[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 {{Sofixit}} 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.
Advertisement
190,480
pages
Advertisement