Admiral Motti
Motti sez: "Heh. Conan Antonio. You guys rule."
Inquisition Meeting Times

Saturday 28th 11:00


Saturday 28th 12:00

UTC-10 (HST)

Saturday 28th 13:00


Saturday 28th 14:00


Saturday 28th 15:00


Saturday 28th 16:00


Saturday 28th 17:00


Saturday 28th 18:00


Saturday 28th 19:00


Saturday 28th 20:00


Saturday 28th 21:00

Europe and Africa

Saturday 28th 22:00


Saturday 28th 23:00


Sunday 29th 0:00


Sunday 29th 1:00

Asia and Australasia

Sunday 29th 2:00


Sunday 29th 3:00


Sunday 29th 4:00


Sunday 29th 5:00


Sunday 29th 6:00


Sunday 29th 8:00


Sunday 29th 9:00


Sunday 29th 10:00


Sunday 29th 11:00


Sunday 29th 12:00

Meeting Ten is intended at least partly to compensate for the fact that a lot of Inqs couldn't (or WOULDN'T) make it to Meeting Nine (the meeting formerly known as Meeting Eight).

We have an Agenda. We have a CT thread on FA Main Page rotation on hold until we have this meeting. We have a list of tentative attendees and hopefully we'll pick up some more. Please make some effort to attend if possible. Meeting Ten will be on July 28/29.


  • How Do You Solve a Problem Like Lumiya? She loses her FA status on the 21st. I have this crazy hunch it can't be stopped. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Standards. We, much like that one loose chick down the hall, need them higher. I think the queue proves that. We must be more discriminating. No, not like Archie Bunker. Other meaning. Havac 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree and disagree. I agree in that I don't often see Inqs make much creative criticism or objections unless things are blatant. In that regard, I think standards could be higher. However, I don't see that having a long queue is necessarily a sign of low standards. --Eyrezer 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think a long queue is an inherent sign. But it's a general pattern of, as you've said, little creative criticism, and I think the unprecedentedly long queue is a good illustration of the point I'm making about that. This isn't really about the queue -- it's just a handy, well-known demonstrative aid. What I really want, and I'll bring this up in the meeting, is to hold articles higher than merely technical standards of, "Oh, it's sourced, no glaring errors, it doesn't suck, let it through." Instead of the, "Oh, there's nothing horrible about it," attitude, we should only be approving if we can go, "Wow, this is really worthy of the main page." Havac 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I also don't think a long queue is bad- it's a sign of a productive community. I'm skeptical of using criticism strictly as a control from promoting Featured Articles. I think that when Inqs pick up something that the article needs to make it front-page worthy, they note it on the page. We have, last I checked, 17 different rules exist for Featured Articles. That's a good bit. I'd still like to keep interest in the FA process from the average user, and if creating a few-source FA takes five weeks and two rewrites, I think we have a real danger of losing some of that interest. Second, we are required to keep our objections within the rules, and, especially on some of the more subjective rules, standards and preferences on writing vary. For example, I would object to a paragraph written entirely in the passive voice as not well written. I suspect Havac wouldn't. Third, similar to the last point, I think that a diversity of writing styles and flavors is beneficial to the wiki. We don't just need to have five or six FA writers. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 13:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Queue ordering. We were given the power to rearrange the queue ages ago and we've never used it despite people asking us to. When that came up I suggested having a page set up for a more formal procedure for requesting/voting on moving articles in the queue so maybe we should actually do something about it. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • CT thread on shortening FA rotation- they're waiting for us, folks. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do a final "pass and review" on the articles we placed on probation. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • K'Kruhk. Havac's objection has been there for over 2 months and (last I checked) he still considers it valid. However, it's a rather vague objection and QuentinGeorge has asked what specific areas that need expanding. We need to do something, either give him some more constructive criticism, strike the objection, or fail the nomination, otherwise it looks like it will just sit there for the next few months. Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What Days Are Good for PeopleEdit

Sat. July 21/Sun. July 22Edit

  • Available. Greyman(Paratus) 22:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My first choice, but I think I'm available for all. Havac 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sat. July 28/Sun. July 29Edit

Sat. August 4/Sun. July 5Edit

  • This is best for me. I won't be able to make one of the other two, but I don't know which yet. Gonk (Gonk!) 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


  1. I can't make the 21st date. The other two are better, but I guarantee nothing. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 13:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'll be here, unless it is held on the third option. Greyman(Paratus) 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Darth Culator
  4. Something may come up to prevent my attendance, but I doubt it. Gonk (Gonk!) 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Probably. Havac 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Jaina Solo(Talk) 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have Lives, or Other Allegedly Good Reasons to Not AttendEdit

  • I'll probably be asleep after having to work a lock-in tonight/tomorrow. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently, I'll be an hour late. gah! --Eyrezer 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes/Thoughts/Ideas from AbsenteesEdit

Just in case I am unable to make the meeting, here are my thoughts:

Raising FA standards: I see why we might want to, but what I don't see is any clear way to do it without lapsing into personal taste, etc. I guess, barring any more specific plan at this stage, I would have to lean more in Ataru's direction than Havac's. I will say that if there is any objective way to enforce a "Make it more interesting" rule, that might be good.
Queue ordering: The phrase "formal procedure" kind of puts me off my lunch. Why can't this be simply a job for two or three Inqs working together? Something that they just sit down and DO one day, in like a mini-Inq-meeting? If people are worried about favoritism creeping in, they can monitor the result of the queue reordering, make a Talk page complaint, and we can do another minor reordering.
CT thread on shortening FA rotation: I dislike the idea of changing the FA rotation from one week. I get the sense that some people are anxious (justifiably) to see "their" FA on the main page and that this might be coloring their opinion on the matter. I think I would be content with the userbox and the star if I were in their shoes, but that's just me. We should also remember that recent FA candidates have been worked on (in some cases very diligently) by users who were well aware at the time that the FA wouldn't be on the main page for eons to come. I guess I just don't see a good reason to shorten the queue. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I almost certainly can't make it so here's my thoughts:

Raising FA standards: Pretty much per Gonk. Without some more explanation I can't see how this would work without making it too subjective.
Queue ordering: I wasn't proposing anything more formal than what Gonk suggested. Just somewhere where people can say "how about moving x back a week?" and either get a yes or a no. The idea was just to keep it out of the Senate Hall and to prevent what happened before, widespread support but nothing coming of it.
CT thread on shortening FA rotation: The main issue with the current length of the queue isn't making people wait to see articles on the front page (I'd be happy to drop mine from the queue right now as long as they keep the star), but that articles have, in the past, deteriorated below FA standard in less time than it now takes them to be featured (we're up to November 2008 now). If something like Cade Skywalker were approved now, I don't think we could guarantee that it would be good enough in a year and a half when it actually gets featured. There's no indication of the rate of approval dropping to less than one a week so the queue is just going to keep getting longer. The ultimate goal should be to have enough for one a day like Wikipedia and, though we may never reach that level, I can't see the problem in two a week. Also, as an alternative to shortening the rotation and having to worry about changing half way through the week, it might be possible to have two featured at the same time with one of the two displayed randomly when you go to the main page. If we do anything to try and cut the queue length down, maybe we could do it on a temporary basis with a review in a couple of months or something. That way, if we notice that we're running out rapidly, we can switch back to a weekly rotation. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I like GT's randomly-rotating-pair-of-FAs idea very much. Gonk (Gonk!) 13:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


  • FA Status Removed: Lumiya, Galactic Republic Chancery election, 32 BBY, Stark Hyperspace War
  • Raising FA Standards: Inquisitors agreed to enforce the "well-written" rule more strictly by making specific comments with examples. Removal of FA submissions too far below standards to be considered will be handled with an Inq-only "Remove nom" vote section for relevant articles (5 votes needed to remove).
  • Queue Reordering: General agreement that no new level of bureaucracy is needed. Inqs will move FAs around in queue as necessary to avoid repetition.
  • Shortening FA Rotation Time: General agreement that the queue is too long and action must be taken. No consensus between "one article every half-week" or "two randomly alternating articles every week" options; method of queue reduction put to community vote.
  • Motion to Recognize Re-FAed Articles on the Main Page: Defeated.

For full details, read the log. Gonk (Gonk!) 23:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection