FANDOM


[19:57] <@Imp|zzz> I'm logging.
[19:57] <@Darth_Culator> Everyone's logging.
[19:57] <@Darth_Culator> Imp's logging, I'm logging, Nuku's logging.
[19:58] <@Graestan> I don't want your stinking loaded logs!  Power to the People!
[19:58] <@Fiolli|Inq> ...waiting...
[19:58] <@Fiolli|Inq> :D
[19:58] <@The4dotelipsis> Do we even have a mill?
[19:58] <@The4dotelipsis> Also, the hippies will hate us even more now.
[19:58] <@Grey-man|Busy> bah, let's start...2 min, and everyone who said they would be, is here
[19:58] <@Nuku-Nuku> Oh I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK...
[19:58] <@Graestan> DARK GREETINGS
[19:58] <@Nuku-Nuku> I sleep all night and I work all day!
[19:59] <@Grey-man|Busy> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Beilert_Valance
[19:59] <@Grey-man|Busy> Valance, kill or keep?
[19:59] <@Grey-man|Busy> I say kill
[19:59] <@Darth_Culator> Kill it. Move on.
[19:59] <@Grey-man|Busy> !nicks
[19:59] <@Nuku-Nuku> Grey-man|Busy: ChanServ, Cull_Tremayne, Darth_Culator, Fiolli|Inq, Gonk|Busy, Graestan, Grey-man|Busy, Imp|zzz, JainaSolo, Nuku-Nuku, and The4dotelipsis
[19:59] <@Graestan> Kill.
[19:59] <@Imp|zzz> Kill.
[19:59] <@Fiolli|Inq> Oh, we started?
[19:59] <@Fiolli|Inq> Bah.
[19:59] <@The4dotelipsis> Bah.
[19:59] <@Fiolli|Inq> My first meeting and I'm already late.
[19:59] <@Cull_Tremayne> I agree with the last person who voted.
[19:59] <@Grey-man|Busy> bah
[20:00] <@Grey-man|Busy> :P
[20:00] <@Grey-man|Busy> Ok, so Valance is killed
[20:00] <@Grey-man|Busy> Next: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalore_the_Ultimate
[20:00] <@Imp|zzz> Kill.
[20:00] <@Grey-man|Busy> Mandalore...no updates, remove
[20:00] <@Imp|zzz> I'm the author, by the way.
[20:00] <@Fiolli|Inq> Kill.
[20:00] <@Gonk|Busy> No updates = Kill
[20:00] <@Graestan> Kill
[20:00] <@The4dotelipsis> Whoa, kill.
[20:00] <@Darth_Culator> Per the landslide.
[20:00] <@Grey-man|Busy> Ok, killed
[20:00] <@Grey-man|Busy> Next: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Padm%C3%A9_Amidala
[20:00] <@Grey-man|Busy> De-throne
[20:00] <@Graestan> KILL
[20:01] <@Fiolli|Inq> Probate.
[20:01] <@Graestan> Force Choke
[20:01] <@The4dotelipsis> I don't even have to look at that one to say BAHSTROY.
[20:01] <@Darth_Culator> Probe.
[20:01] <@Darth_Culator> I mean probation.
[20:01] <@Fiolli|Inq> o_O
[20:01] <@Gonk|Busy> Fact tags?
[20:01] <@Graestan> It needs to berewritten.
[20:01] <@Imp|zzz> Kill.
[20:01] <@Grey-man|Busy> Ok, consensus is to kill, which in this case means probation
[20:01] <@Grey-man|Busy> so, probation
[20:01] <@Grey-man|Busy> Next: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer
[20:01] <@Grey-man|Busy> Eck, probo it
[20:01] <@Fiolli|Inq> KILL, KILL, KILL
[20:01] <@Imp|zzz> Kill.
[20:01] * Grey-man|Busy is now known as Grey-man
[20:02] <@Graestan> Kill it. Some bad writing.
[20:02] <@The4dotelipsis> Pants it.
[20:02] <@Cull_Tremayne> I agree with the last person who voted.
[20:02] <@Gonk|Busy> definite probation. Needs development
[20:02] <@Grey-man> heh
[20:02] <@Grey-man> yes, Per Gonk
[20:02] <@Graestan> Who will work on it, though?
[20:02] <@Graestan> Is it anyone in particular's?
[20:02] <@Darth_Culator> Tag it and watch nothing happen.
[20:02] <@The4dotelipsis> The magic man.
[20:02] <@Gonk|Busy> Some fleet junkie, I dunno
[20:02] <@Grey-man> Ok, consensus to place on probation
[20:02] <@Grey-man> Next: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kreia
[20:02] <@Grey-man> KILL
[20:02] <@Graestan> Kill.
[20:02] <@Grey-man> or...probation
[20:03] <@Fiolli|Inq> Probation.
[20:03] * @Grey-man jumps the gun :P
[20:03] <@Cull_Tremayne> I agree with the last person who voted.
[20:03] <@Fiolli|Inq> She's recoverable, with much help.
[20:03] <@Graestan> No, Kill. This also needs a complete rewrite, IMO.
[20:03] <@The4dotelipsis> What's so bad about it again?
[20:03] <@Imp|zzz> Kill.
[20:03] <@Darth_Culator> Tag it, though I have to say I love the scene-by-scene sourcing.
[20:03] <@Gonk|Busy> Highly intrusive Sith probe
[20:03] <@The4dotelipsis> Scene by scene sourcing?
[20:03] <@Grey-man> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Wookieepedia:Inq/Meeting_Sixteen&t=20080412221153#Articles_to_be_reviewed_.28Add_to_as_needed.29
[20:03] <@The4dotelipsis> KILL.
[20:03] <@Graestan> 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...
[20:03] <@Graestan> ...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)
[20:03] <@Grey-man> indeed
[20:03] <@Graestan> That summed it up for me originally.
[20:04] <@Grey-man> so, are we agreed that her fate is probation?
[20:04] <@The4dotelipsis> Yep.
[20:04] <@Grey-man> is the original writer here?
[20:04] <@Grey-man> I couldn't figure out who wrote it
[20:04] <@Graestan> It was a long time ago.
[20:04] <@Grey-man> if they are, feel free to tackle it again :P
[20:04] <@Fiolli|Inq> Eh. I change my vote.
[20:04] <@Fiolli|Inq> Kill.
[20:05] <@Grey-man> heh
[20:05] <@Grey-man> Ok, probation it is
[20:05] <@Grey-man> so, that's it for the articles
[20:05] <@Grey-man> Next: "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."

[Member voting/comments removed]

[20:15] <@Grey-man> NEXT!
[20:15] <@Grey-man> 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...
[20:15] <@Grey-man> ...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.
[20:15] <@Grey-man> * 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
[20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> By the way: If for some reason I don't talk for a while, even when I'm supposed to, it's because I'm dealing with a customer.
[20:15] * Darth_Culator changes topic to 'Inqmoot - Topic: In(q)activity - Mount Sorrow Headquarters - "All your noms are belong to us!" | Upcoming meeting -- http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Meeting_Sixteen - on now.�'
[20:15] * Darth_Culator sets mode: -i
[20:15] <@Grey-man> that's cool, 4dot...no worries :)
[20:15] * StarNinja99 (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-56328a0c87e7f12b) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> OK.
[20:16] <@The4dotelipsis> I think from this, people should take a leaf out of Hobbes' book. Personally.
[20:16] <@The4dotelipsis> Unless...Grae has a speech. :P
[20:16] <@The4dotelipsis> Sorry.
[20:16] <@Graestan> Honestly, read my first paragraph of that, everyone.
[20:16] * AdmirableAckbar (n=Admirabl@wikia/AdmirableAckbar) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:16] * Jedi_Goodwood (n=chatzill@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:16] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +v Jedi_Goodwood
[20:16] <+Jedi_Goodwood> Hey.
[20:16] * Grey-man sets mode: -v Jedi_Goodwood
[20:16] * Fiolli|Inq sets mode: -v Jedi_Goodwood
[20:16] <@Graestan> The second one I also support, but seriously, do me and Ataru have to read every nom?
[20:16] * Imp|zzz sets mode: -v Jedi_Goodwood
[20:16] <@Darth_Culator> Hmm. Need to fix that.
[20:16] <@Grey-man> lol
[20:17] <@Grey-man> Sorry, Goodwood
[20:17] <@Grey-man> :P
[20:17] <@Fiolli|Inq> :) Sorry, man.
[20:17] <@Graestan> I'll make a short speech:
[20:17] <@Grey-man> ok, back to the topic at hand
[20:17] <@Grey-man> Inq inactivity
[20:17] * @Cull_Tremayne sits back.
[20:17] * @Grey-man too
[20:17] * @Gonk|Busy stretches loudly.
[20:17] * @Fiolli|Inq sighs and gets comfy.
[20:17] <@Graestan> Fiolli has been a model Inq since he joined.  He's maybe written one FA, but reviewed seven.  He doesn't review constantly like I do, but no one is asking anyone to.
[20:18] <@Imp|zzz> What's there to debate? Certain Inqs don't do their job.
[20:18] * StarNinja99 (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-56328a0c87e7f12b) Quit (Client Quit�)
[20:18] <@Grey-man> Exactly
[20:18] <@Graestan> What I /do/ ask, however, is that we decide that thirty minutes every two weeks--an easy, realistic number--isn't too darn much time to spend on anything.
[20:18] <@Grey-man> and, in my opinion, they have been given ample warning
[20:18] <@The4dotelipsis> Yeah, look, the whole idea of the Inq in the first place was to get nominations MOVING. Since they used to just flounder. And we've lost the plot.
[20:18] <@Graestan> ESPECIALLY Inqs that are on the wiki every day.
[20:18] <@Grey-man> When you vote for your own article, you review others...simple
[20:18] <@Imp|zzz> What do we do with these people? Ignore them, or remove their super vote?
[20:18] <@The4dotelipsis> I think we need to get a bit meaner to those who don't do their job.
[20:19] <@Grey-man> I've for removing
[20:19] <@Gonk|Busy> Since time is impossible to monitor, how about one review every two weeks as some form of minimum?
[20:19] <@Grey-man> I'm getting sick of it, to be honest
[20:19] <@Graestan> I hate to say it, but there is one I am ready to remove.  They've had three interventions about it.
[20:19] <@The4dotelipsis> One review every 2 weeks isn't enough, not nearly enough.
[20:19] <@Gonk|Busy> Depending on the nom, half an hour isn't nearly enough :)
[20:19] <@The4dotelipsis> My grandfather could manage more, and he doesn't even have a computer.
[20:20] <@Cull_Tremayne> How about we go back to the old system. If someone bugs you, you MUST do it. Otherwise, keep your head down. :P
[20:20] <@Graestan> Toprawa will be an asset, but I don't want him to be one of the Legs for us to stand on.
[20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> So choose a different nom.
[20:20] * Toprawa (n=chatzill@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:20] <@Cull_Tremayne> That's just a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
[20:20] <@Graestan> *I* hate being that, as it is.  I want to write again, and focus on the GAN.
[20:20] <@Fiolli|Inq> I guess now would be a time to direct people's attention to the scratchpad: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jedimasterfiolli/scratchpad
[20:20] * Fiolli|Inq sets mode: +o Toprawa
[20:20] * Fiolli|Inq sets mode: +v Toprawa
[20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> When I'm actively editing, I set aside some time every Friday and Sunday to do some reviews.
[20:20] <@Imp|zzz> Put Tope on the auto op list
[20:20] <@Grey-man> I'm not going to dodge it here...Havac. Havac has been warned at various meetings to review noms. Where do we go from here? It's obvious he doesn't really want to review noms
[20:20] <@Imp|zzz> Remove him.
[20:21] <@The4dotelipsis> So remove.
[20:21] <@Imp|zzz> He's been warned.
[20:21] <@Fiolli|Inq> I wouldn't oppose removal.
[20:21] <@Gonk|Busy> Per Imp
[20:21] <@Graestan> He is a great writer.  Cannot he be like several others and just write?  Why does he need to be an Inq?
[20:21] <@Imp|zzz> Repeatedly.
[20:21] <@The4dotelipsis> He's obviously very enthusiastic about writing, let him do that.
[20:21] <@Graestan> Remove.
[20:21] <@Cull_Tremayne> Eh. I think if you hassle him, he does it.
[20:21] <@Graestan> He does it once.
[20:21] <@Fiolli|Inq> I'm not sure it would be the best thing to do, though.
[20:21] <@Grey-man> Remove
[20:21] <@Graestan> Then he stops until hassled again.
[20:22] <@Imp|zzz> Anyone else wanna weigh in?
[20:22] <@Gonk|Busy> Alternately, I would support us asking Havac to step down
[20:22] <@Imp|zzz> Yes, of course.
[20:22] <@Grey-man> Yes, that's fine...that's what I thought we were talking about
[20:22] <@Graestan> For the fifth time?  Or sixth?
[20:22] <@Grey-man> no
[20:22] <@Grey-man> this is the first time
[20:22] <@Imp|zzz> The proper way to do this is to ask him to step down voluntarily.
[20:22] <@Grey-man> he's been warned before
[20:22] <@Grey-man> Per Imp
[20:22] <@Gonk|Busy> I mean, we voted on whether to ask him. Basically a "soft remove"
[20:23] * Yrf (n=teluekh@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:23] <@Gonk|Busy> The implication being that if he says no, he better prove his worth.
[20:23] <@Cull_Tremayne> Well, didn't he uh...I'm trying to remember here. Respond negatively to a "suggestion" that he leave?
[20:23] <@The4dotelipsis> If he resists and persists, we...uh...something that rhymes.
[20:23] <@Graestan> I'm just not comfortable with him voting in meetings, etc. if he doesn't do the work at all.
[20:24] <@Cull_Tremayne> Look, if we're going to do a necessary number of votes per month, then let's vote on that. THEN, if you miss it, you get bumped.
[20:24] <@Grey-man> ok, so consensus to ask Havac to step down...if he doesn't, then we'll go fro there
[20:24] <@Grey-man> oops, sorry to cut you off, Cull
[20:24] * @Grey-man was typing that at the same time
[20:24] <@The4dotelipsis> It's not about a "certain number of votes" it's just...actively Inqing.
[20:24] <@Imp|zzz> The issue of Havac has been concluded.
[20:24] <@Graestan> per Fourdot
[20:25] <@Imp|zzz> Now, to move on.
[20:25] <@Grey-man> yup
[20:25] <@Graestan> It's in the spirit of it.
[20:25] <@Fiolli|Inq> Wait! I'm totally confused.
[20:25] <@Grey-man> Ok, any other's that we need to deal with?
[20:25] <@Imp|zzz> I am opposed to a set number of votes per week or whatever.
[20:25] <@Cull_Tremayne> I guess I would feel much better if we adopted a system like Fiolli has on his subpage.
[20:25] <@Gonk|Busy> Yeah, I think we can figure out active Inqage without a certain number of votes
[20:25] <@Cull_Tremayne> Otherwise, we're going simply by subjectiveness IMO.
[20:25] <@Grey-man> Breathes has approached me recently, so she is fine...she is still interested, and when she's editing on the site, she Inqs...and will Inq, she says
[20:25] <@Cull_Tremayne> Is Toprawa in here?
[20:25] <@Grey-man> yes
[20:25] <@Toprawa> Yo
[20:26] <@Cull_Tremayne> Oh yes, he is. Hey Tope. :P
[20:26] <@Toprawa> Hey :)
[20:26] <@The4dotelipsis> See, that's the thing, if you're not actively editing, you're not on the Wook...
[20:26] * AN99 (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-2d994f23df1da568) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:26] <@The4dotelipsis> No need to Inq.
[20:26] <@Grey-man> Exactly
[20:26] <@Graestan> My thoughts exactly.
[20:26] * AN99 (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-2d994f23df1da568) Quit (Client Quit�)
[20:26] <@Cull_Tremayne> Yes, but we have people like Ackbar who vote and stuff, and seem to be fine without the Inq label. Why is this any different?
[20:26] * SN99 (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-e4d26a0d4a34e7cb) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:26] -ChanServ- [�Toprawa�] has been added to the access list for #wookieepedia-inquisitorius with level [�29�]
[20:26] <@Cull_Tremayne> They're not around, they just do it time to time. Shouldn't you at least have to "deserve" Inqhood, or Inqship or whatever?
[20:26] <@Toprawa> I say we force feed Inq status to Acky
[20:26] <@Fiolli|Inq> Ok. I'm going to step on some toes here, but I'm in the same situation as Breathes and I have no trouble being an Inq.
[20:27] <@Graestan> Ackbar is content as a writer, he's told me.  He'd have been an Inq by now.
[20:27] <@The4dotelipsis> That's the next issue. What's the point of voting if you're not an Inq. Objections are OK, but support means squat.
[20:27] <@The4dotelipsis> They have "deserved" it though.
[20:27] <@The4dotelipsis> So did Havac. Fully.
[20:27] <@Cull_Tremayne> So then why is being an Inq that important? Just because those people "want" to be in?
[20:27] <@Graestan> Yep.
[20:27] <@Graestan> I think so.
[20:27] <@Fiolli|Inq> Because they want to FA their own noms.
[20:27] * @Imp|zzz is personally for dissolving the Inq.
[20:27] <@Grey-man> yup
[20:27] <@Graestan> Just like an admin who came back for a week so as not to be booted.
[20:28] <@Grey-man> ok, next issue since this is dead, obviously:
[20:28] <@Grey-man> 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...
[20:28] <@Grey-man> ...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)
[20:28] <@Gonk|Busy> Dissolve the Inq and Shaelas will come back :)
[20:28] <@Cull_Tremayne> I guess I would be much more..."content" with parameters. Remember when we first began on that?
[20:28] <@Grey-man> heh
[20:28] <@Imp|zzz> No, no, no.
[20:28] <@Cull_Tremayne> Gah! :P
[20:28] <@Imp|zzz> No, no, no.
[20:28] <@Fiolli|Inq> BAH!
[20:28] <@Imp|zzz> No.
[20:28] <@Graestan> Gonk: Shaelas tried.
[20:28] <@Grey-man> I say no to the Non-Inq vote thing...so does Ataru
[20:28] <@Gonk|Busy> I like Eyrez's suggestion on this one
[20:28] <@Fiolli|Inq> No Darth-Droid-Fish.
[20:28] <@Toprawa> If anything, more non-Inq votes should be required, not less.
[20:28] * Darth_Culator changes topic to 'Inqmoot - Topic: Normies voting on FAs - Mount Sorrow Headquarters - "All your noms are belong to us!" | Upcoming meeting -- http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Meeting_Sixteen - on now.�'
[20:28] <@The4dotelipsis> I say yes to it, though I'm not sure about what format it would take.
[20:29] <@The4dotelipsis> But seriously, laypeople need a reason to vote.
[20:29] <@Cull_Tremayne> Moving too fast... :P
[20:29] <@Imp|zzz> If this were implemented, I would step down from the Inq.
[20:29] <@Toprawa> Why diminish the power of the Inq to essentially skirt the issue of inactivity?
[20:29] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per Toprawa.
[20:29] <@Grey-man> Per Imp
[20:29] <@Gonk|Busy> per Tope
[20:29] <@Graestan> I see regs acting as meatpuppets, playing for patronage, etc. if their votes can be added up into Inqvotes.
[20:29] <@Imp|zzz> The Inq is supposed to be a review panel, not a group of super votes.
[20:29] <@Imp|zzz> voters*
[20:29] <@Grey-man> Yes, Tope raises an EXCELLENT POINT
[20:29] <@Gonk|Busy> Grey-man, have you got Eyrez's suggestion handy?
[20:29] * SN99 (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-e4d26a0d4a34e7cb) Quit (Client Quit�)
[20:29] <@Grey-man> Eyrezer>	The objection to there being no guarantee they'll look loses some of its weight, when it is considered that the Inq requirement is not weakened at all. If X number of regular votes = an Inq vote, there would be the potential to undermine the process. Keeping the Inq requirement stops this from happening
[20:29] <@Grey-man> [19:49]	I think long term, changing to this would increase the likelihood ppl will get involved in the process and grow up to Inq standard
[20:30] * StarNinja99 (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-f65b699ed0b71ef5) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:30] <@Imp|zzz> I disagree.
[20:30] <@Grey-man> Eyrezer>	Re: Fiolli's proposals, and involvement  of other users in the process, I think the best option is to keep the Inq requirements the same - ie 5 Inq votes - and to add an additional requirement of a certain number of regular FA votes. Perhaps 5, perhaps less.
[20:30] <@Grey-man> I'm against it, personally
[20:30] <@Fiolli|Inq> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jedimasterfiolli/scratchpad > Amendment C, Proposal 3
[20:30] <@Cull_Tremayne> It's really all about objections. As long as someone can object, they have the same amount of power. Giving a quarter of a vote to a non-Inq is basically just a way to get around inactive Inqs.
[20:30] <@Gonk|Busy> That's it, adding an additional requirement of a set number of non-Inq votes
[20:30] <@Darth_Culator> The Inq still functions as a review panel, it's just that the form of passing the review got streamlined into the inqvote.
[20:30] <@Grey-man> Yes, this all boils down to lazy inq
[20:30] <@Toprawa> there aren't enough non-Inq reviewers anyways. that would turn the FAN process into the GAN, where we end up having fringe users having a say
[20:31] <@Grey-man> Indeed
[20:31] <@Graestan> per Greyman
[20:31] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per Toprawa.
[20:31] <@Cull_Tremayne> That will slow down the FAN page like no other. Rounding up 5 other non-Inqs? I'm skeptical.
[20:31] <@Gonk|Busy> hmm. I see your point Tope
[20:31] <@Graestan> I'll put in overtime if I have to.
[20:31] <@Grey-man> I can think of...maybe...3 or 4 non-Inq users who vote on a regular basis
[20:31] <@Cull_Tremayne> Or make that... per Tope. :P
[20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> But there aren't enough non-Inq reviewers...
[20:31] <@Grey-man> the loudest ones don't even vote every month
[20:31] <@Gonk|Busy> Well, something to keep in mind if FAN ever gets lots more good noobs :)
[20:31] <@Graestan> You don't all want me voting on your noms /with a vengeance./
[20:31] <@Fiolli|Inq> That's the problem, Grae! You shouldn't have to.
[20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> Because they can't do anything.
[20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> What's the attraction?
[20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> So, of course there's non-Inq voters.
[20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> That's just the state of play.
[20:31] <@Grey-man> 4dot > Goodwood and Tope are/were good examples of non-Inq reviewers
[20:31] <@Graestan> I'd rather see ALL PRESENT INQUISITORS step it up.  Heck, one per week.
[20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> *no non-Inq voters.
[20:31] <@Imp|zzz> The FAN system is based around objections, not votes.
[20:32] <@Grey-man> ya
[20:32] <@Cull_Tremayne> Let's go back to voting on such a system then.
[20:32] <@Cull_Tremayne> What Imp said.
[20:32] <@Grey-man> mhmm
[20:32] <@Grey-man> agreed
[20:32] <@Cull_Tremayne> It's not an election.
[20:32] <@Graestan> I explained to Tope when he was new that the power really is in objections.
[20:32] <@Toprawa> this isn't to demean Ozzel at all, but why should his vote count when he doesn't review at all?
[20:32] <@Graestan> And he exemplified it.  And I like how it's been working.
[20:33] <@Toprawa> all he does is vote
[20:33] <@Grey-man> Ok, so if I'm reading this conversation correctly, the consensus is to either keep the current system, or review the current system to make current Inqs more efficient?
[20:33] <@Imp|zzz> Votes mean squat. If Ozzel wants to vote even if it doesn't matter, let him.
[20:33] <@Cull_Tremayne> Ozzel does bring up objections IIRC.
[20:33] <@Graestan> Tope: We can't scrutinize, due to IRC objecting, etc.
[20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> I demand a probe.
[20:33] <@Fiolli|Inq> Grey-man: Yes.
[20:33] <@Cull_Tremayne> Not as many as Toprawa does, but he does.
[20:33] <@Gonk|Busy> Sounds good to me Grey-man
[20:33] <@Fiolli|Inq> So, I vote for keep as is.
[20:33] <@Imp|zzz> Sounds fine, Grey.
[20:33] <@Toprawa> per Fiolli
[20:33] <@Grey-man> Ok, let's vote then
[20:34] <@Grey-man> I vote keep as is
[20:34] <@Graestan> Keep
[20:34] <@Grey-man> swell ranks when we can
[20:34] <@Toprawa> Keep
[20:34] <@Imp|zzz> Keep
[20:34] <@Fiolli|Inq> Keep.
[20:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Actually, on second thought, keep as is.
[20:34] <@Darth_Culator> Meh.
[20:34] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm fine with keeping it as is, but seriously, I still think we should vote on a system to decrease Inq-inactivity then.
[20:34] <@Graestan> We can make this work for us if we all get on the horse.
[20:34] <@The4dotelipsis> In spirit, a struck objection is a support.
[20:34] <@Gonk|Busy> Keep and swell. Lather, rinse, repeat.
[20:34] <@Imp|zzz> Well.
[20:34] <@Fiolli|Inq> Herbal, Gonk?
[20:34] <@Cull_Tremayne> All about the objections.
[20:34] <@Cull_Tremayne> So that's a keep.
[20:34] <@Gonk|Busy> Fiolli > Yes, yes OH GOD YES
[20:34] <@Fiolli|Inq> LOL
[20:34] <@Grey-man> Cull > Ya, hopefully by kicking inactive Inq we can send some sort of msg to step it up or something? Not sure
[20:35] <@Imp|zzz> Consensus is to maintain status quo.
[20:35] <@Imp|zzz> Moving on.
[20:35] <@Gonk|Busy> Grey-man > That's the spirit :)
[20:35] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per Gonk.
[20:35] <@Grey-man> Next:
[20:35] <@Grey-man> "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...
[20:35] <@Grey-man> ...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. -...
[20:35] <@Grey-man> ...Lord Hydronium 04:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)"
[20:35] <@Imp|zzz> Heh heh.
[20:35] <@Cull_Tremayne> Grey-man: I'm more for doing a "review this many per" deal, but whatever.
[20:35] * Darth_Culator changes topic to 'Inqmoot - Topic: Image quality - Mount Sorrow Headquarters - "All your noms are belong to us!" | Upcoming meeting -- http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Meeting_Sixteen - on now.�'
[20:35] <@Imp|zzz> The image policy is quite clear.
[20:35] <@Toprawa> is it that hard to scan a new, better image?
[20:35] <@Fiolli|Inq> Here we go . . .
[20:35] <@Graestan> I just think it needs to be toned down.  I know what is and isn't acceptable, and I am for more leniency outside the infobox pic.
[20:35] <@Gonk|Busy> I vote we save this for the next Mofference *evil grin*
[20:35] <@Grey-man> I'd like to say that this will only affect FAN's, and not the image policy for the wider-site...since there was some confusion
[20:36] <@Gonk|Busy> dammit Grey-man XD
[20:36] <@The4dotelipsis> Sometimes the source is out of print or exceptionally rare.
[20:36] <@Imp|zzz> This will not affect FANs at all.
[20:36] <@Grey-man> Cull > I totally agree, so hopefully we can all develop something :S
[20:36] <@Cull_Tremayne> More leniency, but it shouldn't be overlooked.
[20:36] <@Graestan> Magically, noms make it through.
[20:36] <@Darth_Culator> I'm just tired of people holding up the process to force someone to scan something.
[20:36] <@Graestan> Imp doesn't cripplethe page.
[20:36] <@Toprawa> as an image objection /ever/ held up a nom?
[20:36] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per Graestan.
[20:36] <@Darth_Culator> It's cruel and unnecessary.
[20:36] <@Cull_Tremayne> Grey-man: Honestly, it will become immediately clear who wants to stay an Inq if we adopt such a system.
[20:36] <@Grey-man> yup
[20:36] <@Graestan> I just see too much leniency leading to a horrible loophole.
[20:37] <@Toprawa> per Grae
[20:37] <@Grey-man> I've never minded image objections...some have caused me to scratch my head, but "epic meh" is my attitude...I'd rather fix the objection, or talk it out
[20:37] <@Graestan> If *I* object to an image, and I do sometimes, you /know/ it's bad.
[20:37] <@The4dotelipsis> That's why we need to be *sensible* about it.
[20:37] <@Toprawa> I generally disagree with lowering standards of any nature
[20:37] <@Graestan> per greyman
[20:37] <@Imp|zzz> I am not unreasonable. I object to poor images. I don't do it because I am a sadist, but because I think the images in our FAs should adhere to our standards of excellency.
[20:37] <@Graestan> Cowboy up.
[20:37] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per Imp.
[20:37] <@Cull_Tremayne> Yes, but how can we have a requirement here? Basically anyone can object on the Image quality regardless of well...anything.
[20:37] <@Graestan> Imp is to pictures as Tope is to words.
[20:37] <@Darth_Culator> You see leniency leading to a loophole, but I just see Imp causing noms to sit on the FAN page for a week.
[20:37] <@Fiolli|Inq> Culator: I haven't seen that in my time here.
[20:37] <@Toprawa> And, really, Imp is our only image objector
[20:38] <@Toprawa> Grae dabbles
[20:38] <@Graestan> I make image objections, and sometimes they sit.  Ask Acky.
[20:38] <@Darth_Culator> Our job is not to critique people's ability to steal from Lucasfilm.
[20:38] <@Gonk|Busy> !laws
[20:38] * @Nuku-Nuku would like to remind everyone that Wookieepedia supports all applicable copyright laws.
[20:38] <@Cull_Tremayne> Also, Imp knows when he's objecting to bad images. He doesn't go after stuff which sucks but is the best quality we can get.
[20:38] <@Darth_Culator> I want the rule on the FAN page dropped altogether.
[20:38] <@Graestan> BUt, then again, Acky will shuffle something out for a better pic, etc. often without begging Red.
[20:38] <@Darth_Culator> Wookieepedia:Images is enough.
[20:38] <@Imp|zzz> Fine, remove the rule.
[20:38] <@Toprawa> What does the current rule state, w/o looking?
[20:38] <@Imp|zzz> I will still object, based on WP:I.
[20:39] <@Grey-man> eh, I'm against moving the rule, to be honest
[20:39] <@Grey-man> *removing
[20:39] <@Graestan> I am against removing therule.
[20:39] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per Grey-man.
[20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> That's too far.
[20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> I feel there needs to be some kind of alteration.
[20:39] <@Graestan> Then nominators would try *everything* with us.
[20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> But removal just won't work.
[20:39] <@Grey-man> ya
[20:39] <@Graestan> And we can't leave it wide open.
[20:39] <@Gonk|Busy> Per Grey-man
[20:39] <@Grey-man> Ok, so let's take an official vote here:
[20:39] <@Grey-man> !nicks
[20:39] <@Nuku-Nuku> Grey-man: AdmirableAckbar, ChanServ, Cull_Tremayne, Darth_Culator, Fiolli|Inq, Gonk|Busy, Graestan, Grey-man, Imp|zzz, JainaSolo, Jedi_Goodwood, Nuku-Nuku, StarNinja99, The4dotelipsis, Toprawa, and Yrf
[20:39] <@Grey-man> remove the rule, keep it, or alter it
[20:39] <@Imp|zzz> Keep it.
[20:39] <@Grey-man> I say keep it, alter if required
[20:39] <@Toprawa> Keep it
[20:40] <@Cull_Tremayne> Well if we're just going to get a separate objection, what's the point of voting on this? It apparently doesn't matter either way.
[20:40] <@Darth_Culator> Kill it with fire.
[20:40] <@Graestan> Alter, but we need some specific wording.
[20:40] <@Gonk|Busy> Keep or alter
[20:40] <@Toprawa> I can't vote for alter w/o seeing how it woudl be altered
[20:40] <@Toprawa> I wouldnt be against it per se
[20:40] <@Cull_Tremayne> Abstain on the notion that removing the rule apparently has no bearing on the FAN page.
[20:40] <@Graestan> Per Tope, really.
[20:41] <@Grey-man> Jaina, 4dot?
[20:41] <@Gonk|Busy> Yeah, my vote was implicitly per Tope too
[20:41] * @Grey-man apologizes to 4dot's customer's
[20:41] <@Graestan> Cull, it would allow nominators to cite "it's not a rule" when they push crap on us.
[20:41] <@The4dotelipsis> Take it to the people. Let them decide.
[20:41] <@The4dotelipsis> This is too broad an issue.
[20:41] <@Toprawa> which happens way too often
[20:41] <@Darth_Culator> Grae: Frankly, that's what I want.
[20:41] <@Cull_Tremayne> Graestan: Is that really the case? Imp apparently will still object on the basis of WP:I, so what's the point here?
[20:41] <@Graestan> Why?
[20:41] <@Grey-man> well, if it goes to a CT, you'll get people who have never loaded the FAN page voting
[20:41] <@Graestan> Dude, I don't want Memory Alpha-quality images.
[20:41] <@Grey-man> and that's not right at all, in my opinion
[20:42] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per all the G people.
[20:42] <@Graestan> Not just Imp.  I would, too.
[20:42] <@The4dotelipsis> But that's the way the site works.
[20:42] <@Darth_Culator> I want FAs to be able to pass with a digital camera picture of someone's TV. I'm tired of the crap being pulled over image quality.
[20:42] <@Darth_Culator> Image quality is not our domain, and never should have been.
[20:42] <@Imp|zzz> Culator, always the extremist.
[20:42] <@Graestan> Hey, you two.
[20:42] <@The4dotelipsis> I think this isn't just about FA images, it's about images in general.
[20:42] <@Grey-man> maybe, ya
[20:42] <@Darth_Culator> No, it is very specifically about FA objections over images.
[20:42] <@Grey-man> Ok, for this meeting, the consensus was to keep the rule
[20:42] <@Grey-man> Next
[20:42] <@Grey-man> 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...
[20:42] <@The4dotelipsis> To an extent, I agree with Culator.
[20:43] <@Cull_Tremayne> Apparently this is outside the realm of an Inq vote.
[20:43] <@Grey-man> ...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)
[20:43] <@Grey-man> Per Cull
[20:43] <@The4dotelipsis> Images are always *supplementary* to Wookieepedia.
[20:43] <@The4dotelipsis> Ah, right.
[20:43] * Darth_Culator changes topic to 'Inqmoot - Topic: We're all jerks. - Mount Sorrow Headquarters - "All your noms are belong to us!" | Upcoming meeting -- http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Meeting_Sixteen - on now.�'
[20:43] <@Graestan> I am ready to put my best foot forward with the FAN page.
[20:43] <@Grey-man> Per this item, I agree with what GT said on the meeting page
[20:43] <@Cull_Tremayne> Apparently this is behind us now.
[20:43] <@Grey-man> "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." - GT
[20:43] <@Toprawa> The tetchiness is a lack of respect people have for others
[20:43] <@Imp|zzz> We can't help this.
[20:43] <@Graestan> I worked it out with Hydro; I can do anything I can imagine if he and I can get along.
[20:43] <@The4dotelipsis> Now, I've only been back for two weeks now, but through a cursory examination of the FAN page, there are multiple incidents, both major and minor.
[20:43] <@Imp|zzz> This is caused by large egoes.
[20:43] <@Toprawa> To a large degree, many people don't respect objections
[20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> We can help this, and here's how:
[20:44] <@Toprawa> They take it as a way to object to objections
[20:44] <@Grey-man> heh, per Imp
[20:44] <@Cull_Tremayne> Talk it out with one another. Don't assume bad faith. Be a decent human being. Etc.
[20:44] <@Graestan> I think this is actually more an admin issue.
[20:44] <@Imp|zzz> Large egoes are inavoidable in net communities.
[20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> When you have a question about an article, don't ask it in the *OBJECTION* field. Because it's not an objection. It's a question.
[20:44] <@Gonk|Busy> Esp. nerd wikis :D
[20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> Ask it in the comments field.
[20:44] <@Imp|zzz> We already have a rule telling people to behave.
[20:44] <@Darth_Culator> That makes too much sense.
[20:44] <@Graestan> I'd say admins enforce the notion of people not being ridiculously uncivil on the FAN.
[20:44] <@Imp|zzz> WP:Civility.
[20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> This way, it can't be taken as a bad faith slight against the writer. At all. It's an innocent question.
[20:44] <@Fiolli|Inq> Being an Inq is a privilege and a responsibility not a way to fill up your ego or your userpage with boxes saying what you have done or that you are high-and-mighty.
[20:44] <@Graestan> per Fiolli
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> Also: When someone contests and objection, IT IS NOT AN INSULT.
[20:45] <@Graestan> Even though I *am* high and mighty.
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> *an
[20:45] <@Grey-man> some users will never take it as an innocent question, unfortunately
[20:45] <@Cull_Tremayne> Agree, but keep putting up the boxes, because I'm interested in that. ;)
[20:45] <@Grey-man> heh
[20:45] <@Toprawa> 4dot, if I have a question about something, I'm going to ask it.
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> It is possible to contest objections. Recommended.
[20:45] <@Toprawa> How else am I supposed to find out whether what they have is right?
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> It's not an insult.
[20:45] <@Toprawa> I dont trust them
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> Just ask it in the comments field.
[20:45] <@Toprawa> Its my job NOT to trust them
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> A question is not an objection.
[20:45] <@Imp|zzz> This is small potatoes.
[20:45] <@Grey-man> it's all in how you approach the situation, to be honest
[20:45] <@Graestan> Per Fourdot, but we've seen it get more personal than that, in the bodies of objections and in the comments sections when the nomination comes down.  As an admin, I'd warn people to *stop it now* or I'll take issue.
[20:45] <@Cull_Tremayne> Somewhat agree, however, I think we can definitely take an example from "Vaklu" there. His contesting of objections? Totally going about it in the wrong fashion.
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> If you're asking it due to ignorance of the source, ask it in the comments.
[20:46] <@Grey-man> yes, be civil is what it comes down to
[20:46] <@Toprawa> This was never an issue until Hydro blew a gasket
[20:46] <@Toprawa> I will continue to ask questions
[20:46] <@Graestan> Cull: Vaklu didn't bug me.  I just gave it to him right back.
[20:46] <@Grey-man> yes, Tope, but continue doing it in a civil non-combative fashion
[20:46] <@Imp|zzz> Query etiquette is a bit off topic, no?
[20:46] <@Cull_Tremayne> Yeah, but that's a problem IMO Grae.
[20:46] <@Toprawa> Grey: of course
[20:46] <@Grey-man> keep that up, and you're doing what 4dot is suggesting :)
[20:46] <@Cull_Tremayne> Giving it right back? Is that really what we should be doing?
[20:46] <@Graestan> Cull: If you readwhat I responded with, you'll see I was very kind and civil with him.
[20:46] <@Grey-man> ok, so yes, this all comes down to personal egos and not taking it personal, like we've all heard
[20:47] <@Graestan> I just let him know he wouldn;t be getting around me.
[20:47] <@The4dotelipsis> And for God's sake, don't attack the nominator when you object. That's deplorable.
[20:47] <@Grey-man> I suggest we move on, since I hope we're adults who know when not to be dicks
[20:47] <@Graestan> per Greyman
[20:47] <@Grey-man> ;)
[20:47] <@Cull_Tremayne> Grae: True, but my thought is that not everyone's going to keep a cool head. Better to just eliminate the possibility.
[20:47] <@Fiolli|Inq> Ner Grey-man.
[20:47] <@Toprawa> Yes, let's
[20:47] <@Fiolli|Inq> *Per
[20:47] <@Grey-man> Next:
[20:47] <@Grey-man> "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...
[20:47] <@Grey-man> ...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...
[20:47] <@Grey-man> ...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...
[20:47] <@Grey-man> ...whole, I think we could achieve some (comparatively) big things. If enough people bite. Thefourdotelipsis 07:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)"
[20:47] <@Imp|zzz> Speak up, Dot.
[20:47] * @Grey-man wants to hear what 4dot's thoughts are on this
[20:47] <@The4dotelipsis> Rightio.
[20:47] <@Grey-man> :)
[20:47] * Darth_Culator changes topic to 'Inqmoot - Topic: something about broads. - Mount Sorrow Headquarters - "All your noms are belong to us!" | Upcoming meeting -- http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Meeting_Sixteen - on now.�'
[20:47] * @Cull_Tremayne sits back.
[20:47] * @Fiolli|Inq sits back and listens.
[20:47] <@Toprawa> heh
[20:48] * LordHydronium (n=chatzill@wikia/LordHydronium) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:48] <@Fiolli|Inq> lol
[20:48] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o LordHydronium
[20:48] * @Gonk|Busy snorts and wakes up
[20:48] <@Grey-man> ah, you're just in time for the end of the meeting, LH :P
[20:48] <@LordHydronium> Yay!
[20:48] <@Grey-man> or, the last two items :P
[20:48] <@LordHydronium> I vote against everything.
[20:48] <@LordHydronium> Except the ones I vote for.
[20:48] <@Imp|zzz> Ok.
[20:48] <@Fiolli|Inq> Figures.
[20:48] <@Imp|zzz> Sorry, then, Toprawa.
[20:48] * Imp|zzz sets mode: -o Toprawa
[20:48] <@Cull_Tremayne> I agree with the last person who voted.
[20:48] <+Toprawa> ?
[20:48] <@Darth_Culator> Heh.
[20:49] <@Fiolli|Inq> Huh?
[20:49] * Graestan sets mode: +o Toprawa
[20:49] <@Grey-man> LH > 4dot is explaining his "Role of the Inq expansion" item
[20:49] <@Gonk|Busy> Remember Toprawa, we're all jerks.
[20:49] <@Graestan> Har har har
[20:49] * @Toprawa grumbles
[20:49] <@Cull_Tremayne> He said "except the ones I vote for". Technically that might be a vote for Toprawa. :P
[20:49] <@Imp|zzz> I doubt it.
[20:50] <@Graestan> I'd like to see 8-1 toppled with one vote.  Bring it, Heisenberg. :P
[20:50] <@Gonk|Busy> XD
[20:50] <@Darth_Culator> Eventually 4dot's going to talk, right?
[20:50] <@Graestan> He is typing up a diatribe.
[20:50] <@Darth_Culator> Ah, good.
[20:51] <@Cull_Tremayne> He is handling his customer's goods.
[20:51] <@Grey-man> heh
[20:51] <@Darth_Culator> We shall see how the manifesto concept translates to th IRC medium.
[20:51] <@Fiolli|Inq> He's going to say something about broads...
[20:51] <@Graestan> boards?
[20:51] <@Imp|zzz> Poorly, probably.
[20:51] <@Grey-man> heh, "kicked for flooding"
[20:51] <@Graestan> boards of what?
[20:51] <@Gonk|Busy> Beards?
[20:51] <@The4dotelipsis> Essentially, when the Inquisitorius started, we had a page, and the page was used, and it was...possibly good. Something that we used to do was offer to *review* non-nominated articles, basically in the same fashion that we would for nominated articles. That somehow got lost in the fire.
[20:51] <@The4dotelipsis> Sorry, there's more than that.: P
[20:51] <@The4dotelipsis> I'll be finished when I say I'm finished.
[20:52] <@Imp|zzz> Quiet until then.
[20:52] * @Grey-man tells Imp to Shut up :P
[20:52] <@Graestan> Be quiet, the *both of youse!* >:D
[20:52] * @Toprawa is reminded of quiet time in kindergarten
[20:52] <@The4dotelipsis> Now, what I'm proposing is that we once again broaden the role of the Inquisitorius beyond WP:FAN. I'd like to see us encourage and nuture prospective writers (something which goes on informally as of now), and just generally work on improving the writing of articles on Wookieepedia, as a whole, whether FAN is the objective or not.
[20:53] <@Toprawa> I wouldn't be against this...once we topple the issue of inactivity
[20:53] <@Cull_Tremayne> Is there milk or something?
[20:53] <@Grey-man> Is this something that you might want to write up a proposal for, 4dot? Maybe present it at the next meeting? Or in SH thread or something?
[20:53] * @Grey-man gets the feeling that 4dot has a lot to say
[20:53] <@Graestan> Why not on the Inq page?
[20:53] <@The4dotelipsis> How do we do this? Well, first up, we rejuvenate the review process. People submit articles and *we better bloody well review them* and to me, that would be an encouraging thing for a rookie.
[20:54] <@Grey-man> Grae > I did say "or something"
[20:54] <@Grey-man> :P
[20:54] <@Cull_Tremayne> Actually, I kinda feel like the GAN page has become the doorway into FA writing.
[20:54] <@Graestan> I mean, it's a service, not a policy.
[20:54] <@The4dotelipsis> Just hold on.
[20:54] <@Cull_Tremayne> Oh right, shutting up.
[20:55] <@The4dotelipsis> Essentially, what I would like to do, is set up a few pages of tutorials, written by Inqs, each covering how to write a different type of article. It'd be real informal, you know, the sort of "Hi, I'm Four Dot!" crap, and it would basically take people on a step by step guide. Everyone has a different way of doing things, so each tutorial would offer something new, and we could say "this...
[20:55] <@The4dotelipsis> ...method of writing can be applied to any other type of article" or whatever.
[20:56] <@Toprawa> I love that idea there. I'm writing something similar.
[20:56] <@The4dotelipsis> This would be, ideally, linked to from the front page, in the FA box, with something that says "How can I write a Featured Article" or something akin to that.
[20:56] <@Imp|zzz> I like this idea.
[20:56] <@Darth_Culator> Ooh, I like that.
[20:56] <@Gonk|Busy> http://darth.wikia.com/wiki/Darthipedia:Handbook_for_the_Humor-Impaired
[20:56] <@The4dotelipsis> That's my idea. I'm open to other ones.
[20:56] <@Grey-man> I like the idea too
[20:56] <@The4dotelipsis> And I'm finished. Sorry it took so long.
[20:56] <@Cull_Tremayne> Hmm, good idea. "This is Imp, and I'm going to show you how to write a..." "Now this is Gonk, here's a different way at looking at it..."
[20:56] <@Grey-man> no problem, 4dot
[20:56] <@Graestan> per Gonk.  Get funny, people.
[20:57] <@Toprawa> Yes, yes, yes, yes.
[20:57] <@The4dotelipsis> Basically, I don't want people working at cross purposes, so we would each adopt a type of article.
[20:57] <@Toprawa> "Toprawa's Tips to Writing a *Featured* Article."
[20:57] <@The4dotelipsis> Like, characters, vehicles, events, ECT, ECT.
[20:57] <@Imp|zzz> "Hi, I'm Imperialles, and here's how to properly save a .jpg file."
[20:57] <@Cull_Tremayne> Heh. :P
[20:57] <@Grey-man> ya, this could work...ok, so let's come up with some stuff for the next meeting, and compile them and put something together
[20:57] <@Fiolli|Inq> LOL
[20:57] <@Gonk|Busy> Solus once asked me to help him with an article -- he said nothing about nominating it for anything -- and I'd like to see the Inqs reach out to the community more like that.
[20:57] <@Fiolli|Inq> It definitely couldn't hurt.
[20:57] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, this would be coupled with a rejuvenated review system.
[20:57] <@Fiolli|Inq> I'd be willing to contribute.
[20:58] <@Grey-man> ya, I wouldn't mind reviewing articles if users want to expand them
[20:58] <@The4dotelipsis> Also, this is just one idea. If any of you have other ideas on how to broaden the Inq's role, I'd be more than happy to hear it.
[20:58] <@Graestan> "I'm Graestan, and you will be assimilated into WP:TOTJ. Deal."
[20:58] <@Grey-man> we can put it in the site notice, or post a SH thread, to get the word out
[20:58] <@Fiolli|Inq> lol
[20:58] <@The4dotelipsis> Yep, that's a good idea.
[20:58] <@Fiolli|Inq> I like it. I'm in favor.
[20:58] <@The4dotelipsis> I'd like to relegate article types first, though.
[20:58] <@Fiolli|Inq> !vote
[20:58] <@Cull_Tremayne> As in asking the community to give us ideas?
[20:58] <@Graestan> I as well.
[20:58] <@Gonk|Busy> Me too
[20:58] <@Grey-man> then we just need to make suer that /we're all/ reviewing articles
[20:58] <@Grey-man> not just one or two of use
[20:58] <@Toprawa> Easier said than done, Grey
[20:58] <@Grey-man> cause it will die pretty easy
[20:58] <@Graestan> In fact, who needs to vote?  Whoever wants to help can.
[20:59] <@Grey-man> Tope > I know, but I also know that when I say I'm going to do something, I do it ;)
[20:59] <@Cull_Tremayne> Still think that goes back to having a requirement for how many need to be reviewed in a certain amount of time.
[20:59] <@Toprawa> Well, I trust *you*
[20:59] <@Grey-man> :P
[20:59] <@Toprawa> I have no qualms about saying right here and now...many of us don't do shit.
[20:59] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, for starters, I hope people don't mind if I go about a Character Article tutorial.
[20:59] <@The4dotelipsis> Not that we need any more of them, but still. :P
[20:59] <@Cull_Tremayne> Meh. :P
[20:59] * Gonk|Work (n=chatzill@wikia/gonk) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:59] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o Gonk|Work
[21:00] <@Graestan> Hi Mrs. Gonk. :P
[21:00] <@Fiolli|Inq> Double your pleasure, double the gonk.
[21:00] <@The4dotelipsis> Does anyone else particularly want to cover a specific article type?
[21:00] <@Imp|zzz> It's your area of expertise, Dot, so I say go for it.
[21:00] <@Grey-man> The tutorial would be good, because you can link to the guidelines and policies, etc...and say "This is how we've seen works best for this type of article. If you need ideas, that's what this is here for"
[21:00] <@Gonk|Work> No, it's me, switching computers
[21:00] <@The4dotelipsis> Yep. Link to precedents as well.
[21:00] * @Grey-man could do a Battle and War tutorial....muhahahah
[21:00] <@Graestan> "It's me, Richard Dreyfuss"
[21:00] <@The4dotelipsis> I'd also reccomend using screenshots of the Wook. Or whatever.
[21:00] <@Grey-man> ya
[21:00] <@Fiolli|Inq> I like the idea.
[21:01] <@Grey-man> I've had to do that type of thing for Wikia
[21:01] <@Grey-man> it works well
[21:01] <@Grey-man> really well, actually
[21:01] <@Graestan> Photos of me pulling my hair out while responding to an objection...
[21:01] <@Cull_Tremayne> So basically, we'd only need to recruit like 5 people.
[21:01] <@Grey-man> especially for people who are curious, but not sure where to start
[21:01] <@The4dotelipsis> And though you said Battle and War Grey-man, I'd like to split it up as much as possible.
[21:01] <@The4dotelipsis> :P
[21:01] <@Cull_Tremayne> Since most everyone does character articles.
[21:01] <@The4dotelipsis> In the end, the prime objective is to get more writers.
[21:02] <@Grey-man> 4dot > A battle and a war tutorial ';)
[21:02] <@Grey-man> One each ;)
[21:02] <@The4dotelipsis> And get more people who will continually write.
[21:02] <@The4dotelipsis> Aha. :P
[21:02] <@Toprawa> Attracting good writers can be as easy as fondling their nuts on teh FAN page.
[21:02] <@Toprawa> Tell em how good a job they do
[21:02] <@Graestan> per Tope
[21:02] <@The4dotelipsis> But you have to get them there first.
[21:02] <@Graestan> Tope is GOOD with noobs.
[21:02] <@Toprawa> Look at Colinmcev
[21:02] <@Toprawa> He's a FANTASTIC writer
[21:02] <@Cull_Tremayne> Fondling nuts?
[21:02] <@Toprawa> :P
[21:03] <@Graestan> Cashews, he means.
[21:03] <@Toprawa> BUt, yes, this is a great idea. I would be happy to help write up whatever
[21:03] <@The4dotelipsis> It's all well and good when they're there, and they're writing, but there must be many people who have said "Oh, no, this is way too hard" when it's really not.
[21:04] <@Grey-man> Ok, so since I think we're all comfortable with this idea, Fiolli has some things he wants to discuss before we all leave to go do stuff...in Grae's case, kill small animals
[21:04] <@Grey-man> FIOLLI|INQ
[21:04] <@Grey-man> stand up, sir
[21:04] * @Fiolli|Inq stands
[21:04] <@The4dotelipsis> I think Hydro has a request as well.
[21:04] * @Cull_Tremayne sits back.
[21:04] <@LordHydronium> I do? What?
[21:04] <@LordHydronium> Oh, right.
[21:04] * Gonk|Busy is now known as Gonk|Away
[21:04] <@LordHydronium> That's been by-and-large taken care of.
[21:04] <@The4dotelipsis> Ah, OK.
[21:04] <@Fiolli|Inq> Ok . . . I'm typing. One sec.
[21:05] <@Toprawa> faster
[21:05] * @Grey-man sits back and waits for Fiolli's typing skills to hit the screen
[21:05] <@Gonk|Work> You spelled that wrong, Fiolli >:D
[21:05] <@Fiolli|Inq> I want to propose a change to the voting procedure. Basically, I propose that all nominations must receive five Inquisitor votes apart from the initial nominating vote. Since part of the problem we are having/encountering is that people remain Inqs so that they can nominate their articles and get them through.
[21:06] <@Gonk|Work> Ahhhhh
[21:06] <@Toprawa> Support, support, support.
[21:06] <@Fiolli|Inq> Frankly, this can be viewed as an abuse of power. Being an Inq is not about getting /your/ noms through to make /you/ look good. Therefore, I think this proposal will help remedy that and possibly dissuade others from joining the Inq just so they can vote.
[21:06] <@Graestan> :/
[21:06] <@Grey-man> so, basically you can't use you're Inqvote on your own nom...I fully support
[21:06] <@Toprawa> If you're an Inq, you don't get to Inq-vote your own article
[21:06] <@Toprawa> I love it
[21:06] <@Grey-man> I supported this way back in the summer
[21:06] <@Gonk|Work> Sure, what's one more. Support
[21:06] <@Grey-man> !nicks
[21:06] <@Nuku-Nuku> Grey-man: AdmirableAckbar, ChanServ, Cull_Tremayne, Darth_Culator, Fiolli|Inq, Gonk|Away, Gonk|Work, Graestan, Grey-man, Imp|zzz, JainaSolo, Jedi_Goodwood, LordHydronium, Nuku-Nuku, StarNinja99, The4dotelipsis, Toprawa, and Yrf
[21:06] <@The4dotelipsis> I'm against this, actually.
[21:06] <@Fiolli|Inq> I'm not quite done, but I'll open the floor to this part first.
[21:06] <@Darth_Culator> You know, initially I was opposed to that. But it makes more sense to me now.
[21:06] <@Toprawa> Will help curb inactivity
[21:06] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm kinda against this, but I know Eyrezer is incredibly for this.
[21:06] <@LordHydronium> I disagree with the proposal. Inqs are trusted to have a discerning eye in articles.
[21:06] <@The4dotelipsis> I understand the concept, and all that.
[21:07] <@Imp|zzz> I proposed something similar over a year ago.
[21:07] <@Grey-man> yup
[21:07] <@Imp|zzz> It was shot down, to put it mildly.
[21:07] <@The4dotelipsis> And it's a worry that we have to do such things to curb Inq abuse.
[21:07] <@Grey-man> yes, it is
[21:07] <@Cull_Tremayne> In theory it makes total sense. Of course the person that wrote the article will have a rose-colored lens about it.
[21:07] <@Grey-man> Indeed
[21:07] <@Toprawa> It is 4dot, but it wouldn't be a problem if everyone reviewed
[21:07] <@LordHydronium> I think a balance of your own and others is a much better solution.
[21:07] <@Toprawa> Unfortunately, we have been led to this point
[21:07] <@Graestan> Support.  I can deal with the extra day or so.  I am not an impatient noob anymore.
[21:07] * Eyrezer (n=chatzill@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[21:07] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o Eyrezer
[21:07] <@Grey-man> Ey!
[21:07] <@The4dotelipsis> I don't like this as a punitive measure.
[21:08] * @Graestan plays Eyre in on his toy piano
[21:08] <@The4dotelipsis> I want Inqs to either grow up or get out.
[21:08] <@Cull_Tremayne> Update Ey.
[21:08] <@Fiolli|Inq> I don't view it as punitive, 4dot.
[21:08] <@Toprawa> What would it hurt to even have an extra reviewer to look at your nom?
[21:08] <@Fiolli|Inq> I view this as helping the Inq be stronger.
[21:08] <@Eyrezer> Is this re not voting on your own noms?
[21:08] <@Toprawa> yes
[21:08] <@Grey-man> Ey > Fiolli|Inq>	I want to propose a change to the voting procedure. Basically, I propose that all nominations must receive five Inquisitor votes apart from the initial nominating vote. Since part of the problem we are having/encountering is that people remain Inqs so that they can nominate their articles and get them through.
[21:08] <@Fiolli|Inq> Come on, the more you stare at an article the more things slip through the cracks. I've run spell check on articles that I've written and been surprised that I kept overlooking them.
[21:08] <@Grey-man> Fiolli|Inq>	Frankly, this can be viewed as an abuse of power. Being an Inq is not about getting /your/ noms through to make /you/ look good. Therefore, I think this proposal will help remedy that and possibly dissuade others from joining the Inq just so they can vote.
[21:08] <@Toprawa> per Fiolli
[21:08] <@Graestan> I see it as a stopgap.  There is no more incentive for people to join or remain in the Inq to send their noms in on a rail.
[21:09] <@Graestan> through on a rail*
[21:09] <@Toprawa> I like to think I get everything when I review an article, but Grae or Ataru will catch something I missed. Extra reviewers = infinitely good
[21:09] <@LordHydronium> Are people doing that, Grae?
[21:09] <@Fiolli|Inq> Exactly.
[21:09] <@Graestan> Per Tope.
[21:09] <@Grey-man> Yes, Inq are doing that
[21:09] <@Fiolli|Inq> LH: Yes, they are and some will.
[21:09] <@Graestan> LH: I see it more as a future problem, but yes, it's been done.
[21:09] <@Grey-man> sorry, Grae...I answered for you :P
[21:09] <@Darth_Culator> I rather like the idea. It removes a fringe benefit that I feel attracts the wrong kind of people.
[21:09] <@Grey-man> yup
[21:10] <@Graestan> per Culator
[21:10] <@Cull_Tremayne> Kinda agree with 4dot and LH here. It's a bad faith kinda rule.
[21:10] <@Imp|zzz> I'm for it.
[21:10] <@Fiolli|Inq> Can we vote on this before I bring up the last thing?
[21:10] <@Grey-man> sure
[21:10] <@Grey-man> Let's vote
[21:10] <@Grey-man> Yes/No
[21:10] <@Toprawa> Yes
[21:10] <@Fiolli|Inq> Yes.
[21:10] <@The4dotelipsis> No.
[21:10] <@Imp|zzz> Yes
[21:10] <@Cull_Tremayne> Nay.
[21:10] <@Grey-man> I say Yes
[21:10] <@Gonk|Work> Yes
[21:10] <@LordHydronium> No.
[21:10] <@Darth_Culator> Y
[21:10] <@Graestan> Yes
[21:10] <@Grey-man> Graestan? Jaina?
[21:10] <@Grey-man> ah
[21:10] <@Cull_Tremayne> Eyrezer?
[21:10] <@The4dotelipsis> I think that's consensus.
[21:11] * @Grey-man pokes Eyrezer
[21:11] <@Eyrezer> I'll go yes
[21:11] <@Grey-man> That's consensus, I believe
[21:11] <@JainaSolo> Yes
[21:11] <@Fiolli|Inq> Ok. 9-3
[21:11] <@Grey-man> ok, so from this meeting on, Inq do not use their vote on their own nominations
[21:11] <@Imp|zzz> Oh my.
[21:11] <@Grey-man> Fiolli > What's you're second item?
[21:12] <@Graestan> :'(  What about the TOTJ boycott?
[21:12] <@Grey-man> heh
[21:12] <@Fiolli|Inq> I wouldn't worry about that.
[21:12] <@Grey-man> More Inq will just have to suffer my hounding :P
[21:12] <@Toprawa> This measure is not retroactive, then? Just to clarify
[21:12] <@Fiolli|Inq> One second, I'll have it.
[21:12] <@Eyrezer> Tope> No
[21:12] <@Gonk|Work> Effective now, I believe. That's usually how we do it
[21:12] <@Grey-man> Nah, I wouldn't make it retroactive
[21:12] <@Cull_Tremayne> Shouldn't be retroactive in this case.
[21:12] <@Toprawa> Ok
[21:12] <@Graestan> per Cull
[21:12] <@Graestan> No need to slow current noms.
[21:13] <@Toprawa> true
[21:13] <@Graestan> Some good ones up there.
[21:13] <@Toprawa> Before we go, I would like to ask a question, if I may
[21:13] * @Grey-man quiets the room...Fiolli has one more thing on his mind
[21:13] <@Toprawa> Let Fiolli go
[21:13] <@Graestan> Kick him out of the Inq?
[21:13] <@Toprawa> :P
[21:14] <@Fiolli|Inq> Ok... I know we made a decision regarding a member earlier and what to do with other inactive people in the future, but I would like to also propose something a touch further.
[21:14] <@Fiolli|Inq> I bring everyone's attention to this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jedimasterfiolli/scratchpad#Amendment_B
[21:14] <@LordHydronium> I'm against any activity requirements.
[21:14] <@Toprawa> I love it.
[21:14] <@Toprawa> Light a fire under the asses of the inactives
[21:14] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm actually for it.
[21:14] <@Graestan> My opposition is based in type of review.
[21:14] <@Grey-man> I'm for it
[21:14] <@The4dotelipsis> Nope, I'm against set numbers and stuff.
[21:14] <@Toprawa> but, yes, per Grae. Hasty reviews cannot be tolerated
[21:14] <@Graestan> I see people just slapping a vote on it when they are in inactive months.
[21:14] <@The4dotelipsis> This is a case-by-case thing.
[21:15] <@Gonk|Work> Per Grae and 4dot
[21:15] <@Graestan> Per Fourdot.
[21:15] <@Gonk|Work> Case-by-case
[21:15] <@The4dotelipsis> You can't apply set numbers to it.
[21:15] <@LordHydronium> Agreed with dot.
[21:15] <@The4dotelipsis> As Grae said before, it's the spirit of the thing.
[21:15] <@Eyrezer> I'm against it. One every 3 months or so would be more to my liking
[21:15] <@Cull_Tremayne> At least then we'll know who actually wants to stay. I'm not saying that I'd make the cut, only that we'd at least be able to draw a line in the stand and say, "Who wants to be an Inq?"
[21:15] <@Graestan> Yes.
[21:15] <@The4dotelipsis> Not the "look at how many I've reviewed."
[21:15] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per Cull.
[21:15] <@Fiolli|Inq> That's why I actually brought it up.
[21:15] <@LordHydronium> The way I see it, an Inq is about discerning judgment.
[21:15] <@LordHydronium> Not about quantity.
[21:15] <@Grey-man> I would rebuttal Ey's argument with the "Well, what if you vote for your own FAN's, like has been happening", but that's not an issue now
[21:15] <@Grey-man> ;)
[21:16] <@LordHydronium> If someone has the eye for good articles, and has been voted as such, then why kick them out because they're not using it?
[21:16] <@Fiolli|Inq> There will of course be times where all of us would "miss the cut" and I understand that. What I'm saying is that people who are active all the time should get off their rumps and review a little.
[21:16] <@Graestan> I'll say it's not about judgment or quantity so much as the spirit Fourdot mentioned, the spirit I personally feel, but both quantity and judgment play into it.
[21:16] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm not necessarily "for" numbers, but there needs to be something, some kind of requirement that ties us together right?
[21:16] <@Graestan> Per Fiolli
[21:16] <@Grey-man> Per Cull
[21:16] <@Toprawa> per Cull
[21:16] <@LordHydronium> Cull: That we're good at fixing articles.
[21:16] <@Cull_Tremayne> Subjective. :P
[21:16] <@Grey-man> the inactivity, though active on the site, really erks me
[21:16] <@LordHydronium> Not that we do X in Y amount of time.
[21:17] <@Toprawa> We're not good at fixing articles if we don't review, Hydro.
[21:17] <@The4dotelipsis> Not a requirement. Again, case-by-case.
[21:17] <@Gonk|Work> I think the face that we just basically-nixed Havac states that we DO have some kind of requirement that ties us together.
[21:17] <@Graestan> How do we know, when the Inq never reviews, that they fully grasp the who concept?
[21:17] <@The4dotelipsis> I think in future, we need to be less lenient than we have been.
[21:17] <@Graestan> whole*
[21:17] <@LordHydronium> Cull: What I'm saying is, being voted in is reason enough to stay in the Inq.
[21:17] <@LordHydronium> This just strikes me as...punitive.
[21:17] <@Fiolli|Inq> I personally support 2.4 on the page: Must review per every 200 edits on WP.
[21:17] <@Cull_Tremayne> LH: Well how about something simple like, if you're around and someone asks, you MUST review. ?
[21:17] <@Fiolli|Inq> Minimum.
[21:17] <@Graestan> per Gonk
[21:18] <@The4dotelipsis> I think it's a case of if you're editing actively and not Inqing, you're not doing your job.
[21:18] <@Grey-man> If someone asks me to look at an FAN, I always do it...regardless of the topic of nominator. To me, it's common sense
[21:18] <@Graestan> We're not the site.  We're not the admins.  We're the evil Inq.  I think we can take care of our own, here, and we did it earlier with Hav.
[21:18] <@Toprawa> I'd like to take IRC time into account. For every X hours you sit on your ass in IRC, you must review Y articles.
[21:18] <@Graestan> Hahaha
[21:18] <@Fiolli|Inq> lol
[21:18] <@Graestan> I'd be out. :P
[21:18] <@Gonk|Work> awesome
[21:18] <@Fiolli|Inq> Gonk would be always on the FAN page.
[21:18] <@Fiolli|Inq> :D
[21:18] <@Toprawa> haha
[21:18] <@Darth_Culator> That has a technical limitation. Some people are here when they're not actually here.
[21:18] <@Toprawa> True
[21:18] <@Grey-man> exactly
[21:18] <@Toprawa> I meant it more of a joke
[21:18] <@Grey-man> :P
[21:18] <@LordHydronium> Anyway, what I'm saying is...it's not a job.
[21:18] <@The4dotelipsis> Let's vote on this.
[21:19] <@Cull_Tremayne> backspace, backspace, backspace.
[21:19] <@Grey-man> Ok, let's vote
[21:19] <@Grey-man> Yes/No
[21:19] <@The4dotelipsis> No.
[21:19] <@Grey-man> !nicks
[21:19] <@Nuku-Nuku> Grey-man: AdmirableAckbar, ChanServ, Cull_Tremayne, Darth_Culator, Eyrezer, Fiolli|Inq, Gonk|Away, Gonk|Work, Graestan, Grey-man, Imp|zzz, JainaSolo, Jedi_Goodwood, LordHydronium, Nuku-Nuku, StarNinja99, The4dotelipsis, Toprawa, and Yrf
[21:19] <@LordHydronium> No.
[21:19] <@Grey-man> Yes
[21:19] <@Toprawa> Yes
[21:19] <@Darth_Culator> No.
[21:19] <@JainaSolo> No
[21:19] <@Fiolli|Inq> LH: No, it isn't, but just because you got in doesn't mean you can't get kicked out as proven earlier in this meeting.
[21:19] <@Fiolli|Inq> Yes.
[21:19] <@Eyrezer> No
[21:19] <@Imp|zzz> No
[21:19] <@Graestan> No
[21:19] <@Gonk|Work> No
[21:19] <@The4dotelipsis> The Oedipus has it.
[21:20] <@Grey-man> Yup
[21:20] <@Grey-man> Consensus says = NO
[21:20] <@Grey-man> ok, Tope
[21:20] <@Grey-man> the floor is yours
[21:20] <@Grey-man> :)
[21:20] <@Toprawa> Ok, I'm new, so maybe I don't understand this...
[21:20] <@Darth_Culator> Ooh, I just had an idea.
[21:20] <@Eyrezer> Have we looked at Fiolli's third proposal?
[21:20] <@Toprawa> And I realize this topic is over.
[21:20] <@Fiolli|Inq> Eyrezer: Technically, yes.
[21:20] <@Darth_Culator> But I'll put it on an Inq forum post.
[21:21] <@Toprawa> But, what is everyone's hard on with Mt. Sorrow? The article isn't 1000 words...I'm bringing it up for review next meeting if it can't be remedied.
[21:21] <@Grey-man> Good, if it doesn't meet the FAN requirements, it can be reviewed
[21:21] <@Fiolli|Inq> Culator: Might as well do it here.
[21:21] <@Grey-man> it's not magically protected by any means
[21:21] <@Cull_Tremayne> It was before we had the requirement right?
[21:22] <@The4dotelipsis> Possibly. I can't remember.
[21:22] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm not saying it can't be re-reviewed now, but back then there was no 1000 character limit.
[21:22] <@Grey-man> Not sure, it was a year ago or so
[21:22] <@The4dotelipsis> Well over a year.
[21:22] <@Cull_Tremayne> I mean words. :P
[21:22] <@Gonk|Work> 1000 characters??
[21:22] <@Toprawa> Just wondering what was up with that
[21:22] * @Gonk|Work writes a FA
[21:22] <@Cull_Tremayne> Gonk: Beat you! :P
[21:23] <@Darth_Culator> Fiolli: No, it requires me to type too much stuff that would look like gibberish. But it boils down to let's make the FAN page format follow the function better than the haphazardly-evolved setup we have.
[21:23] <@Grey-man> heh, ok, Tope...bring it for review at the next meeting. It's not protected at all
[21:23] <@Toprawa> Cool
[21:23] <@Fiolli|Inq> Culator: Type it out and then link it here in the meeting.
[21:23] <@The4dotelipsis> Hmm.
[21:23] <@The4dotelipsis> I'd say that it was before the word requirement.
[21:24] <@The4dotelipsis> Since it's basically 100 short.
[21:24] <@Gonk|Work> Are we done?
[21:24] <@Fiolli|Inq> I'm sure /someone/ can rewrite it with a ton of fluff. ;)
[21:24] <@Cull_Tremayne> It was definitely before the requirement. Wasn't it up some time during 2006?
[21:24] <@Fiolli|Inq> !wiki Mount Sorrow
[21:24] <@Nuku-Nuku> Fiolli|Inq: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/_Mount_Sorrow
[21:24] <@LordHydronium> It went on the main page during CIV.
[21:24] <@The4dotelipsis> It was up on Star Wars' 30th Birthday. :D
[21:24] <@The4dotelipsis> No fluff!
[21:25] <@Cull_Tremayne> But what are we going to do? Just demote it to GA?
[21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> It'll likely not keep its status, which I'm OK with since it can't really make the cut without severe wankery.
[21:25] <@Toprawa> It should be re-voted on for GAN.
[21:25] <@Cull_Tremayne> Expand the BtS? :P
[21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> Remove it, then I'll nominate it for GAN.
[21:25] <@Fiolli|Inq> Bah.
[21:25] <@Fiolli|Inq> I say we vote now on it.
[21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Mount_Sorrow&oldid=1124692 - I thought this version of it was better anyway.
[21:25] <@Fiolli|Inq> Well, we all pretty much say "remove"
[21:25] <@Grey-man> Sure, we can vote if we have enough people paying attention
[21:26] <@Grey-man> I don't see why not
[21:26] <@The4dotelipsis> Yeah, remove.
[21:26] <@Grey-man> Remove
[21:26] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, you have to probate first, that is.
[21:26] <@Gonk|Work> remove
[21:26] <@Toprawa> Remove
[21:26] <@LordHydronium> Probate.
[21:26] <@The4dotelipsis> Someone else might pull a magic trick.
[21:26] <@Cull_Tremayne> I agree with whoever voted above me.
[21:26] <@Darth_Culator> Probe.
[21:26] <@Graestan> Remove.
[21:26] <@Fiolli|Inq> Remove.
[21:26] <@JainaSolo> Prob
[21:26] <@Grey-man> Ok, consensus is to place on Probation
[21:26] <@Cull_Tremayne> What's the point of putting it on probation?
[21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> Because that's the policy.
[21:27] <@LordHydronium> You are worthy of my tears, Mount Sorrow!
[21:27] <@Darth_Culator> Standard procedure.
[21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> And someone else might do something to it.
[21:27] <@Grey-man> Tope > That's your job, as the new Inq, to kill old FAN's that have been axed, or place ones on probation ;)
[21:27] <@Fiolli|Inq> We could fast-track it.
[21:27] <@Cull_Tremayne> Whatever. :P
[21:27] <@Grey-man> Welcome to the Inq, Tope :P
[21:27] <@Toprawa> Grey> Gladly. XD
[21:27] <@Eyrezer> remove
[21:27] <@Fiolli|Inq> Toprawa: And you thought people were only slow to the switch on the FAN page! ;)
[21:27] <@Graestan> Tope:
[21:27] <@Graestan> DARK WELCOMES
[21:27] <@Toprawa> Thank you.
[21:27] <@Grey-man> ok, so anything else, or can Grae go kill his small animals now?
[21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> Wait a minute, wait a minute, I had another idea I just wanted to pass by you peoples.
[21:28] <@Grey-man> ok
[21:28] <@Fiolli|Inq> Go for it.
[21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> It's not exactly an Inq thing, and it'll be a CT thing most likely.
[21:28] <@Grey-man> Grae > You'll have to wait a few more minutes :P
[21:28] <@Graestan> I love this idea.  Even though there are happy squirrels all over my lawn begging for it.  So I'll stay and hear Fourdot out.
[21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> Now, at the moment there are two types of GAs: Ones that just can't reach 1000 words, and ones that can and do easily, they're just not FA quality.
[21:28] <@Fiolli|Inq> o_o
[21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> I'd like to propose a sort of intermediate quality level, which would be nominated and voted on the FAN page.
[21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Basically, it's for articles that are essentially FA quality, and are just not 1000 words.
[21:29] <@Toprawa> THey would go on the MP?
[21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> They wouldn't go on the main page or anything.
[21:29] <@Toprawa> oh, ok
[21:30] <@Grey-man> So, FA, but just not on the MP?
[21:30] <@Graestan> We could review them on the FAN, though, which is great.
[21:30] <@LordHydronium> Featureless articles.
[21:30] <@Toprawa> As long as its not on the MP, I likey
[21:30] <@The4dotelipsis> Basically, it's because really top-notch articles, like your Decipher ones, Tope, get the same sticker as articles of significantly less quality.
[21:30] <@Grey-man> well, we could set up another page for this
[21:30] <@The4dotelipsis> And it could be a silver star, or something. :P
[21:30] <@Grey-man> I wouldn't want it on the FAN page, per se
[21:30] <@Cull_Tremayne> More levels of bureaucracy...eh.
[21:30] <@Grey-man> heh
[21:30] <@The4dotelipsis> No, no, the beauty of it is that it's all condensed into one.
[21:30] <@Graestan> Bureaucracy?  How?
[21:30] <@Cull_Tremayne> More voting. :P
[21:30] <@The4dotelipsis> It's less confusing and all that.
[21:30] <@Graestan> You don't have to.
[21:30] <@Toprawa> More reviewing! Oh, noes!
[21:30] <@Graestan> I'd be eager to.
[21:30] <@The4dotelipsis> More reviewing?
[21:30] <@Graestan> I have ADD.  Short noms FTW.
[21:31] <@Fiolli|Inq> More work for the Inqs that do nothing.
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> C'mon! They're less that 1000 words!
[21:31] <@Toprawa> I like the idea.
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> *than
[21:31] <@Eyrezer> In effect, why not just remove any special approval of articles that are not of top quality?
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> Eyrezer: Grey-man and I tried that a while back.
[21:31] <@Imp|zzz> Another article quality level?
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> People wanted a "not quite there" level.
[21:31] <@Graestan> It's not really another level of quality.
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> No, it's not a quality level.
[21:31] <@Toprawa> This will be going up for CT, you said?
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> It's the same as FA quality, sans one rule.
[21:31] <@LordHydronium> How about just tag 'em as FA.
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> Yep.
[21:31] <@LordHydronium> Just don't mainpage them.
[21:31] <@Fiolli|Inq> Per LH.
[21:31] <@Graestan> It's just FA quality but not long enough.
[21:32] <@Toprawa> per Hydro
[21:32] <@Toprawa> And doesn't quite get the recognition
[21:32] <@Toprawa> Write 'er up.
[21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> Hydro: That gets slightly confusing.
[21:32] <@LordHydronium> O' course, the question is...what happens if material comes along that pushes it over 1000 words?
[21:32] <@Gonk|Work> I like CT for this
[21:32] <@Graestan> Per Gonk, but I am all over this idea.
[21:32] <@Graestan> I love it.
[21:32] <@Grey-man> 18. For articles to be presented on the Main Page, they must be, counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 1000 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc).
[21:32] <@Fiolli|Inq> I agree.
[21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> Hydro: Interesting question.
[21:32] <@Grey-man> something like that?
[21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> I'd say that it simply gets put on the queue.
[21:33] <@Grey-man> ah, yes...CT it
[21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Grey-man: Perfect.
[21:33] <@LordHydronium> I think it would have to be re-reviewed then, 4dot.
[21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> But yes, I have a whole batch of CTs I want to give a whirl.
[21:33] <@Grey-man> cool
[21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Hydro: Really?
[21:33] <@LordHydronium> Since the additions might not be the level of quality of the original.
[21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> Aha.
[21:33] <@Graestan> A minimum word limit at all?
[21:33] <@Graestan> 250?
[21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> But if a previous FA is given new info, we don't immediately put it up for review.
[21:33] <@The4dotelipsis> 250 sounds good.
[21:34] <@The4dotelipsis> We don't want...featured sentences.
[21:34] <@Fiolli|Inq> lol
[21:34] <@Grey-man> so wouldn't this mean that GA's would be converted to FAs?
[21:34] <@Toprawa> Speaking of some GANs that are up presently...
[21:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Grey-man: IT would.
[21:34] <@Grey-man> ok, just making sure...kinda like what we proposed before, right, 4dot?
[21:34] <@Gonk|Work> So Grey-man's talking about saying an FA doesn't have to be 1,000 words, but it does have to be 1,000 words to get on the main page?
[21:34] <@The4dotelipsis> OK, I just wanted to test the water with this, and there seems to be a positive reaction.
[21:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Grey-man: essentially.
[21:34] <@Grey-man> ok
[21:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Except, no longer called "GA"
[21:34] <@Toprawa> I would be very interested to see this whole plan laid out.
[21:34] <@Grey-man> ya
[21:35] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, folks, there'll be a CT forthcoming.
[21:35] <@Grey-man> well, a good proposal and good CT would be totally worth it
[21:35] <@Grey-man> to at least see the ideas written out, etc
[21:35] <@Fiolli|Inq> I say we call them a .5(FA)
[21:35] <@Fiolli|Inq> :D
[21:35] <@Toprawa> heh
[21:35] <@Grey-man> heh
[21:35] <@LordHydronium> hah
[21:35] <@Graestan> huh
[21:35] <@Grey-man> ok, anything else from anyone?
[21:35] <@Grey-man> no?
[21:35] <@Grey-man> no
[21:35] <@Grey-man> Good
[21:35] <@Toprawa> haha
[21:35] <@Grey-man> gone
[21:36] <@Grey-man> Meeting's over
[21:36] <@Fiolli|Inq> Adjournment !
[21:36] <@Eyrezer> 250 might be a bit low still
[21:36] * @Gonk|Work is outta here
[21:36] <@Fiolli|Inq> Yay.
[21:36] * @Graestan gets his chipmunk cannon out
[21:36] <@Fiolli|Inq> lol
[21:36] * @Gonk|Work (n=chatzill@wikia/gonk) Quit ("I HAVE NEW INQ FRIENDS"�)
[21:36] <@Darth_Culator> Wait.
[21:36] <@Graestan> hahaha
[21:36] <@Fiolli|Inq> Wait.
[21:36] <@Darth_Culator> I actually got it done.
[21:36] <@LordHydronium> Someone get the log up so I can see what you savages did in my absence.
[21:36] <@Graestan> :DD
[21:36] <@Darth_Culator> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/FAN_page_arrangement_-_changing_the_form_to_match_the_function
[21:36] <@The4dotelipsis> "The end of Inquerence XVI. But James Bond will return in...Inquerence XVII."
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.