Wookieepedia:Inq/Meeting Seventeen

Wookieepedia &gt; Inquisitorius &gt; 

"Politicians have no voice in Jedi matters."

- Mace Windu

It's that time of the month, people. It's important that we keep these shindigs on a monthly basis for the continuing health of the Inquisitorius. There was a six-week lapse between Meeting 15 and 16, with March going entirely meeting-less. No more of that.

That being said, we regretfully extend a heartfelt farewell to Greyman and wish him all the best. Hopefully, he'll reconsider and rejoin our ranks. We're light enough as it is. Considering that, I highly recommend that all Inqs make every effort to attend meetings. We can at least pretend these things are compulsory. Real life responsibilities and laziness are all well and good, but we all have a duty here.

So, Meeting Seventeen will take place at 0:00 UTC on Sunday, May 18th, which is 8:00pm Eastern Time on Saturday, May 17th for North America. Punch and pie will be served.

Articles to be reviewed

 * Padmé Amidala - placed on probation last meeting. Vote to strip FA status, or keep
 * Imperial I-class Star Destroyer - placed on probation last meeting. Vote to strip FA status, or keep
 * Kreia - placed on probation last meeting. Vote so trip FA status, or keep
 * Mount Sorrow - briefly discussed last meeting. Article is not 1,000 words.
 * Grievous - some users in IRC, Yrf chief among them, have recently expressed their concern that the article is lacking detailed information, subject matter is too quickly glossed over in a sentence or two, specifically Obsession
 * Malcor Brashin - article should be sourced considering two sources are listed. Should be an easy enough fix for someone knowledgeable
 * Pre-Republic era - article has a few tense and sourcing issues, including succession box. I think Hydro was discussing that the article could be expanded a little bit as well. For anyone ambitious enough, maybe we could even put together an era infobox.
 * Jedi Civil War - requested by Goodwood that we go through to make sure it's still up to snuff

Agenda items

 * Nominator-objector relations Recently, the FAN page has seen a spike in negativity between nominators and objectors, which has spilled over into IRC. It's painfully clear that the lines of battle seem to have been drawn: people think users are making ridiculous objections just for the sake of making objections out of personal grudges, and nominators are doing everything they can to resist having to make changes to their work. I recognize my own fault in this and accept responsibility for the things I've said and done, and I apologize. I hope that the others involved can man up, and we can try and bury the hatchet and move on from all of this. As ugly as it may seem, we are all on the same team here, and we need to work together for the sake of the Wook.


 * Inq inactivity This issue isn't going away, people. It seems like since the last meeting that we're doing a little better with our reviewing rate, but there's always room for improvement. With Greyman resigning, that just means we need to step it up that much more. We're losing a consistent and quality reviewer, so let's all do what we can to pick up the resulting slack.


 * Quality reviewing With the previous agenda item in mind, I feel it's important to reiterate what we should all know by now. Reviewing = reading through an article. No one is being called out here individually, but I want to call attention to the fact that while working with Greyman to maintain the status of Mandalore the Ultimate not long ago, I came upon a P&T rife with glaring instances of present tense and far-fetched speculative prose that got the ax, and this was after seven people had already voted for the article. This is a matter of concern for me, and it tells me people are either a) not reading through an article, or b) not doing a good enough job Inqing, or maybe both. Inqing something doesn't mean slapping down a vote and being done with it.


 * Inq consensus to strike an objection Recently, there was a five-Inq consensus vote to strike an outstanding objection on the FAN page. I'm not sure everything was done that could have been done to get in contact with the objector in question to warn him that his time was running out to either handle the issue or strike, and I feel it was handled rashly and with prejudice. I want to discuss exactly what should be done to try and get in contact with an absentee objector in these instances.


 * Keeping the presentation clean Finally, a matter of actual article content. The Inq has enacted measures to outlaw any more than 3 red links in an article, with no red links within the introduction for the sake of clean presentation. I would like to propose a small addition to this red link policy that would extend the practice to infoboxes and templates, such as our battle succession templates. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This might be more of a site-wide relevant discussion. Thefourdotelipsis 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Won't be lazy

 * 1) Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)