More of the same, ladies and gentlemen. Review the articles, and smoke them out. If you don't have an IRC client go get one. Post haste.
At least 7 Inquisitors to attend if this is to be effective. We only need 7 votes to go through, so if you are the only one being difficult, bad luck. You need two people to be difficult to save an article. These meetings go for about an hour, so save or make time. Please.
Please skim these articles, so you actually have a little bit of a handle on the situation.
BE AWARE OF DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME, for everyone out there. I'm too lazy to fix it
Articles up for re-assessmentEdit
- Tenel Ka Chume Ta' Djo beware of Legacy spoilers —Removed
- Adalric Cessius Brandl—Kept
- Battle of Nar Shaddaa—Kept
- Second Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars)—Removed
- Han Solo beware of Legacy spoilers —Removed
- Jedi apparel—Removed
- Battle of Borleias (Yuuzhan Vong War; Second)—Removed
- The Force—Removed
- I think Eyrezer wanted to discuss the leading quote requirement for FAs last time. If it comes to a vote, I vote to keep the requirement. Atarumaster88 (Audience Chamber) 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I propose we reduce the number of former FAs we review starting at Meeting 6. Say, one month at a time? We could also reduce the frequency of our meetings to say, bi-monthly or even monthly at this rate. If it comes to a vote, I vote for reducing the number of old FAs to one month at a time and having bi-monthly (every other week, whatever) meetings.
- Also, we (by that, I mean "all of you") need to vote on keeping articles from meeting 3, vote on any FA noms that need more Inq votes, and vote for any noms to remove that are just atrocious. MY VOTES ON EVERYTHING ARE LISTED BELOW, except for the ones listed above. Atarumaster88 (Audience Chamber) 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sikon and Solus have both asked about the ambiguity of KotOR storylines. How do "we" want to treat the articles and their storylines with respect to sidequests and such that we simply won't know if Revan/Exile did until Dan makes an Essential Guide to Revan and the Exile. I'm pretty clueless on this one, so I defer to Imperialles and his vote will count twice on this issue. Atarumaster88 (Audience Chamber) 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- This user supports attendance. .... 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lord Hydronium 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Deepest Regrets, and insult these people as much as possible in the meetingEdit
Just as a friendly reminder. (NOT adjusted for DST)
- Eyrezer=11pm Sunday
- If you can't make it, make a section below and list your proxy votes. Note the above FAs will be voted on.
From the desk of AtaruEdit
- Thrawn: Remove. Detail (Rule 9), Referencing (Rule 11), Sectioning would be needed if the article was actually long enough. There could be much more written here.
- Kreia: Remove. Intro has some POV in it "master schemer" (Rule 2), Present tense in early life para and 1st bio para (Rule 4), POV in fall to dark side para "dark yet noble" (Rule 2), Referencing (Rule 11), Sectioning (Rule 4), POV in P&T (Rule 2)- i.e. "witch".
- Tenel Ka: Remove. Not really an objection persay, but intro needs not be so 2CI heavy, not to mention that it's kind of misleading if you've actually read Exile. Sectioning (Rule 4), Referencing (Rule 11).
- Brandl: Keep- despite POV in "infinitely poor at the exercise"- if canon needs to be quoted. (Rule 2)
- Daala: Keep- Sourcing. (Rule 11) I also think we could come up with a better lead quote, but that's not an objection either persay.
- Battle of Nar Shaddaa: Keep. A little overdone on detail, and needs more quotes and sourced though. It survives by my vote, barely.
- Second Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars): Remove Intro needs rewritten (Rule 7); sectioning (Rule 4); This crosses the line on play-by-play (Rule 1); Referencing (Rule 11).
- Han Solo: REMOVE NOW!; Referencing (Rule 11); LOTS of Sectioning (Rule 4); Over-long Dark Nest section (Rule 1); Planet of Twilight Section is terribly lacking (Rule 9); ditto on Darksaber section (Present tense! gasp!); Children of Jedi section is terribly lacking (Rule 9); Crystal Star section is terribly lacking (Rule 9); There's NOTHING at all on New Rebellion (Rule 9); Yuuzhan Vong War section needs to be at least twice as long (Rule 9);
- Jensaarai: Remove POV (Rule 2); Referencing (Rule 11); Sectioning in philosophy section (Rule 4);
- Gamorrean: Remove Present tense (Rule 4) "has" and "is", Referencing (Rule 11);
- Jedi apparel: Remove Intro (Rule 7); This particular gallery shows nothing of particular canonical significance and should be removed, imo. Needs sourcing to remove possible speculation (Rule 11); I feel that the Jedi armor section is lacking info on the Zeison Sha and comparable armors from KotOR II that didn't restrict Force use (Rule 9); too-image heavy (Rule 15);
- Second Battle of Borleias (Yuuzhan Vong War): Keep Might could use a little more detail on Tam Elgrin's role, but he wasn't that significant imo. Maybe a hair of POV.
- The Force: Remove- Needs sourcing badly to remove possible speculation (Rule 11); 2 redlinks in sources section? Get rid of note in appearances section- fan arguments are irrelevant, more detail on the voxyn would be nice (Rule 9); Present tense "can" (Rule 4);
FAs under review from Meeting 3Edit
- Unless specified, I vote to remove them.
- Keep Naga Sadow
- Keep Vuffi Raa- under the disclaimer that it's not done yet.
- Keep Padme Amidala- Solus did a heck of a job sourcing that one and basically doing everything we said needed to be done.
FA noms to removeEdit
- None of them are particularly atrocious (Anakin Skywalker, ahem), so I vote to keep all of them.
FA noms I vote for if we do thatEdit
- Anything that I've voted for on the FA nom page, I vote to approve by Inq if I haven't done so already. If haven't voted for it on the FA page, I don't currently support it. I strongly encourage everyone to look at the Form V article. Atarumaster88 (Audience Chamber) 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
From the cockpit of Xwing328Edit
- Heh - turns out I'm at the meeting, so some of my votes have changed. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thrawn: Remove Detail (Rule 9), Referencing (Rule 11), 1 redlink in ambig. canon section
- Kreia: Remove POV (Rule 2), Referencing (Rule 11)
- Tenel Ka: Remove Referencing (Rule 11), Quotes are not sourced (Rule 12), years in sectioning need to be worked out correctly, has citation tag (Rule 6)
- Brandl: Keep I like.
- Daala: Keep Referencing (Rule 11). No other major complaints.
- Battle of Nar Shaddaa: Keep Referencing (Rule 11). Could use some more quotes.
- Second Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars): Keep Referencing (Rule 11), one redlink, added some sectioning if it helps, and sourced all images today (Rule 12)
- Han Solo: Remove Referencing (Rule 11), over-long Dark Nest section (Rule 1), improper formatting (Rule 4), lacking much information (Rule 9), not all quotes sourced (Rule 12), 3 redlinks (pushing Rule 8 to the limit)
- Didn't get to the following:
- Jedi apparel:
- Second Battle of Borleias (Yuuzhan Vong War):
- The Force:
- FAs under review from Meeting 3
- FA noms to remove
- FA noms I vote for if we do that
All but Brandl, Daala, and the Battle of Nar Shaddaa were removed. See the log for more specifics.
From the third meeting, we kept Naga Sadow, Jedi Civil War, Vuffi Raa, and Padme Amidala. The rest are due to get the broken star.
As for additional agenda, we decided that the leader quote is no longer necessary. It's just a fun thing that should be added, but not a requirement.
We will be having one more meeting to review 12 FAs. After that, we'll need to change it up to either having fewer meetings or reviewing far fewer FAs, since we'll be up to the current FAs being presented on the front page at that point. We've agreed that it will all be discussed at the next meeting.
As for the "canon" storyline for the KOTOR games, the consensus seems to be that you can mention sidequests, but try to be as ambiguous as possible, ie try not to mention a conclusive ending to the side quests.
We also went over the FA noms and are now conflicting over whether Jaymach's objection on Burl Ives is valid or not. We weren't able to come up with the policy that Ives apparently breaks.