Wookieepedia:AgriCorps/Log/2010 August 14

[16:00]		Welcome to AC Meeting 25! [16:00]		Hi. [16:00]		:D [16:00]		Yo [16:00]		We welcome Jang to his first meeting. [16:00]		Welcome, velcome :) [16:28]		Delicious probed leftovers. [16:28]		http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Melvin_Fett [16:28]		http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Melvin_Fett_(second_review) [16:28]		http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Melvin_Fett&diff=3217738&oldid=3195677 [16:29]		Jugs fixed a lot of it [16:29]		He voted kill though [16:29]		But I spoke with him, and he doesn't know the source material, so some of it was left. [16:29]		yes [16:29]		In that case, I vote kill [16:29]		basically the stuff about Fett's gender, species, and chronology of the source [16:29]	<Darth_Burger>	I guess is all speculative [16:29]	<CC7567>	Kill, then [16:29]	<Darth_Burger>	basically unverified info [16:29]	<Darth_Burger>	so I vote kill as well [16:29]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Let's kill. [16:29]	<Jang|Away>	Yeah, kill [16:30]	<Darth_Burger>	ugh, hold on [16:30]	<Darth_Burger>	one moment [16:31]	<Darth_Burger>	We have a procedural issue with removing this. [16:31]	<Darth_Burger>	Removal requires less than 2 opposed. [16:31]	<Darth_Burger>	Cav and Grunny currently vote keep as absentees, mostly because they are unaware of what's left, I imagine [16:31]	<Jang|Away>	Is there a lot missing? [16:32]	<Darth_Burger>	it's unverified information that requires someone to actually go into the source and check it [16:32]	<Darth_Burger>	I propose we agree to overrule the absentee votes in this case, given the circumstances [16:32]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Agreed. [16:33]	<Jang|Away>	Yeah, I don't have Tales 20 to check, so meh. :( [16:33]	<CC7567>	Yeah, I support that [16:33]	<Darth_Burger>	FWIW, I'm sure Cav and Grunny would agree were they fully apprised of the situation [16:33]	<Jang|Away>	I agree then :) [16:34]	<Darth_Burger>	ok, if there are no objections, Melvin Fett is killed. [16:34]	<Darth_Burger>	If someone wants to fix the remaining items, the article can be renominated for a full formal review. [16:34]	<Darth_Burger>	Moving on [16:34]	<Darth_Burger>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lando_Calrissian [16:34]	<Darth_Burger>	probe was extended from Meeting 23 [16:35]	<Darth_Burger>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Lando_Calrissian [16:35]	<Jang|Away>	tbh, I think it needs a /major/ clean up [16:35]	<Darth_Burger>	plus the fact that Xicer has since added 11,000 new sources :P [16:35]	<Darth_Burger>	Cav's comments: # Kill Lando - seriously, I hate to see an article of such length on a major character be demoted, but the list of new sources and other problems is too long. Yes, we could probe again, but how long for? [16:35]	<Chack|Away>	Kill [16:36]	<Chack|Away>	Per Jang [16:36]	<Darth_Burger>	Jugs and Grunny vote kill [16:36]	<CC7567>	Kill and be done with it, I say [16:36]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Yeah, let's just save ourselves the trouble and kill it already. [16:36]	<Darth_Burger>	I vote kill as well. There is no saving this one [16:36]	<Darth_Burger>	Lando Calrissian is killed. [16:36]	<Darth_Burger>	Ok, moving on [16:36]	<Darth_Burger>	New candidates for death. [16:36]	<Darth_Burger>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Kirrek_(Unification_Wars) [16:36]	<Darth_Burger>	The battle infobox fields were recently readjusted from the nominator's original version for no stated reason. These things have a way of being switched around with no verification and little fanfare, and frankly I have my doubts to their legitimacy. I would appreciate if a TOTJ person could weigh in on this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:07, July 29, 2010 (UTC) [16:37]	<Darth_Burger>	No change has been made [16:37]	<Darth_Burger>	and no one has weighed in on it [16:37]	<Darth_Burger>	I consider that "unverified info" [16:37]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Let's probe. [16:37]	<Chack|Away>	Kill [16:37]	<Darth_Burger>	This is for probation, Chack :P [16:37]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Probe, Chack. We can kill it next time. :p [16:37]	<Chack|Away>	Oh :P [16:37]	<Chack|Away>	Probe [16:37]	<CC7567>	Probe [16:37]	<Jang|Away>	Probe. [16:38]	<Darth_Burger>	Probe as well. [16:38]	<Darth_Burger>	as do the absentees [16:38]	* Chack|Away	is playing PlayStation right now [16:38]	<Darth_Burger>	Battle of Kirrek is probed. [16:38]	<Jang|Away>	Chack: heh [16:38]	<Darth_Burger>	Focus, damnit! :P [16:38]	<Jang|Away>	haha [16:38]	<Darth_Burger>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Fall_of_Bastion [16:38]	<Darth_Burger>	"shoddy intro" [16:38]	<Chack|Away>	The intro is poor, basically [16:38]	<Chack|Away>	I might fix it soon [16:38]	<Chack|Away>	You guys decide if that's worth probing on [16:38]	<Darth_Burger>	Three absentees vote probe [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	I think it's worth a probe. [16:39]	<Chack|Away>	I say probe [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	One sentence intros are...not good [16:39]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Intro should be expanded, and I think the event is mentioned in more recent issues of the comic. [16:39]	<GrandMoffTranner>	So probe. [16:39]	<Jang|Away>	Per Tope, probe [16:39]	<CC7567>	I vote probe, and add a quick WP:LG adjustment to the list of things to fix [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	indeed, per CC [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	Fall of Bastion probed [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Shadow_Runner [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	Shadow Runner - Green tentacle told me on IRC that speech bubbles should only be blanked if they're not completely visible. The main image of the article, however, has a complete speech bubble blanked. If I'm wrong regarding the policy, feel free to kill me. :P -- 1358 (Talk) 17:43, August 1, 2010 (UTC) [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	That to me isn't a reason to probe it. Having the image bubble blanked in no way affects the article's quality, and it's very minor. I'd rather someone just contact Floyd as the original nominator to upload a new image. Grunny (talk) 00:41, August 2, 2010 (UTC) [16:39]	<Darth_Burger>	* Okay, I'll contact Floyd on IRC. -- 1358 (Talk) 19:58, August 2, 2010 (UTC) [16:40]	<Darth_Burger>	Xd> I'll voice you for the record :P [16:40]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-agricorps +v Xd1358 by Darth_Burger [16:40]	<Darth_Burger>	Tell us what's up. [16:40]	<Xd1358>	Skip it. :P [16:40]	<Darth_Burger>	Very well. [16:40]	<Darth_Burger>	I vote no probe. [16:40]	<Xd1358>	Spare spare spare. I haven't remembered to contact him. :P [16:40]	<Xd1358>	I'll do it whenever I remember. Not big issue. [16:40]	<Darth_Burger>	all absentees vote no probe [16:40]	* Xd1358	is ready [16:40]	<Chack|Away>	Keep [16:40]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Spare from probation. [16:40]	<CC7567>	No probe [16:40]	<Jang|Away>	I'll vote for keep then [16:40]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-agricorps -v Xd1358 by Darth_Burger [16:41]	<Darth_Burger>	Shadow Runner not probed. [16:41]	<Darth_Burger>	Does anyone have anything else for review? [16:41]	<CC7567>	Not me [16:41]	<Darth_Burger>	Nothing in the maintenance [16:42]	<Darth_Burger>	Moving on to discussion items, then. [16:42]	<Darth_Burger>	"Alternatively, if a nomination receives a total of five AgriCorps votes with no outstanding objections before one week has passed, the nomination will be considered successful." Discuss changing this line on GAN rules "How to vote" #4, to "receives a total of five AgriCorps/Inquisitorius votes," to include Inq votes in this, with at least two being ACs as usual. Grunny (talk) 23:31, August... [16:42]	<Darth_Burger>	...12, 2010 (UTC) [16:42]	<Darth_Burger>	Basically, we include Inqs in the five-vote total for snowballs [16:42]	<Darth_Burger>	which we weren't doing because the original wording was left ambiguous [16:42]	<Darth_Burger>	so we vote to amend that [16:42]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Sounds good to me. [16:42]	<Darth_Burger>	Full absentee approval [16:42]	<CC7567>	I support [16:43]	<Jang|Away>	Sounds good [16:43]	<Darth_Burger>	I agree as well [16:43]	<Darth_Burger>	Chack? [16:43]	<Chack|Away>	Support [16:43]	<Darth_Burger>	heh [16:43]	<Darth_Burger>	Rule amended. [16:43]	<Darth_Burger>	# Further to the reintroduction of edit section links on the FA page as per the last Inq meeting, I propose to re-add the edit sections on the GA page as well. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 07:56, August 13, 2010 (UTC) [16:44]	<Chack|Away>	Support [16:44]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Support as well. [16:44]	<CC7567>	Support [16:44]	<GrandMoffTranner>	I'm all for making our job easier. [16:44]	<Darth_Burger>	full absentee approval [16:44]	<Darth_Burger>	Support [16:44]	<Jang|Away>	Support [16:44]	<Darth_Burger>	GA page will be changed per FA page. [16:45]	<Darth_Burger>	that's it, but I've got an impromptu item for us [16:45]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Wait, wait, wait. [16:45]	<Darth_Burger>	Yes? [16:45]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Regarding the snowball thingy. [16:46]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Jon and Grunny propose that at least /three/ of the votes be from AC members, instead of two. [16:46]	<Darth_Burger>	Fine with me [16:46]	<Chack|Away>	Support [16:46]	<Darth_Burger>	that would just mirror what the procedure is for normal nomination support anyway [16:47]	<CC7567>	Support, for clarification [16:47]	<Darth_Burger>	so it makes sense [16:47]	<Jang|Away>	Three, I think, is better. Since we need 3 AC votes to approve a GA. Sort of keeps it consistent. [16:47]	<GrandMoffTranner>	(I support as well, which is why I brought it up.) [16:47]	<Jang|Away>	Yeah, heh [16:47]	<Darth_Burger>	per Jang [16:47]	<CC7567>	Jang: well, 2 ACs and an Inq can also work for approving GAs, but that's a different story [16:47]	<Jang|Away>	Well, yeah. :P [16:47]	<Jang|Away>	heh [16:47]	<CC7567>	:P [16:47]	<Darth_Burger>	ok, item added to rule amendment [16:47]	<Jang|Away>	you're right. [16:47]	<Darth_Burger>	And one last one. [16:47]	<Darth_Burger>	Per what we did here this afternoon. [16:48]	<Darth_Burger>	It happens sometimes where circumstances change regarding some article that effectively renders absentee votes obsolete [16:48]	<Darth_Burger>	since they can sometimes be made a full 24 of 48 hours in advance of the meeting itself [16:48]	<Darth_Burger>	I propose we agree on a formal method to overruling absentee votes when deemed appropriate, such as this afternoon [16:49]	<Darth_Burger>	Any objections to discussing this? [16:49]	<GrandMoffTranner>	It sounds like a good idea. [16:49]	<Chack|Away>	2 votes from present = strike for 1 person [16:49]	<Chack|Away>	If that makes sense [16:49]	<Darth_Burger>	I think we could just agree to overrule any absentee vote when necessary in the event that something changes such that it makes their understanding of the situation obsolete [16:50]	<Chack|Away>	Ok [16:50]	<CC7567>	Sure [16:50]	<CC7567>	How would it be worded? [16:51]	<Darth_Burger>	We could make it the same as the meeting procedure for everything else [16:51]	<Darth_Burger>	at least 3 in favor, less than 2 opposed for overruling [16:51]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Support. [16:51]	<Jang|Away>	Sure, support [16:51]	<Darth_Burger>	sometimes we have 3 people here for meetings, for example [16:51]	<Darth_Burger>	so it would require unanimous agreement in that case [16:51]	<Darth_Burger>	I support this. [16:52]	<Darth_Burger>	This would be added to the Bylaws page, by the way [16:52]	<CC7567>	Wait, to clarify: how would the absentee votes work into this? [16:52]	<Darth_Burger>	how do you mean? [16:52]	<CC7567>	Into the 3 in favor/less than 2 opposed thing [16:52]	<CC7567>	Wiat [16:52]	<CC7567>	*Wait [16:53]	<CC7567>	I think I'm comprehending this the wrong way [16:53]	<CC7567>	Ignore me :P [16:53]	<Darth_Burger>	I don't think absentee votes would be included in any situation where we actually use this [16:53]	<CC7567>	Okay [16:53]	<CC7567>	I support [16:53]	<CC7567>	Sorry 'bout that [16:53]	<Darth_Burger>	In other words, if people want to stay fully abreast of developments and have their say fully considered, make an effort to be at the meeting [16:53]	<Chack|Away>	np [16:54]	<Jang|Away>	Would the absentee know he or she's vote has been overridden? [16:54]	<Chack|Away>	From reading the lof, I assume [16:54]	<Chack|Away>	*log [16:54]	<Darth_Burger>	They would afterward :P [16:54]	<Jang|Away>	Okay [16:55]	<Jang|Away>	What I meant was are we going to contact them or possibly they're going to figure it out on their own. :P [16:55]	<Jang|Away>	via the meeting page [16:55]	<Darth_Burger>	well, it's up to them to stay up to date with the meeting page [16:55]	<Darth_Burger>	we don't send the meeting results to anyone [16:55]	<Jang|Away>	Yeah, that's true. [16:56]	<Darth_Burger>	Ok, the overruling absentee votes when necessary clause is enacted [16:56]	<Darth_Burger>	That's it for the meeting agenda. [16:56]	<Darth_Burger>	Anyone else got anything? [16:56]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Nope. [16:56]	<Darth_Burger>	Meeting 25 is hereby adjourned.