Wookieepedia:AC/Log/2019 June 29

22:00:17<@Toprawa> Welcome, all, to AC Meeting 117 22:00:21<@Toprawa> We will begin with the discussion item 22:00:29<@Imperators> hooray 22:00:40<@Toprawa> Currently, we have two GANs on the nom page that are similar in flavor 22:00:45<@Toprawa> Coca-Cola and Yoda's old Master 22:00:56<@Toprawa> Both are short articles that reached 250 words due to the size of the BTS 22:01:09<@Toprawa> I would say they are basically just CAs with inflated BTS sections 22:01:30<@Toprawa> I am proposing restricting such articles from the GAN page for that reason 22:01:38<@Toprawa> The rule would basically be this: 22:02:11<@Toprawa> Articles that do not have enough content to populate sections may not be nominated for Good status, even if they exceed 250 words. 22:02:44<@ecks> do we even have the authority to do this? 22:02:51<@Toprawa> One second, my oven is beeping :P 22:03:38<@Toprawa> I'm going to repeat what I said a few days ago, which characteristically no one responded to at the time 22:04:03<@Toprawa> There exists an interesting legal relationship between the community and the reviewing bodies when it comes to passing nomination rules 22:04:19<@Toprawa> Historically, both have passed nomination rules independently of the other at one time or another 22:04:34<@Toprawa> I would say we walk on undefined ground 22:04:38<@Toprawa> Nothing is literally stopping us from passing this rule 22:05:13<@Toprawa> Or formally might be the better term 22:05:44<@Toprawa> I'm going to start pinging people if no one joins the conversation 22:06:07<@ecks> this creates some ambiguity 22:06:17<@ecks> since there's no rule set in stone for when sectioning is warranted 22:06:15<@Ayrehead02> I'm reading, but just thinking about it 22:06:18<@Imperators>  isn't the wording a bit vague? 22:06:22<@ecks> it is kind of arbitrary 22:06:24<@Toprawa> It does, though at worst it could be something we define at the next Mofference 22:06:24<@Ayrehead02> As in reading this, not something else 22:06:33<@Toprawa> i.e., pass this rule now, and further legitimize it at the Mofference 22:06:40<@Toprawa> I have no qualms about doing such a thing 22:06:46<@Toprawa> As I said, it's not like we haven't passed other rules before 22:06:52<@Toprawa> There does exist a precedent 22:07:06<@Toprawa> You're right, ecks 22:07:08<@Toprawa> Nor is there on the CAN page 22:07:32<@Toprawa> It's something that's determined on a case-by-case basis by the nominator and reviewer(s) 22:07:36<@Toprawa> Nothing really would change 22:08:22<@ecks> I'm not sure that (a) I want to implement this rule and (b) do it without a community discussion 22:08:22<@Toprawa> Anil, Fred, I know you guys expressed support for this 22:08:27<@Ayrehead02> Theoretically is there a limit to this? 22:08:35<@ecks> even if we have de facto authority to do this 22:08:50<@AnilSerifoglu> Indeed we did, Tope 22:08:52<@Ayrehead02> I mean could you technically have an FA length article, but with only one paragraph of body 22:09:01<@Toprawa> We're not talking about FAs 22:09:14<@Toprawa> If you're not going to support it, then I don't want to fucking argue with you 22:09:27<@Ayrehead02> Geez Tope I'm just considering it 22:09:34<@Toprawa>  All I'm getting is static from you guys 22:09:37<@Toprawa> Which is kind of annoying 22:09:41<@MasterFred> I’m confused as to why we don’t have this authority. 22:09:48<@MasterFred> Why can’t we just pass this? 22:09:48<@Ayrehead02> Like Imperators and ecks said it's kind of ambiguous 22:09:49<@Toprawa> The issue of the authority is a side point 22:09:53<@Toprawa> At worst we create it at a Mofference 22:09:56<@Toprawa> I could care less about that 22:09:58<@MasterFred> I support this idea 22:09:58<@Ayrehead02> I don't have an issue with the authority side of things 22:10:03<@Toprawa> Agreeing on the idea is more relevant here 22:10:21<@Toprawa> Let's discuss it, then 22:10:23<@MasterFred> It feel weird to me to have GAs that are all Bts. 22:10:28<@Toprawa> How is it ambiguous? 22:10:35<@Toprawa> The existence or lack of existence of sections is pretty concrete 22:11:00<@ecks> yes, but there's an undefined gray zone inbetween those 22:11:11<@Toprawa> And that's a problem to you? 22:11:13<@MasterFred> Hmm, I’m not seeing that gray zone 22:11:24<@Toprawa> If that's a problem to you, then the whole CAN system must be a problem to you :P 22:11:44<@Toprawa> Do I need to drag up the whole SavageBob CTs about sectioning CAs? 22:11:56<@Toprawa> We basically agreed that articles over 200 words need to consider/attempt to add sections 22:12:03<@ecks> it means a reviewer can, based on their own opinion, reject a nomination 22:12:16<@Imperators> so is there going to be a case where someone writes up a GA-length article and sections it, and then a reviewer says no, there's actually not enough stuff to section it, and therefore it can't be a GA? 22:12:23<@Toprawa>  I think that's a pretty narrow way of looking at it, ecks 22:12:27<@exiledjedi> I personally think having a GA without real sections is pretty stupid. 22:12:34<@Toprawa> No one reviewer ever has authority to kill a nomination 22:12:34<@AnilSerifoglu> ^ 22:12:39<@Toprawa> Ultimately, the vote always comes down to the group's decision 22:12:47<@ecks> I, on the other hand, don't necessarily see the problem with a section-less GA 22:12:47<@Ayrehead02> To be honest I think having CAs with sections is equally weird 22:13:20<@Toprawa> I don't believe an article that is 50% or more BTS should be a GA 22:13:27<@Toprawa>  That's my opinion after looking at these two nominations 22:13:37<@Toprawa> They don't belong, is how I look at them 22:13:47<@Toprawa> They're just glorified CAs 22:13:54<@Ayrehead02> But why is the BTS worth nothing? 22:14:01<@Toprawa> I didn't say it's nothing 22:14:06<@ecks> I think that decision is for the community, not the AC, to make 22:14:10<@Toprawa> oh, for fuck's sake 22:14:14<@Toprawa> Can we get over the authority issue? 22:15:01<@ecks> I think it's clear that we won't reach a consensus here either way, on the authority or the definition points 22:15:10<@Toprawa> I disagree 22:15:11<@exiledjedi> ecks: What decisions would you say fall under AC authority? 22:15:17<@Toprawa> I think I might have a majority consensus to support this 22:15:21<@Toprawa> So you can oppose it if you want 22:15:29<@ecks> the AC enforces existing rules 22:15:57<@ecks> honestly I kind of disagree with our authority to pass new rules in the first place 22:15:55<@Toprawa> Says you 22:16:02<@Toprawa> Precedent leans otherwise 22:16:03<@MasterFred> I’m really sorry. My 11am obligation ran long. I’m headed back to my laptop. 22:16:04<@Toprawa> As noted 22:16:11<@ecks> there's a reason why every single rule change in the past 3 years (probably more) has been passed via CT/Mofference 22:16:25<@ecks> and I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way 22:16:28<@exiledjedi> I don't think that is true though. 22:16:30<@Toprawa> Of course you don't 22:16:34<@Toprawa>  Because you're going to lose this vote 22:17:09<@ecks> that has nothing to do with this 22:17:19<@ecks> I disagree with both our authority and the rule itself 22:17:23<@ecks> they are independent from each other 22:17:24<@Toprawa> And that's your opinion 22:17:30<@Toprawa> Based in nothing else 22:17:32<@Toprawa> No formal precedent or policy 22:17:38<@Toprawa> Whereas we have passed ruled on our own, on both FAN and GAN 22:17:56<@Toprawa> Until that gets legally defined, nothing is formally or legally preventing us from doing this 22:18:08<@ecks> how is 3+ years of passing new rules in the CT/Mofference not precedent? 22:18:05<@Toprawa> If you want to run off to a CT and overturn this in a community vote, you do that 22:18:44<@Toprawa> I will repeat this again, I think for the third time 22:19:01<@Toprawa> The community and the reviewing bodies have historically passed rules independently of each other 22:19:23<@ecks> similarly, they have passed rules through consensus processes 22:19:30<@ecks> multiple examples exist in recent Mofferences 22:19:53<@Toprawa> Your point being that we /have/ to do that every time? 22:20:06<@MasterFred> Honestly, we probably just pass new rules in whatever meeting is next or whatever way is quickest in the moment. I don't think there's a real pattern. 22:20:06<@Toprawa> Until we're legally told we have to do that, that requirement is an opinion 22:20:26<@ecks> yes, I believe the review panels exist and operate within a framework established by the wider community 22:20:32<@MasterFred> But whatever the process, I support the motion. 22:20:35<@Toprawa> Right, ecks 22:20:38<@Toprawa> That's great 22:20:40<@Toprawa> Your opinion is great 22:20:44<@Toprawa> And it's just that. An opinion. 22:20:58<@Toprawa> You have a legal opinion. 22:21:18<@Toprawa> Based in no actual rules, and an ambiguous, contradictory precedent 22:21:26<@ecks> the review panels were all created through community consensus, as well as many of their rules 22:21:36<@ecks> I can't think of any recent examples where we've unilaterally changed existing rules 22:21:40<@ecks> nor added/removed them 22:21:37<@Ayrehead02> Where are the rules for the Review Boards voting on stuff even written? 22:21:58<@ecks> I can, however, think of multiple examples where rule modifications have been voted on in a Mofference 22:21:58<@Toprawa> We just recently passed a rule where articles that exceed 1000 words can no longer be GAs 22:22:00<@Toprawa> We just did that 22:22:04<@ecks> if that's not precedent, I don't know what is 22:22:04<@Toprawa> We created our own rule 22:22:07<@Toprawa> And no one questioned that one 22:22:10<@Imperators> Tope, I think we're burning time here. 22:22:19<@MasterFred> Let's remember that this is a rule that affects maybe .00001% of the wiki's articles. I don't think the community needs to spend time as a whole on this. 22:22:29<@Toprawa> Ecks, I would love to argue this with you in a CT. It would be my pleasure. 22:22:41<@Toprawa> I'm going to put this to a vote. If you want to try and overturn the AC's local decision in a CT, be my guest. 22:23:19<@ecks> I am arguing the AC lacks the authority to do this in a first place 22:23:20<@Ayrehead02> Getting back to the topic itself: I don't see why a long BTS section should be discounted, it's effectively no different in terms of content than an out of universe article, which can be GAs 22:23:25<@ecks> so we're going to need someone to interpret consensus here 22:23:38<@Toprawa> I'm giving you my consensus interpretation 22:23:41<@Toprawa> That's my job as a BC 22:23:49<@Toprawa>  Namely, that there is no consensus 22:23:51<@Toprawa> None exists 22:23:58<@Toprawa> You can't impose anything where nothing exists 22:24:24<@ecks> yes, and I think you should excuse yourself and leave it to your fellow bureaucrats 22:24:48<@MasterFred> Ugh support 22:24:49<@Toprawa> That's your opinion. You're welcome to suggest this in your CT. 22:25:11<@ecks> thank you, I will 22:25:24<@MasterFred> Ayrehead: I think the difference is that most readers are here for the IU information. 22:25:35<@Toprawa> And a preliminary kudos to you for suborning your own AC. 22:26:11<@MasterFred> And no TOC is more of a CA aesthetic. 22:26:36<@ecks> as for the rule content itself, I agree with Ayrehead 22:26:38<@Toprawa> I'm opening this a vote. Please vote on the matter of restricting GANs that do not have enough content to support sectioning, even if they reach or exceed 250 words. 22:26:46<@Toprawa> Please vote Support or Oppose 22:26:51<@ecks> Oppose 22:26:53<@AnilSerifoglu> Support 22:26:53<@exiledjedi> Support 22:26:55<@MasterFred> support 22:26:55<@Ayrehead02> Oppose 22:26:56<@Toprawa> Support 22:27:08<@Imperators> Support 22:27:11<@Toprawa> Tommy has voiced his Support in the absentee notes 22:27:25<@Toprawa> The matter passes 6-2. 22:27:31<@Toprawa> ecks, you may host your meeting 22:27:38<@ecks> thank you 22:27:41<@ecks> alright, moving on to old articles 22:27:48<@ecks> first up 22:27:49<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/First_Battle_of_Ord_Biniir 22:27:54<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279386 22:27:57<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/First_Battle_of_Ord_Biniir 22:28:05<@ecks> no changes 22:28:07<@MasterFred> kill 22:28:07<@Imperators> kill 22:28:07<@exiledjedi> Kill 22:28:08<@AnilSerifoglu> Kill 22:28:08<@Ayrehead02> Kill 22:28:11<@ecks> kill 22:28:33<@ecks> Ord Biniir killed 22:28:35<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Knuckles_of_the_katarn 22:28:39<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279387 22:28:44<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Knuckles_of_the_katarn 22:28:53<@ecks> Anil says he's addressed this 22:28:56<@AnilSerifoglu> Yes 22:29:31<@AnilSerifoglu> I think it's in a good shape 22:29:35<@ecks> Keep 22:29:38<@Ayrehead02> Keep 22:29:38<@AnilSerifoglu> Keep 22:29:39<@Imperators> keep 22:29:45<@MasterFred> keep 22:30:01<@MasterFred> I do wanna see the IRC discussion on removing the shutdown date, though. I'm intrigued. 22:30:01<@exiledjedi> Keep 22:30:07<@ecks> Knuckles kept 22:30:13<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Order_65 22:30:15<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279388 22:30:19<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Order_65 22:30:19<@Imperators> per Fred 22:30:23<@ecks> no changes 22:30:24<@Ayrehead02> Kill 22:30:25<@exiledjedi> Kill 22:30:27<@Toprawa> Kill 22:30:28<@Imperators> kill 22:30:28<@AnilSerifoglu> Kill 22:30:54<@ecks> kill 22:30:51<@MasterFred> kill 22:30:55<@ecks> Execute Order 65 22:30:58<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Kivvaaa 22:31:01<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279389 22:31:05<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Kivvaaa 22:31:06<@ecks> no changes 22:31:07<@Imperators> kill 22:31:10<@Ayrehead02> Kill 22:31:11<@AnilSerifoglu> Kill 22:31:16<@ecks> Kill 22:31:15<@MasterFred> kill 22:31:16<@Toprawa> Kill 22:31:23<@exiledjedi> Kill 22:31:27<@ecks> Kivvaaa killed 22:31:28<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Field_Achievement_Award 22:31:30<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279390 22:31:34<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Field_Achievement_Award 22:31:56<@ecks> Anil has fixed this 22:31:59<@Toprawa> Keep 22:32:04<@Imperators> keep 22:32:06<@AnilSerifoglu> Fred, Imperators: That's something we had discussed with Tope, we saw no reason to include the game's shutdown date, and noone seemed to object 22:32:08<@AnilSerifoglu> Keep 22:32:16<@ecks> Keep 22:32:15<@Toprawa> We can discuss that later 22:32:18<@exiledjedi> Keep 22:32:18<@Ayrehead02> Keep 22:32:21<@MasterFred> keep 22:32:30<@ecks> Field kept 22:32:32<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Ord_Biniir 22:32:35<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279391 22:32:32<@MasterFred> Anil: Yeah, I'm not worried. Just intrigued. 22:32:38<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Second_Battle_of_Ord_Biniir 22:32:44<@ecks> no changes 22:32:44<@Imperators> kill 22:32:46<@AnilSerifoglu> Kill 22:32:48<@Toprawa> Kill 22:32:50<@exiledjedi> Kill 22:32:51<@MasterFred> kill 22:32:54<@Ayrehead02> Kill 22:33:08<@ecks> damn, we killed two battles of Ord Biniir? 22:33:16<@ecks> Ord Biniir 2.0: Ord Biniir reloaded killed 22:33:22<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Strategic_Resources_of_the_Galaxy 22:33:28<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279392 22:33:32<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Strategic_Resources_of_the_Galaxy 22:33:39<@ecks> Anil on it again 22:33:43<@AnilSerifoglu> Wait 22:33:45<@Toprawa> Actually 22:33:49<@AnilSerifoglu> Tope and I have reviewed this 22:33:53<@Toprawa> Yeah, we found another issue in there 22:34:05<@Toprawa> There's a bit of really bad extrapolation 22:34:18<@AnilSerifoglu> Yes 22:34:21<@Toprawa> Those two quotes are the only textual mentions in the book 22:34:25<@Toprawa> That's actually a single quote 22:34:41<@Toprawa> So stuff like this "that dealt with a variety of minerals from across the galaxy." is just extrapolation 22:34:46<@Toprawa> It only mentions one mineral or whatever that is 22:34:52<@Toprawa>  So that stuff needs to be rewritten 22:34:56<@Toprawa> Which we didn't probe for originally 22:34:59<@Toprawa> So I say extend 22:35:00<@Ayrehead02> Extend 22:35:03<@exiledjedi> Extend 22:35:07<@AnilSerifoglu> Extend 22:35:11<@ecks> extend 22:35:10<@Imperators> extend 22:35:10<@MasterFred> Extend 22:35:20<@ecks> Strategic extended 22:35:27<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Order_5 22:35:31<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279393 22:35:36<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Order_5 22:36:16<@ecks> no changes 22:36:17<@ecks> kill 22:36:17<@Imperators> kill 22:36:20<@exiledjedi> Kill 22:36:24<@AnilSerifoglu> Kill 22:36:26<@Ayrehead02> Kill 22:36:31<@MasterFred> kill 22:36:34<@Toprawa> Kill 22:36:39<@ecks> Execute Order 5 22:36:43<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Dornean_Braha%27ket_Fleetworks_Conglomerate/Legends 22:36:48<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279394 22:36:51<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Dornean_Braha%27ket_Fleetworks_Conglomerate/Legends 22:37:16<@ecks> no changes 22:37:16<@ecks> kill 22:37:16<@Imperators> kill 22:37:16<@Ayrehead02> Kill 22:37:17<@AnilSerifoglu> Kill 22:37:19<@Toprawa> Kill 22:37:23<@MasterFred> Kill 22:37:23<@exiledjedi> Kill 22:37:28<@ecks> Dornean killed 22:37:29<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Ingoda 22:37:36<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=8279395 22:37:40<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Ingoda 22:38:01<@ecks> no changes 22:38:01<@ecks> kill 22:37:59<@Ayrehead02> Kill 22:38:06<@Toprawa> Kill 22:38:06<@exiledjedi> Kill 22:38:07<@AnilSerifoglu> Kill 22:38:08<@Imperators> kill 22:38:14<@ecks> Ingoda killed 22:38:12<@MasterFred> kill 22:38:18<@ecks> Moving on to greener pastures 22:38:21<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/XS_stock_light_freighter 22:38:26<@ecks> XS stock light freighter — Underwent a pretty sizable expansion between November 2018 and January 2019 for a new source. Recommended for Redux. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:16, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:38:27<@Imperators> oh god 22:38:48<@Toprawa> Redux 22:38:52<@Ayrehead02> Redux 22:38:55<@ecks> redux 22:38:53<@MasterFred> Redux 22:38:59<@AnilSerifoglu> Redux 22:38:59<@exiledjedi> redux 22:39:03<@ecks> XS reduxed 22:39:04<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Graffiti-bomb 22:39:03<@Imperators> Redux 22:39:10<@ecks>    22 BBY cannot be sourced straight to the HNN articles, which only use GrS dates 22:39:10<@ecks>    Recommend a paragraph break in the History section 22:39:10<@ecks>    Maybe I'm just totally missing it, but I don't see where the HNN article states that it was published on April 11, 2002. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:39:23<@ecks> probe 22:39:24<@MasterFred> probe 22:39:26<@Imperators> probe 22:39:27<@Toprawa> There might be a repository page with those dates? 22:39:27<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:39:30<@Toprawa> idk 22:39:31<@exiledjedi> probe 22:39:32<@Toprawa> Probe 22:39:44<@ecks> Graffiti-bomb probed 22:39:45<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Electro-dart 22:39:49<@ecks>    I think there's way too much extraneous detail in the History section that really has nothing to do with the electro-dart. The surrounding events of the story involving the darts can be told with less fluff. 22:39:49<@ecks>    Can we really not specify a date for the events of the Clone Wars comic? Even a circa date would be nice. The comic article itself states 19 BBY. 22:39:49<@ecks>    Article body certainly looks like it could hold another image 22:39:49<@ecks>    BTS is unsourced and needs to format comic story correctly. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:39:46<@exiledjedi> I think the iu date somehow was related to it. 22:39:57<@MasterFred> Toprawa: Better to just remove it from the GA, just to be safe. ;) 22:40:07<@ecks> probe 22:40:05<@Toprawa> My thoughts exactly :P 22:40:07<@Toprawa>  Probe 22:40:08<@Imperators>  probe 22:40:08<@MasterFred>  probe 22:40:09<@Ayrehead02>  Probe 22:40:11<@exiledjedi>  probe 22:40:14<@AnilSerifoglu>  Probe 22:40:22<@ecks> Electro-dart probed 22:40:24<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Quad_Victor 22:40:27<@ecks>     Infobox image should be digitized 22:40:27<@ecks>     History could use a paragraph break 22:40:27<@ecks>     Presumably another image could be had from the comic for the article body 22:40:27<@ecks>     BTS is unsourced. Also, author and illustrator would be nice. 22:40:33<@AnilSerifoglu>  Probe 22:40:34<@Toprawa>  Probe 22:40:35<@Ayrehead02>  Probe 22:40:37<@exiledjedi>  probe 22:40:40<@MasterFred>  probe 22:40:45<@Imperators>  probe 22:41:04<@ecks> Quad Victor probed 22:41:08<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Plevitz 22:41:14<@ecks>     A bit of underlinking throughout 22:41:14<@ecks>    BTS is unsourced and needs to format comic story correctly 22:41:14<@ecks>    Last sentence of BTS is unnecessary and should just be removed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:41:18<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:41:20<@Imperators> probe 22:41:20<@Toprawa> Probe 22:41:20<@MasterFred> probe 22:41:21<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:41:29<@exiledjedi> probe 22:41:52<@ecks> Plevitz probed 22:41:57<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Pumav 22:42:02<@ecks>    None of the BBY dates can be sourced to the HNN article, which only uses GrS 22:42:02<@ecks>    This article sits at 260 words, by my count, and I see quite a bit of fluff that should probably just be removed, in which case I don't see how this article maintains the 250-world threshold: 22:42:02<@ecks>        "in the Core Worlds region,[2]" is just unnecessary and doesn't add any extra context or substance to the article 22:42:02<@ecks>        "during the waning days of the Galactic Republic." is not supported by the HNN article 22:42:02<@ecks>        "Pumav was capable of racing on either two or four limbs" is repeated between the Bio and P/T. This doesn't need to be mentioned twice. 22:42:02<@ecks>        "only appearance in Star Wars canon" is mostly unnecessary now in light of Legends. Just say he "appeared in" this HNN article. 22:42:02<@ecks>        "released on April 18, 2002" isn't stated anywhere in the HNN article 22:42:02<@ecks>    BTS unsourced. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:42:02<@ecks> Mondo-Mod 22:42:28<@Toprawa> Swift death to Mondo-Mod 22:42:30<@Toprawa> Probe 22:42:32<@ecks> er, ignore the last line 22:42:31<@MasterFred> probe 22:42:32<@exiledjedi> probe 22:42:32<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:42:33<@Imperators> probe 22:42:33<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:42:39<@ecks> we are voting on Pumav, fwiw 22:42:45<@ecks> Probe 22:42:45<@Toprawa> Swift death to Pumav :P 22:42:48<@MasterFred> probe em both anyway 22:43:14<@ecks> OK, I'm going to be just pasting one line of Tope's enormous lists so please everyone open the meeting page for reference 22:43:16<@ecks> Pumav probed 22:43:21<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Mondo-Mod 22:43:30<@ecks> We haven't really tackled this topic in too great of detail at any article-reviewing level, but I feel like this article sort of shines a brighter light on the issue, namely the hermaphroditic status of Hutts. We know they're all hermaphrodites from third-party source material, but I really don't feel like this is strictly necessary to mention in every single Hutt page, as it has more to do with the species than the 22:43:30<@ecks> individual character. Particularly since our infobox field specifies gender rather than sex, just saying that Mondo-Mod, for example, had a masculine personality should suffice. Thus, I feel like everything being sourced to NEGAS regarding hermaphroditic details can be removed from this article. 22:43:51<@ecks> probe Mondo-Mod, this time with feeling 22:43:51<@Imperators> probe 22:43:51<@Toprawa> Probe 22:43:52<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:43:53<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:44:13<@exiledjedi> probe 22:44:20<@ecks> Mondo-Mod probed 22:44:23<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Penetrator 22:44:27<@ecks> Since ERC has an entry for this story, I'd be surprised if it doesn't mention the Star Destroyer, even indirectly. This should be checked. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:44:31<@Toprawa> Probe 22:44:37<@ecks> Probe 22:44:36<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:44:38<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:44:41<@Imperators> probe 22:44:42<@MasterFred> probe 22:44:43<@Toprawa> We need a Hide function for IRC :P 22:44:57<@exiledjedi> probe 22:45:00<@ecks> Penetrator probed ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 22:45:02<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Ychna 22:45:02<@Imperators> and a bot for paperwork 22:45:06<@ecks> BTS is unsourced. The last two sentences can also just be removed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:45:08<@Imperators> probe 22:45:12<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:45:16<@ecks> Probe 22:45:14<@Toprawa> Probe 22:45:15<@MasterFred> probe 22:45:18<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:45:24<@ecks> poor whoever is on paperwork 22:45:27<@ecks> Ychna probed 22:45:28<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Kelbis_Nu 22:45:32<@ecks> BTS is mostly unsourced (it can't all be sourced to that Insider article). Publication dates would also be nice. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:45:39<@Toprawa> Probe 22:45:42<@exiledjedi> probe 22:45:44<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:45:47<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:45:48<@MasterFred> probe 22:45:50<@Toprawa> This the first GA ever passed 22:45:57<@Imperators> probe 22:45:58<@Imperators> wut 22:46:03<@ecks> damnson 22:46:05<@ecks> Probe 22:46:05<@Toprawa> Kelbis Nu was the first GA ever passed :P 22:46:06<@Ayrehead02> Huh maybe we should actually try and save it 22:46:06<@Toprawa>  Pre-AC 22:46:13<@ecks> Kelbis Nu probed 22:46:13<@Imperators> Ayre: no :P 22:46:16<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Tresk_Im%27nel 22:46:25<@ecks> BTS is unsourced. Also, the author of the Wizards article should be mentioned. The last sentence about the NJO appearance can probably just be removed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:40, June 24, 2019 (UTC) 22:46:23<@MasterFred> also redirect in that last article 22:46:31<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:46:32<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:46:33<@Toprawa> Probe 22:46:39<@ecks> Probe 22:46:36<@Imperators> probe 22:46:38<@MasterFred> probe 22:46:50<@ecks> Tresk probed 22:46:54<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/The_Rakata_and_the_Unknown_World 22:47:00<@ecks> The first sentence of "History" is referenced to Jedi vs. Sith, which is incorrect. Imperators II(Talk) 20:37, June 25, 2019 (UTC) 22:47:10<@Imperators> oooh, non-Tope stuff begins 22:47:13<@Imperators> probe 22:47:15<@Toprawa> I'm off the hook :P 22:47:15<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:47:19<@ecks> whee do you guys find this shit 22:47:18<@MasterFred> probe 22:47:19<@Toprawa> Probe 22:47:21<@ecks> probe 22:47:26<@exiledjedi> probe 22:47:32<@ecks> The Rakata probed 22:47:30<@Toprawa> I just started going through the GAN history page starting from 2005 :P 22:47:31<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:47:38<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Imperial_Support_Vessel 22:47:38<@Toprawa> The older stuff are ripe pickins 22:47:43<@ecks> Imperial Support Vessel — I have updated the article per Age of Rebellion - Luke Skywalker 1. Recommended for Redux. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:31, June 25, 2019 (UTC) 22:47:41<@MasterFred> I found the one I added by misspelling a search item XD 22:47:44<@Imperators>  Redux 22:47:48<@AnilSerifoglu> Redux 22:47:50<@Toprawa> Redux 22:47:51<@Ayrehead02> Redux 22:47:54<@ecks> Redux 22:47:53<@MasterFred> Redux 22:48:01<@exiledjedi> redux 22:48:05<@ecks> ISV reduxed 22:48:08<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Gira 22:48:13<@ecks> 19 BBY cannot be sourced to ROTS. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 04:41, June 27, 2019 (UTC) 22:48:15<@Imperators> probe 22:48:16<@Toprawa> Probe 22:48:19<@exiledjedi> probe 22:48:20<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:48:20<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:48:32<@MasterFred> probe 22:48:39<@ecks> Gira probed 22:48:41<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Set 22:48:45<@ecks> BTS needs to be reworded concerning the establishment of the Legends continuity. Imperators II(Talk) 07:41, June 27, 2019 (UTC) 22:48:46<@Toprawa> Probe 22:48:47<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:48:50<@MasterFred> probe 22:48:50<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:48:50<@Imperators> probe 22:48:55<@ecks> ready, set, go 22:48:55<@exiledjedi> probe 22:48:59<@ecks> Set probed 22:49:02<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Xexto 22:49:07<@ecks> Missing permanent archival links. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:22, June 28, 2019 (UTC) 22:49:07<@Imperators> probe 22:49:08<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:49:09<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:49:09<@exiledjedi> probe 22:49:10<@Toprawa> Probe 22:49:22<@MasterFred> probe 22:49:24<@ecks> probe 22:49:23<@MasterFred> wait 22:49:24<@Imperators> your signatures are so funny here, guys 22:49:26<@MasterFred> guys 22:49:39<@MasterFred> There was a lot more to Gira than one item. :P 22:49:41<@Toprawa> *Rocking a non-custom sig since 2007* 22:49:52<@ecks> yes, like I said I'm only pasting the last lines 22:49:54<@MasterFred> oh 22:49:56<@MasterFred>  Missed that. 22:49:59<@ecks> open the meeting page for reference 22:50:01<@Toprawa> cmon frd 22:50:03<@Toprawa> drp 22:50:03<@Ayrehead02> Custom sigs are for posers ;) 22:50:09<@ecks> ^ 22:50:15<@ecks> Xexto probed 22:50:15<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Larrim 22:50:20<@ecks> Attire should be described in an Equipment section. Imperators II(Talk) 10:12, June 28, 2019 (UTC) 22:50:19<@AnilSerifoglu>  Maybe I am fan of Tan Divo :P 22:50:26<@AnilSerifoglu>  Probe 22:50:26<@Toprawa>  prb 22:50:29<@exiledjedi>  probe 22:50:30<@MasterFred>  probe 22:50:31<@Imperators>  probe 22:50:32<@Ayrehead02>  probe 22:50:44<@ecks> probe 22:50:44<@ecks> Larrim probed 22:50:53<@ecks> from the maintenance bin: 22:50:57<@ecks> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/3B3-1204?t=20190609111443 22:50:59<@ecks> Update tag 22:50:58<@Imperators>  oh god 22:51:06<@ecks> (cur | prev) 12:42, June 9, 2019‎ Ayrehead02 (Talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (6,278 bytes) (+103)‎ . . (Needs to make mention of the fact that the droid has an alternate designation on it's backpack clearly visible in the film) (undo | AJAX Undo) 22:51:10<@Toprawa> BTS unsourced 22:51:11<@Ayrehead02> Oh yeah I forgot about this 22:51:29<@MasterFred> Is the source a month old? :P 22:51:33<@ecks> the referencing is shite 22:51:32<@Toprawa> BBY date in the infobox is not reffed corrctly 22:51:40<@ecks> I see consecutive [2] references 22:51:42<@AnilSerifoglu> Probe 22:51:42<@Ayrehead02> I meant to add it to the list but the meeting page hadn't been made 22:51:48<@Imperators> probe 22:51:52<@Ayrehead02> Probe 22:52:01<@ecks> probe 22:52:00<@Toprawa> We stoppe ddoing "Features and functions" like 12 years ago 22:52:06<@Toprawa> prb 22:52:10<@exiledjedi> probe 22:52:17<@ecks> 3B3-1204 probed 22:52:16<@MasterFred> probe 22:52:22<@ecks> any other articles we want to discuss? 22:52:20<@MasterFred> this thing is hot garbage 22:52:29<@Imperators> pls no 22:52:34<@ecks> no takers? 22:52:35<@ecks> sad 22:52:35<@Toprawa> Fred's paperwork mountain is hot garbage :P 22:52:39<@ecks> any discussion items? 22:52:39<@Toprawa> sry frd 22:52:45<@Imperators> Tope no spoilers 22:52:47<@ecks> no takers? 22:52:49<@ecks> even more sad 22:52:50<@Toprawa> sry :P 22:52:53<@ecks> Meeting duties 22:52:57<@ecks> Paperwork: 22:53:04<@ecks> MASTER FREDCERIQUE 22:53:05<@Toprawa> It's only because we love you, frd 22:53:09<@ecks> boo-yah 22:53:11<@Toprawa> that we make you do this :P 22:53:17<@ecks> Meeting 118 will be scheduled by: 22:53:15<@MasterFred> uh huh 22:53:19<@ecks> IMPERATORS II 22:53:17<@Imperators> bye frd :D 22:53:18<@MasterFred> I'm honored 22:53:24<@Imperators> oh an Imp-moot 22:53:28<@ecks> And we are done here. 22:53:28<@Ayrehead02> For reference on the droid numbering you can see my masterpiece on Twitter for reference :P 22:53:28<@Ayrehead02> https://twitter.com/JamesAyre1/status/1137477982753366018 22:53:31<@ecks> Meeting adjourned 22:53:37<@ecks> Thanks for hosting the beginning, Tope 22:53:45<@ecks> Thanks for coming, everyone 22:53:49<@Toprawa> No problem. Thanks for hosting the latter and shooting through it within the hour :P 22:53:52<@ecks> Tommy will be reprimanded for his failure