tunnel through it to get the highway to the ewoks. [20:14] <@Fiolli> ;) [20:14] <@The4dotelipsis> Every time we've removed FAs in the past, it's been because they /could/ have been saved. [20:14] <@Toprawa> unresolvable doesnt equal immunity [20:14] <@Fiolli> If it is only 870. . . I say kill. [20:14] <@GreenTentacle> The 1000 word rule didn't come in until after Mount Sorrow became an FA. Otherwise it's fine. [20:14] <@The4dotelipsis> This is slightly different. [20:14] <@Toprawa> we have standards for a reason [20:14] <@Fiolli> You know. . . GT makes a point. [20:14] <@Fiolli> Yes, Toprawa, but this was grandfathered in. [20:14] <@Toprawa> so we have an unofficial grandfather clause? [20:15] * @Toprawa tsks [20:15] <@GreenTentacle> It's a cosmetic rule that should not be applied retroactively. [20:15] <@Fiolli> If everything else is fine and that the sole reason for this coming up is the length, then I say keep. [20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> Weak keep, and I stress, not because it's mine. Simply because it's unfixable. [20:15] <@Toprawa> thats like saying articles that werent required to have complete sourcing before done need it now [20:15] <@Toprawa> why does the word count get a special pass? [20:15] <@Chack> I disagree. We apply other rules (higher standards) retroactively. [20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> No, but you can easily source an article. [20:15] <@GreenTentacle> Sourcing isn't cosmetic. [20:15] <@Chack> It's good, just short. [20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> You can't make more information appear. [20:15] <@GreenTentacle> The word limit was. [20:15] <@Toprawa> Good and short = GA, not FA [20:15] <@Fiolli> Exactly. Per 4dot and GT. [20:16] <@Chack> Per Toprawa. [20:16] <@Fiolli> GA doesn't quite equal FA, as established per earlier meetings here. [20:16] <@Gonk|Smash> FWIW, we writing instructors always say length is not an automatic measure of quality. [20:16] <@Fiolli> GA is a stepping stone. [20:16] <@Fiolli> (at least, per the meetings here) [20:16] <@Toprawa> I don't think one rule should have more weight than another [20:17] <@Toprawa> if it doesn't meet something, it doesn't meet something [20:17] <@Toprawa> if it was nominated right now, it wouldn't pass. I dont see why it should get special treatment [20:17] <@The4dotelipsis> But it can never meet it, though. [20:17] <@GreenTentacle> The idea of removing FA status was for articles that have lapsed since they were approved. [20:17] <@Toprawa> then it should go [20:17] <@The4dotelipsis> Until Mt. Sorrow gets used again. [20:17] <@GreenTentacle> This one hasn't. [20:17] <@Toprawa> thats why we change our rules [20:17] <@GreenTentacle> We changed the rules to stop any more. [20:18] <@GreenTentacle> Not to get rid of Sorrow. [20:18] <@Toprawa> it has lapsed by our more stringent standards [20:18] <@Gonk|Smash> let me ask this: [20:18] <@Gonk|Smash> would those voting to keep do the same if the subject matter were, say, Some Jackass Minor Character from the Legacy Comics? [20:18] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [20:19] <@Fiolli> No, but only because it was from /Legacy/ ;) [20:19] <@Fiolli> Kidding. Absolutely. [20:19] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, yes. [20:19] <@Toprawa> I really do think there is some prejudice just because its Mt Sorrow, I voiced this concern last meeting [20:19] <@Darth_Culator> Have we ever removed an FA solely on the basis of length before? [20:19] <@Fiolli> Simply stating this: The only reason it has come up is because of length; if any thing else comes up, I say kill. Word count is (for me) completely cosmetic compared to other standards which are quality based. It is a difference between quality and quantity. Quantity has been used as an enforcement to help judge quality but they are different. [20:19] <@GreenTentacle> Darth_Culator: Nope. [20:19] <@Darth_Culator> Didn't think so. [20:19] <@Chack> It's still a rule. [20:19] <@The4dotelipsis> It is now. [20:19] <@Toprawa> Then what would stop us from accepting a nom less than 1000 words? [20:20] <@Fiolli> But, Chack, it has been an FA while the rule has stood for all this time. [20:20] <@Toprawa> "It's only cosmetic" [20:20] <@Fiolli> So, it should be retroactively revoked as an FA? [20:20] <@Fiolli> Come on. [20:20] <@Chack> Yes, and we applied other standards retroactively. [20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> Because it's a rule now, and you submit with the knowledge of that rule. [20:20] <@Fiolli> Toprawa: Not now, no, because the rule is in place /now/. [20:20] <@Toprawa> I believe rules should be rules. [20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> We apply /resolvable/ standards retroactively. [20:20] <@Fiolli> Rule are rules, but they are present rules. [20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> Every other article we have removed could have been saved. [20:21] <@The4dotelipsis> This is impossible. [20:21] <@Fiolli> If we do this, then there should be a revoking of every single FA that happened before our present rules exist because undoubtedly SOMETHING will fall short. [20:21] <@GreenTentacle> Yeah, it'd sit with the FA remove template on until the next meeting. [20:21] <@Gonk|Smash> Ya know, it doesn't have a Relationships section... ;) [20:21] <@Fiolli> lol [20:22] <@The4dotelipsis> Look, let's just vote on it. [20:22] <@Darth_Culator> I still think Palpatine's nose should have stayed in. [20:22] <@Gonk|Smash> yes [20:22] <@Chack> I say remove. [20:22] <@Fiolli> Keep. Strongly. [20:23] <@Darth_Culator> Keep, somewhat less strongly. [20:23] <@Toprawa> remove. it doesn't meet our current rules. [20:23] <@Fiolli> 2-2 [20:23] <@GreenTentacle> Keep. [20:23] <@Fiolli> 3-2 [20:23] <@The4dotelipsis> Keep. [20:23] <@Fiolli> 4-2 [20:23] <@Gonk|Smash> Keep only because it is a special case -- and not because of its subject matter. And I vote only for myself here, not for Ataru [20:23] <@Gonk|Smash> LordHydronium ? [20:25] <@Toprawa> Due process! [20:25] <@LordHydronium> Sorry, I was helping my friend move some stuff. [20:25] <@LordHydronium> Let me read your discussings. [20:26] <@LordHydronium> Eh, keep. [20:26] <@Gonk|Smash> ok [20:26] <@Fiolli> Next. [20:27] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Grievous.�' [20:27] <@LordHydronium> Probate. [20:27] <@LordHydronium> Needs NEC info. [20:27] <@The4dotelipsis> Hurm... [20:27] <@GreenTentacle> Few unsourced bits too. [20:27] <@Fiolli> Thermal detonator. [20:27] * @Toprawa chides Chack to source the info/succession boxes [20:27] <@The4dotelipsis> I'm not as familiar with the source material as I should be. [20:27] <@Chack> Will do. [20:27] <@Darth_Culator> Probulator. [20:27] <@Toprawa> apparently missing info from Obsession, according to Yrf [20:27] <@Fiolli> lol [20:27] <@Gonk|Smash> Per 4dot [20:27] <@GreenTentacle> Other than the sourcing bits, I don't have a problem with it. [20:27] * @Toprawa is intentionally not familiar with this source material [20:28] <@Chack> I added a little from Obsession, but it still could be short. I didn't have much to work with. [20:28] <@GreenTentacle> But then I'm not that familiar with the material either. [20:28] <@LordHydronium> Chack, I'm not sure how much unique NEC info there is, but I do know at least one, so I can point that out later. [20:28] <@Chack> I cna go over it too and see what's missing. [20:28] <@Chack> Thanks. [20:28] <@Gonk|Smash> so, two votes to probe. No votes to elude probe? [20:28] <@Toprawa> probe [20:28] <@Fiolli> Weak prose, but nothing that we can say really violates the rules completely. [20:29] <@The4dotelipsis> I abstain, on grounds of unfamiliarity. [20:29] <@Fiolli> Probe. [20:29] <@GreenTentacle> Probation, I guess. [20:29] <@Gonk|Smash> Sounds probealicious. [20:29] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Pre-Republic Era.�' [20:29] <@Gonk|Smash> Tense issues unresolved; seems expandable. [20:29] <@Chack> Kill. [20:29] <@LordHydronium> Probate. This could use a whole re-write. [20:29] <@Chack> Could be much longer. [20:29] <@Toprawa> for the love of money, fix those tense issues. [20:30] <@Toprawa> it /seems/ like it could be longer [20:30] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, since the writer wants to probe... [20:30] <@Toprawa> i have no idea, though [20:30] <@The4dotelipsis> Probe. [20:30] <@Toprawa> probe [20:30] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, I was gonna say what 4dot did. :P [20:30] <@GreenTentacle> I see a. [20:30] <@GreenTentacle> Probation. [20:30] <@Fiolli> Kill with prejudice. [20:30] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Jedi Civil War.�' [20:30] <@Fiolli> This is on my "to-do" list [20:30] <@The4dotelipsis> Is... [20:30] <@The4dotelipsis> This really all that bad at the moment? [20:31] <@Gonk|Smash> I don't think this was exactly up for probe [20:31] <@GreenTentacle> Let me explain. [20:31] <@Fiolli> (referring to Pre-Republic, not Jedi Civil War) [20:31] <@GreenTentacle> This was up to be removed a while ago. [20:31] <@GreenTentacle> We kept it because Goodwood said he'd work on it. [20:31] <@GreenTentacle> He actually wanted it removed so it'd go through FAN again. [20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> ... [20:31] <@GreenTentacle> Hence asking us I guess. [20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> Wut. [20:32] <@LordHydronium> Fiolli: You were intending to redo Pre-Republic? [20:32] <@Toprawa> he asked me to add it to the list, I don't know what he wanted us to look at specifically [20:32] <@Fiolli> LH: Yes, but I'm still gathering the sources. [20:32] <@The4dotelipsis> We don't remove articles just because people want to renominate it and then pin it on their lapels. [20:32] <@GreenTentacle> Basically it's a complete rewrite since last time we reviewed it. [20:32] <@The4dotelipsis> We remove articles because there are fundamental (fixable) problems with them. [20:32] <@GreenTentacle> And he wants feedback I think. [20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Hmm. [20:33] <@Toprawa> I guess Fiolli is our voiced resident KOTOR expert? [20:33] <@Toprawa> I leave it up to him [20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, at a glance, I think it looks good. [20:33] <@GreenTentacle> But it should be up for the peer review thingy, not here. [20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Yes. [20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Which I'll get to later. [20:33] <@Gonk|Smash> Per 4dot and GT [20:33] <@Chack> Per Fourdot and Toprawa. [20:33] <@Fiolli> One could argue that it never officially left FA status. [20:33] <@Gonk|Smash> Let's come back to this then [20:33] <@Fiolli> If we keep it, we should just leave it as is. [20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Although, for amusement, let me say... [20:33] <@GreenTentacle> It didn't ever leave FA status. [20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Where the hell are the era tags? [20:33] <@Fiolli> No "renomination" when it isn't officially removed. [20:33] <@GreenTentacle> He grumbled at me about it. :P [20:34] <@LordHydronium> 4dot: They're there. [20:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Actually, maybe they're there, and it's this fucking computer. [20:34] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Zayne Carrick.�' [20:34] <@Fiolli> I say no peer review unless we remove it. [20:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Eurgh. [20:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Carrick? Keep. [20:34] <@Fiolli> Zayne. [20:34] <@Toprawa> still has entirely unsourced sections [20:34] <@Fiolli> I think this article could be written better. [20:34] <@Toprawa> needs a cleaner rewrite [20:34] <@The4dotelipsis> I don't think it's fallen too far from grace, and I don't see the need for a rewrite. [20:35] <@Chack> Remove, but not strong. [20:35] <@Fiolli> I know it has been piece-by-piece because of information coming out. . . but seriously. [20:35] <@Toprawa> well, not "entirely" unsourced [20:35] <@GreenTentacle> Sourcing issues. [20:35] <@Toprawa> large paragraphs unsourced [20:35] <@Toprawa> per Fiolli [20:35] <@GreenTentacle> But then if it gets fixed now, they'll be back soon. [20:35] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, the thing with the sourcing is this... [20:35] <@Toprawa> someone needs to sit down and just clean this thing up [20:35] <@Fiolli> I don't know enough about it, but from reading complimentary articles, it seems like there are issues of either slight fanon speculation or PoV. [20:35] <@The4dotelipsis> The unsourced paragraphs just need to be sourced with the next ref you come across. [20:35] <@The4dotelipsis> So it's a quick fixed. [20:35] <@The4dotelipsis> Plus, it's been kept up to speed rather well. [20:36] <@Fiolli> Is this for probe or kill? [20:36] <@Gonk|Smash> probe [20:36] <@Fiolli> Then I say probe. [20:36] <@Toprawa> probe. that P&T is dismally short [20:36] <@Gonk|Smash> Ataru and I vote probe [20:36] <@Fiolli> Especially with the information we now have on him. [20:36] <@GreenTentacle> If it's a quick fix, then probation should be long enough. [20:36] <@Chack> Probation. [20:36] <@LordHydronium> Probe if only for sourcing. [20:36] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Wat Tambor.�' [20:37] <@Gonk|Smash> Sacred Probe of the Albino Toprawa [20:37] <@The4dotelipsis> Can I say something here? [20:37] <@Toprawa> no :P [20:37] <@Fiolli> Silence in the chamber. [20:37] <@The4dotelipsis> These missing sources are...well, very rare. [20:37] <@The4dotelipsis> And I think one person has them. [20:37] <@The4dotelipsis> And that person is notoriously coy at times. :P [20:37] <@GreenTentacle> Scottish by any chance? :P [20:37] <@The4dotelipsis> I believe so. [20:37] <@LordHydronium> And that person's name rhymes with "Mayjach", yes? :P [20:38] <@Toprawa> i dont think that rhymes, actually [20:38] <@Fiolli> Bah. [20:38] <@Gonk|Smash> 9_9 [20:38] <@LordHydronium> :( [20:38] <@Toprawa> heh [20:38] <@Fiolli> If it is missing, it is missing. [20:38] * Gonk|Smash sets mode: +v Grey-man [20:38] <+Grey-man> 4dot > What's the sources? [20:38] <+Grey-man> thanks, Gonk [20:38] <@The4dotelipsis> Stuff from Episode II Adventures. [20:38] * @Toprawa shrugs [20:38] <@GreenTentacle> Adventures 4 and 6. [20:38] <@Toprawa> if it's missing, it's missing [20:38] <+Grey-man> erm...ok. Let me look around, and I'll let you know if I find them. [20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Subscription material from 2002 that is out of print. [20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Thanks. [20:39] <@LordHydronium> I guess this is where we decide what "available sources and appearances" means. [20:39] <+Grey-man> I don't think I have them in my e-collection, but I might [20:39] <@LordHydronium> They're not e-ified. [20:39] <@LordHydronium> Jaymach was going to, but who knows when that will be. [20:39] <+Grey-man> Neither was SWAJ3 until I scanned it :P [20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, his computer's up the duff. [20:39] <@Toprawa> w/o knowing too much about it, I might say this might be akin to the early 1980 children illustration Wicket storybooks [20:39] <@Fiolli> Then Jaymach can re-FA the article. [20:39] <@Toprawa> would we accept a Wicket nom without them? [20:39] <@Chack> Lol [20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Hah! [20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Ah, deary me. [20:40] <+Grey-man> but, anyways, I just wanted to know what sources, in case I could be the anti-Jaymach and not screw over people who need stuff :P [20:40] <@The4dotelipsis> Top: Well..."available sources and appearances" [20:40] * +Grey-man slides back [20:40] <@Toprawa> available doesnt equal "I don't have them" [20:40] <@The4dotelipsis> No. [20:40] <@The4dotelipsis> But it does equal...available. [20:41] <@Toprawa> per Hydro, "what defines an available source" [20:41] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, exactly. [20:41] <@Toprawa> it /is/ out there. it's not like it's entirely unavailable [20:41] <@Toprawa> if not a single user had it, it be different [20:41] <@Gonk|Smash> per Tope. [20:41] <@Toprawa> then again, this is the Jaymach Clause [20:41] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, I'm torn on this. It's not like it's non-existent, like the Magic Sunberries thing, but on the other hand, "one person owns it and isn't sharing" is kinda...unavailable. [20:42] <@The4dotelipsis> I'm not going to vote on this one. [20:42] <@The4dotelipsis> But I do trust myself enough to know that the information will be on the article. [20:42] <@The4dotelipsis> When is the question. [20:42] <@Toprawa> Jaymach's unwillingess to share isn't enough for me [20:42] <@Fiolli> Vote. [20:42] <@Toprawa> probe [20:42] <@Darth_Culator> Feh. [20:42] <@Fiolli> Abstention. [20:43] <@GreenTentacle> Keep and trust that it'll be fixed soon enough. [20:43] <@Chack> I say keep. [20:43] <@LordHydronium> Per GT. [20:43] <@Chack> We trust Fourdot to work hard to get it. :P [20:43] <@Fiolli> 1 probe, 1 abstention, 3 keep, 1 Culator [20:43] <@Darth_Culator> I vote for being reasonable. For once. Keep. [20:44] <@Fiolli> OK. . . 1 probe, 1 abstention, 4 keep [20:44] * @Gonk|Smash shrugs and votes keep [20:44] <@LordHydronium> 2 abstentions. [20:44] <@Fiolli> Good call. [20:44] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Isolder.�' [20:44] * Grey-man is now known as Greyman|Busy [20:44] <@LordHydronium> Isolder? But I hardly even knew her! [20:44] <@Toprawa> God, can we kill the intro sourcing? [20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> This is really a case of shuffling some refs and deleting some quotes. [20:44] * @Gonk|Smash applauds LordHydronium [20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> Not a major issue. [20:44] <@Toprawa> not a killer, but geez is it ugly [20:44] <@Fiolli> Probe? [20:44] <@Fiolli> or Kill? [20:45] <@GreenTentacle> Probe. [20:45] <@Gonk|Smash> this is for probe [20:45] <@Gonk|Smash> the kills are done [20:45] <@Fiolli> Probe. [20:45] <@Chack> Probe. [20:45] <@Toprawa> what were its problems again? [20:45] <@Gonk|Smash> Probe and probe [20:45] <@Fiolli> Bah. No more death. [20:45] <@Darth_Culator> Beat him with a stick. They may be easy fixes, but there is no motivation without a deadline. [20:45] <@LordHydronium> Probe, but expect it to be fixed soon. [20:45] <@Gonk|Smash> per Culator [20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> Keep. [20:45] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Atris.�' [20:46] <@The4dotelipsis> Oh, good lord, no. Probe to high hell. [20:46] <@The4dotelipsis> Probe until bleeding. [20:46] <@Fiolli> Screw probe. Death. [20:46] <@LordHydronium> I realized the moment I fell into the fissure... [20:46] <@Chack> Probe. [20:46] <@Fiolli> Wait. . . that sounds bad. [20:46] <@LordHydronium> Oh, not Atrus. [20:46] <@Gonk|Smash> Probetris [20:46] <@Toprawa> bulleted...BTS... [20:46] * @Toprawa dies [20:46] <@GreenTentacle> Bullets! [20:46] <@Toprawa> annihilate [20:46] <@GreenTentacle> Skip probe and kill! :P [20:47] <@Fiolli> Again. . . forget probing. . . go straight for death. [20:47] <@Toprawa> "Errors" section title. [20:47] <@Fiolli> SERIOUSLY! [20:47] <@LordHydronium> I shall leave you hear to these users. They are Inqs - and they do not abide failure. [20:47] <@Gonk|Smash> oh wait, seriously? [20:47] <@LordHydronium> *here [20:47] <@LordHydronium> frick [20:47] <@Gonk|Smash> ok [20:47] <@LordHydronium> Probe. [20:47] <@Gonk|Smash> let's be clearer. Probe or Kill [20:47] <@Toprawa> Kill [20:47] <@GreenTentacle> Probe. [20:47] <@Fiolli> Death. [20:47] <@Gonk|Smash> Probe and Probe from me [20:47] <@LordHydronium> Probe, because that's the procedure. [20:47] <@The4dotelipsis> Uh-uh. [20:47] <@The4dotelipsis> You can't kill without a probe. [20:47] <@Fiolli> Ok. Per LH. [20:47] <@GreenTentacle> I was joking about the killing. [20:48] <@Fiolli> I rescind my complete desire to kill Atris every time I play KotOR II. [20:48] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Relations.�' [20:48] <@Fiolli> ;) [20:48] <@Gonk|Smash> "Recently, the FAN page has seen a spike in negativity between nominators and objectors, which has spilled over into IRC. It's painfully clear that the lines of battle seem to have been drawn: people think users are making ridiculous objections just for the sake of making objections out of personal grudges, and nominators are doing everything they can to resist having to make changes to... [20:48] <@Gonk|Smash> ...their work." [20:48] <@Fiolli> Can I say something along this? [20:48] <@Gonk|Smash> As long as it's civil. [20:48] <@Fiolli> It will take a minute to type. [20:48] <@Gonk|Smash> We will wait [20:48] <@Toprawa> I've got seconds after Fiolli. [20:48] * @GreenTentacle twiddles thumbs. [20:49] * Greyman|Busy is now known as Grey-man [20:49] * @Toprawa hears Brian Griffin singing, "Relations..." [20:49] <@GreenTentacle> Wow. [20:50] <@GreenTentacle> Culator even manages to delete during the meeting. [20:50] <@Gonk|Smash> He's the guy at the table who won't put down the Blackberry. [20:50] <@Toprawa> I'm about to become very inactive in approx 10 min. Let's move it along. :P [20:50] <@Darth_Culator> It's practically fully-automated. [20:50] <@The4dotelipsis> I could write another article while Fiolli types. :P [20:50] <@Gonk|Smash> Write Sorrow's Relationships section!! 8) [20:50] <@The4dotelipsis> ==Teebo== [20:50] <@GreenTentacle> Yeah, it's almost 2 am. [20:51] <@The4dotelipsis> Sorrow did not like Teebo, and wanted to kill him. [20:51] <@LordHydronium> Does Sorrow have a Powers and abilities section? Add it. [20:51] <@GreenTentacle> Mount Sorrow has a steamy affair with a pebble. [20:51] <@Gonk|Smash> And a volcanic temper [20:51] <@Fiolli> Frankly, I hope that people can act responsibly and professionally regardless of whomever comes along and irritates. There are plenty of users who occasionally get on my nerves. Frankly, so what. We should all be bigger than this and should all act appropriately - especially on a public site! We really aren't in our own little world on the wook. Other people from other organizations (LA... [20:51] <@Fiolli> ...Times, notably) read or site all the time. Who knows what they stumble across when they search our site. All I am saying is that we should all be better people than this and be bigger and more adult than the pettiness that people are claiming. This does not diminish the realness of what has happened. This is just to say, let us move on and be professional. [20:51] <@Gonk|Smash> Per Fiolli [20:51] <@LordHydronium> Boring! Let's fight. [20:52] <@The4dotelipsis> I agree. [20:52] <@Gonk|Smash> Furthermore, failing to be civil makes the whole process less fun for everyone. [20:52] <@The4dotelipsis> With Fiolli. :P [20:52] <@Chack> Agreed. [20:52] <@LordHydronium> Aw. :( [20:52] <@GreenTentacle> Per Gonk. [20:52] <@Gonk|Smash> Tope! [20:52] <@LordHydronium> (I agree. :P ) [20:52] <@The4dotelipsis> And I have to admit that I might have failed to practice what I have preached in the past. [20:52] <@Gonk|Smash> Tope fast type. I mean, type fast Tope. [20:52] <@Fiolli> No group hugs, though. Inq meetings with hugs equal bad things. [20:52] <@Fiolli> ;) [20:52] <@The4dotelipsis> Yes. [20:52] <@The4dotelipsis> Remember: #wookieepedia: No hugging, no learning. [20:53] <@Toprawa> All I have to say is that I'll admit I'm one of the biggest instigators to the bullshit that's gone on here. I think I've amended the rift between those who I quarreled with. If I can be civil with people, so can you. [20:53] <@GreenTentacle> There's been plenty of hugging before. [20:53] <@GreenTentacle> Mostly with Nuku. [20:53] <@Gonk|Smash> Anybody else? [20:53] <@The4dotelipsis> Yeah. [20:54] <@Toprawa> mended* [20:54] <@Fiolli> Wait . . . one other thing. [20:54] * @GreenTentacle taps watch. :P [20:54] <@The4dotelipsis> I think it all boils down to respect. Respect for the nominator, respect for the objector. If we can constructively and passively object and resolve, I think that we can operate successfully. Condescension is nothing short of dangerous on the FAN page, as it's just unattractive, and is prone to upset people. [20:54] <@Toprawa> heh [20:54] <@The4dotelipsis> That's all. [20:55] <@Fiolli> Most users in the Inqery are on the IRC. Most others are accessible via email. Seriously, try to contact things and work them out. Don't take it out on the FAN page. [20:55] <@Gonk|Smash> Yes. Good call on the passive bit. Very Yodaesque [20:55] <@Fiolli> But if someone does upset you. . . please try to resolve it and move on. [20:55] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Inq inactivity.�' [20:55] <@Gonk|Smash> I personally think the only good solution to this one is simply more Inqs. [20:56] <@GreenTentacle> Indeed. [20:56] <@Chack> Who? [20:56] <@The4dotelipsis> I disagree. [20:56] <@LordHydronium> I am, as ever, firmly against any sort of activity requirement. [20:56] <@Gonk|Smash> and I have a point on that I'd like to make later [20:56] <@Chack> Acky, Goodwood? [20:56] <@LordHydronium> Or sanctions against inactivity. [20:56] <@Toprawa> I just want to say if you're not reviewing, you know who you are. Work. [20:56] <@The4dotelipsis> There is a stark difference between prolific objection, and constructive objection. [20:56] <@LordHydronium> Especially since we've now eliminated self-voting. [20:56] <@Fiolli> I too disagree about adding Inqs as I can only think of one viable candidate. [20:56] <@LordHydronium> Agreed with 4dot. [20:57] <@Gonk|Smash> I have an additional agenda item about adding Inqs [20:57] <@Chack> Per Fiolli. [20:57] <@LordHydronium> On the latter. Though I'm not sure what it has to do with this topic or if it's a holdover from the last. [20:57] <@The4dotelipsis> I can't think of any candidates at the moment that fit the bill. [20:57] <@Gonk|Smash> so let's wait to discuss that [20:57] <@GreenTentacle> Per LH. [20:57] <@Chack> Can I say something real quick? [20:57] <@Gonk|Smash> go ahead [20:57] <@Fiolli> Yes, but do not mention any names. [20:57] <@Toprawa> LH> It's a consistent reminder. [20:57] <@Fiolli> ;) [20:57] <@Toprawa> To everyone, that is [20:57] <@Toprawa> In all niceness, get off your ass and go work. [20:57] <@GreenTentacle> I can think of a candidate. [20:58] <@GreenTentacle> Who's sitting watching us right now. [20:58] <@Chack> Well, there's two main violators of our activity "rules". No offense to them but they haven't done anything in a long time. Why do they get to stay? [20:58] <@LordHydronium> See, I don't think it is work. [20:58] <@GreenTentacle> You know who you are. :P [20:58] <@Toprawa> Theres a difference between the people who are never on the site and don't Inq and the people wh osit in IRC every day and don't do shit [20:58] <@The4dotelipsis> I think it is work, actually. [20:58] <@LordHydronium> It's a volunteer group, and I think the only important thing is that when they do review, they do so with good judgment. [20:58] <@The4dotelipsis> It's not like an obligation to write. [20:58] <@GreenTentacle> Per LH. Again. [20:58] <@Chack> What's wrong with removing them and putting them back if they start Inqing? [20:58] <@The4dotelipsis> We're a panel tasked with getting FANs through the page. [20:59] <@Toprawa> It is work, and if an Inq knows he doesnt have the time or the interest to review at a consistent rate, he should have enough respect for the Inq itself to know he's not paying it any benefit [20:59] <@The4dotelipsis> It's no good if they clot due to lack of voting. We've failed if that happens. [20:59] <@GreenTentacle> How many times have we had this argument? [20:59] <@Chack> A lot. [20:59] <@Gonk|Smash> Per GT ^_^ [20:59] <@GreenTentacle> It gets us nowhere. [20:59] <@Fiolli> I do ask this: what is the harm of having an inactive Inq since a nominator can't Inqvote their own article? [20:59] <@The4dotelipsis> It's a Christmas, I mean, Inquisistorius tradition. [20:59] <@LordHydronium> Top: How are they not benefiting it, though, if they review even just once? [21:00] <@Gonk|Smash> I think if Graestan were here he would emphasize that an inactive Inq is not harmful UNLESS they've been gone so long that they don't know the new practices. [21:00] <@GreenTentacle> Per LH. Again. Again. :P [21:00] <@Fiolli> Per Smash. [21:00] <@Gonk|Smash> But I may be wrong on that, and probably shouldn't speak for Graestan :) [21:00] <@LordHydronium> I mean, if Joe Inq (not Grae :P ) comes out once a year to review and that's it, he's still presumably using the same judgment to review that he was elected into the Inq based on. [21:00] <@Fiolli> Per Smash again. [21:00] <@GreenTentacle> Being an Inq is about having your opinion trusted, however infrequently you use it. [21:00] <@The4dotelipsis> Until we're ready to start drumming people out though, I don't think bringing up this issue helps. [21:00] <@GreenTentacle> That's why people shouldn't leave. [21:00] <@Gonk|Smash> per 4dot [21:00] <@Fiolli> Per 4dot and Smash. [21:01] <@GreenTentacle> Particularly if they keep on doing the job anyway. [21:01] <@Toprawa> LH> that's exactly it. when someone comes out of their whole one day a month to slap down an Inqvote just to pay the process lipservice [21:01] <@Toprawa> that isn't Inqing [21:01] <@Toprawa> hole* [21:01] <@The4dotelipsis> So, next time we want to talk about this, someone had better want to start pointing fingers and naming names. [21:01] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Vague remarks about new Inq adoption process�' [21:01] <@The4dotelipsis> Because inactive Inqs are rarely at the meetings anyway. [21:01] <@LordHydronium> Top: Well, if they don't use good judgment in reviewing, that's a whole other matter. [21:01] <@Fiolli> That is the risk you run into about imposing a minimum though. . . you run into lipservice. [21:01] <@GreenTentacle> Thank you Gonk. [21:01] <@Gonk|Smash> now is as good a time as any for me to bring up my new thing [21:01] <@Chack> Fire away. [21:01] <@Gonk|Smash> I think we are, as a group, far too cautious about admitting new members into our ranks. I've been guilty of it myself. Since we seem to be experiencing a net loss of Inqs, I think we should actively recruit anyone who has a consistent and positive presence on FAN, even if they're kinda new. [21:02] <@Gonk|Smash> I also think that before any of us votes against a possible new Inq, we should consider the amount of extra work we are making for ourselves with every candidate we reject. (Yes, I am appealing to laziness. It works when I use it on myself.) [21:02] <@Toprawa> what is this topic about? [21:02] <@Chack> Who specifically are you thinking of? [21:02] <@Gonk|Smash> I am not thinking of anyone specific [21:02] <@Gonk|Smash> But [21:02] <@Chack> Oh. [21:02] <@Fiolli> Can I suggest closed-door meeting for the duration of this topic. [REDACTED] [21:05] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Actually reading before voting.�' [21:05] <@Fiolli> Ok. Start logging again. [21:05] <@Toprawa> Let me have this one. [21:05] * Greyman|Busy (n=Janitor@wikia/Greyman) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius [21:05] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o Greyman|Busy [21:05] <@Toprawa> this topic was created specifically for the second nomination of Mandalore the Ultimate. [21:06] <@Toprawa> i was reviewing it in IRC with Greyman, the nominator, and as the meeting page says, there was some crap in there that could only have been missed if you didnt read the article. it was embarrassing. [21:06] <@Toprawa> i can understand if one person, or two people miss something. [21:06] <@Toprawa> this thing had 7 votes [21:06] <@GreenTentacle> In the P&T? [21:06] <@Toprawa> yes [21:06] <@The4dotelipsis> Was it there when it was nominated? [21:06] <@Toprawa> yes [21:06] <@The4dotelipsis> Hmm. [21:06] <@GreenTentacle> But the P&T has hardly changed since it was up for FAR. [21:07] <@GreenTentacle> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Mandalore_the_Ultimate&diff=1968282&oldid=1923485 [21:07] <@Toprawa> I removed some pretty disgusting speculation [21:07] <@Toprawa> present tense issues [21:07] <@GreenTentacle> Where? [21:07] <@Toprawa> let me pull it up. [21:07] <@The4dotelipsis> It's no excuse, but when I read it, I was not familiar with the comics at all. But that doesn't excuse present tense issues, obviously. [21:07] <@Toprawa> i mean like i isaid, two people I can understand. Not 7 [21:08] <@Toprawa> some people in that list either didnt read or didnt Inq [21:08] <@Toprawa> and this concerns me, naturally [21:08] <@Chack> Read too fast, I suppose. Sorry. [21:08] <@The4dotelipsis> I can remember having some problems with it...likely resolved over IRC. [21:09] <@Gonk|Smash> So, don't vote without reading unless you're sure you won't get caught. Like for a boring article that'll never be updated :) [21:09] * @Gonk|Smash thinks Bureau of Scouting and Exploration Services ;) [21:09] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Inq consensus to strike an objection.�' [21:09] <@GreenTentacle> Wait a sec. [21:09] <@GreenTentacle> I'm still waiting to hear what was wrong with it. [21:10] <@Toprawa> I'm looking for it:P [21:10] <@Toprawa> :P [21:10] <@GreenTentacle> I just gave you the link. :P [21:10] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Toprawa is looking.�' [21:11] <@Fiolli> lol [21:11] * @LordHydronium hums Spanish Flea [21:11] <@Gonk|Smash> There was a lit-tle Spanish Flea [21:11] <@Toprawa> ok [21:11] <@Toprawa> not P&T, my mistake [21:11] <@Toprawa> the Legacy section [21:11] <@GreenTentacle> Ah. [21:11] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Mandalore_the_Ultimate&diff=1931757&oldid=1931720 [21:12] <@The4dotelipsis> Damnit people, stop posting links I can't look at. :P [21:12] <@The4dotelipsis> Eh, I'll just amuse myself by looking at Bong Dazo's "Sad Mandalore" [21:13] <@Toprawa> the tense issues in this case aren't entirely damning, but among those 7 people, I can't believe no one found it. [21:13] <@Toprawa> My belief is that no one bothered to read that far down the article [21:14] <@GreenTentacle> I doubt that. [21:14] <@GreenTentacle> Those tense issues are debatable. [21:14] <@Toprawa> no they're not [21:14] <@Toprawa> "it appears that" [21:14] <@Toprawa> that's not debatable [21:14] <@GreenTentacle> Is perfectly fine. [21:14] <@Toprawa> " It can be argued that Mandalore's warmongering caused the Jedi Revan and Malak to turn to the dark side of the Force, which in turn led to the eruption of the massive Jedi Civil War shortly after the Mandalorian crusade." [21:14] <@Toprawa> horrid OR and speculation [21:15] <@GreenTentacle> You have a point on that bit. [21:15] <@Gonk|Smash> Warmongering?! [21:15] <@Toprawa> that was my biggest concern, not so much the tense [21:15] <@The4dotelipsis> Ew, Erikism. [21:15] * @Gonk|Smash shoves Toprawa against the wall [21:15] <@GreenTentacle> But it would be fine for me to say "it appears that Henry VIII was a bit of a twat". [21:15] <@GreenTentacle> That's not in the wrong tense. [21:15] <@Toprawa> "Appears" is present tense. [21:16] <@Toprawa> I dont know how you could get around that [21:16] <@GreenTentacle> It's fine. [21:16] <@Toprawa> there are two others in there too [21:16] <@GreenTentacle> We are IU, and from our point in time it appears to be the case. [21:16] <@Gonk|Smash> I think this is one of those "take it to email" situations Fiolli alluded to [21:16] <@GreenTentacle> include -> included is fair enough. [21:16] <@Gonk|Smash> Point taken overall; next topic [21:16] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Inq consensus to strike an objection.�' [21:17] <@Toprawa> wait [21:17] <@Toprawa> why I was shoved against a wall? [21:17] <@Toprawa> :P [21:17] <@Gonk|Smash> I was being Eomer [21:17] <@Chack> What was the image in question? [21:17] <@Toprawa> Next topic. :| [21:17] <@Gonk|Smash> So this is resolved? [21:18] <@Toprawa> what objection are we talking about? [21:18] <@Gonk|Smash> I dunno, I thought this was your thing. Something about contacting someone [21:18] <@Toprawa> oh, is this the Imp deal? [21:18] <@LordHydronium> The Imp one. He was contacted; I know because I was one of the people who did so. [21:18] <@GreenTentacle> You added the item. :P [21:18] <@Gonk|Smash> Ah [21:18] <@Gonk|Smash> the Imp thing [21:18] <@Gonk|Smash> ok [21:18] <@Toprawa> oh [21:18] <@Toprawa> feel free to go look at some of the comments left on the page for striking his objection [21:19] <@LordHydronium> Culator's first one says that Imp was contacted. [21:19] <@Toprawa> i know people dont like Imp, whatever, keep your personal feelings to yourself [21:19] <@Toprawa> that was pretty much a "I ate hate Imp, let's strike his shit" vote [21:19] <@GreenTentacle> Er, no. [21:19] <@GreenTentacle> I like Imp. [21:19] <@GreenTentacle> But the objection needed to die. [21:19] <@Toprawa> who even tried to contact him? [21:19] <@LordHydronium> I did. [21:19] <@LordHydronium> On IRC. [21:20] <@The4dotelipsis> No, it was a "this objection is subjective, and it's been there for a considerable amount of time, and he's been contacted, and he hasn't come good, so let's strike this shit." vote [21:20] <@Toprawa> you didnt try getting in contact with him through email? [21:20] <@LordHydronium> I spoke with him, he said he'd resolve it "tomorrow", and a week or so later we had the vote. [21:20] <@Gonk|Smash> lol [21:20] <@The4dotelipsis> This isn't #wookieepedia-babysittersclub [21:20] <@GreenTentacle> We shouldn't email people. [21:20] <@Darth_Culator> And the simple fact is there is no obligation to contact an objector outside the FAN page and never should be, ever. [21:20] <@GreenTentacle> Per Culator. [21:20] <@The4dotelipsis> You look after your own objections. We don't chase people up, and we don't have to. [21:20] <@Toprawa> all I ask is that you try to get in contact with someone outside of the Wook [21:20] <@LordHydronium> We did. [21:20] <@Toprawa> send em an email. its not hard [21:20] <@GreenTentacle> Bah! [21:20] <@Darth_Culator> Anyone who says otherwise is only trying to coddle people. [21:21] <@GreenTentacle> We have no responsibility to do so. [21:21] <@GreenTentacle> And no guarantee of even knowing a user's email. [21:21] <@GreenTentacle> The rules were followed. [21:21] <@Darth_Culator> FAN discussion is for the FAN page. PERIOD. [21:21] <@Gonk|Smash> I have to agree with GT. The objector has the responsibility. [21:21] <@Toprawa> it's a matter of civility. all you need to do is send a friendly email. if they dont response, then carry on [21:21] <@Toprawa> I look at it this way: [21:21] <@GreenTentacle> No, it's a matter of keeping an eye on your objections. [21:21] <@Darth_Culator> It's a matter of civility, yes. It's rude of the objector to not keep up with his objection where it was placed. [21:22] <@Toprawa> If that wasn't an Imp objection, would the vote even have been started? I don't know... [21:22] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [21:22] <@The4dotelipsis> Absolutely. [21:22] <@GreenTentacle> We've done so before. [21:22] <@Darth_Culator> No doubt. [21:22] <@GreenTentacle> And will do so again. [21:22] <@LordHydronium> Indeed. [21:22] <@Toprawa> again, all I ask is an email. [21:22] <@Toprawa> its not difficult [21:23] <@GreenTentacle> It is. [21:23] <@Darth_Culator> There will be no requirement for communication outside the FAN page as long as I LIVE, let alone am an Inq. [21:23] <@Gonk|Smash> Email is a nice courtesy, but we can't require it [21:23] <@Toprawa> 9_9 [21:23] <@GreenTentacle> We never have a duty to use non-Wikia methods of communication for anything. [21:23] <@GreenTentacle> At most, we leave a message on a user talk page. [21:23] <@Toprawa> it's a courtesy issue. if yuo cant be courteous, sucks to be you. [21:23] <@Darth_Culator> If the OBJECTOR can't be courteous, sucks to be them. [21:23] <@Darth_Culator> The burden is on THEM. [21:23] <@GreenTentacle> Indeed. [21:23] <@The4dotelipsis> How is it a courtesy issue? It's a professionalism issue. [21:24] <@Toprawa> and I will reiterate, that I truly do believe it was handled with prejudice, just because it was Imp [21:24] <@LordHydronium> I agree with GT; we should never have an obligation to go outside Wikia. [21:24] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Small addition to the red link policy.�' [21:24] <@The4dotelipsis> Right, well, all in favor of abolishing the anti-Imp cabal, say aye. [21:24] <@Gonk|Smash> Since that's not going anywhere... Is this one going to be CTed? [21:25] <@Chack> CT it. [21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> What's the addition, first of all? [21:25] <@Darth_Culator> There's a Cabal? I thought it was an informal thing. [21:25] <@GreenTentacle> What addition? [21:25] <@Gonk|Smash> To require no redlinks in templates and ...something [21:25] <@GreenTentacle> !cabal [21:25] * @Nuku-Nuku would like to remind everyone that There Is No Cabal. [21:25] <@LordHydronium> There Is No Kobold. [21:25] <@Gonk|Smash> "The Inq has enacted measures to outlaw any more than 3 red links in an article, with no red links within the introduction for the sake of clean presentation. I would like to propose a small addition to this red link policy that would extend the practice to infoboxes and templates, such as our battle succession templates." [21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> I think it's a good idea, no redlinks in templates. [21:25] <@Gonk|Smash> ^ Tope [21:25] <@Gonk|Smash> yeah, me too [21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> Including succession boxes and stuff, yes? [21:25] <@Toprawa> No red links in infoboxes or templates. [21:26] <@Toprawa> It's a presentation issue, I feel [21:26] <@The4dotelipsis> Makes sense. I'll support it if it's put to CT. [21:26] <@GreenTentacle> Put it to CT. [21:26] <@The4dotelipsis> It's more of a site-wide issue than an internal Inq one. [21:26] <@Gonk|Smash> Ataru and I also vote to CT this [21:26] <@Gonk|Smash> that looks like 5 votes to CT [21:27] * Greyman|Busy sets mode: -o Greyman|Busy [21:27] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Independent reviews.�' [21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> Ah, right. [21:27] <@Toprawa> what is an "independent reviewer?" [21:27] <@Toprawa> non-Inq votes? [21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> Now, I just want to see how many people actually would do the peer reviews that we had at the start. [21:27] <@GreenTentacle> Would if I had time. [21:27] <@Gonk|Smash> I have been known to do it already, when the subject matter intrigues me. [21:27] <@GreenTentacle> But we barely keep up with FANs. [21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> Basically, we had a separate forum (still there, I think) where users could submit articles that we would look at, with out submitting it to the FAN page. [21:27] <@Gonk|Smash> Solus had me look at specific issues with the Vader's armor article. [21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> But it would be different to the FAN page, fundamentally. [21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> It would be more of a discussion of content, and we wouldn't say "Redlink in the intro" or stuff like that. [21:28] <@Gonk|Smash> Right [21:28] <@GreenTentacle> Hardly anybody submitted anything for it anyway. [21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> We'd also make concerted efforts to actually make some objective changes ourselves in helping out. [21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> GT: that's because it was poorly advertised. [21:28] <@LordHydronium> I know sab nommed Dooku because she wanted review of it. [21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> We'd have a sitenotice or whatever, notes on the FAN and GAN page. [21:28] <@LordHydronium> This sort of thing could help with that. [21:28] <@Gonk|Smash> Sort of like a ... drive to ... improve stuff XD [21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Also, since there is an inactivity thing... [21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> We would make sure the submitter understands that there would be considerable delays. :P [21:29] <@GreenTentacle> Sure. [21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> But basically, a less formal, less stringent, more personal version of FAN reviewing. [21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> And NO LISTS WHATSOEVER. [21:29] <@Gonk|Smash> We could call it "Fixer's Article Garage" [21:29] <@GreenTentacle> Open it up to non-Inqs to leave feedback too. [21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Lists will be banned, and users posting lists will be banned. :P [21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Gonk: Or "Tremayne's Interrogation Room" :) [21:30] <@Gonk|Smash> ooo [21:30] <@Gonk|Smash> hmmm [21:30] <@GreenTentacle> Is Ataru still waiting for us to read Lando? :P [21:31] <@Gonk|Smash> well 4dot, I think you have at least some positive feedback here [21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> Yeah. Well, over the next week or so, I'll set it up, get it running, hopefully. [21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> I don't want it to crash and burn though. [21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> It could also be tied to the Tutorials... [21:32] <@Gonk|Smash> Maybe start a forum page to hash out details, and feel out support beyond this meeting [21:32] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, I gotta finish mine for that one. [21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> If people would actually extract their digits and get cracking on them. :P [21:32] <@Gonk|Smash> I gotta start mine :) [21:32] <@GreenTentacle> To be fair, the community already approved it. [21:32] <@GreenTentacle> We've had this for over a year. [21:33] <@GreenTentacle> It was the reason peer review was abolished. [21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Yes, but it's dead. [21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> I'm not going to revive it if no one's interested outside those here. [21:33] <@Gonk|Smash> I didn't mean "support" as in "non-opposition" ... more "will to participate" [21:33] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Tope's mysterious penultimate addendum.�' [21:33] <@GreenTentacle> Is it about sleep? :P [21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> I also have an addendum. :P [21:34] <@Gonk|Smash> oh, ok [21:34] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Tope's mysterious penpenultimate addendum.�' [21:34] <@The4dotelipsis> A brief one, though. [21:34] <@GreenTentacle> For f**c's sake. :P [21:34] <@GreenTentacle> Bah! [21:34] <@GreenTentacle> Can't even spell. [21:34] <@Toprawa> A simple suggestion for everyone who is angry they cant Inqvote for their own articles. [21:34] <@Toprawa> Increase the requirement to 6 reviews. [21:34] <@Fiolli> Absolutely not. [21:34] <@Chack> No. [21:34] <@GreenTentacle> Heck no. [21:34] * @Toprawa shrugs [21:34] <@Gonk|Smash> I think that was shot down at the last meeting, wasnt it? [21:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Heh, I'm not angry, I just think it's a touch silly. [21:35] <@GreenTentacle> It'd slow down the non-Inq nominated articles. [21:35] <@Toprawa> i think it's a touch silly people arent voting on their articles. I'm not sure what started all of that [21:35] <@GreenTentacle> Actually, you should still vote. [21:35] <@The4dotelipsis> Logic. [21:35] <@Gonk|Smash> I don't especially care. [21:35] <@GreenTentacle> It makes it so much easier to tell when it was nominated. [21:35] <@Chack> I agree. It's...odd when people don't vote on their articles. [21:35] <@LordHydronium> The reasoning for not voting makes sense. And it's amusing. :P [21:35] <@GreenTentacle> Think about those of use archiving, dangit. [21:35] <@Toprawa> I really dont care either. I think the whole thing is extremely childish. [21:35] <@The4dotelipsis> Look at the comments, damnit! :P [21:35] <@Fiolli> Wait. . . I have something to say. [21:36] <@GreenTentacle> The comments are all the way down at the bottom. :( [21:36] * @The4dotelipsis makes a scrolling motion. [21:36] <@The4dotelipsis> Wow. :P [21:36] <@LordHydronium> I'm going to nom something with no comments. [21:36] <@Chack> Be back in 10 minutes. [21:36] <@GreenTentacle> Then it'll be removed. :P [21:37] <@Gonk|Smash> hey, there we go... secret mystery noms. Who nommed it?! oooOOooooo [21:37] <@Fiolli> Frankly, we should adopt one aspect of the proposed system by Culator for sure: have a nominated by line. This should be REQUIRED for all nominations. No nomination votes should ever be listed under support. That way it is not a "vote in favor" or "against" . . . it is simply a nomination. [21:37] <@The4dotelipsis> It was Professor Plum in the Kitchen with the Inflatable Forklift. [21:37] <@GreenTentacle> Per Fiolli. [21:37] <@Gonk|Smash> All in favor of mandating a Nominated By line? [21:37] <@The4dotelipsis> Aye. [21:38] <@Gonk|Smash> Ataru and I vote Aye [21:38] <@Fiolli> Yes [21:38] <@GreenTentacle> Yes. [21:38] <@Gonk|Smash> That's 6 [21:38] <@Fiolli> 5. [21:38] <@Toprawa> of course [21:38] <@Gonk|Smash> Any objections? [21:38] <@Fiolli> 5. [21:38] <@Fiolli> 6. [21:38] <@GreenTentacle> !echo Yes. [21:38] <@Nuku-Nuku> Yes. [21:38] <@GreenTentacle> :P [21:38] <@Fiolli> Nuku says yes, therefore it is. [21:38] <@Fiolli> !blarg [21:39] <@Gonk|Smash> SOLD to the gentleman with the pasta [21:39] <@Nuku-Nuku> Blarg morning, everyone! [21:39] <@Fiolli> Thank you muchly. [21:39] <@Fiolli> ;) [21:39] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: 4dot's brief penultimate addendum.�' [21:39] <@Fiolli> I will change the FAN page momentarily to rectify this as well. [21:39] <@Gonk|Smash> You do that 8) [21:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Ah, yes, I'd just like to see reviewers perhaps sometimes maybe go beyond the standard copyedit and make some objective changes of their own. [21:40] <@Fiolli> Can someone lock the FAN page until I am done? [21:40] <@Fiolli> It should only take a few minutes. [21:40] <@GreenTentacle> I would if I could get the site up. [21:41] <@GreenTentacle> Stupid wireless. [21:41] <@Gonk|Smash> wait, LOCK the fan page? [21:41] * @The4dotelipsis jots down "fix Isolder and Carrick" on his todo list. [21:42] <@The4dotelipsis> Unless someone wants to help... [21:42] * @GreenTentacle jots down "go to bed" on his todo list. [21:42] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Gonk's final addendum -- Dropping names on yo ass, bitch.�' [21:43] <@Fiolli> Gonk. Yes; I'm going to go through and add the nominated by line. [21:43] <@Gonk|Smash> Keeping in mind my earlier comments, who has names to drop for Inq nomination? [21:43] <@Fiolli> Unless, of course, we all vote to use Culator's format. [21:43] <@The4dotelipsis> Not I, your highness. [REDACTED] [22:00] <@Gonk|Smash> I do believe we're done. Somebody else gets to put up the Expurgated Version of the log... and put up a summary. [22:01] * Gonk|Smash changes topic to 'INQ MEETING NOW - Current topic: Post-meeting beer.�'