Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Meeting Twenty-two
| File:Wes and female Bothan.JPG The Inquisitorius Christmas party was enjoyed by all. | |
| Inquisition Meeting Times | |
|---|---|
| Americas | |
| UTC-12 | Saturday 17th 12:00 |
| UTC-11 | Saturday 17th 13:00 |
| UTC-10 (HST) | Saturday 17th 14:00 |
| UTC-9 | Saturday 17th 15:00 |
| UTC-8 (PST) | Saturday 17th 16:00 |
| UTC-7 (MST) | Saturday 17th 17:00 |
| UTC-6 (CST) | Saturday 17th 18:00 |
| UTC-5 (EST) | Saturday 17th 19:00 |
| UTC-4 (AST) | Saturday 17th 20:00 |
| UTC-3 (NST) | Saturday 17th 21:00 |
| UTC-2 | Saturday 17th 22:00 |
| Europe and Africa | |
| UTC-1 | Saturday 17th 23:00 |
| UTC/GMT | Sunday 18th 0:00 |
| UTC+1 | Sunday 18th 1:00 |
| UTC+2 | Sunday 18th 2:00 |
| Asia and Australasia | |
| UTC+3 | Sunday 18th 3:00 |
| UTC+4 (MSK) | Sunday 18th 4:00 |
| UTC+5 | Sunday 18th 5:00 |
| UTC+6 | Sunday 18th 6:00 |
| UTC+7 (NOVST) | Sunday 18th 7:00 |
| UTC+8 (AWST) | Sunday 18th 8:00 |
| UTC+9 (JST/KST) | Sunday 18th 9:00 |
| UTC+10 (AEST) | Sunday 18th 10:00 |
| UTC+11 | Sunday 18th 11:00 |
| UTC+12 | Sunday 18th 12:00 |
- "They're coming in too fast!"
- ―Jon Vander notices the daily FAs
After a couple of lazy months it's time to pick up on the meetings again. The next Inq meeting is scheduled for Saturday 17 January. Or Sunday 18 January for some. You know who you are. Help yourselves to leftover mince pies.
Agenda
Probed last meeting
Urgently in need of a probing
- Dooku – review requested by Fiolli (see Wookieepedia:Inq/Dooku (review request))
- Grievous – review requested by Fiolli (see Wookieepedia:Inq/Grievous (Third review))
- I believe I've fixed all of these objections. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- GH-7 medical droid – It's got an update template on it, and the infobox is unsourced.
- Nute Gunray - some serious TCW issues.
- Lutrillian - a recently passed FA by a newcomer to the system. I hate to put this one up there, but it was lacking information from at least three sources when it passed, and is still lacking.
- Force cage - The original Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, from 1989, (repeated in the 1996 second edition) identifies the holding cages within Slave I as being "force-cages," the concept of which was reused for GG10. Thus, this article is lacking appearances/information from virtually every source in which the interior of Slave I appears, plus a now-incorrect BTS, etc. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Zsinj – A longer intro would be nice, as would a better main quote.
Barpotomous Drebble – A longer intro would be good. It's a minor thing, but important.- Should be good now. Cull Tremayne 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
BTS could use just a touch more info, such as where he first appeared, and the like. Stuff that's now standard for FAs.Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)- Should be better now. Cull Tremayne 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should be good now. Cull Tremayne 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Panaka – missing info from AotC novel. Possibly also missing info from The Monster; not sure if it's all covered in the NEGtC but it should be checked. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Both added. Thefourdotelipsis 01:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Starfighter combat - The small Clone Wars section is a huge worry, and this is one article that is going to need to be checked frequently, since the topic is so broad. Thefourdotelipsis 05:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Anakin Solo: Yeah yeah, I'm not an Inq, but Tope said I could put it on here, because it's far away from a FA. There are [source?] tags, unsourced infobox, missing info from a lot of it's sources, a lot of things go against the MOS, BTS needs major expansion, non canon stuff is in the Bio itself, there's POV everywhere. DC 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And the rest
- It's probably high time we had our semi-annual brouhaha about do your damn job and discuss repercussions for failure to Inq. Maybe some rather frank discussions with the major non-committal parties would be in order. Graestan(Talk) 05:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not a big deal, but tutorials, people! Remember? Can anyone who's supposed to be working on one try to finish it up soon? It's 2009, and we've only got three finished ones up. Chack Jadson (Talk) 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Attendance
Probably
- Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gonk (Gonk!) 19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the meeting is actually on 17/18 January, which would be a week before the Mofference. Graestan(Talk) 04:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oops. Wrong year. :P Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Probably. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I should be there, barring any RL interference. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC) - Ditto Ataru, & the accessability of a PC.—Tommy9281
(Peace is a lie) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC) - —Xwing328(Talk) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably not
- Greyman(Talk) 15:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Working. Thefourdotelipsis 23:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Think they can get out of it by leaving notes
- From Greyman:
- Harrar — Keep
- Mandalore the Ultimate — Abstain
- Padmé Amidala's wardrobe Unfortunately, remove. It still hasn't been updated.
- Rokur Gepta — Remove. Almost no work has been done, at least from what I can see.
- Dooku — Probation for the reasons Fi has stated.
- Grievous — Keep. From what I can see Chack has fixed the problems that were presented.
- GH-7 medical droid — Probabtion due to the update tag still being there.
- Nute Gunray — Abstain. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough on TCW problems to give an informed vote.
- Lutrillian — Probation
- Force cage — Keep
- Zsinj — Keep
- Barpotomous Drebble — Keep
- Panaka — Keep
- Starfighter combat — Probabton unfortunately. If someone can expand the necessary points before the meeting, though, I have no problem with voting "keep" for it (I'll allow Ataru to make that decision in my absence if any expansion is done).
- Anakin Solo — Probabtion
- From Four Dot
- Harrar — Kill as nothing's been done that I can see.
- Mandalore the Ultimate — Abstain. I really don't know enough about what's going on there... but I thought the KOTOR CG had identified him as a separate character from the TOTJ one. Definitively. Considering that the NEC is written by a fallible historian IU, I would say the KOTOR CG overrides it most definitely.
- It is all explained in the BtS, specifically the second paragraph. Nothing is said definitively in the KotOR CG at all about his origins; in fact, it just builds on the speculation previously said by IU historians in the KotOR HB. For both instances in the KotOR CG which deal with his origins I explain in detail and poke holes in it, and then add some author comments at the bottom of that paragraph. Anyways, I know this will (probably) be discussed in detail at the meeting, but I please urge people to read the expansions/explanations I wrote into the article's BtS (again, the second paragraph) either before or during the meeting. If those explanations are not good enough, then cool -- the article can be de-FA'd if the rest of the Inq feel it needs to be. Greyman(Talk) 06:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know we'll probably talk about this at the meeting, but some of the claims in the BtS are either misleading or a bad interpretation of what has now been laid down in the most recent sources. The situation is that the Taung that appears in TotJ who claims the mask, is secretly usurped in his position by a Sith agent (The Mandalore the Ultimate that we see in KOTOR comics). Then, much later, this broken down Taung (the one from TotJ) meets with Canderous, claiming that he is still the true Mandalore. This is apparently the same guy mentioned by HK in KOTOR according to Pena. In the BtS, you say "Weighing in with regards to the history of Mandalore the Ultimate, author Abel G. Peña has confirmed that the unknown Taung soldier whom Ordo converses with is actually supposed to be the same unidentified Mandalore which was originally mentioned in HK-47's dialog from the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and who takes up the mantle of "Mandalore" after the death of Mandalore the Ultimate at Battle of Malachor V". This is basically a misinterpretation of what Pena is talking about in that post. On the forums, dizfactor says, "The big surprise for me in terms of KOTOR plot spoilers inthe book is the fact that Mandalore the Ultimate is not really Mandalore. He is a usurper who seems to have had Sith assistance in stealing the throne from the true Mandalore, the Taung who retrieved Mandalore the Indomitable's mask from Dxun at the end of TOTJ's Sith War arc." Another poster, Sentry, interested in this information, especially the fact that the unnamed Taung from TotJ claims to Canderous post-Ultimate that he is the real Mandalore, speculates that this guy from the KOTORCG, ie, the Taung from TotJ is Mandalore the Ultimate from KOTOR. Then, this speculation is confirmed by Pena. Taking that into account, I'm not sure why we're taking Pena's comment about the Taung from the CG being the same as the Mandalore from KOTOR, but discarding the whole basis of the conversation, that the Taung from the KOTOR CG is the same person as the Taung in TotJ. Additionally, the BtS comment of, "However, even with The New Essential Chronology establishing that the two people where in fact the same, there still arose some conflict about the origins of Mandalore the Ultimate" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The new information is attempting to retcon the old information (the stuff in the NEC). In fact, the NEC just mentions that after Indomitable's death, someone found the mask on Dxun and became the new Mandalore. That's it. It doesn't claim specifically that the Taung we see in TotJ is definitively the same person we see in KOTOR. With that in mind, why are we propping up the NEC as a way to discredit later, more recent, and therefore, more canon, sources? Cull Tremayne 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are completely right that this would have been discussed in detail at the meeting, but either way, even though I stand by the BtS that I wrote and the explanations that I've given, a small handful of other's don't agree -- I can accept that and I've had it with my adoption of this article. I honestly don't care anymore with regards to this article and the conflicting mess that LFL has created for it. I've removed all TotJ information from the article and whatnot, so it's up to others now to keep it's FA status in it's current form. Thanks, Cull for not waiting until the meeting or emailing me privately about it so we could discuss it together, but instead doing it the above way -- if you had of, or if anyone of the two people who had problems with the article, had of attempted to contact me about it I would have been more than happy to work it out with you reasonings at the forefront of my mind. The way the article stands, the article in it's current form has been there for half a year, the BtS info in question has been there for almost four months, so it's just funny that no one (of the only two people anyways who have stated so) tried to contact me to sort it out before hand at some point. Usually when I have a factual problem with an FA that a friend wrote, I tell them my problems instead of writing books on meeting pages which, yes, will unintentionally embarrasses them. Greyman(Talk) 06:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know we'll probably talk about this at the meeting, but some of the claims in the BtS are either misleading or a bad interpretation of what has now been laid down in the most recent sources. The situation is that the Taung that appears in TotJ who claims the mask, is secretly usurped in his position by a Sith agent (The Mandalore the Ultimate that we see in KOTOR comics). Then, much later, this broken down Taung (the one from TotJ) meets with Canderous, claiming that he is still the true Mandalore. This is apparently the same guy mentioned by HK in KOTOR according to Pena. In the BtS, you say "Weighing in with regards to the history of Mandalore the Ultimate, author Abel G. Peña has confirmed that the unknown Taung soldier whom Ordo converses with is actually supposed to be the same unidentified Mandalore which was originally mentioned in HK-47's dialog from the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and who takes up the mantle of "Mandalore" after the death of Mandalore the Ultimate at Battle of Malachor V". This is basically a misinterpretation of what Pena is talking about in that post. On the forums, dizfactor says, "The big surprise for me in terms of KOTOR plot spoilers inthe book is the fact that Mandalore the Ultimate is not really Mandalore. He is a usurper who seems to have had Sith assistance in stealing the throne from the true Mandalore, the Taung who retrieved Mandalore the Indomitable's mask from Dxun at the end of TOTJ's Sith War arc." Another poster, Sentry, interested in this information, especially the fact that the unnamed Taung from TotJ claims to Canderous post-Ultimate that he is the real Mandalore, speculates that this guy from the KOTORCG, ie, the Taung from TotJ is Mandalore the Ultimate from KOTOR. Then, this speculation is confirmed by Pena. Taking that into account, I'm not sure why we're taking Pena's comment about the Taung from the CG being the same as the Mandalore from KOTOR, but discarding the whole basis of the conversation, that the Taung from the KOTOR CG is the same person as the Taung in TotJ. Additionally, the BtS comment of, "However, even with The New Essential Chronology establishing that the two people where in fact the same, there still arose some conflict about the origins of Mandalore the Ultimate" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The new information is attempting to retcon the old information (the stuff in the NEC). In fact, the NEC just mentions that after Indomitable's death, someone found the mask on Dxun and became the new Mandalore. That's it. It doesn't claim specifically that the Taung we see in TotJ is definitively the same person we see in KOTOR. With that in mind, why are we propping up the NEC as a way to discredit later, more recent, and therefore, more canon, sources? Cull Tremayne 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is all explained in the BtS, specifically the second paragraph. Nothing is said definitively in the KotOR CG at all about his origins; in fact, it just builds on the speculation previously said by IU historians in the KotOR HB. For both instances in the KotOR CG which deal with his origins I explain in detail and poke holes in it, and then add some author comments at the bottom of that paragraph. Anyways, I know this will (probably) be discussed in detail at the meeting, but I please urge people to read the expansions/explanations I wrote into the article's BtS (again, the second paragraph) either before or during the meeting. If those explanations are not good enough, then cool -- the article can be de-FA'd if the rest of the Inq feel it needs to be. Greyman(Talk) 06:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Padmé Amidala's wardrobe — Kill. Nothing's been done.
- Rokur Gepta — Kill. Nothing's been done.
- Dooku — It's out of date, probulate. Shame, really.
- Grievous — No probe. The updated material could be spruced up a tad, though.
- GH-7 medical droid — It's out of date, probulate.
- Nute Gunray — Probe the blast doors!
- Lutrillian — No probe, since I don't know which sources it should be updated with...
- Force cage — No probe, as the problems seem to have been fixed.
- Zsinj — No probe, as the problems are minute and even subjective.
- Barpotomous Drebble — No probe.
- Panaka — No probe, as I believe I've fixed the raised issues.
- Starfighter combat — Probe. This is going to be a very tricky one to update, anyway.
- Anakin Solo — Burninate.