FANDOM


[17:10]	-->|	LordHydronium (n=LordHydr@cpe-76-167-225-74.socal.res.rr.com) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:10]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o LordHydronium by chanserv
[17:10]	<Ataru>	I say give Culator 5 more minutes and then we start without him
[17:10]	<Gonk>	works for me. He's been pinged.
[17:10]	<Gonk>	Pung?
[17:11]	<Grey-man>	heh
[17:13]	<Ataru>	T minus 2 minutes
[17:14]	<Ataru>	T minus 1 minute
[17:14]	-->|	Culator|Away (i=TheKip@wikia/Darth-Culator) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:15]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Culator|Away by Grey-man
[17:15]	<Gonk>	hahaaa
[17:15]	<Ataru>	Okay
[17:15]	<Gonk>	RIGHT on the cusp
[17:15]	<Ataru>	Time to rock and roll
[17:15]	<Ataru>	First up
[17:15]	<Ataru>	Old FAs that we placed on probation
[17:15]	<Culator|Away>	KILL THEM
[17:15]	<Grey-man>	yes
[17:15]	=-=	Culator|Away is now known as Darth_Culator
[17:16]	<Ataru>	Hey Culator, would you handle observer invites so I can pull up links>?
[17:16]	<Gonk>	Which were they again?
[17:16]	<Ataru>	Lumiya is first
[17:16]	-->|	AdmirableAckbar (n=chatzill@86-42-166-231.b-ras1.bbh.dublin.eircom.net) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:16]	<Ataru>	I'm getting the links now
[17:16]	<Darth_Culator>	Can't I just set it to non-invite-only?
[17:16]	<Gonk>	destroy
[17:16]	<Ataru>	Sure
[17:16]	<Grey-man>	kill her...please
[17:16]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius -i by Darth_Culator
[17:16]	<Ataru>	Just keep it on op talk only
[17:16]	<Darth_Culator>	Yes.
[17:17]	-->|	Jedimca0 (n=chatzill@cp1082200-a.ndwrt1.lb.home.nl) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:17]	-->|	Jack_Phoenix (n=Ashley@wikia/Jack-Phoenix) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:17]	<Ataru>	Wait . . . JMM did some work on the article
[17:17]	<Ataru>	I'm getting the history now
[17:17]	<Grey-man>	...
[17:17]	<Ataru>	Bloody slow wikia!
[17:18]	<Ataru>	Someone with a faster Internet might want to pull up the history from when we posted the probation notice until now
[17:18]	<Gonk>	working on it
[17:18]	<Gonk>	my internet ain't exactly speedy tho
[17:18]	<Grey-man>	bah
[17:19]	<Ataru>	Tell me about it
[17:19]	<Darth_Culator>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Lumiya&diff=1464318&oldid=1434097
[17:19]	<Ataru>	That's not from the 20 July edit, is it?
[17:19]	<Grey-man>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Wookieepedia:Inq/Lumiya&t=20070728054035
[17:19]	<Ataru>	Darth_Culator^?
[17:19]	<Gonk>	no, july 8
[17:19]	<Ataru>	Okay
[17:19]	* Grey-man	put that there just in case it's needed
[17:20]	<Ataru>	Okay
[17:20]	<Ataru>	The issues we listed at the last meeting were as follows:
[17:20]	<Ataru>	Sourcing
[17:20]	<Ataru>	Quote sourcing
[17:20]	<Ataru>	P&T section
[17:20]	<Ataru>	Sectioning
[17:20]	<Ataru>	Were these addressed? That is what you must ask yourself
[17:21]	<Grey-man>	there are still a few pieces of info and/or paragraphs that need sourcing
[17:21]	<Ataru>	Yeah, it's somewhat sourced, but not completely
[17:21]	<Havac>	Then it dies.
[17:22]	* Grey-man	grabs his rifle and sets his sights on Lumiya
[17:22]	<GreenTentacle>	I agree.
[17:22]	<Ataru>	P&T isn't soured
[17:22]	<Ataru>	*sourced
[17:22]	<Ataru>	Vote now
[17:22]	<Ataru>	I have three removes
[17:22]	<Havac>	Kill.
[17:22]	<Ataru>	Gonk
[17:22]	<Ataru>	JainaSolo
[17:22]	<Gonk>	Yeah, remove. But it's much better
[17:22]	<JainaSolo>	Remove
[17:22]	<Ataru>	Darth_Culator
[17:22]	<Ataru>	Lord_Hydronium
[17:22]	<Ataru>	Keep
[17:22]	<LordHydronium>	Grab its hand and decapitate it.
[17:22]	<Darth_Culator>	Hmm.
[17:22]	<Grey-man>	way better, but it's not perfect...yet
[17:23]	* Ataru	thinks that we can keep it provisionally, provided the sourcing is finished up
[17:23]	<Gonk>	ehh... two provisional extensions?
[17:23]	<Ataru>	6 removes to 1 keep
[17:23]	<Ataru>	Either way, Culator is the deciding vote
[17:23]	<Darth_Culator>	Close, but no cigarra. Kill it.
[17:23]	<Gonk>	She was already On Notice before
[17:23]	<Ataru>	Article is removed
[17:23]	<Ataru>	Next up
[17:24]	<Ataru>	Galactic Chancery election thingy
[17:24]	<Ataru>	Nothing was done at all
[17:24]	<Ataru>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Galactic_Republic_Chancery_election%2C_32_BBY&action=history
[17:24]	<Ataru>	*Nothing*
[17:24]	<Havac>	Then it dies.
[17:24]	<Ataru>	Kill
[17:24]	<Gonk>	Goodbye
[17:24]	<Grey-man>	Remove
[17:24]	<JainaSolo>	Remove
[17:24]	<Ataru>	JainaSolo LordHydronium Darth_Culator GreenTentacle
[17:25]	<Havac>	There's no need to vote.
[17:25]	<LordHydronium>	I vote for no confidence in it.
[17:25]	<Havac>	Nothing was done.
[17:25]	<Darth_Culator>	No changes=no keep. Simple.
[17:25]	<Ataru>	Yeah, it's gone
[17:25]	<Ataru>	Next up
[17:25]	<Havac>	It can't have improved.
[17:25]	<--|	Jack_Phoenix has left #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:25]	<Ataru>	Nothing was done on Stark War either
[17:25]	-->|	StarNeptune (i=no@CPE001095973bce-CM001095173bce.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:25]	<Ataru>	Kill it
[17:25]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o StarNeptune by Grey-man
[17:25]	<Havac>	Then it is killed.
[17:26]	<Ataru>	All three probationary articles removed by Inq vote
[17:26]	<Ataru>	Item Two:
[17:26]	<Ataru>	I defer to Havac to explain the higher standards item on the agenda
[17:26]	<Havac>	OK.
[17:26]	<LordHydronium>	Ah, the meat of the matter. The crux of the issue.
[17:26]	<Grey-man>	Indeed
[17:26]	<Gonk>	The sauce on the goose.
[17:26]	-->|	GHe (n=GHe@wikipedia/GHe) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:27]	<LordHydronium>	The gravy on the biscuits.
[17:27]	<LordHydronium>	I'm hungry now.
[17:27]	<Grey-man>	heh
[17:27]	<Ataru>	Havac?
[17:27]	* Ataru	figures he's typing
[17:27]	<Havac>	Our problem, as I see it, is that we're passing articles which don't deserve to be FAs simply because they meet the bare technical requirements while overlooking the requirements that they be well-written and complete.
[17:27]	<Ataru>	Do you have a solution?
[17:27]	<Havac>	I think that the, "Eh, good enough," attitude isn't good enough.
[17:28]	<Ataru>	Do you have a solution though?
[17:28]	<StarNeptune>	problem with that is, peole have diffent definistions on what "well-written" is
[17:28]	<Ataru>	Point
[17:28]	<Grey-man>	True
[17:28]	<GreenTentacle>	Indeed.
[17:28]	<Havac>	True.
[17:28]	<Gonk>	I'm not so sure
[17:28]	<Ataru>	So, aside from reading the articles more carefully, what do you propose we do?
[17:28]	<LordHydronium>	Well, when we still had separate Inq systems, I had no problem with objecting for no reason but "just not FA level".
[17:28]	<Gonk>	If by "well-written" you mean "interesting," then yes, it varies by individual taste.
[17:29]	<Gonk>	But "good style" is largely an objective matter.
[17:29]	<Havac>	But, essentially, I think that to be an FA, something needs to jump out at you and say, "This is FA-worthy."
[17:29]	<LordHydronium>	Objecting Inq-wise, that is.
[17:29]	<Ataru>	I've started reading all the FANs more carefully now and leaving more specific objections . . .
[17:29]	<Grey-man>	Per Sourcing: I think we need to check the references to make sure that all appearances and sources are used
[17:29]	<Havac>	If you don't get a wow-factor from it, don't pass it.
[17:29]	<Ataru>	Havac: We specifically have a policy that says only rules-based objections
[17:29]	<Grey-man>	Havac > True
[17:29]	<Ataru>	The problem *must* be fixable
[17:29]	<Gonk>	Ataru: that policy doesn't prevent Inqs from *not* voting on something, does it?
[17:29]	<StarNeptune>	people seem to be gaming the system when it comes to rules tho
[17:29]	<Havac>	Ataru: that's why I keep saying well-written and complete *are* rules.
[17:29]	<Ataru>	No, absolutely not
[17:30]	<Ataru>	Havac: I agree, but the problem has to be fixable
[17:30]	<Havac>	What problem?
[17:30]	-->|	GreenTentacle_ (n=chatzill@82-36-127-19.cable.ubr06.king.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:30]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o GreenTentacle_ by Gonk
[17:30]	<Ataru>	The "well-written" thing. That objection needs to be specific
[17:30]	|<--	GreenTentacle has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.78.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.5/2007071317]")
[17:30]	<LordHydronium>	Ataru: The problem with that rule is that even if something just passes standards, that doesn't make it FAable.
[17:30]	=-=	GreenTentacle_ is now known as GreenTentacle
[17:30]	<Ataru>	I agree that we should *use* the well-written rule more often
[17:31]	<Grey-man>	Is there a specific article that could help clear this up?
[17:31]	<Gonk>	How about, instead of saying "well-written"...
[17:31]	<Gonk>	...which is vague...
[17:31]	<Ataru>	I also think we should list our problems in such a way as to aid the primary sponsor instead of saying the whole thing is bad
[17:31]	<Gonk>	we say "engaging" -- "readable" -- something like that
[17:31]	<Grey-man>	Havac > An FA that you would like to use as an example?
[17:31]	<Ataru>	Any of the Selkath ones
[17:31]	<Ataru>	Ephant Mon
[17:31]	<Havac>	I'm looking now.
[17:31]	<Ataru>	They're not well written
[17:31]	<Ataru>	I can already tell you that
[17:32]	<Havac>	Ephant Mon.
[17:32]	<Havac>	Jango Fett for a nom.
[17:32]	<Ataru>	I disagree on parts of Jango
[17:32]	<Grey-man>	Ok, that makes it clearer for us with what is being discussed :)
[17:32]	<Grey-man>	parts, yes
[17:32]	<Ataru>	Parts of it are pretty goo
[17:32]	<Havac>	K'Kruhk as something that is "complete" only by being a bare-bones glossover.
[17:32]	<Ataru>	*good
[17:32]	<Ataru>	I can't knowledgeably vote on K'Kruhk for completeness
[17:33]	<Havac>	Whereas, look at something like Zuckuss.
[17:33]	<Havac>	Or Jerec.
[17:33]	<Ataru>	Havac: So, you're suggesting we just ignore some noms?
[17:33]	<Ataru>	That's not fair to the person who put it up for FA
[17:33]	<Havac>	Or Or Zsinj.
[17:33]	<Ataru>	. . .
[17:33]	<Grey-man>	lol
[17:34]	<Havac>	Dang typos.
[17:34]	<LordHydronium>	Zsinj - twice the size, twice the "or"s.
[17:34]	<Ataru>	sigh
[17:34]	<Ataru>	On topic, please
[17:34]	<Havac>	Anyway, you can ignore it, or you can say, "This doesn't cut it. It's too bare-bones and the prose is weak," and point them at Jerec.
[17:34]	<Ataru>	That's not very helpful
[17:34]	<Havac>	Or whatever other article is obsessively-researched and well-written.
[17:34]	-->|	Xwing328 (i=Xwing328@unaffiliated/xwing328) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:34]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Xwing328 by chanserv
[17:34]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Xwing328 by Grey-man
[17:34]	<Ataru>	That's exactly what I want to avoid
[17:35]	<GreenTentacle>	We should definitely aim for completeness, but it can be hard to judge if you don't have the sources yourself.
[17:35]	<Havac>	Ataru: we can't make everyone an FA writer.
[17:35]	<Xwing328>	hey everyone
[17:35]	<Havac>	That's the source of this problem.
[17:35]	<Ataru>	Saying "it sucks" and not giving specific examples, except in a few cases like Luke and Anakin, is anathema to us
[17:35]	<LordHydronium>	Adding more material is an easily identifiable and fixable problem.
[17:35]	<Ataru>	We'll be accused of elitism
[17:35]	<Ataru>	"Weak prose" isn't.
[17:35]	<Havac>	Sometimes it's a matter of overall feel.
[17:35]	<Gonk>	FAs should be elite
[17:35]	<Havac>	Damn straight.
[17:35]	<Grey-man>	Point
[17:36]	<Ataru>	And if Havac's sentence is all the objection he's going to leave, I won't be happy
[17:36]	<Ataru>	You need to be specific
[17:36]	<Ataru>	You need to give examples
[17:36]	<Ataru>	You need to make it fixable
[17:36]	<Ataru>	Not say "it sucks, go home"
[17:36]	<Gonk>	The thing for us to remember is, just because someone who can barely put a sentence together does a lot of legwork, doesn't mean someone else can't come in and spiff up the style.
[17:36]	<Havac>	Then maybe that's what we say.
[17:36]	<Gonk>	If the nominator can't handle criticism on that level, he shouldn't be shooting for the brass ring.
[17:36]	<Ataru>	Have fun explaining that one to the community, Gonk
[17:36]	<Gonk>	If I may mix my metaphors.
[17:36]	<Havac>	But you can't make an overall feel of weak prose into specifics.
[17:37]	<Gonk>	Havac: you can
[17:37]	<Ataru>	I don't like it.
[17:37]	<Gonk>	It's just tricky.
[17:37]	<Ataru>	I think you can
[17:37]	<Havac>	Not without basically feeding them the lines to write back in.
[17:37]	<Ataru>	It just requires you to be less lazy
[17:37]	<Ataru>	Anyone else besides Havac, Gonk and me, feel free to jump in ;-)
[17:37]	<Gonk>	One key term I have found helpful in the past is "clarify"
[17:37]	<StarNeptune>	you can;t be lazy when writing an FA
[17:38]	<Gonk>	...since often, bad style is causing lack of clarity beyond anything else.
[17:38]	<Havac>	True.
[17:38]	<Ataru>	I agree with Gonk
[17:38]	<Havac>	But Ataru: it's not my job, as an Inq, to go in and write their FA for them.
[17:38]	<Havac>	But Ataru: it's not my job, as an Inq, to go in and write their FA for them.
[17:38]	<Havac>	I'm here to judge.
[17:38]	<Gonk>	That's the job of prospective future Inqs ;)
[17:38]	<GreenTentacle>	No, but it is your job to offer constructive feedback.
[17:38]	<Ataru>	Even RL judges have to give reasoning
[17:38]	<GreenTentacle>	Not just "lacks detail".
[17:38]	<Havac>	And I want to.
[17:39]	<Ataru>	"Weak prose. Period." is not constructive criticism
[17:39]	<GreenTentacle>	Look at K'Kruhk, it's been held up for 2 months by an objection which offers no help on how to fix it.
[17:39]	<Gonk>	I think maybe a very minor tweak to our requirements is in order
[17:39]	<Ataru>	Seriously
[17:39]	<Ataru>	I hate that
[17:39]	<Gonk>	Just being more specific about "well-written"
[17:40]	<Gonk>	And then enforcing it as nicely and specifically as we can.
[17:40]	<Havac>	No, but, "Short, simplistic sentences, poor adjective use, whatever," is a constructive criticism.
[17:40]	<LordHydronium>	I'd think you can at least give examples of problem sentences.
[17:40]	<Gonk>	Yes
[17:40]	<Ataru>	In the past few noms, I've reviewed (Winter, Knowledge Bank, etc.), I've offered specific objections
[17:40]	<Gonk>	"Choppy paragraph; doesn't flow well"
[17:40]	<Gonk>	that sort of thing.
[17:40]	<LordHydronium>	Ataru: Yeah, but most of those are specific to the extent that you could just do them yourself. :P
[17:40]	<Havac>	Quite.
[17:40]	<Ataru>	Case in point: I made a diction objection to Winter
[17:40]	<Ataru>	Or context
[17:41]	<Ataru>	LH: Not so on some of them
[17:41]	<Ataru>	I'll admit, some of them I could fix myself easily . . . commas, spelling, whatnot
[17:41]	<Gonk>	LH: if it's a pervasive issue in a long article... oy.
[17:41]	<Ataru>	Context, diction, choppy flow, not so much
[17:41]	<LordHydronium>	Yeah, I meant the first.
[17:41]	<Ataru>	I *could*, but that goes back to the whole nominator thing
[17:41]	<Ataru>	Look at what I objected to on Jango Fett
[17:42]	<Ataru>	Rather than just leave a blanket "poor detail"
[17:42]	<StarNeptune>	It's the nominator's reponsibility to fix that stuff
[17:42]	<Ataru>	I listed five or six specific things
[17:42]	<StarNeptune>	not ours...we just point it out
[17:42]	<Ataru>	That's what I think we should aim for
[17:42]	<Gonk>	Well, the nominator and anybody else who wants it FAed
[17:42]	<LordHydronium>	SN: Sure it is. But if we can fix it easily and we don't, that kinda makes us dicks.
[17:42]	<Ataru>	Per Gonk
[17:42]	<Havac>	Well, when it's blanket "Poor detail," that means you need to go back in and expand everything beyond the gloss-over it currently is.
[17:42]	<LordHydronium>	I always give pages a copyedit as I go through.
[17:42]	<Gonk>	me too LH
[17:42]	<Ataru>	LH: Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
[17:43]	<LordHydronium>	Rather than say, "Hey, there's a comma here where there shouldn't be! Sure, it was more work to actually type that than fix it, but it's your nom, right?"
[17:43]	<Xwing328>	I do to, but that's why I don't alwyas like reveiwing them, it just takes so long
[17:43]	* Ataru	admits to being in a bad mood when reviewing Winter and Harrar, so he left lots of objections
[17:43]	<StarNeptune>	If people really want to have their article up to Fa quality, then they should work at it and help address specific objections people have
[17:43]	<Ataru>	As long as we leave specific objections, I'm fine
[17:43]	<Ataru>	I strongly disagree with blanket statements though .
[17:44]	<Ataru>	Such as "weak prose"
[17:44]	<Ataru>	That's dickish, IMHO
[17:44]	<Ataru>	That's also lazy
[17:44]	<Ataru>	Be specific, per Gonk
[17:44]	<Grey-man>	Weak prose, ex. blah blah...that is easy to add in
[17:44]	<Ataru>	Right
[17:44]	<Havac>	Blanket statements for blanket problems.
[17:44]	<Ataru>	Bah!
[17:44]	<Ataru>	It's not a blanket problem
[17:45]	<LordHydronium>	Give a few examples, at least.
[17:45]	<Ataru>	And even if it is, it's still not fair
[17:45]	<Havac>	If I'm objecting blanketly, it is.
[17:45]	<LordHydronium>	Just a couple sentences that you think exemplify the problem.
[17:45]	<Ataru>	Per LordHydronium
[17:45]	<LordHydronium>	And note that that's not all the problems you have, but representative of them.
[17:45]	<Ataru>	Otherwise, it's like you're trying to sabotage the nom
[17:45]	<Havac>	I'm not adverse to specificity.
[17:45]	<Ataru>	Not help it
[17:45]	<Ataru>	But are you for it?
[17:45]	<Havac>	But I think the Inq needs to *be* more willing to dismiss noms.
[17:46]	<Gonk>	I agree
[17:46]	<Ataru>	I agree with that, but only after giving them a chance
[17:46]	<Gonk>	I worry when people say "my article," "my nom" ... anyone can edit these.
[17:46]	<Ataru>	Unless, again, it's those articles like Luke or Anakin
[17:46]	<Grey-man>	True, I don't like feeling that I have to vote for every article
[17:46]	<Havac>	To say, "This doesn't cut it, expand it radically and get someone to edit it and come back in a few months."
[17:46]	<Gonk>	We get hesitant about criticizing FAs when we perceive that it's all one person doing the FA.
[17:46]	<Grey-man>	lag!
[17:46]	<Ataru>	Havac: I agree with the first two clauses
[17:47]	<Ataru>	"get someone else to edit and come back in a few months" may not be necessary
[17:47]	<Ataru>	But that's only for really bad noms
[17:47]	<Gonk>	Or a few weeks, depending on how little of a life you have
[17:47]	<Ataru>	Luke is an example of that
[17:47]	<Ataru>	Jango is not
[17:47]	<Gonk>	Yeah
[17:47]	<Havac>	But here are a lot more really bad noms than I think you want to acknowledge.
[17:47]	<Ataru>	Anakin is an example of that
[17:47]	<Ataru>	Kjad;fjadjk is not
[17:47]	<Ataru>	Havac: . . . .
[17:47]	<Ataru>	?
[17:48]	<Havac>	I don't think we need to play rescuer to every nom out there.
[17:48]	<Gonk>	Was that a veiled reference to Burl Ives, Ataru? ;)
[17:48]	<Ataru>	On the current nom list, only Harrar and DS II strike me as really poor quality
[17:48]	<Ataru>	Gonk: No.
[17:48]	|<--	JainaSolo has left irc.freenode.net ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
[17:48]	<Grey-man>	I killed DSII
[17:48]	<Grey-man>	i think...
[17:49]	<Ataru>	I thought you killed Mando wars
[17:49]	<Grey-man>	ah, yes
[17:49]	<Grey-man>	my mistake
[17:49]	<Ataru>	And it's still not fair to make blanket objections and purposefully sabotage noms
[17:49]	<Havac>	I don't see it as sabotage.
[17:49]	<Ataru>	If we need a mechanism to remove noms, that's a separate issue
[17:49]	<Havac>	You're making it too personal.
[17:49]	<Ataru>	Havac: If you won't clarify the objection and just leave it up there, it is sabotage
[17:49]	<LordHydronium>	Ataru: Don't we have one?
[17:49]	<Gonk>	They can always, always try again
[17:50]	<Ataru>	LH: We did. It was called Inq page votes :-P
[17:50]	<Grey-man>	True
[17:50]	<StarNeptune>	Most of the noms have been single author FA noms as of late, so it may be seen as personal
[17:50]	<Havac>	It's saying that it doesn't cut it and won't in the foreseeable future without massive work.
[17:50]	<Ataru>	Yeah, but you won't help them find what's wrong with it
[17:50]	<Ataru>	It becomes an unwinnable scenario for anyone else trying to fix it
[17:50]	<Havac>	If a nom needs an expansion and language overhaul, it shouldn't have been nominated.
[17:50]	<Ataru>	Shooting in the dark, if you will
[17:50]	<Gonk>	So we help them find what's wrong.
[17:50]	<Gonk>	Well StarNeptune, again, if they see it as personal, that's too bad. We can't be held responsible for the delusions of others.
[17:51]	<Ataru>	Our job is to point them to the target
[17:51]	<Havac>	We tell them what's wrong and tell them to come back when it's fixed.
[17:51]	<LordHydronium>	I think at the very least you can add examples of things like weak prose. Even if it's in every sentence, just pick a few to point out what the problem is.
[17:51]	<Ataru>	Then tell them what's wrong
[17:51]	<Ataru>	And be specific
[17:51]	<Havac>	We don't need to hold their hand for two months to try to get it on.
[17:51]	<LordHydronium>	I'm not saying list every single instance of weak prose and how to fix it, but show enough to explain what you mean.
[17:51]	<Grey-man>	I believe *what's* wrong in an article, is what we're trying to get at
[17:51]	<Gonk>	Maybe we should only pull noms on an Inq vote
[17:51]	<Havac>	I've already said I'm willing to be specific, dammit.
[17:51]	<Ataru>	That's not what you said exactly . . . but I digress
[17:51]	<Grey-man>	Havac > I know :)
[17:52]	<Ataru>	Gonk: Hey, I have no problems with adding a little "Nom removal" section on the FAN page
[17:52]	<Gonk>	I know you don't
[17:52]	<Grey-man>	that would work great
[17:52]	<LordHydronium>	Even on noms like CIS that were pure and utter shit, I tried to list as many things that I could find that it was terrible in. Even though there was no chance of it getting fixed up.
[17:52]	<Gonk>	but I think you're concerned about being too eager to remove noms, and I share that concern
[17:52]	<Ataru>	If we feel a nom is beyond caring, add a little section ”'Remove Nom (Inq only)”'
[17:52]	<Havac>	Essentially, I'm saying if it can't pass as-nominated with only minor changes, it shouldn't be cluttering up the page.
[17:52]	<Gonk>	Sounds good.
[17:53]	<Ataru>	Havac: I think it's okay to make major changes while on the FAN page . . . though I don't personally do it
[17:53]	<Grey-man>	Sounds good to me as well
[17:53]	<Havac>	If it needs an overhaul, we tell them to take it back to the workshop and bring it back when it's done.
[17:53]	<Ataru>	Havac: FAN page can be a workshop
[17:53]	<Gonk>	Hopefully most won't need an overhaul.
[17:53]	<Havac>	But it shouldn't be.
[17:53]	<Ataru>	Where does it say it has be completely ready by the time it hits FAN page?
[17:53]	<Ataru>	You're right, but that doesn't mean it *can't* be
[17:54]	<Ataru>	Havac: What do you think of a "remove nom" section?
[17:54]	<Havac>	That's how we get 5,000 sitting noms and Inquisitors feeling an obligation to pass it after a few half-hearted improvement efforts.
[17:54]	<Ataru>	5 votes needed to remove, just like to pass
[17:54]	<Gonk>	It should be in the FA ballpark at least. In other words, don't take a recently-named GA and stick it right on the FA nom page.
[17:54]	<Ataru>	On any nom that we feel is beyond hope
[17:54]	<Grey-man>	Unless it's FA ready ;)
[17:54]	<Havac>	"Well, I told them to clean that one section up, and they did, and it's nto really as good as it should be, but I don't want to be mean."
[17:54]	<Havac>	That's too much of what I'm seeing.
[17:54]	<Ataru>	Havac: That's just an internal issue then
[17:55]	<Ataru>	Inqs: Live up to your name and be "teh evil"
[17:55]	<Havac>	YES.
[17:55]	<Ataru>	There, we've been duly instructed :-P
[17:55]	* Havac	whole-heartedly endorses evil.
[17:55]	<Grey-man>	heh
[17:55]	<Ataru>	Havac: Will the introduction of "remove nom" and "be teh evil" satisfy your concerns while keeping the specific objection end happy?
[17:55]	<Havac>	Yes, a removal section would be good.
[17:56]	<Havac>	But this is as much about Inq behavior as it is technical.
[17:56]	<Grey-man>	Would that be on every nom? Or ones deemed unworthy by Inqs?
[17:56]	<Gonk>	No, not every nom
[17:56]	<Havac>	It's about Inqs enforcing all the rules and being strict about it.
[17:56]	<Gonk>	Only as necessary
[17:56]	<Ataru>	I think the remove nom should only be introduced on noms that need it
[17:56]	<Grey-man>	Seen
[17:56]	<Ataru>	I.E. bad noms
[17:56]	<Grey-man>	Luke...
[17:56]	<Grey-man>	9_9
[17:56]	<Ataru>	:-S
[17:57]	<Grey-man>	*cough* thanks JK19bby *cough*
[17:57]	* Ataru	has a nice list that we can point people who want to FA Luke
[17:57]	<Ataru>	I'll keep it around for posterity
[17:57]	<Grey-man>	Good
[17:57]	<Havac>	So, consider this an exhortation to never, ever, vote for an article if you're not absolutely certain it deserves to be on the front page.
[17:57]	<Ataru>	Sir, yes sir!
[17:57]	<Ataru>	:-P
[17:57]	<Grey-man>	Ataru > we can use it for a *future* project :)
[17:57]	<LordHydronium>	Okie-day.
[17:57]	<Ataru>	Grey-man: ;-)
[17:57]	<Havac>	"Well, good enough," passing is my core problem here.
[17:57]	<Gonk>	But also not to comment "Eh, I dunno, it's just not well-written enough" 9_9
[17:58]	* Grey-man	agrees with Havac on his last point
[17:58]	<Ataru>	Gonk: Good point
[17:58]	<Havac>	It's an attitude thing; the rules are already in place.
[17:58]	<Ataru>	I will be most annoyed with people who leave objections such as "Eh, I dunno, it's just not well-written enough"
[17:59]	* Darth_Culator	makes note to self to do this soon.
[17:59]	<Ataru>	I'm sure I could find a WP:POINT violation in there somewhere.
[17:59]	<Ataru>	Bah!
[17:59]	<Ataru>	Havac: Can we move on to the next issue now?
[17:59]	* Ataru	sincerely hopes someone is logging all this osik
[17:59]	<Gonk>	I am
[17:59]	<Havac>	If no one has any more to say.
[18:00]	<LordHydronium>	Quick summary: Be stricter, but don't be a dick.
[18:00]	<Ataru>	Okay, last call for Inq attitude and objection posts . . .
[18:00]	<Gonk>	And be specific
[18:00]	<Gonk>	And give examples.
[18:00]	<Ataru>	Okay, moving on
[18:00]	<LordHydronium>	I'm lumping those under "dickery". :P
[18:00]	<Ataru>	Queue ordering
[18:00]	* Ataru	defers to GreenTentacle
[18:00]	* Ataru	pokes the tentacle
[18:00]	<Ataru>	Wake up!
[18:00]	<LordHydronium>	Eh, I've never really seen the big deal with it anyway.
[18:00]	<LordHydronium>	But that's just me.
[18:01]	<StarNeptune>	I honestly don't see the point myself
[18:01]	<Gonk>	Well, I would be willing to work with GT on this
[18:01]	<GreenTentacle>	What?
[18:01]	<LordHydronium>	Go team apathy!
[18:01]	<Havac>	Just let someone go in and rearrange if they feel like it.
[18:01]	<Gonk>	I do care about the queue. A bit, anyway
[18:01]	<Ataru>	GreenTentacle: You made the agenda item. You talk about it
[18:01]	<Havac>	If we bureaucratize it, nothing will be done.
[18:01]	<Ataru>	I do think that variety is good
[18:01]	<Gonk>	Yes, Havac
[18:01]	<Ataru>	I also think we should just go in and fix stuff
[18:02]	<Ataru>	We've been empowered to do it
[18:02]	<GreenTentacle>	Ah yes.
[18:02]	<Grey-man>	Yes
[18:02]	<GreenTentacle>	We have the power.
[18:02]	<Ataru>	Heck, let's go with it
[18:02]	<GreenTentacle>	Let's use it.
[18:02]	<Darth_Culator>	POWAH!
[18:02]	<Ataru>	I agree
[18:02]	<Ataru>	Adding rules and such would be instruction creep
[18:02]	<Darth_Culator>	You agree with "POWAH!"?
[18:02]	<Grey-man>	heh
[18:02]	* Gonk	strongly agrees about not bureaucratizing it
[18:02]	<Ataru>	I agree that we have and should use it
[18:02]	<Havac>	The important thing is that anyone who does it makes sure to tinker with the talkpage templates with the dates.
[18:02]	<Ataru>	Good point
[18:02]	<Gonk>	mmm
[18:03]	* Gonk	imagines that the easiest process would be to pick a pair of FAs at a time, and swap 'em
[18:03]	* Ataru	agrees
[18:03]	<Ataru>	I think we have consensus on this issue (?), so anything else on this topic?
[18:03]	-->|	JainaSolo (n=4571a92f@host112.toad-host.com) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[18:04]	<Grey-man>	Nope, not from me
[18:04]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o JainaSolo by Grey-man
[18:04]	<GreenTentacle>	Er, what exactly are we doing about it?
[18:04]	<Ataru>	Summary: We can move the queue around, we will move the queue around, and we will change the dates on talk pages appropriately. And no red-taping it
[18:04]	<GreenTentacle>	So no change whatsoever.
[18:04]	<Gonk>	No, the change is that we're not gonna ignore it
[18:04]	<Gonk>	You and I can put our heads together on this sometime, GT
[18:04]	<Ataru>	Per Gonk
[18:05]	<GreenTentacle>	Fine.
[18:05]	<Ataru>	But seriously, we have enough procedure
[18:05]	<GreenTentacle>	As long as the forum doesn't fill up with people asking about it.
[18:05]	<Ataru>	FA is probably the most procedural thing in the whole bloody site
[18:05]	<Gonk>	That's for talk pages :)
[18:05]	<Ataru>	GreenTentacle: Send to IRC or to our complaint forums, etc.
[18:05]	<Ataru>	*Send them
[18:05]	<Gonk>	Send them to Jaymach.
[18:05]	<Ataru>	We'll gently explain why things have been changed
[18:05]	<Grey-man>	Sounds good
[18:05]	<Ataru>	And then we say "And no, we're not changing our minds"
[18:06]	* Grey-man	likes the new Ataru :P
[18:06]	* Ataru	thinks this is the same Ataru
[18:06]	<Grey-man>	jk :P
[18:06]	<Ataru>	Anyway, moving on
[18:06]	<Ataru>	This is turning out to be a long meeting, so I want to keep things rolling
[18:06]	<Ataru>	There is a CT thread on shortening the FA rotation
[18:06]	<LordHydronium>	Damn right there is.
[18:06]	<Gonk>	I have a question about this one
[18:06]	<Ataru>	which a good moderator would have the link to
[18:06]	<Ataru>	I am not a good moderator though
[18:07]	<LordHydronium>	Needs to be done.
[18:07]	<LordHydronium>	Because a year and change long queue is ridiculous.
[18:07]	<Gonk>	Just how huge is the risk that a queued FA will be so monstrously out-of-date?
[18:07]	<Grey-man>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Shortening_the_featured_article_time&t=20070721010405
[18:07]	<Ataru>	Huge
[18:07]	<Ataru>	On some of them, anyways
[18:07]	<GreenTentacle>	It is.
[18:07]	<Ataru>	An article like Darth Bane, for example
[18:07]	<Ataru>	*shudder*
[18:07]	<Gonk>	Maybe we pick those articles and bump 'em up then.
[18:07]	<LordHydronium>	Check out how long it took for the ones we removed to get out of date.
[18:07]	<Gonk>	Shortening the rotation seems like a massive change to fix a small problem to me.
[18:07]	<Ataru>	Or Khiuuk'aafahk
[18:08]	<LordHydronium>	It's a problem for all of them, since the issue isn't just one of new material
[18:08]	<GreenTentacle>	Gonk: It's not a small problem.
[18:08]	<GreenTentacle>	The queue's growing rapidly and it ain't gonna stop.
[18:08]	<Gonk>	LH: elaborate, with examples :D
[18:08]	<Ataru>	Can we have a simple up and down vote to see if we think changing the rotation is good?
[18:08]	<LordHydronium>	Have you read my reasoning on the issue, Gonk?
[18:08]	<Havac>	It will if we're pickier.
[18:08]	<Ataru>	I think we can go from there after the vote
[18:08]	<GreenTentacle>	Bah!
[18:08]	<LordHydronium>	No it won't, Havac.
[18:08]	<LordHydronium>	It'll slow down a bit.
[18:09]	<Ataru>	LH: Have you read Cull's essay on "FA machines"?
[18:09]	<LordHydronium>	Nope.
[18:09]	<Ataru>	Unless a lot of us pull a Fourdot, there are multiple FA writers out there
[18:09]	<Ataru>	All of whom create FAs like rabbits breed
[18:09]	<Gonk>	LH: I don't know how valid Reason 2 is
[18:09]	<LordHydronium>	Right now, if we have any more than one FA added per week, it'll grow.
[18:09]	<Ataru>	I agree with that
[18:10]	<GreenTentacle>	Yeah, the regulars are producing more than one a week between them.
[18:10]	<LordHydronium>	Are standards that high that we can exclude all but one a week?
[18:10]	<Ataru>	No
[18:10]	<Ataru>	I can flatly tell you that
[18:10]	<LordHydronium>	Gonk: Let me find the CT.
[18:10]	<GreenTentacle>	And one a week would just maintain the ridiculously long queue, not make it smaller.
[18:10]	<LordHydronium>	Exactly.
[18:10]	<Havac>	Which is why we go back and remove some with our Inqtastic powers . . .
[18:10]	* Gonk	would like to point out that if we reduce the rotation time, it may well come to pass that we have to crank it back to a week again sometime down the line.
[18:10]	<Grey-man>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Shortening_the_featured_article_time&t=20070721010405
[18:11]	<Ataru>	http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Shortening_the_featured_article_time&t=20070721010405
[18:11]	<Ataru>	Yeah
[18:11]	<LordHydronium>	Havac: Still won't help. It just mitigates it a little.
[18:11]	<LordHydronium>	It'll still grow.
[18:11]	* Ataru	supports shortening the rotation
[18:11]	<GreenTentacle>	Gonk: Maybe, but not for a few months.
[18:11]	<Gonk>	I agree about that LH
[18:11]	<Ataru>	I also support GT's randomly rotating idea on the Inq meeting page idea
[18:11]	<Ataru>	I think it's great
[18:11]	<Gonk>	Now what about this two-at-once idea?
[18:11]	<Gonk>	Can this be done?
[18:11]	<Ataru>	I like that idea
[18:11]	<Gonk>	Me too.
[18:11]	<Ataru>	It'll mean a lot of bot work changing all the dates, but it can be done
[18:12]	<Ataru>	And basically, we own that CT
[18:12]	<GreenTentacle>	I think it can be done.
[18:12]	<LordHydronium>	I'm wondering, what's bad with this idea? Assuming that, worst case scenario, not a single FA is made again, we'll still have seven months before we lose our buffer.
[18:12]	<Ataru>	With even 7 or 8 votes on that CT, we can swing consensus
[18:12]	<GreenTentacle>	We had different main page colours once, so the rotation is possible.
[18:12]	<GreenTentacle>	Though I'd defer to Sikon on the details.
[18:12]	<Ataru>	We just need to bug LucidFox about it
[18:12]	<Havac>	Honestly, I'm not sure about that.
[18:12]	<StarNeptune>	Why can't we do it for ALL the FAs?
[18:12]	<Ataru>	Heck, we've had two WOTMs before at the same time, why not two FAs??
[18:12]	<Havac>	I'd prefer a guarantee of equal time rather than complete randomization.
[18:12]	<Ataru>	StarNeptune: Do what?
[18:13]	<LordHydronium>	Gonk: I think Reason 2 is a decent reason.
[18:13]	<StarNeptune>	Have a random FA pop up each time the main page loads
[18:13]	<Ataru>	Ugh, random FA rotation of more than two. No
[18:13]	<Ataru>	Ugh, no
[18:13]	<LordHydronium>	Sure, ideally everyone's doing it just to make the wiki a better place. In reality, people like to see their stuff on the main page.
[18:13]	<Gonk>	You know, on second thought, per Havac. Better to shorten the FA rotation than randomize.
[18:13]	<LordHydronium>	Yeah, I'm against randomization.
[18:13]	<Ataru>	I dunno
[18:13]	<Xwing328>	no randomization
[18:14]	<Ataru>	They'll have equal coverage on the Main Page, methinks
[18:14]	<GreenTentacle>	With only two being randomized, they'd get a fair share.
[18:14]	<Ataru>	Per GreenTentacle
[18:14]	<Ataru>	As long as only two are randomized, and both are linked to in the box . . .
[18:14]	<LordHydronium>	But it's still silly. What if I want to find that article I saw again? Do I just keep refreshing?
[18:14]	<GreenTentacle>	Plus, we could provide a link to switch to the other one.
[18:14]	<Havac>	Not really . . . I've had plenty of times that something random comes up almost all the time as one thing.
[18:14]	<Gonk>	LH: link in the box
[18:14]	<Ataru>	Link to both articles in the box
[18:14]	<LordHydronium>	Meh. I think it's still overkill.
[18:14]	<Ataru>	Havac: I think we can talk to LucidFox about that
[18:15]	<Havac>	If there were some way to link the randomization to the account . . .
[18:15]	<Ataru>	Heh
[18:15]	<Gonk>	No, I'm gonna flip-flop again. Because (going by LH's Reason 2) if I wrote an FA, I'd rather see it randomly appear -- and be perpetually linked -- on the main page for a solid week than only see it for three days or whatever.
[18:15]	<Havac>	But I still don't like it.
[18:15]	<Ataru>	Realistically, though, something does need to be done to shorten the queue
[18:16]	<Gonk>	Yes
[18:16]	<Xwing328>	What if you just did two at a time, instead of the one, with nothing random about it?
[18:16]	<Havac>	Am I the only person who doesn't really care about seeing it on the main page right away?
[18:16]	<LordHydronium>	Space concerns.
[18:16]	<Ataru>	And risk cramming the Main Page?
[18:16]	<Ataru>	Not realistic
[18:16]	<Xwing328>	it's already crammed...
[18:16]	<Gonk>	That'd be a great solution if we had the room, though
[18:16]	<Grey-man>	So cutting the time in half is not an option?
[18:16]	<Ataru>	Havac: We still need to shorten the queue for other reasons
[18:16]	<Ataru>	It is, but I don't like it
[18:17]	<Ataru>	:-P
[18:17]	<LordHydronium>	Grey-man: I'd still like to see that.
[18:17]	<Grey-man>	I wouldn't have a problem with it
[18:17]	<Grey-man>	other wiki's do similar things
[18:17]	<Havac>	I'd prefer half-time with a link to the other week's FA.
[18:17]	<Ataru>	It boils down to cutting the rotation time in half or randomizing it, unless there is aother alternative
[18:17]	<Havac>	*other FA of the week
[18:17]	<LordHydronium>	Havac: I like that idea.
[18:17]	<Ataru>	I'd prefer a randomization, with a link
[18:17]	<Grey-man>	so lets vote, if those are the only two options
[18:18]	<GreenTentacle>	I'd be fine with either, but the half-week thing makes updating a pain to remember.
[18:18]	<Havac>	More like Wikipedia's system, actually.
[18:18]	<LordHydronium>	GT: Doesn't the system do it automatically?
[18:18]	<Havac>	GT: it's already done automatically.
[18:18]	<GreenTentacle>	It can't be done for half-weeks.
[18:18]	<Havac>	Can't it?
[18:18]	<GreenTentacle>	It's based on week number so no.
[18:18]	<Grey-man>	hmmm
[18:18]	<LordHydronium>	With a couple conditional statements it could.
[18:18]	<Havac>	The current method might not be able to.
[18:18]	<Ataru>	Hmm, looks like we might need LucidFox for this
[18:19]	<Havac>	But I'm sure it could be coded it.
[18:19]	<Havac>	*in
[18:19]	<GreenTentacle>	Perhaps.
[18:19]	<Ataru>	Maybe
[18:19]	<LordHydronium>	"If day < 3 and hour <12, then access this page"
[18:19]	<Ataru>	I think randomization is a much easier technical solution
[18:19]	<Havac>	Well, vote for what you want and if something's not possible, we'll come back to it.
[18:19]	<LordHydronium>	Actually, that particular thing wouldn't work. But you get the gist.
[18:19]	<Xwing328>	No, LH's is all it should take
[18:19]	<GreenTentacle>	Do we have day and hour things?
[18:19]	<Ataru>	However, should we take a vote on randomization vs. half time?
[18:19]	<Gonk>	yes, let's
[18:19]	<Grey-man>	I believe so
[18:20]	* Ataru	doesn't care about his work on front page, but he wants the queue shortened
[18:20]	<Havac>	Well, there are a lot more options than that.
[18:20]	<Grey-man>	?
[18:20]	<Xwing328>	Half time gets my vote
[18:20]	<Ataru>	Havac: Ok, I suppose doing nothing about the queue isn't really a viable option
[18:20]	<LordHydronium>	Half time.
[18:20]	<Ataru>	Randomization
[18:20]	<JainaSolo>	Half time
[18:20]	<Grey-man>	Half time
[18:20]	<StarNeptune>	randomization
[18:20]	<Havac>	But we can vote for style of randomization and whether or not to have a link for half-time later.
[18:20]	<Havac>	So I vote half time.
[18:21]	<Ataru>	Darth_Culator?
[18:21]	<Ataru>	Gonk?
[18:21]	<Ataru>	GreenTentacle?
[18:21]	<Havac>	Gonk, I should kick you.
[18:21]	<Gonk>	:)
[18:21]	<Gonk>	hey now.
[18:21]	<Grey-man>	lmao
[18:21]	<GreenTentacle>	Randomization
[18:21]	<Ataru>	4 vs 3 atm
[18:21]	<Ataru>	Last two votes could decide consensus, possibly
[18:21]	<Gonk>	Randomization
[18:21]	<Havac>	For . . .
[18:21]	<Grey-man>	I see 5 half time votes...
[18:22]	<Ataru>	For what we think is the better option
[18:22]	<Ataru>	*5 vs 3
[18:22]	<Ataru>	My mistake
[18:22]	<StarNeptune>	5 vs 4 now
[18:22]	<Havac>	For as in "in favor of"
[18:22]	<Ataru>	Hmm
[18:22]	<LordHydronium>	Darth_Culator!
[18:22]	<Ataru>	Ok, not really then
[18:23]	<Ataru>	Hmm
[18:23]	<GreenTentacle>	You're right {{CURRENTDOW}} and {{CURRENTHOUR}} would work.
[18:23]	<Ataru>	If it's 5 vs. 4, that's not really consensus with one more vote
[18:23]	<Havac>	It is.
[18:23]	* Ataru	thinks consensus is more than two votes
[18:23]	<LordHydronium>	So what do we do, nothing?
[18:23]	<Havac>	It's 60-40.
[18:23]	<Ataru>	No
[18:24]	<StarNeptune>	Um, community vote?
[18:24]	<Havac>	That's reasonable.
[18:24]	<GreenTentacle>	Could do.
[18:24]	<LordHydronium>	We do have a CT...
[18:24]	<StarNeptune>	It affects them, too :P
[18:24]	<Gonk>	Works for me. As long as the options are kept to those two.
[18:24]	<Ataru>	We go back to the community thread and say that we think shortening the queue is a good idea
[18:24]	<Havac>	Nothing wrong with 60-40.
[18:24]	<GreenTentacle>	We're having two a week, let the people decide how we do it.
[18:24]	<Ataru>	Per Gonk
[18:24]	<Ataru>	GreenTentacle: Precisely
[18:24]	<Havac>	Bah!
[18:24]	<Ataru>	I'll update the page now, unless there are objections
[18:24]	<Havac>	POWAH!
[18:24]	<Gonk>	Go for it dude
[18:25]	<Havac>	Include the other points raised.
[18:25]	<Ataru>	Which are . . . technical issues and links?
[18:25]	<Havac>	Such as the link for half-time, etc.
[18:25]	<Gonk>	We gotta have the links.
[18:25]	<Havac>	Yeah, links and such.
[18:25]	<Gonk>	No one will object to the links.
[18:25]	<Ataru>	Right, I think both options will have links
[18:25]	<Ataru>	No one will object to that
[18:25]	<Ataru>	:-)
[18:25]	<Ataru>	If they do, we smack them down
[18:25]	<Havac>	OK, then they're understood.
[18:25]	<Ataru>	in a very WP:Civility way, of course
[18:26]	<Ataru>	:-P
[18:26]	<Grey-man>	heh
[18:26]	<Gonk>	I think eventually, when we have a big, big supply of solid past FAs, we can do a random-by-the-day type thing maybe. Like StarNeptune suggested
[18:26]	<Havac>	No point in bringing them up so someone can shout them down.
[18:26]	<Ataru>	Will someone kindly strip the probationary FAs of their star please?
[18:26]	<Ataru>	Havac, or Grey-man?
[18:26]	<Havac>	Hmm.
[18:27]	<Ataru>	I think the last two issues on the agenda are redundant
[18:27]	<Havac>	What if, when a stripped FA was re-featured, we added a link-only pointing out it was re-featured the next week.
[18:27]	<Ataru>	We covered them earlier, but I'll list them again.
[18:27]	<Grey-man>	ok, so is this topic done with?
[18:27]	<Ataru>	Yes
[18:27]	<Havac>	With the other article-of-the-week link.
[18:27]	<Grey-man>	Ataru > sure
[18:27]	<Ataru>	Havac: Topic? Stripped FAs aren't put on the Main Page again, even if re-featured
[18:28]	<Havac>	That's my point.
[18:28]	<Ataru>	Pass and review of other two articles is completed; we voted to remove them
[18:28]	<Havac>	It's not putting anything more than a link on the main page.
[18:28]	<Ataru>	Havac: Wait until end of meeting for non-agenda items then :-P
[18:28]	<Havac>	:P
[18:28]	<Ataru>	K'Kruhk: Havac's objection . . . . yeah, we covered that
[18:28]	<Ataru>	I assume, Havac, that you will be specific with it ;-)
[18:29]	<Havac>	I'll try and point out more detail when I have time.
[18:29]	<Ataru>	Ok, fair enough
[18:29]	<Ataru>	Any more items on the agenda?
[18:29]	<Ataru>	Speak now :-P
[18:29]	<LordHydronium>	I don't know why an article should be awarded accolades for getting worse before it got better.
[18:29]	<Havac>	:P
[18:29]	<GreenTentacle>	Heh.
[18:29]	<Havac>	I'm not saying accolades.
[18:29]	<LordHydronium>	Recognition, then.
[18:29]	<Havac>	I'm saying point out the hard work to get it re-FA'd with a small link.
[18:29]	<Gonk>	Question:
[18:29]	<Ataru>	I don't think it's a good idea either
[18:30]	<Ataru>	People who know Wookieepedia and how it works are the ones who need to work on FAs
[18:30]	<Gonk>	How long do we let the CT on our FA queue shortening method go?
[18:30]	<Ataru>	Not newbies
[18:30]	<Havac>	It's not anything like being featured; no blurb or anything.
[18:30]	<Ataru>	Gonk: Until consensus :-P
[18:30]	<LordHydronium>	Basically, articles that sucked once would get more recognition than articles that always stayed good.
[18:30]	<Havac>	Just a mention that it happened.
[18:30]	<Ataru>	Articles that are being de-featured ideally should be watched
[18:30]	<Gonk>	ok.
[18:30]	<Gonk>	Probably the CT won't take long to become popular anyway :)
[18:30]	<Ataru>	We can put a link on *our* page to probationary articles
[18:30]	<Ataru>	That I would like
[18:30]	<Havac>	But, to sound like Ataru, I think it's fair to reward the hard work put into re-FAing it with some notice.
[18:31]	<Ataru>	Assuming it gets to that point, sure
[18:31]	<Havac>	Otherwise someone can do the same amount of work to FA an article and not get any such recognition.
[18:31]	<Ataru>	It *does* "earn" you a pretty blue userbox and a star on the article
[18:31]	<Gonk>	I see your point
[18:31]	<LordHydronium>	Wait, isn't this just the "people like to see their hard work on the main page" thing again? :P
[18:31]	<Havac>	It's not about the article, it's about the work.
[18:31]	* Ataru	is in it for the userpage shinies :-P Oooh, shiny! :-P
[18:32]	<Havac>	It's just an idea that occurred to me when we were mentioning links.
[18:32]	* Grey-man	is content with his FA user boxes
[18:32]	<LordHydronium>	I like my FA user boxes. They're all pretty and golden.
[18:32]	<Havac>	It's a compromise between not recognizing the achievement and awarding it doubly for having once sucked.
[18:32]	<Gonk>	I still gotta get me one of those :D
[18:32]	* Ataru	is content with his FA user-boxes as long as they stay nice and golden and SHINY
[18:32]	<Gonk>	Havac: well said
[18:34]	<Havac>	It's not much different from putting a "congrats on adminship" into the Wookieenews, which I think we should do, but we don't, but which wouldn't be controversial if we did it.
[18:34]	<Havac>	:P
[18:35]	<Xwing328>	a few have been in the news
[18:35]	<Gonk>	So do it. Be Bold :)
[18:35]	<Grey-man>	:)
[18:35]	<Havac>	I is anon.
[18:35]	<Havac>	I'm on vacation.
[18:35]	<Havac>	*you* do it. :P
[18:35]	<Gonk>	O_o
[18:35]	<Ataru>	I think we should split up Wookieenews
[18:35]	<Ataru>	Site news
[18:35]	<Ataru>	and Star Wars news
[18:36]	<Ataru>	But that's a different topic
[18:36]	<Ataru>	:-P
[18:36]	<Ataru>	If we had site news, we could just put it in there
[18:36]	<Xwing328>	I don't think we have enough news for that, but yeah, wrong topic
[18:36]	<Ataru>	:-P
[18:37]	<Gonk>	Well, sounds like we might be done
[18:37]	<Havac>	Yeah, not enough news and wrong topic.
[18:37]	<Havac>	Not on the matter of links for re-FA'd articles.
[18:37]	<Havac>	Anyone have anything to say, care to vote on it?
[18:37]	<Gonk>	I vote yes
[18:37]	<Havac>	Or do we not care?
[18:38]	<Xwing328>	not really
[18:38]	<Xwing328>	:P
[18:38]	<Havac>	I say yes.
[18:38]	<Ataru>	I vote no
[18:38]	<Ataru>	I also think we should save it for next meeting
[18:38]	<Ataru>	It's been an awfully long meeting
[18:38]	<Xwing328>	So is this for a link in Wookieenews or the FA section?
[18:38]	<Ataru>	People are tired
[18:38]	<Gonk>	It is kind of current though
[18:38]	<Havac>	Why, when we've got everyone right here?
[18:38]	<Ataru>	Heh
[18:39]	<Ataru>	Fine
[18:39]	<Grey-man>	:P
[18:39]	<Ataru>	I still oppose
[18:39]	<Havac>	Link in the FA section.
[18:39]	<Gonk>	Didn't we just get one re-FAed?
[18:39]	<Havac>	And it's been enough of a pain in the ass to get everyone together once.
[18:39]	<Grey-man>	not yet...I think Bane will be the first
[18:39]	<Gonk>	ok, so it's coming up.
[18:39]	<Grey-man>	yup
[18:39]	<LordHydronium>	I vote no.
[18:39]	<Xwing328>	I vote no for anything on the main page
[18:39]	<Grey-man>	No
[18:39]	* Havac	votes no to people voting no.
[18:40]	<LordHydronium>	People want to add a ReFA user box on their page, that's cool.
[18:40]	<Gonk>	Oh wait, this is for *main page*?
[18:40]	<Grey-man>	yes, that's fine
[18:40]	<Ataru>	Yeah, the *main page*
[18:40]	<Ataru>	That's why I vote no
[18:40]	<Gonk>	hmmm.
[18:40]	<Ataru>	We're already going to have LucidFox irked at having to tweak his coding anyway :-P
[18:41]	<Gonk>	Yeah, I gotta change my vote to no. Seems like someone who goes to the trouble of re-FAing is accepting no mainpage recognition from the beginning anyhow.
[18:41]	<Havac>	Fair enough. Meeting over.
[18:41]	<Grey-man>	Point
[18:41]	<Ataru>	Any other business before this body?
[18:41]	* Ataru	hopes not
[18:41]	<Xwing328>	Alright. Goodbye.
[18:41]	<Ataru>	Then see you next time!
[18:41]	<Ataru>	Thanks for coming, all!
[18:41]	=-=	Xwing328 is now known as Xwing328|Away
[18:41]	* Gonk	waves
[18:42]	<LordHydronium>	Y'all come back now, y'hear?
[18:42]	<Ataru>	We need a log up
[18:42]	<Gonk>	Working on it
[18:42]	<Ataru>	We need a meeting summary on the page
[18:42]	<Ataru>	:-P
[18:42]	<GreenTentacle>	Anything important happen in the past few minutes?
[18:42]	<Gonk>	XD
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.