Wookieepedia:AgriCorps/Log/2009 July 19

[11:04]		ok, we will now review probe articles from last time Jon, you decided whether they should be stripped or kept 	ok 	any questions, feel free to ask 	cool 	Bimm: http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Bimm&diff=2633374&oldid=2631688 http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Bimm 	Everything in Bimm looks good from my end, except the intro it's way too short 	per Tope [11:05]		this thing could be an FA if all the info is there 	Per Tope 	per Tope 	Per Tope 	Per Tope. 	kill is the vote, then give me one moment 	if you want to kill on an intro, fine I'd be willing to give it another chance, since it's a marginally easy fix I think this is Dan's		I'd say extend 	I would say extend the probe <Toprawa>	he would get on it	<CC7567>	Yeah, per Tope again <ChackJadson>	eh, that is true <GrandMoffTranner>	Yeah, extend. <ChackJadson>	extend <Toprawa>	extend <Cylka>	Extend, per Tope. <Jujiggum>	extend [11:06]	* ChackJadson	makes decisions too quickly XD	<ChackJadson>	Skreej-http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Skreej&diff=2663649&oldid=2631691 http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Skreej http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Skreej&diff=2663649&oldid=2631691 odd <Toprawa>	someone actually worked on this thing? I'm amazed. <ChackJadson>	Kilson <Graestan>	He did adecent job <CC7567>	Seems to like OOU stuff. <Graestan>	I say keep [11:07]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Yeah, keep. <ChackJadson>	I abstain, because I think that these types of things should not be able to be GAs personal policy <CC7567>	Keep with prejudice against OOU <Toprawa>	Due to the fact that Skreej was published in an issue of Star Wars Tales before Issue #21, the canonicity of this story is ambiguous. That needs sourcing, no?	<ChackJadson>	no, it's self-sourcing, I think <CC7567>	Did the issue state so? <Toprawa>	That isn't self-sourcing, I don't believe. does it? I don't know <ChackJadson>	it's obvious though, common sense, is it not dating? <Toprawa>	well, common sense or not, it's need a source if it's not self-sourcing [11:08]	it needs* <Graestan>	It needs Chee's comment as a source for the conanicity canon* <Cylka>	It doesn't seem to be self sourcing. <Graestan>	We have it on several other Tales articles <Cylka>	Per Grae. <ChackJadson>	ok, my bad <CC7567>	Easy fix, then <ChackJadson>	kill per that, or extend? <Cylka>	But that is an easy fix. <Graestan>	I'd say keep since it's very easy <ChackJadson>	or keep? <Toprawa>	I vote extend <CC7567>	Keep and I can tell Kilson <Toprawa>	I want to see this actually taken care of	Enough laziness <CC7567>	Hmm. [11:09]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Extend. <Cylka>	I would say extend. <CC7567>	Extend, then. <Jujiggum>	Extend <ChackJadson>	extend it is	time travel lol http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Time_travel&diff=2668272&oldid=2631706 <Graestan>	KILL <Toprawa>	It could probably be as easy as an explanation of /why/ it's ambiguous <ChackJadson>	KILL <CC7567>	Please. <Graestan>	THat article would be a million miles long if done correctly <Toprawa>	Kill time travel <GrandMoffTranner>	Kill. <Jujiggum>	Kill [11:10]	<ChackJadson>	cool SW Fanon Wiki http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Fanon_Wiki&diff=2673859&oldid=2631719 <CC7567>	Eh. <Graestan>	Here's my bit with the POV of the Fanon Wiki article: There is no verifiability of what is important or how exactly things went down on a wiki, where admins can delete pages which we cannot read etc.	<ChackJadson>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Star_Wars_Fanon_Wiki <Cylka>	Kill on Time Travel btw. <Graestan>	It simply is not sourceable in my opinion. <ChackJadson>	thanks, Cylka :P CC, you were involved in this, were you not? <CC7567>	Yeah <Graestan>	You can write an essay on the Fanon Wiki, but you can't really write a solid article about it. <ChackJadson>	Ataru questioned you, I saw <Cylka>	Yeah, I know I'm slow. :-P [11:11]	<ChackJadson>	no worries <CC7567>	Ataru seems to have gotten a better way to source things, but per Grae <ChackJadson>	I'm tempted to go keep, but I could go with kill <Graestan>	Also, per Toprawa's recent comments to me about journalism: I'd like to see more outside sources before I consider this article credible. <ChackJadson>	that is a good point <CC7567>	Ataru's said that there aren't any <Toprawa>	that's what bothers me	the entire referencing is edits made to the site <Graestan>	It's 100% sourced to itself <Toprawa>	exactly <Graestan>	It's like the Soviet newspaper, Pravda <GrandMoffTranner>	Yeah, I don't like that. <ChackJadson>	yeah, but what else can you do about that? nothing so, kill per that? [11:12]	<Toprawa>	well, this is probably more of a site-wide issue, about maintaining an article like this in the first place <Graestan>	Kill it. It sets a bad precedent completely in this, in my opinion. <Cylka>	I'm somewhat torn about this vote. <ChackJadson>	Per Cylka <GrandMoffTranner>	Per Cylka. <ChackJadson>	heh <CC7567>	Per Cylka. <ChackJadson>	Tope goes kill, no? <GrandMoffTranner>	But I'm leaning toward kill. <Cylka>	But, Grae does make a good point about setting precedent. [11:13]	<ChackJadson>	yeah and this bit too :P <CC7567>	Well, we wouldn't want the Wookieepedia article to be the same, would we? Then it would be an article sourced to /our/ wiki. And no real difference. <Toprawa>	WOOKIEEPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE :P <GrandMoffTranner>	Yeah, my vote is kill. -->|	Grunny (n=chatzill@wikia/Grunny) has joined #wookieepedia-agricorps =-=	Mode #wookieepedia-agricorps +o Grunny by ChanServ [11:14]	<CC7567>	Hey Grunny <ChackJadson>	we're on the fanon wiki, Grunny <Cylka>	Grunny. <Jujiggum>	Hey Grunny <GrandMoffTranner>	Hey Grunny. <Grunny>	Jiggles! Hey CC <GrandMoffTranner>	Yes, Juicy was voted in. <Grunny>	Hay Cylka * ChackJadson	is ignored by Grunny :(	<ChackJadson>	:P	<Grunny>	Hey Tranner	Hey Chack :P	<ChackJadson>	so, 3 kills so far	<CC7567>	I would have to say kill on the Fanon Wiki article, then.	<Grunny>	Nice [11:15]	<ChackJadson>	CC, Jon, Grunny (if you want since you just got here)	<Cylka>	I would rather abstain since I am really torn.	<ChackJadson>	I know 9_9	sure	<Graestan>	I say Kill.	<Toprawa>	Kill. I question the very article's notability, and I think the amount of "in-house" citations kind of justifies that.	<Graestan>	And it is also my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed.	<ChackJadson>	4 kills, 1 abstain	I'll go kill	It's dead [11:16]	Being Boba Fett	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Fanon_Wiki&diff=2673859&oldid=2631719	<GrandMoffTranner>	Wrong link.	:p	<ChackJadson>	yeah	my link isn't working, so hang on	<Toprawa>	I'd say the same thing about this that I did for Skreej. About giving a better source/explanation for the canonicity claim. [11:17]	<ChackJadson>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Being_Boba_Fett&diff=2672601&oldid=2631733 <Graestan>	Extend per that. <CC7567>	Extend. <ChackJadson>	meh, extend then <GrandMoffTranner>	Extend <Jujiggum>	extend <Cylka>	Per Tope and Grae <ChackJadson>	cool, extend it is	<Grunny>	Extend the probe <ChackJadson>	Treaty of Coruscant http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Coruscant&diff=2651520&oldid=2631753 http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Treaty_of_Coruscant [11:18]	<CC7567>	Were there any other issues besides those listed? <Graestan>	Better definition <Toprawa>	I think we just probed on there being no History It looks better, at least <Graestan>	But I will say this for the record about these TOR noms: <ChackJadson>	keep CC: no <Graestan>	They are fluid as hell. <ChackJadson>	Yep :\	<CC7567>	Eh. <Toprawa>	Keep <CC7567>	Keep, but per Grae. <Grunny>	Keep <Jujiggum>	Keep <GrandMoffTranner>	Keep <Cylka>	Keep. <ChackJadson>	per Grae indeed [11:19]	<Graestan>	We need as a group to be more critical of them on the whole <ChackJadson>	and that concludes that <Graestan>	They can change with any release or preview <CC7567>	Darth tom has the other one up right now <ChackJadson>	new articles...can someone take over, I have to go for a few minutes, sorry <Toprawa>	I'll do it. [11:20]	New articles for review: <ChackJadson>	thanks <Toprawa>	Watto http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Watto A huge number of missing sources/information <Graestan>	Probe. <CC7567>	Probe <Graestan>	This should be an FA	<Jujiggum>	Probe <Cylka>	Probe. <GrandMoffTranner>	Probe <Grunny>	Probe <Toprawa>	Probe Probed. Next, on suggestion from Eyrezer: [11:21]	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Vuvrian He claims there is missing information, and I'm inclined to believe him. Can I suggest Vuvrian? Based on the references, it appears to be lacking material on a number of appearances, such as the 2 NJO books, the Living Force adventure, and the Shadowfeed. --Eyrezer11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC) <Graestan>	Probe it. <CC7567>	Probe then <Toprawa>	Probe <Grunny>	Probify <GrandMoffTranner>	Probe. <Jujiggum>	Probe <Graestan>	Simple matter, really <Toprawa>	Vuvrian probed. That's all for that. <Graestan>	I'll ask Acky about it all. <Toprawa>	Next up, discussion items. <Cylka>	Probe. <Toprawa>	haha [11:22]	First one is from Fiolli. He wants us to set a hard max redlink rule. While we can't really do this ourselves, we need to start a CT, we can at least discuss it. <Graestan>	Three <GrandMoffTranner>	I agree that we need a rule. <Toprawa>	We tried doing three once upon a time. <Graestan>	Three is a lot in a short article. <Toprawa>	The vote died. <GrandMoffTranner>	Three should be good. <Jujiggum>	Per Tranner <CC7567>	Three, five at the most [11:23]	<Graestan>	We can propose it again with more market research ;)	<Cylka>	Maybe we should do it based on article length.	<Graestan>	Yeah, per Cylka	<Jujiggum>	Per Cylka	<Grunny>	Yes, indeed	<Toprawa>	I support three, but I could live with five.	<Graestan>	Three for short, maybe, five or six for long (FA-length?)	<Toprawa>	but yes, I like Cylka's idea.	Yes, per Grae	<Cylka>	Like 3 max for anything under 500 words.	<CC7567>	By word count, then?	<Jujiggum>	Sounds good	<GrandMoffTranner>	Three for short, five for long.	<Graestan>	There we go	<CC7567>	That sounds good.	<Cylka>	per Tranner. [11:24]	<Toprawa>	someone can start the CT after this meeting :P	<CC7567>	!youdoit	<Graestan>	No it	<GrandMoffTranner>	I mean, ideally, people should eliminate all redlinks.	<Graestan>	not*	<Toprawa>	Let it be known the AC supports 3 for short, 5 for long	<Cylka>	I need to go after the meeting, so not me. :-P	<GrandMoffTranner>	Nor me.	<Toprawa>	based ENTIRELY on the suggest of GrandMoffTranner XD	<Jujiggum>	not it <CC7567>	Fine, I'll do it. :P <Toprawa>	suggestion* Ok, next discussion item: [11:25]	Following the extended use of the nomination subpages, it looks like it's going to be time to reassess their usefulness. The options on what to do with them are open to discussion, but some decision should be reached—our current "system" for deciding to use subpages isn't good for prolonged use on future nominations, quite simply because there isn't one. If we decide to keep on using them,... ...we need to obtain requirements for a nomination to be moved to a subpage. CC7567 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC) CC, you have the floor. <CC7567>	I think that they're convenient, but nothing more; that's basically it. <Graestan>	I don't think they helped much. All they helped was me to be lazy. <CC7567>	The options are then to remove or to keep with some sort of system. <Toprawa>	I think they just promote stagnation. No one looks at a subpage of objections <GrandMoffTranner>	Honestly, I'm not a big fan of them. <Toprawa>	At least I don't	<Grunny>	Yeah, I don't think we need them [11:26]	<GrandMoffTranner>	Yes, per Tope. <Grunny>	Kill them <Graestan>	Kill them all With fire <Toprawa>	Kill <Jujiggum>	Yeah, Kill <CC7567>	Killify. <Graestan>	Dance on their graves <Cylka>	Kill. <GrandMoffTranner>	Kill them with my AC Death Star. <Graestan>	Put them in camps <CC7567>	:O <Toprawa>	Nom subpages killed. That's it for this meeting. Right on the 25-min mark unless anyone else has anything? <Graestan>	I do: [11:27]	We should Mofference the CT items instead ;)	<Toprawa>	Fine with me. This meeting is hereby concluded.