Kenny Paploo
The Inq made me do it!
Inquisition Meeting Times

Saturday 12th 12:00


Saturday 12th 13:00

UTC-10 (HST)

Saturday 12th 14:00


Saturday 12th 15:00


Saturday 12th 16:00


Saturday 12th 17:00


Saturday 12th 18:00


Saturday 12th 19:00


Saturday 12th 20:00


Saturday 12th 21:00


Saturday 12th 22:00

Europe and Africa

Saturday 12th 23:00


Sunday 13th 0:00


Sunday 13th 1:00


Sunday 13th 2:00

Asia and Australasia

Sunday 13th 3:00


Sunday 13th 4:00


Sunday 13th 5:00


Sunday 13th 6:00


Sunday 13th 7:00


Sunday 13th 8:00


Sunday 13th 9:00


Sunday 13th 10:00


Sunday 13th 11:00


Sunday 13th 12:00

AdmirableAckbar: "any inqs looking for work?"
―The Inq's SOPs[src]

Meeting Sixteen will take place at 0:00 UTC on Sunday, April 13th, which is 8:00pm Eastern Time on Saturday, April 12th for North America.


Articles to be reviewed (Add to as needed)Edit

  • Beilert Valance – placed on probation during the last meeting. Vote to strip FA status, or keep.
  • Mandalore the Ultimate – placed on probation during the last meeting. Vote to strip FA status, or keep.
  • CC-1138 – I (Greyman) haven't had time to update it with True Colors info yet, but I should be able to find time before the meeting. If not, we shall vote to put it on probation or not.
    • True Colors info has now been added. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Tavion Axmis – not enough for probation, in my opinion, so I really just mention it here in the hopes that another Inq has more knowledge of the subject: Is anyone able to source the infobox, as well as the third paragraph in the "Desann's apprentice" section? If you are familiar, the sourcing would be appreciated.
  • The Keeper – contained erroneous information relationing to its connection to Akurians. I've cut some of this out, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Unsigned comment by Eyrezer (talk • contribs).
    • Already taken care of by 4Dot. --Eyrezer 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Padmé Amidala – Insufficient sourcing, quotes in prose, fact tags.
  • Imperial I-class Star Destroyer – A rough read in the intro and history section, insufficient sourcing, references aren't linked.
  • Kreia – infobox is not sourced, succession box is not sourced, throughout the article there are unsourced statements at the end of some paragraphs, entire paragraphs and sections are not sourced, BtS needs dire attention and a good rewrite, large parts of the article (likewise) need to be rewritten. In short, it's my opinion that Kreia is no longer FA-worthy. The sourcing should be easy enough to fix, but the article really needs a good writer/editor to dedicate some of their time to it, to rewrite large parts of the article—if not the entire thing. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rune Haako – It is requested by myself that the Inq look over Rune Haako. The article's not in too bad a shape, but is lacking info from Shadow Hunter, Cloak of Deception (IIRC, Haako voices his doubts about the Sith with Gunray and other stuff about Sidious's approaching the Neimoidians is in the novel, though I may be wrong), and, I suspect, Episode I adventures. More detail from Labyrinth of Evil is needed, too. Thanks, -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (Cleared up by 4dot, as seen below) Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done some cleaning and expanding. In the case of Labyrinth of Evil, it wasn't a case of more detail, just correct info. ;) I don't know who added that bit that was there, but it's been altered now. The Cloak of Deception and Shadow Hunter stuff has been slightly expanded...I say slightly, because Haako is essentially a cameo-whore. I'm going to make a few inquiries about the Episode I Adventures, and hopefully that can be added before the meeting. Thefourdotelipsis 04:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Inquiries have shown that Haako doesn't appear in the original Episode I Adventures, just the TPM adaptation, eliminating that particular problem. Thefourdotelipsis 11:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay. The article looks much better now, so feel free to strike it or whatever. :-) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Other agenda items (Add to as needed)Edit

  • Discuss the possibility of swelling our ranks. Enough with how User A feels about User B, the Inq is about reviewing featured article nominations, and if someone's doing it, and doing it well, those who dislike him or her should suck it up and entertain the notion that the Inq could stand to gain something in his or her appointment.
  • Inq inactivity – Something needs to finally be done. Certain Inqs feel like they have an obligation to hold up more than their end of the bargain, and it's about time the rest of the Inqs step in and do the job or admit that perhaps this isn't for them. We've beaten this issue to death over and over, and listened to the pleas of those who don't care enough to give even thirty minutes every couple of weeks to look at a nomination, but as things certainly haven't changed since then, they're going to have to in the very near future. The Culator quote heading this meeting's page might be funny to everyone, but for some, it's also a slap in the face.
    • If we happen to recruit a couple new members, this wouldn't be so much of an issue at all for me. The real issue is that there are people out there who actually read, review, and then vote on the articles much more than most of us do, and they really deserve this more than a few of us. Why not let them in? Graestan(Talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Finding some type of middle ground with regards to the Face vs. Helmet debate. As seen on Jodo Kast's FAN, there is a bit of discussion surrounding whether we should use unmasked images for normally masked characters in the infobox, even if those unmasked images are not the best that LFL has licensed, or that is available. Currently, we have several current FA's such as Durge, Grievous, and Carnor Jax where the Inq have approved articles with masked infobox pictures, even though unmasked pictures are available. Now, granted, I'm sure everyone could come up with arguments for either side of the debate. I've always approached this type of thing on a "case-by-case" approach, for obvious reasons—Grievous is a good example of this, considering that his unmasked face is not the latest image we have available for him; or, Boba Fett, where the only unmasked images we have are of him as a small child, or ambiguous images. What I recommend is simply finding that middle ground, and looking at it from a case-by-case approach. If not, then an argument could be made for Jax's article, which we do have a nice unmasked image of him for (along the same lines as Jodo Kast's unmasked image), and it would be need to changed. If we can get the Inq to agree on a nice, neutral, middle-ground which treats all articles equally (regardless of topic, or author) then I think we can avoid future conflicts, as is currently seen on the FAN page. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Toprawa and I have each relented on this issue in Kast's instance—at least I believe Tope has, as he voted for the article without striking the objection. From me, it was a measure of good faith, as I've found that I obviously cannot show my face in IRC without having my reasoning questioned concerning this. But LtNOWIS pointed out that it is more an issue of what we choose to do as Wookieepedians, and that perhaps a full-community discussion or CT would be the appropriate venue. I agree. I was wondering if this could be left off the agenda, as we have considerably bigger fish to fry. Graestan(Talk) 04:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Non-Inq votes on FAs - I know this has been discussed to some extent, but nothing has ever come of it. I feel like we need to give up some of our monopoly on FA approval. Anyone can object to an FA, but it can only pass when 5 Inqs vote for it. I know this makes some of our more involved non-Inq users feel a bit disenfranchised. We should come up with some kind of compromise like making 4 regular user votes equal to an Inq vote. Or something. (I don't have all the answers all of the time, just most of the time.) -- Darth Culator (Talk) 11:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Good point. Another option would be to require each nom get, say, 4 regular votes in addition to the INQs. This might slow down the process, but that may be a worthy tradeoff. --Eyrezer 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As a non-Inq, I can attest to this sentiment, and I'd love to see something done about it. It would certainly increase participation in the process (speaking for myself, at least). I recall having a discussion on some changes a while back... I was thinking maybe 3 votes = 1 Inq vote, but still require a minimum of 3 Inq votes to ensure that their purpose if fulfilled. But I'll leave it to you guys to hammer out the details; I'd just like have my votes actually count again. -- Ozzel 06:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • With all due respect to those involved in this idea, this seems like the wrong way to deal with the lack of Inqs who vote on nominations. The issue at hand isn't so much one of disenfranchising, as non-Inq objections are given the same weight, however what we need to do instead is to encourage more Inq voting rather than further complicate the process. Just another user's humble opinion.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 06:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I think there's a serious danger of such a plan increasing Inq laziness rather than compensating for it. Gonk (Gonk!) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I move that any users concerned take this obviously community-wide issue to CT, so that any discussion or votes held here won't be deemed cabalistic and self-centered. Graestan(Talk) 04:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
            • While that may be where it ends up being decided, I still think the Inq itself should examine the issue. It's a flaw in an otherwise fine system. It wasn't always this way, and I don't think discrediting normal folks was ever the intention (as those who later made the 5-Inq rule can tell you). But, as I see far too often, I think some are taking the "it's the status quo, so it's right" attitude, and that concerns me. I'd just like for everyone to step back and ask themselves: "Is a voting-based system where most users' votes are meaningless really best for everyone? And how does that encourage people to participate in the process?" -- Ozzel 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, that depends on the perspective we're talking about regarding FA. No, discrediting "normal folks" was never the idea, but I'm not sure of a better solution. What is FA about? "Featured Articles, Ataru, duh," you say. Okay, then shouldn't those articles be the best of the best we have to offer if we're going to place them on the Main Page as representative of Wookieepedia's quality? "Of course, Ataru, duh again," you say. The idea is that the Inquistorius has the control it does over FAN because it needed/s it. Before the Inq, the FAN page was more or less a popularity contest with a few concerned people tossing out objections. Now, we've got a tight ship running-noms that aren't up to snuff just don't make it. We've already made the FA process elitist-only with regards to content: only the best articles make it. It generally takes a good bit of stamina on the part of the nominator to pass an FA, and it's hard for new users to get into it because it is so rigorous. So, you ask if the current system is best for everyone. I reply with a question: "Is it working?" As far as I'm concerned, WP:FAN is only about one thing: Getting the most of a Wookieepedia article to where we're proud of it. Is the current system conducive to that? If the answer is yes, then why would a drastic overhaul be needed? Do you want a system that makes it "fair" for everyone, or do you want a system that only accepts the best? In this case-since we're setting the bar high for FA-I want the latter. For more general things on Wookieepedia, I would agree with you. That's all I have to say about that. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image objections - Right now, articles are being held up because some of their images, pulled from scanned copies on the Internet and such, have artifacts only visible when viewed at high resolution (i.e. not when you view them in the article). Whether an article could become featured was never supposed to be contingent on how willing Redemption or Jaymach would be to scan something, or whether someone with a scanner is willing to buy a particular comic or source. We need to specify what "good quality" or "available" in Rule 16 means, or come up with some other means of resolving this issue, because I don't feel—and I know others agree—that such objections improve the article at all, and solely block otherwise good articles that have some small flaws in an image. - Lord Hydronium 04:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh hell yeah. We're here to QC the original content of our encyclopedia, not how good we are at copying Lucasfilm's property. I fully support reforming image-based FAN objections. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Tetchiness on the FAN page: Can't We All Just Get Along - I'd just like to talk about the general attitude of...quite a few users on the FAN page. There seems to be some sort of coiled and tense undercurrent that's affecting the page and the process, and a lot of people are lashing out at each other unreasonably. At the same time, a lot of people are misconstruing certain comments, and making mountains out of molehills. I think we can turn this around, as it's pretty disappointing and quite frankly, not attractive to newcomers. Thefourdotelipsis 07:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Broadening the role of the Inquisitorius - Speaking of newcomers and the like, I'd like to hearken back to and maybe resurrect some ideas from yesteryear that would broaden and perhaps integrate the Inquisitorius into the FA process moreso than it is at the moment. At some stage, the idea of Inquisitors reviewing non-submitted articles got lost in the fire, and the Inq page itself is basically a graveyard. I'd like to make it a place of activity again, maybe set up some sort of workshop like system, or some tutorials that would help guide people who are interested in writing seriously for Wookieepedia, but aren't quite sure where to start. I think we need an FA push on Wookieepedia, and it's no good just demanding a higher output of the same people. I love it when new people have a go at the FA process, but it just doesn't happen often enough. The output is elite, the users who generate that output don't have to be. I sort of did something like this on the Wookiee-Cast a year ago, albeit in a haphazard and hamfisted way that in retrospect, might not have turned out as well as it could have had I planned it better. If we could do this as a unified whole, I think we could achieve some (comparatively) big things. If enough people bite. Thefourdotelipsis 07:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Changes to the voting procedures - In reality, this addresses the opening of votes to the general public along with the issue of inactivity. I have some proposals, which can be be found here, which I would like to discuss at the meeting. Again, it relates directly to two of the issues stated above. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Will be there feigning interestEdit

  1. Should be available. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 03:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'll clean up The Keeper, to boot. Thefourdotelipsis 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. So far, so good. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Will be on the park bench in front of Mount Sorrow; wake me. Graestan(Talk) 04:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Preliminarily. There's always a chance of RL interference. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Almost positive that I will not be able to make it, or maybe can come for the first half-hour or so. Sorry. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Same as Ataru. I'll most likely be there, but I might be late or have to leave a touch early. I'll definitely leave my $0.02 with someone if I can't make it. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Seeing as how I have an agenda item up there. - Lord Hydronium 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Turns out my uncle's coming into town that day, so I'm going to have to change this one to "iffy". - Lord Hydronium 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Ataru. Gonk (Gonk!) 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. This should be big. Cull Tremayne 07:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Will not be there feigning interestEdit

Comments from those who can't/won't make itEdit

  1. From Hobbes15
    • Valance/Mandalore: Strip of FA status as no real progress has been made.
    • Padme: Probation per stated reasoning.
    • Imperial-1 Class Star Destroyer: Probation. Intro is overly short, sourcing tag should definitely not be there, and the history section could use complete restructuring.
    • Kreia: Probation; Sourcing is too bad to keep, particularly in Teachings, and that's without really reading the article much.
    • Inq inactivity: I'm all for a concrete policy against it. As such, I've decided to resign from the Inq; I'll be more than happy to review articles every now and then, but I simply do not have room to be as active as I should be. I always felt a bit displeased with those who hardly, if ever, reviewed. Now, I'm unfortunately falling into that category :(. Anyways, I'll try to stay active in the FAN process, but I'm not really sure I was ever all that deserving in the first place, without having written a single FA or GA. That being said, I've really enjoyed reviewing, and I'll try to continue as much as possible without official Inquisitorius membership.
    • Swelling ranks: Absolutely. If they're reviewing well and consistently, let them in; they can always be removed by Inq vote if necessary.
    • Face vs. Helmet issue: I think Greyman sums up my thinking on this.
    • Non-Inq votes: I like Culator's 4 votes = 1 Inq vote, with a minimum of 4 actual Inq votes still required. The amount of actual Inq votes required doesn't matter so much to me, but I think no fewer than 3 votes should equal an Inq vote.
    • Image objections: I've always disliked these myself, but I'll go with consensus on this, since I don't care too much either way.
    • FAN page testiness: Per 4dot in the bold. I see no reason to have big disagreements on the FAN page over possibly non-existent issues. If an argument seems imminent, I think all involved parties should be asked to settle it elsewhere and try to keep disputes from seriously affecting the page itself.
    • Broadening role of the Inq: Absolutely. Like 4dot said, the Inq page is a year or so obsolete, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who likes to see some new writers more often. This, like the last topic, though, is somewhat vague, but I like 4dot's tutorial idea. I'll be interested to see what else gets thrown out there, though.
    • Anyway, if possible, I'll try to be at the meeting to spectate and perhaps throw out a couple ideas. Hopefully I'll make it. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Ataru says
    • Designate vote to Greyman with the expectation that he will show under-quality noms no mercy.
    • On Inq inactivity, I say it all comes down to interest and availability. I am a strong proponent of a large Inq where members are not required to be active all the time, particularly if RL obligations come into play. I know people like Culator and Graestan are active and read virtually all the noms. Others, like myself, read some/most of them . . . eventually. And then there are a few who read noms from time to time, or very rarely, in the case of, say, Breathesgelatin. However, she's come onto IRC and stated that she still cares about the process, but has RL issues. Why kick people like this out of the Inq? All it does is generate ill-will and add an unnecessary process in the case they return again. Therefore, I object to kicking people out or whatever based solely on their level of Inq activity, because, again, RL does interfere. I haven't been that active on the FAN process, but I'm still interested. The only way I would consider removing someone from the Inq is if they are A) On the site and active, but B) not Inqing. #*Names withheld. If you're here, and especially if you're putting up FANs, I expect you to Inq other articles as well, for the sole reason that Inqdom is not a platform to speed your own articles through. Period. If we come down hard and vote on people for removing, I automatically vote against removing BG or anyone who's touched an FA not their own this year.
    • New members: I'm going to make a stupid guess about who we're nominating and they can take it up with me on e-mail or IRC if they don't like what I have to say. These are not personal attacks. If we nominate someone who isn't on my wild list of conjecture, I defer my vote to Greyman again.
      • Goodwood: Not quite there. Same as last time's closed voting session, and just as vehement.
      • Toprawa: I want so hard to argue for him, like I did last time, but certain conduct on the WP:FAN page does not sit well with me, even given his amazing proclivity for reviewing FAs promptly and in detail. I think we all know what I'm talking about, and while this has nothing to do with his qualities as an editor or writer-he's generally helpful and I've enjoyed working with him-WP:FAN is not and will not be turned into a battleground.
        • I'd call this a case of "learned his lesson." The dispute, which also involved me and Hydro, was indeed hashed out in IRC as Hydro noted on the FAN page. Toprawa actually did a much better job than I did in talking things out, and there is no longer an issue with the article in question. Furthermore, Toprawa's attitude on the FAN page has swung quite steadily more towards the positive for quite some time, and I'd like to declare this just another step in the learning process. He already outworks us, I don't see why he initially needs to be more diplomatic than the two established Inqs that were involved as well. As a final point, I want to make it known that Assuming Good Faith is easier to preach than to practice, and we all need a bit of help in that area. Graestan(Talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Chack Jadson: I think he's deserved a support from me. He's got a good resume, willingness to contribute, and apparently too much time on his hands. He's positive and friendly even, while showing the thoroughness demanded in our positions.
    • Face vs. Helmet. I don't care all that much, but face seems to strike me as logical, in general. Make this a guideline, and not a rule, because I can think of examples where helmet might be better. Boba Fett, for example, IMHO is more recognizable with helmet than without, especially given that he is almost always depicted wearing it throughout his adult life.
    • Giving up POWAH! Heck no. No, seriously. Heck no. The Inquistorius was founded because its members were judged competent to set the bar for FA. If the casual user wants more input on FA, let the casual user show knowledge of the process and the concept and we can conscript them. I know that sort of disenfranchises people like Ozzel, Jorrel, etc. who understand the FA process but aren't willing to be forced into our enlistment programs. To be brutally honest, I prefer that arrangement to trading Inq votes for regular votes. I really don't like the idea of less than 5 Inq votes-maybe 4 at the lowest, but the idea is to get multiple perspectives so we have a really good article in the end, and that's what the high number does. If anything, what we might need to do is add more Inqs or change the queue arrangment (gasp!), not lower the bar. And no, I don't really care about Inq power. You can fire me if you want.
    • Image objections. The important clause of that image rule is high quality images where available. If the image can be fixed with what we've got, go for it. I certainly like an effort to be made in fixing it, but a slightly artifacted image does not kill the quality of the article. This from someone who has an extremely basic understanding of images and even less skill in scanning them, so take that with a grain of salt.
    • FAN page-warring. Assume good faith, don't take it personally. If someone asks you a question either in an objection or via an objection, they're not necessarily questioning your expertise/judgment. In a recent episode, I asked a user an innocent question about an objection and let's just say that there was some misunderstanding on both sides. And this was from two veteran users, and I of all people wrote the What Is A Featured Article guideline, where it states this very idea. The point: All people make mistakes, so give 'em a break and be aware that they're not trying to kill your nom or insult you by asking questions. I'll get off my soapbox now, but I oppose any idea to remove the list objection format simply because it's a useful organization tool.
    • Broadening Inqs. This agenda item seems rather vague to me, but I'd be happy to help in a limited capacity on any concrete suggestions/plans we have. 4dot brings up a good point about needing fresh meat . . .um, writers for the role. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Green Tentacle:
    • Beilert Valance: P&T still not sources. Kill.
    • Mandalore the Ultimate: No progress. Kill.
    • Padmé Amidala: Probation.
    • Imperial-class Star Destroyer: Probation.
    • Kreia: Probation.
    • Face v helmet: Face seems to make more sense, but I think it makes more sense to decide this for each article rather than one hard rule.
    • Non-Inq votes on FAs: Giving Inq powers to anybody who can be trusted to use them is the answer, not diluting the purpose of the Inquisitorius.
    • Image objections: Pretty much per Ataru. As long as the image looks good in the article, I don't see a problem. Viewing the images in isolation has little to do with the article, which is what we're supposed to be reviewing, and it isn't fair to have to keep bothering the likes of Jaymach and Redemption to replace scans which aren't too bad to begin with.
    • Tetchiness on the FAN page: We can't really prevent misunderstandings and people taking offense at constructive criticism. But outright insults should be avoided on the page.
    • Broadening the role of the Inquisitorius: I think we have too much to do already to read articles which aren't up for FAN. But it would be nice to try to revive the Inq page in some way. In a related point, we should use the "Wookieepedia:Inq/Some article" pages more. The {{FAcleanup}} template tells people to look there for the reasons they're up for removal but none of us remember to note it down. Unless people bother to look at the logs of Inq meetings, we're asking them to fix articles without telling them the problems. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Unfortunately can't make it after all. I'm in a hurry, so I'll simply lend my vote to Graestan for this meeting. On the topic of image objections, let me just say that any consensus that might form at this meeting has absolutely no impact on the current image policy. --Imperialles 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Other commentsEdit

  • Can I come? —Tommy9281(Talk) 07:20pm, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Only as a spectator. The right to participate and vote is granted to Inquistors because we're eeeviiiiilllll (and it's our job.) Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Why do the infobox dates differ from the date listed in the intro? Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Oops, my mistake when I created the page, Chack. It's been fixed now. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Articles reviewedEdit

  • Beilert Valance - FA status removed.
  • Mandalore the Ultimate - FA status removed.
  • Padmé Amidala - placed on probation.
  • Imperial I-class Star Destroyer - placed on probation.
  • Kreia - placed on probation.

Other agenda itemsEdit

  • Discuss the possibility of swelling our ranks:
    • Toprawa and Ralltiir admitted to the Inq.
    • Chack Jadson admitted to the Inq, if he accepts.
    • Other nominees: Goodwood.
  • Inq inactivity
    • Remove inactive Inq as voted on per the log.
  • Finding some type of middle ground with regards to the Face vs. Helmet debate.
    • No discussion, had been resolved prior to the meeting.
  • Non-Inq votes on FAs
    • Voted to keep the system as it is, no changes. Please read the log for full details.
  • Image objections
    • No change at the present time.
  • Tetchiness on the FAN page: Can't We All Just Get Along
    • Basically, don't be a dick. Simply be civil, don't take it personally, and just find the middle ground. Enough said.
  • Broadening the role of the Inquisitorius
    • Several things were agreed upon to broaden the role, among them being to revive the "review other articles" role for the Inq, as well as creating writing an FA tutorial, etc. More to come, so stay tuned.
  • Changes to the voting procedures
    • Inq are no longer allowed to use their Inqvote on their own FAN nominations. This is not retroactive, but effective from today's date.
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+