FANDOM


Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Meeting Twenty-four
Battlefront promoart
The famed Last Stand of the Inquisitorius.
Inquisition Meeting Times
Americas
UTC-12

Saturday 18th 11:00

UTC-11

Saturday 18th 12:00

UTC-10 (HST)

Saturday 18th 13:00

UTC-9

Saturday 18th 14:00

UTC-8 (PST)

Saturday 18th 15:00

UTC-7 (MST)

Saturday 18th 16:00

UTC-6 (CST)

Saturday 18th 17:00

UTC-5 (EST)

Saturday 18th 18:00

UTC-4 (AST)

Saturday 18th 29:00

UTC-3 (NST)

Saturday 18th 20:00

UTC-2

Saturday 18th 21:00

Europe and Africa
UTC-1

Saturday 18th 22:00

UTC/GMT

Saturday 18th 23:00

UTC+1

Sunday 19th 0:00

UTC+2

Sunday 19th 1:00

Asia and Australasia
UTC+3

Sunday 19th 2:00

UTC+4 (MSK)

Sunday 19th 3:00

UTC+5

Sunday 19th 4:00

UTC+6

Sunday 19th 5:00

UTC+7 (NOVST)

Sunday 19th 6:00

UTC+8 (AWST)

Sunday 19th 7:00

UTC+9 (JST/KST)

Sunday 19th 8:00

UTC+10 (AEST)

Sunday 19th 9:00

UTC+11

Sunday 19th 10:00

UTC+12

Sunday 19th 11:00

The Inquisitorius's Meeting Twenty-four, to be held at 23:00 UTC on Saturday, April 18th (that's Saturday, April 18th at 7PM Eastern Daylight Time in North America), will be a desperate attempt at reorganization and rallying before the Wookieepedia community steps in to take control of the FAN process again.

March was the Inq's least active month in a long while. There has been a steady decline in the number of nominations that pass muster, and this is due to little more than inattentiveness on the part of the Inquisitors—the number of support votes on articles from Inqs has steadily declined from 154 votes in January to 54 in March. Nonetheless, the community continues to write and nominate articles, and there are currently forty-four nominations sitting on the page, some almost completely untouched for weeks on end. We have to do something. I propose a lengthy discussion by any Inqs who can possibly attend (I apologize for the short notice but feel that the time frame is a litmus test in terms of dedication to the site) on how we can change this organization into something workable. Among the topics I would like to discuss:

Do your damn job, part umpteen – I'll admit, even before I took my leave of the site for about a month, I barely edited the FAN page out of sheer disinterest. Well, I'm back, and ready to get my hands dirty. At the same time as I am going over the FAN finding articles to review and vote for, I see a serious lack of interest from the majority of my fellow Inquisitors. Their reasons are manifold, but one fact remains: there is an obligation to do at least some of the work we agreed to when we accepted membership in the Inq. I believe that everyone should take a hard look at whether their name should really remain on that list, and if so, whether they believe they're doing enough to earn it.

New membership – With Inqs leaving the site and the group like rats from a burning ship, there is a significant hole in terms of the number of Inqs who are actually active. Meanwhile, in the AgriCorps and elsewhere, there are highly active users of considerable competence who'd be solid candidates for the job. I feel we should ask, if not outright beg, a few of these users to assist us in trying to get this back on track.

Discussion on changes in policy – Should these measures not work in revitalizing the Inq and its function, I want the Inquisitors themselves to lead the charge in terms of site-level reform. Whether it be a change in the voting requirements, allocation of FAN voting rights to AC members, or even a complete restructuring of the FAN approval process, the Inqs are the ones to know what is required.

Graestan(Talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Inquisitors: Feel free to create a normal meeting agenda below, with article review and other items.

Article reviewEdit

Expand as needed.

New articles to reviewEdit

  • B'omarr Order - As of this post, this one just went up on the Main Page with a Content Approaching tag. This is our second such occurrence in the past month or so, which I'm pretty disappointed in, but that's another discussion. Anyway, missing content. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Nyna Calixte - Ditto, another article that just went up on the MP with Content approaching. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Updated for the LECG :-). Grunny (Talk) 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Nelani Dinn needs a P&A as she's a Jedi character. -- Harrar 09:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll take care of this by Saturday.Tommy Dark side Master SWGTCG (Nine two eight one) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to speak for Tommy, but she only needs this if specific powers are stipulated. I don't know if they are, so I can't really say the article does or doesn't need it, but I just want to point out that this isn't a general thing for all Jedi. - Lord Hydronium 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This too I pondered, for the very same reason. I am going to read Betrayal in its entirety this evening (again) just to make sure we aren't missing anything here.Tommy Dark side Master SWGTCG (Nine two eight one) 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
        • After rereading Betrayal, it has been determined that Nelani Dinn displayed no Force powers, nor any other talents or abilities that would warrant the creation of a P&A section for her article at this time.Tommy Dark side Master SWGTCG (Nine two eight one) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

AgendaEdit

  • After showing this around to a few Inqs, here's my Triage Plan for handling the large number of nominations. Check it out, and let's discuss it at the meet (if I'm free to attend, which I don't know at the moment if I will be). - Lord Hydronium 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • To augment Hydro's plan, I too have a suggestion, which I'll note here if for some reason I can't attend. Essentially, I'd like to propose that we somehow mark a nomination when 5 Inquisitors are involved with it, either having supported or objected. This assumes that those who object will be willing to support once all their problems are solved which is, ideally, how it works. I don't know what form this would take, but I just thought it would be useful to tell an Inq at a glance whether or not a given nom needs more Inqs working on it. This would really cut down redundant voting, I feel. Thefourdotelipsis 05:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

AttendanceEdit

I'll be thereEdit

  1. Graestan(Talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. --Eyrezer 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Bugger. Where did the last week go? --Eyrezer 05:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Sounds shocking. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. This date I can do. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. I believe I can do this, as well, barring any sudden unforeseen change. Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I am picking a family member up from the airport that night. So, depending upon traffic, I might be late. I still plan to be in attendance, however. Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. On reviewing the diressnessity of the situation, I have decided, time and commitment willing, that I shall pop up out of nowhere like Ray Liotta in Cop Land, and do my bit to help out. Thefourdotelipsis 23:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Fiolli and Ataru. Though, it will probably be from the phone.Tommy Dark side Master SWGTCG (Nine two eight one) 05:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I won'tEdit

  1. Gotta go to London and I doubt I'll be back in time. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. This is the worst possible date for me, as I will literally be performing Shakespeare while you guys are hashing it out. That said, I'll be more active in Inqing than I have been, to an extent. Still have to get some of my FANs cleared off the page. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Unlikely. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts from those who don't plan on itEdit

  • Though I've resigned from the Inq I'd be interested in attending to try and help solve the problem, presuming I can make it, if that's okay. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't make it anyway. I'll leave a couple of thoughts here, for whatever they're worth:
      • I think we should harness the enthusiasm for reviewing possessed by the AgriCorps before it wanes. One or two new, active Inqs would make a difference, even if it's not the ultimate solution.
      • I think Hydro's idea makes sense. So does 4dot's, but there is a snag: sometimes someone might make a small objection without actually having reviewed the article or intending to, which might pose problems. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
        • That is a problem, but I think that it can be worked around if a given Inq makes a note that they haven't reviewed the whole article. So they wouldn't be counted towards the five. Thefourdotelipsis 00:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I figure I'd give my two cents here about these two proposed plans since I won't be attending and then be done with it: Hydro's plan has merit, but as I told him, it's only going to be a temporary solution at best. The FAN page is always going to repopulate itself, so even if we managed to cut down the nominations list to half its number in a week, it takes that much more consistent effort to keep it down at that number. We would need to sustain that level of Inqing frequency, which I think everyone understands, is probably just not going to happen. And in response to 4dot's plan, with due respect to everyone and 4dot himself, this is a bad idea. I don't rely on Inquisitor Bob to do my reviewing for me. The point of the five-Inq review process is that every additional review is a boon for article quality. Everyone finds something that someone else missed, which is great and is what Inqing is all about. Relying on someone else to tell you that the article is ok to vote on is baloney. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't think I explained it properly. A "marked" article wouldn't mean "Please, come along and vote support for this, there's nothing wrong here, and there's certainly nothing here that you will pick up on as a problem," it just means that there are already 5 Inqs involved somehow, either supporting or objecting. Anyone's free to make further objections, and if you don't trust the Inqs that are the ones involved, absolutely, go right ahead and make some more objections. If you can see problems, of course you make those objections. It just means that the article will likely end up with redundant support votes, which isn't desireable when the FAN page is as clogged as it is. It would be up to the personal discretion of the individual Inq as to whether or not they pay attention to this potential "mark." I just think it would be a useful tool for those who don't want to be the 6th Inq vote, and would rather be a vote that "counts" towards clearing noms off the page. Thefourdotelipsis 00:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

MinutesEdit

AttendanceEdit

Articles on probationEdit

New examinationsEdit

Items discussedEdit

  • New Inquisitorius members – Cylka, Grand Moff Tranner, and Grunny have been voted in as new members.
  • "Do Your Damn Job" – The Inquisitors have rallied, and there is no need to consider drastic measures with respect to the Inquisitorius.
  • New system to review FANs – It has been decided to enact a triage system for dealing with the large number of nominations on the FAN page. The Triage page has been set up in the Inquisitorius forum to make it easier for Inqs to see what nominations are best focused on for clearing out the nomination page. Nominated articles have been separated into three categories: High – quick to review; Medium – long to review; and Kill – unlikely to pass. Inquisitors are encouraged to review articles from the High category first, in order to quickly remove nominations, before moving on to the Medium category. This is a tool for helping Inqs combine their efforts on articles, and shouldn't be taken as mandatory; as usual, any Inq is free to review any article they want. Since the list of articles is quite long, please look at the above listed link for full details.
  • Other systems to review FANs – Other systems of reviewing FANs were discussed, and decided to be put on-hold at this time. They may be re-examined at a later meeting. One such system was to "mark" a nomination with the number of Inquisitors currently reviewing the article. A creation of a waiting list was discussed, in an attempt to limit the number of articles listed on the FAN page. There was also mention of creating a subpage for massive FANs in order to keep them from clogging the main FAN page.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection