Steele Secret Order
The Inquisitors induct a new member.
Inquisitiorius Meeting Times
UTC−12 12:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−11 13:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−10 (Hawaii) 14:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−9 (AKST) 15:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−8 (PST) 16:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−7 (MST) 17:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−6 (CST) 18:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−5 (EST) 19:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−4 (AST) 20:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−3 21:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC−2 22:00 Saturday, November 26
Europe and Africa
UTC−1 23:00 Saturday, November 26
UTC/GMT 00:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+1 (CET) 01:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+2 (EET) 02:00 Sunday, November 27
Asia and Oceania
UTC+3 03:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+4 04:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+5 05:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+6 06:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+7 07:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+8 (AWST) 08:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+9 (KST) 09:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+10 (AEST) 10:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+11 (AEDT) 11:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+12 12:00 Sunday, November 27
UTC+13 (NZDT) 13:00 Sunday, November 27
"Thus is the fate of enemies of the Inquisitorius."
―An Inquisitor on the downfall of another FA[src]

Those of you who don't feel like you get enough meetings at work will be delighted to hear that Inqmoot 46 is scheduled for midnight UTC on 27 November. Time zones have returned to normal after the usual summer wackiness so hopefully the times will be right for a change. Those FAs aren't going to probe themselves so do come or leave notes.


Old stuffEdit

Older stuffEdit

New stuffEdit

Expand as needed.

  • Oss Wilum - see outstanding objections from failed RFAN. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:10, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sate Pestage—underlinking, examples of "unknown" OOU perspectives, succession box lacks before-years and after-years, {{Fact}} tag in the article, and {{Cite web}} needs to be used for non-templated citations. Requires more context in numerous places, particularly the beginning of the Bio—too much is left unexplained to the casual, perhaps less knowledgeable reader. Also, a better job needs to be done with handling the conflict of his death; the in-universe part of the article presents speculation on whether he actually died a second time, which is still unwarranted in the Bio in spite of the complexity of the conflict. CC7567 (talk) 07:17, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the fact some quality articles link to articles in the intro, and then don't link to them in the body at all (I would guess the only ones that apply would all be ones that were made good or featured before 2008, when standards were made greater and self-voting was not allowed) is just plain terrible. I have recalled manually fixing a few FA's with those problems. Hanzo Hasashi 18:59, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • Military Creation Act—from just having to add two Fact Files to the Sources list, it doesn't look like that Sources list is complete. The Fact Files need to be consulted in some way. CC7567 (talk) 09:02, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
    • I took the liberty of adding the Fact Files listed in the index, but that probably isn't all of them, and all of the ones I just added need to be checked for new info, since apparently that hasn't happened yet. CC7567 (talk) 09:12, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Rango Tel-a lot of conjecture, such as "but it is not known if he took any steps to protect her, or even if he cared for her. It is known that he left her alone, undefended in the relatively hostile Tatooine while he hunted for Nale, although this may again have been a product of his naiveté." I do not know whether that is a violation of MOS, or if it is actually mentioned like that in-universe. If it is indeed not mentioned in-universe, it has to go. Hanzo Hasashi 02:34, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • Boil, Battle of Kiros, Zygerrian—All require an update, and with the latter two I'll have to wrap my head around regarding the integration of the new information with the old stuff. Lucky me. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:47, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
    • Lately we've been trying to avoid probing stuff for new material that's been out less than a month, so you should be safe. We can probe it at the next meeting if necessary. CC7567 (talk) 18:26, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion stuffEdit

Expand as needed.

  • Davin Felth - I've already messaged Toprawa about how his behind the scenes info should be updated. Hanzo Hasashi 18:18, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • Plagueis is a former FA, but his talk page doesn't reflect it at the moment. JangFett (Talk) 18:41, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Good catch; it appears some of the other procedure had been forgotten as well. It's been fixed now. Cheers, 1358 (Talk) 19:48, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks like all of the other articles that lost their status last meeting are in the same boat. I'd take care of this myself, but I don't have the time right now. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:34, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks like the review pages of articles that retained their status after last meeting also need to be updated to reflect being kept. If this stuff still isn't fixed, I'll get to it when I have time. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:38, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
        • Why fix it yourself? Culator was on paperwork duty for last meeting. Make him do it. :P Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 22:07 UTC
          • Because of the quote on my user page. I probably won't have time for at least a couple more days, but I'll do what I can as soon as I can. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:40, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
  1. Reduxing
    • I apologize that I won't be at the meeting to discuss this further, but I'd like to present some food for thought regarding the redux page. When it was created, I was under the impression that it was for articles that had undergone significant changes throughout the majority of their text --- not for articles that had recently been updated based on info from a new source/appearance. I've seen a few articles sent to redux because they've recently been updated, and, to be completely honest, I'm not a fan of this.

      There are plenty of Featured Articles that receive significant updates every few months based on new appearances in Fate of the Jedi, The Clone Wars, etc. They're punctually updated, and as such, they're never brought to our attention at a meeting. There have been some that were not-so-punctually updated, and because they were brought to our attention prior to being updated, they were sent to the redux page. How quickly an article is updated is not a good criterion for whether or not it should be sent to redux. 10,000 kb of new info was added to CT-27-5555, but because it wasn't added quickly enough, the article was sent to redux. Drikl Lecersen, for example, has doubled in size (with more than 25, 000 kb added) since it became an FA, but the new info is always added punctually, and as such, it's never been brought to our attention.

      Traditionally, there's always been a trust between the Inquisitors and those who bring articles to Featured Status --- a trust that the latter will update the article whenever it requires updating. I'd like to see us bring that trust back into play. Sending articles to redux seems to be becoming the rule rather than the exception, but I'm of the opinion that redux should be reserved for articles that undergo significant copy-edits, cleanup, and changes throughout large portions of their text. I don't think that redux should be the default option when an FA has been updated for a new source/appearance. The redux page sits ignored by us every month, and we should try to avoid sending pages there rather than defaulting them to it. If new information is added to a Featured Article, but the old information remains the same, then I don't think we should redux it.

      Anyway, that's just my two cents. I'm not bitter or anything, nor am I reacting to any incident; this is just something I wanted to share. Sorry again that I can't discuss it further at the meeting. Let me know what you all think. Menkooroo 10:13, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Galaxies



Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:06, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
No guarantees until we're closer to the date, but I'll do my best. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:10, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
  1. Likely. 1358 (Talk) 17:37, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Depends if I'm going to the football game that day. We'll see. CC7567 (talk) 20:24, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Should be able to be there. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 21:00, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Looks good. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 16:08, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:47, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Beep beepEdit

  1. It's a really long vacation. Menkooroo 11:58, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Will be on a small vacation at the time. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 10:01, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Looks like I'll be traveling. I'll leave notes. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:59, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Sorry, gotta go out. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:26, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Got kind of a post-Thanksgiving thing going on, so this will be the first time for a long while that I have to miss a meeting. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:10, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Notes from the beep beepersEdit

  1. Menkooroo (I'll slowly complete this over the next week)
    • Canderous: Keep. It's been fully updated for the Revan excerpt that was published in Insider a while ago. It hasn't been updated for the actual novel yet, but the novel was only released a week ago. It's always been our policy not to probe something until the new material has been out for a month, so we have no grounds to extend this probe until the Revan novel has been out for a month.
    • Baron Fel: Extend. Jinzler did a fantastic job updating it, but the Galaxies info should be worked into the bio somehow.
    • Ludo: Keep; Floyd took care of it.
    • Kaiburr crystal: Keep; it's been updated. It was a very small update.
    • ARC-77: Keep; it's been updated. Don't redux per my arguments above. The copy-edit given was good, but the changes aren't significant enough to warrant reduxing (also, the trust thing).
    • Everything else: Kill if it hasn't been fixed.
    • New stuff: Probe Oss Wilum, Sate Pestage, Military Creation Act, and Rango Tel. I'll be happy to fix up Rango Tel as part of the barn-burner. :) Menkooroo 15:16, November 22, 2011 (UTC)


  • Keep: ARC-77, though I wouldn't be against a redux (IIRC, if an article is reduxed solely for new sections, then those specific sections are the only parts that are supposed to be under review); Kaiburr crystal; Canderous Ordo; Ludo Kressh
  • Kill: CC-1119 (tentatively—inuse tag is there, but it's been there for a while and nothing at all has been done regarding the requested equipment section); CC-1138; Battle of Grassy Plains; Canderous Ordo; Gilad Pellaeon
  • Extend: Soontir Fel (sounds like there's still a bit missing, but Jinzler's been working on this)
  • Probe: Oss Wilum; Sate Pestage; Military Creation Act; Rango Tel
  • Discussion: As for the redux, IIRC we specifically said that articles could be sent to redux for any significant update; also, let's make sure we complete the paperwork from last meeting (as stated above, I can do it myself when I get the chance, but it may be a while)
  • My apologies for not being around at all recently; RL has kept me very busy over the last couple weeks. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:40, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry if this is wiki-lawyering, but why kill Canderous? Revan has only been out for a week. The article's been updated for the old Insider excerpt; the update tag just hasn't been removed. I'll remove it now.
      • No worries, I'm a fan of constructive discussions—it's better than letting mistakes go uncorrected. :) I forgot to check what you had said in your notes, so when I saw the tag still in place, I assumed that it had not yet been updated. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up; I've changed my vote to keep.
    • I also completely agree that in the case of a redux for new material, only the new stuff should be reviewed. I was confused when I was reprimanded for not reviewing the entire article of CT-27-5555 after it was reduxed because of new additions. Menkooroo 11:20, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, gotcha. I think that in the case of Fives, a fresh thorough review on top of checking the new section was in order, but since there was no mention of that on the redux page there was no reason for you to go through the rest of the article. To me, this means that we need to be more careful about what we say needs to be done for articles that are put on redux—we need to make sure we specify everything in the article that should be reviewed. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:59, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Green TentacleEdit




Old articlesEdit

Probed articles that maintained their FA status

Probed articles that lost their FA status

Articles that had their probation extended until next meeting

Probed articles sent to Redux (still on probation)

New articlesEdit



Other stuffEdit

  • Clarification that Redux is for reviewing new additions to articles, though members of the Inquisitorius are not specifically prohibited from reviewing other parts of probed articles
  • Clause added to Redux page for clarification about requirements for an article to be Reduxed: "Commonly, articles are chosen to be reduxed if they receive additions nearing or exceeding 5,000 bytes in size."
  • Minutes done. Paperwork coming. CC7567 (talk) 04:35, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • CC7567 is on paperwork. Eyrezer will schedule the next meeting. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:03, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+