Wookieepedia:AC/Log/2011 March 19

[22:29:50] <@ecks> Starting with old stuff. [22:30:00] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Korriban_%28Great_Hyperspace_War%29 [22:30:04] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3404513 [22:30:09] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Second_Battle_of_Korriban_%28Great_Hyperspace_War%29 [22:30:18] <@Jujiggum> Still seeing some things that confuse me [22:30:21] <@Jujiggum> Is it conjecture or not? [22:30:25] * Toprawa gives channel operator status to Graestan [22:30:32] <@Jujiggum> If not, then the whole title should be bolded [22:30:43] <@Jujiggum> If so, then the conjecture tag needs to be added [22:30:56] <@Graestan> it does [22:31:04] <@Toprawa> yeah, I think so [22:31:08] <@Graestan> no source is going around calling battles by numbers these days [22:31:10] <@ecks> If it's conjecture, it needs a tag, and there are several instances of "Second Battle" remaining [22:31:15] <@Graestan> this isn't the X-wing games [22:31:33] <@Toprawa> Extend probe to revise those points? [22:31:38] <@ecks> Agreed [22:31:40] <@Jujiggum> Extend [22:31:41] <@GrandMoffTranner> Extend away. [22:31:47] <@Toprawa> ExtenZe [22:31:59] <@Graestan> yeah [22:32:12] <@Graestan> it's a simple fix, whose article is it? [22:32:14] <@ecks> Second Battle (conjecture?) :P extended [22:32:17] <@Graestan> I'd be happy to do it [22:32:36] <@ecks> It's Floyd's. [22:33:17] <@ecks> Grae, are you handling it or should we extend? [22:33:41] <@Graestan> extend, I will do it later [22:33:47] <@ecks> Okay, extended. [22:33:56] <@Graestan> meeting now, real work later :P [22:34:05] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Riiken [22:34:11] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3446055 [22:34:16] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Riiken [22:34:23] <@Graestan> I'd say extend on Riiken, at least based on Tm's response on the page [22:34:28] <@Graestan> he doesn't say it is done yet [22:34:54] <@Toprawa> I could do that [22:34:59] <@ecks> Sure, extend. [22:35:03] <@Jujiggum> Sure [22:35:09] <@GrandMoffTranner> Extend away. [22:35:15] <@ecks> Riiken extended. [22:35:24] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rukil [22:35:28] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3446062 [22:35:32] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Rukil [22:35:36] <@ecks> Nothing done, kill. [22:35:39] <@Jujiggum> No change. Killify [22:35:44] <@Toprawa> Kill [22:35:51] <@Graestan> death to Undercity trash! [22:35:53] <@GrandMoffTranner> Kill! [22:36:00] <@ecks> Riiken killed. [22:36:18] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Melee [22:36:20] <@Graestan> kill the child! [22:36:22] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3446066 [22:36:24] <@GrandMoffTranner> *Rukil killed. :p [22:36:27] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Melee [22:36:39] <@ecks> whatever :P [22:36:42] <@Jujiggum> No change here either. Kill it [22:36:43] <@ecks> anyway, kill Melee [22:36:44] <@Jujiggum> haha [22:36:57] <@GrandMoffTranner> Kill. [22:36:58] <@Toprawa> Kill [22:37:04] <@ecks> Melee killed. [22:37:10] <@Graestan> just do it with a melee weapon [22:37:25] <@Jujiggum> Oh boy. I don't know about these OOU ones... [22:37:29] <@Graestan> yeah [22:37:31] <@Jujiggum> The BTSes have been killed [22:37:35] <@Graestan> changing the section name is not enough [22:37:41] <@Jujiggum> But now some have been given Main Character sections... [22:37:45] <@Jujiggum> And some haven't... [22:38:01] <@Jujiggum> These seem like potential candidates for a GAN redux page ;) [22:38:04] <@ecks> :| [22:38:07] <@ecks> Indeed. :P [22:38:24] <@Graestan> well, simply put, though, is there any requirement for or against Main Character sections? [22:38:27] <@Toprawa> I'm annoyed at the overall fluctuation of these articles, but I recognize the fact that we have no set format to begin with. [22:38:28] <@ecks> but we can't probe for lack of Main characters section [22:38:34] <@ecks> there is no policy on that [22:38:34] <@Graestan> maybe we should probify those with large additions [22:38:40] <@Jujiggum> No, there isn't any requirement for or against, that was just something Kilson and Menk decided to do [22:38:45] <@Jujiggum> But per Grae [22:38:47] <@Toprawa> So we can't really penalize the article for having or not having something [22:38:54] <@ecks> yeah [22:38:59] <@Jujiggum> That's pretty much exactly what the redux was for with the Inq [22:39:03] <@Jujiggum> Why not use it here? [22:39:08] <@ecks> Sure. [22:39:13] <@Jujiggum> Large additions/changes like these [22:39:20] <@Toprawa> if we want to redux it, fine with me [22:39:23] <@ecks> So, redux those with new MC section [22:39:23] <@Graestan> I'd say so, provided the redux thing passes, which this will probably make a solid case for :P [22:39:29] <@Toprawa> I think we need this damn OOU layout already. [22:39:32] <@Toprawa> These articles need one [22:39:37] <@Jujiggum> Yeah [22:39:41] <@Jujiggum> Definitely [22:39:54] <@GrandMoffTranner> Per all of the above. [22:40:03] <@Jujiggum> Okay, so reduxing these, providing the redux item passes [22:40:06] <@Jujiggum> ? [22:40:10] <@ecks> yep [22:40:12] <@ecks> it will :P [22:40:44] <@ecks> "All articles with big edits reduxed." [22:40:53] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/GT-9R [22:40:58] <@ecks> GT-9R — Could use some slight intro expansion, linking and context issues, Bts speculation, needs a time indicator at least in the bio, and finally, the sources in the Bts could use their release dates/authors. Summarized: General cleanup. 1358 (Talk) 11:27, March 13, 2011 (UTC) [22:41:14] <@Jujiggum> Probe [22:41:19] <@ecks> Probe [22:41:21] <@Graestan> very sloppy paragraph layout [22:41:28] <@GrandMoffTranner> Probe. [22:41:33] <@Toprawa> Probe [22:41:36] <@Graestan> prooooobe [22:41:41] <@ecks> GT probed. [22:41:48] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Stewjon [22:41:54] <@ecks> Stewjon — needs full update from inclusion in TEAOC (read: integrate system name into body and possibly intro; it's currently infobox-exclusive); also, the infobox update produced a redlink. Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Thursday, March 17, 2011, 01:27 UTC [22:41:54] <@ecks>    This appears to have been fixed. Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Thursday, March 17, 2011, 21:05 UTC [22:42:13] <@Jujiggum> Not an expert on the subject, but I'm willing to take CC's word [22:42:15] <@Toprawa> I think Stewjon system needs to be mentioned in the intro [22:42:20] <@Jujiggum> So probe [22:42:23] <@Toprawa> but I want to give that a general copyedit anyway [22:42:27] <@Toprawa> the intro is all there [22:42:29] <@Toprawa> info* [22:42:34] <@Toprawa> it was updated [22:43:03] <@Graestan> probe [22:43:13] <@Toprawa> I don't know about this clone card stuff, though... [22:43:18] <@Toprawa> probe on that, I guess [22:43:25] <@ecks> yeah [22:43:26] <@ecks> probe [22:43:28] <@Jujiggum> Okay, still probe [22:43:42] <@GrandMoffTranner> Probe. [22:43:52] <@ecks> Stewjon probed. [22:43:58] * Jujiggum is going to have to run in a couple minutes... [22:44:01] <@ecks> 3,955 BBY — Update tag. Grunny (talk) 09:57, March 19, 2011 (UTC) [22:44:04] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/3,955_BBY [22:44:18] <@Jujiggum> Probe [22:44:33] <@ecks> Probe, I guess [22:44:34] <@GrandMoffTranner> Probe. [22:44:36] <@Graestan> the question on that one is: why was the tag placed on the article? what is said to be missing? [22:45:01] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=3%2C955_BBY&action=historysubmit&diff=3459602&oldid=3293927 [22:45:03] <@Graestan> I don't really care for the somewhat arbitrary way the sections are named and what content is in each [22:45:25] <@Graestan> ah [22:45:27] <@Graestan> wow [22:45:36] <@ecks> Wait [22:45:37] <@ecks> Dammit. [22:45:42] <@ecks> I skipped the Unidentified Jedi. [22:45:43] <@Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:3,955_BBY [22:45:51] <@ecks> She's too hot to be killed. :P [22:46:04] <@ecks> We'll return to her after this. [22:46:28] <@Graestan> is that it? [22:46:34] <@Jujiggum> Gotta run... Here're the rest of my votes: [22:46:47] <@Graestan> and she may have been born the year before, and was about to turn five :P [22:46:56] <@ecks> Yeah :/ [22:46:57] <@Jujiggum> Merge the Jedi, and presumably probe/kill, whatever you guys figure is best [22:47:09] <@Jujiggum> Make the redlinks rule stricter [22:47:12] <@ecks> Later, Jugs [22:47:20] <@ecks> Thanks for coming. [22:47:24] <@Jujiggum> Basically, I vote for the strictest proposal everyone can agree on [22:47:28] <@Jujiggum> No problem :) [22:47:31] <@ecks> :D [22:47:32] <@Graestan> I would say not to probe the year article unless a better reason is provided than Naru's minor complaint and my subjective opinions [22:47:44] <@Jujiggum> And of course, support the rookie guide to nomming page thingy [22:47:48] <@Jujiggum> Later guys [22:47:52] <@Graestan> peace [22:47:53] * Jujiggum has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.15/20110303024726]) [22:47:58] <@ecks> If Naru's thing is the only thing, then I don't support probing. [22:48:44] <@ecks> Tope, Tranner? [22:49:01] <@GrandMoffTranner> People need to make their reasons for including update tags clearer. [22:49:02] <@Toprawa> I have no idea about the subject material [22:49:22] <@GrandMoffTranner> I guess no probe. [22:49:40] <@Toprawa> if KOTOR II says the character was 4 years old in 3,955, then Naru is probably right [22:49:49] <@Graestan> it's a update tag, though [22:49:55] <@Graestan> we can do it now and have done with it [22:49:59] <@Toprawa> actually, I have no idea what we're even discussing anymore [22:50:02] <@Toprawa> I am extremely preoccupied [22:50:08] <@Toprawa> and I can't decipher Naru's backward logic [22:50:20] <@ecks> No probe is my final vote. [22:50:29] <@Graestan> I'd say not to probe until something more arises, that is of very little impact and an easy fix [22:50:43] <@Toprawa> Fine with me [22:50:57] <@ecks> That year not probed. [22:51:05] <@ecks> Okay, moving onto the discussion items. [22:51:11] <@ecks> We'll vote on introducing a Redux page like the Inq. 1358 (Talk) 20:40, March 3, 2011 (UTC) [22:51:16] <@ecks> Support. [22:51:19] <@GrandMoffTranner> Uh, Unidentified Jedi? :p [22:51:23] <@ecks> Thanks. [22:51:27] * ecks facepalms [22:51:36] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Unidentified_Jedi_%28Battle_of_Alderaan%29 [22:51:42] <@ecks> Just as a note, it's recently been confirmed that the Unidentified Jedi we all love so much is, in fact, Satele Shan, so the character will require quite a bit of updating and integration that I'm relatively certain won't be completed by the 19th. This includes two novels and a comic story arc, plus the info from Hope. Some food for thought. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:06, March 10, 2011 (UTC) [22:51:51] <@Toprawa> Why do we have so many annoying probes this meeting. [22:51:55] <@Toprawa> Nothing is straightforward [22:51:58] <@ecks> Well, she will lose her status. [22:52:12] <@Graestan> the article is deleted [22:52:15] <@GrandMoffTranner> The article will be deleted. [22:52:17] <@ecks> Indeed. [22:52:33] <@GrandMoffTranner> So in the long run, it really doesn't matter what we do. [22:52:35] <@Graestan> we just need Trayus to finish, he hasn't touched it in a few days [22:52:46] <@ecks> But do we have to strip it off? [22:52:47] <@Toprawa> well, we shouldn't keep it as a GA until that time [22:52:55] <@GrandMoffTranner> Oh, I agree. [22:52:56] <@Toprawa> since we /know/ this character is Shan [22:53:02] <@ecks> can we kill outright? [22:53:02] <@Graestan> I think we need to just take it all off [22:53:10] <@Graestan> no reason not to [22:53:14] <@Graestan> it's a long redirect :P [22:53:43] <@Toprawa> I think this is the rare opportunity where it would be ok to kill outright. [22:53:44] <@ecks> I don't mind if we kill it. [22:53:50] <@Toprawa> Unless someone can provide a reason for probing. [22:53:55] <@GrandMoffTranner> Kill it outright since it's not a simple renaming. [22:53:58] <@Toprawa> This article is invalid by its very nature [22:54:24] <@ecks> Kill kill kill. [22:54:59] <@ecks> Okay, Unidentified Jedi killed. [22:55:00] <@Toprawa> I vote kill [22:55:02] <@ecks> :P [22:55:22] <@ecks> We'll vote on introducing a Redux page like the Inq. 1358 (Talk) 20:40, March 3, 2011 (UTC) [22:55:23] <@ecks> Support. [22:55:58] <@Toprawa> Support [22:56:05] <@GrandMoffTranner> Support. [22:56:16] <@ecks> CC and Grunny support, too. [22:56:38] <@Graestan> yeah why not [22:56:55] <@ecks> Redux page adopted. [22:57:00] <@ecks> Discuss and vote on making an official rookie's guide to nominating GANs. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:29, March 10, 2011 (UTC) [22:57:03] <@ecks> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jonjedigrandmaster/Test [22:57:28] <@Graestan> it's an essay, essentially, so again, why not [22:57:31] <@Graestan> I like it [22:57:33] <@Toprawa> Do it [22:57:39] <@Toprawa> I haven't read it yet, unfortunately [22:57:44] <@GrandMoffTranner> I support, but I wonder how many noobs will actually read it. [22:57:44] <@Toprawa> but we can tweak anything as necessary [22:57:48] <@ecks> Yeah [22:57:58] <@ecks> Tranner, at least we can point them somewhere :P [22:58:04] <@ecks> But support anyway [22:58:36] <@ecks> That page adopted. [22:58:40] <@ecks> Then, GAN rule 14. [22:58:46] <@ecks> …ideally include a "powers and abilities" section on relevant character articles, especially for Force-sensitive characters where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated. [22:59:06] <@Graestan> "ideally" is such a weasel word [22:59:19] <@ecks> That technically says all articles should have P&A if possible, especially if they're Force-sensitive. [22:59:38] <@ecks> However, non-Force-sensitives should have Skills and abilities, and that rule does not mention it. [22:59:53] <@Toprawa> yeah, the wording should just be clarified to more closely reflect the LG [23:00:00] <@Toprawa> which say P/A for Force people, S/A for non [23:00:03] <@Toprawa> says* [23:00:25] <@Graestan> I see where "ideally" works in here, n/m [23:00:25] <@Toprawa> Mofference it? :P [23:00:42] <@Graestan> "he could fly a ship" can't be its own section [23:00:46] <@ecks> ...ideally include a P&A for Force-sensitive individuals and S&A for non-Force sensitive characters. [23:00:47] <@Toprawa> yeah [23:00:58] <@ecks> :P [23:01:04] <@Toprawa> I like ^ [23:01:24] <@ecks> s/characters/individuals [23:01:33] <@Toprawa> Mofference it? [23:01:48] <@ecks> Sure [23:01:54] <@ecks> CC and Grunny supports, btw. [23:02:13] <@GrandMoffTranner> Dew it. [23:02:31] <@ecks> Okay, rule 14 will be Mofferenced. :P [23:02:39] <@ecks> I'd like to discuss the redlink rule and possibly make it more strict. 1358 (Talk) 20:37, March 10, 2011 (UTC) [23:02:56] <@ecks> …have no more than 3 redlinks for articles less than 500 words, no more than 5 redlinks for articles 500 words or more, and no redlinks in the introduction, infobox, or any templates. [23:03:11] <@ecks> I've gone through every GA up to individuals I [23:03:21] <@Graestan> yeah 3 redlinks in such a short article is a darn lot [23:03:25] <@ecks> and not a single one has three redlinks [23:04:15] <@ecks> So perhaps something like 1 redlink for less-than-500 and 3 for over-500 could do [23:05:06] <@GrandMoffTranner> Sounds good to me. [23:05:24] <@Toprawa> Sure [23:05:25] <@ecks> To be Mofferenced, apparently :P [23:05:38] <@ecks> Okay, decided. [23:05:45] <@ecks> Does anyone have anything else? [23:06:14] <@Toprawa> Not I [23:06:23] <@ecks> Nothing from me either [23:06:42] <@Graestan> nyope [23:06:44] <@ecks> Silent guys. :P [23:06:44] <@Jang|Away> I missed the meeting :( [23:06:52] <@ecks> Okay, that concludes meeting 33. [23:06:59] <@ecks> Meeting adjourned.