Wookieepedia:AgriCorps/Log/2009 October 11

[06:59]		AC Meeting 14 is underway [07:00]		Thanks for showing up, everyone [07:00]		First order of business, the few articles from Meeting 13 [07:00]		thank you [07:00]		http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sev_Buzk [07:00]		http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Sev_Buzk [07:00]		kill it [07:00]		killdead [07:00]		Kill [07:00]		kill [07:01]		kill [07:01]		Sev Buzk is killed. [07:01]		http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gank [07:01]		funny looking dude [07:01]		http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Gank [07:02]		the issues have been fixed [07:02]	<ChackJadson>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Gank&diff=2741140&oldid=2740222 [07:02]	<Grunny>	Looks fixed [07:02]	<Grunny>	Keep [07:02]	<Jujiggum>	Keep [07:02]	<CC7567>	Keep [07:02]	<ChackJadson>	keep [07:02]	<Toprawa>	Keep [07:02]	<Toprawa>	Gank kept [07:02]	<Toprawa>	Now on to new articles for review. [07:02]	<Toprawa>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Zak [07:02]	<Toprawa>	had an update tag [07:02]	<Toprawa>	Lee claims to have fixed it [07:02]	<CC7567>	He did. [07:03]	<Toprawa>	Keep, then [07:03]	<CavalierOne>	Keep [07:03]	<Jujiggum>	keep [07:03]	<CC7567>	Though it really should have been fixed already. [07:03]	<CC7567>	Keep. [07:03]	<ChackJadson>	keep [07:03]	<Grunny>	keepers [07:03]	<Toprawa>	Zak kept [07:03]	<Toprawa>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Massacre_at_Ossus [07:03]	<Toprawa>	update tag [07:03]	<CavalierOne>	Probify [07:03]	<CC7567>	Probe. [07:03]	<Jujiggum>	Probe [07:03]	<ChackJadson>	probe [07:03]	<Grunny>	Probe [07:03]	<Toprawa>	Probe [07:03]	<ChackJadson>	new articles now, I assume? [07:03]	<Toprawa>	Massacre at Ossus probed [07:04]	<Toprawa>	These are the new articles :P [07:04]	<ChackJadson>	k, just checking :P [07:04]	<Toprawa>	[16:02] <Toprawa> Now on to new articles for review. [07:04]	<Toprawa>	ok, that's all for those [07:04]	<ChackJadson>	oh, sorry :P [07:04]	<Toprawa>	Discussion items. [07:04]	<CC7567>	Wait, wait [07:04]	<Toprawa>	Oh? [07:04]	<CC7567>	Bane has an update tag [07:04]	<Grunny>	Cad Bane has an update tag :P [07:04]	<CC7567>	Again. :| [07:04]	<ChackJadson>	Bane needs an update :P [07:04]	<Toprawa>	then add it to the page! :P [07:04]	<CavalierOne>	KILL! [07:04]	<CC7567>	:O [07:05]	<Grunny>	But CC's working on it, so do you really want us to probe it? [07:05]	<Jujiggum>	heh [07:05]	* CC7567	borrows Tranner's Death Star [07:05]	<Toprawa>	Yeah, what do you say, CC? [07:05]	<Grunny>	You have it [07:05]	<CC7567>	Doesn't matter, I guess [07:05]	<Toprawa>	If he's working on it, I could hold off on probe [07:05]	<Grunny>	If you're working on it now we don't need to probe it [07:05]	<CC7567>	If you really want to, you can, but I'm still working on it either way [07:05]	<Jujiggum>	Yeah [07:05]	<CavalierOne>	Is Bane going to be an ongoing character? [07:05]	<CC7567>	Yep. [07:05]	<CavalierOne>	Will we need to review it for updates every other meeting? [07:06]	<Toprawa>	This does technically fall under the stability rule. [07:06]	<CC7567>	I doubt it; as far as I know, Republic Heroes is the only upcoming (or thing needed an update) source at the moment [07:06]	* Grunny	likes his characters dead [07:06]	<CavalierOne>	No further appearances in TCW? [07:06]	<Toprawa>	per Grunny [07:06]	<Jujiggum>	haha per Grun [07:06]	<CC7567>	Cav: I'm unsure [07:06]	<CC7567>	No more /confirmed/ yet. [07:07]	<CC7567>	I've been keeping it updated, though. [07:07]	<Toprawa>	I guess I'm comfortable with it for now. If it proves to be a recurring issue with constantly new canon updates, then we can look at it more closely [07:07]	<CC7567>	Sure. [07:07]	<CavalierOne>	See, stability would be a problem there. We've seen similar happen to Zayne and Cade's articles. [07:07]	<Grunny>	Indeed [07:08]	<ChackJadson>	in fairness, CC is one of our best and most reliable writers [07:08]	<CavalierOne>	But if CC is keeping it up to date, I see no reason to include it on the meeting agenda as long as we are aware of it. [07:08]	<CC7567>	Thanks, Chack. :P [07:08]	<CC7567>	So, probe/no probe? [07:08]	<Jujiggum>	No probe [07:08]	<Grunny>	No probe [07:08]	<CavalierOne>	No probe [07:08]	<Toprawa>	No probe [07:09]	<CC7567>	(myself abstaining, of course) [07:09]	<ChackJadson>	no probe [07:09]	<Toprawa>	But making sure to check it out again next meeting [07:09]	<Toprawa>	CC will remind us [07:09]	<Toprawa>	Bane not probed [07:09]	<Toprawa>	ok, discussion items [07:09]	<CavalierOne>	Bane by name, Bane by nature :P [07:09]	<Toprawa>	CC has the floor once more [07:09]	<Grunny>	It's also on the maintenance page [07:09]	<Grunny>	:P [07:09]	<CC7567>	Same thing that we discussed with the Inqs yesterday [07:09]	<Toprawa>	Yes :) [07:09]	<CavalierOne>	Well we adopted it in the Inq last night, I say adopt it here. [07:10]	<CC7567>	Both the FAN and GAN rules (or AC/Inq pages, or whatever is appropriate) need a minor addendum concerning the removal of nominations if the nominator of the article requests it. We've been doing this consistently recently, but even if it's still "common sense," the course of action should be directly clarified and put to a vote. CC7567 (talk)01:52, October 4, 2009 (UTC) [07:10]	<Toprawa>	I support, but Jugs may need an explanation [07:10]	<Grunny>	Sure add it to the rule page [07:10]	<Jujiggum>	indeeed I do [07:10]	<ChackJadson>	per our Inq meeting :P [07:10]	<Jujiggum>	:P [07:10]	<Toprawa>	Do we want to add it to the rule page, the AC policies page I'm writing, or both? [07:10]	<Grunny>	AC bylaws [07:10]	<Toprawa>	http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Toprawa_and_Ralltiir/AC_Bylaws [07:10]	<ChackJadson>	it's on the Inq page already, right? [07:10]	<CC7567>	Jugs: basically all that it's saying is that waiting for a vote when the nominator wants it removed wastes time and that it should be removed immediately [07:10]	<ChackJadson>	both [07:10]	<CC7567>	Chack: yes, GT put it on [07:10]	<Grunny>	That's what I intended anyway [07:10]	<Toprawa>	Chack> Yes, but only because we don't have a policies page [07:10]	<Jujiggum>	Cool [07:10]	<ChackJadson>	let me link him [07:11]	<Toprawa>	Eventually I'm going to move that Bylaws page to an official page for us to reference, so let me know if you think things need adding/changing [07:11]	<Grunny>	That Inq don't have an internal policy page, that's the difference [07:11]	<ChackJadson>	"FA noms can be rejected without an Inquisitorius vote if removal of the nomination is requested by the original nominator. " [07:11]	<ChackJadson>	essentially what CC said already :P [07:11]	<ChackJadson>	Ac instead of Inq, obviously [07:11]	<Jujiggum>	yeah [07:11]	<Toprawa>	ok, no objections to measure, then? [07:11]	<Grunny>	Nope [07:12]	<CC7567>	Nope [07:12]	<Jujiggum>	nope [07:12]	<CavalierOne>	Nope [07:12]	<Toprawa>	Measure passed. No formal vote required to remove nominations if requested by original nominator. [07:12]	<CC7567>	Is it punch time? [07:12]	<Toprawa>	Any other lingering issues from anyone? [07:12]	<Toprawa>	Meeting 14 is hereby adjourned.