Session Start: Sat Sep 06 20:00:00 EST 2008
Session Ident: #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:00] <@AdmirableAckbar> !inqsignal
[20:00] <@Nuku-Nuku> AdmirableAckbar! Ataru! CavalierOne! ChackJadson! Cull_Tremayne! Darth_Culator! Eyrezer! Fiolli! Gonk! Graestan! GreenTentacle! Grey-man! Imperialles! JainaSolo! LordHydronium! The4dotelipsis! Tommy9281! Toprawa! Xwing328!
[20:00] <@GreenTentacle> We seem to be missing a 4dot.
[20:01] <@Fiolli|Busy> Who is running the ship tonight?
[20:01] <@AdmirableAckbar> Me.
[20:02] <@AdmirableAckbar> Culator: will you log this?
[20:02] <@AdmirableAckbar> Fiolli has something to say off the record before we start.
[20:03] <@Toprawa>  /Nothing/ is off the record. :P
[20:03] <@Fiolli|Busy> Thank you, Acky. I'm ready, as soon as we have the "all clear."
[20:03] <@AdmirableAckbar> You may commence when ready.
[20:04] <@Fiolli|Busy> First, before we start, I do have an announcement.
[20:04] <@Fiolli|Busy> I am resigning from the Inquisitorius.
[20:04] <@GreenTentacle> <sigh>
[20:04] <@GreenTentacle> Always with the resigning.
[20:04] <@Fiolli|Busy> I thank all of you for the opportunity to be a part of it, but I feel that I must step down.
[20:05] <@GreenTentacle> How come?
[20:05] <@Fiolli|Busy> I only ask, that out of fairness to those whose articles I have reviewed, that my Inqvote remain.
[20:05] <@GreenTentacle> If it's just lack of time, that's no excuse.
[20:05] <@GreenTentacle> Nobody leaves on my watch. :P
[20:06] <@Fiolli|Busy> I think it is best, considering the fact that I will have limited access/time and I do not want to be called a "no-show" Inq.
[20:06] <@Fiolli|Busy> Additionally, I would rather do other things on the wook than solely review articles.
[20:07] <@AdmirableAckbar> That's understandable.
[20:07] <@Fiolli|Busy> The time templates are a good example. I enjoy those odd-ball tasks more than solely reviewing.
[20:07] <@GreenTentacle> Your Inqvote will remain since nobody actually stops being an Inq.
[20:07] <@AdmirableAckbar> Not sure what the precedent is, but your Inq votes will stay.
[20:07] <@GreenTentacle> Except Havac.
[20:07] <@Fiolli|Busy> Ok.
[20:07] <@GreenTentacle> You can always return at any time.
[20:07] <@GreenTentacle> No need for a vote.
[20:07] <@Fiolli|Busy> I appreciate it.
[20:08] <@Fiolli|Busy> Thank you. Have a great night and a great meeting, everyone.
[20:08] <@GreenTentacle> You too.
[20:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> See you.
[20:08] <@GreenTentacle> Except the meeting part. :P
[20:08] <@Toprawa> is the point where we all ritualistically beat the crap out of Fiolli for attempting to leave "the gang"? :P
[20:08] * @GreenTentacle gets a baseball bat.
[20:08] * Fiolli|Busy sets mode: -o Fiolli|Busy
[20:08] * @GreenTentacle remembers this is England.
[20:08] * @AdmirableAckbar gets a lightsaber
[20:08] * Fiolli|Busy (n=Fiolli@REDACTED) has left #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:08] * @GreenTentacle gets a cricket bat. :P
[20:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay.
[20:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> !inqsignal
[20:08] <@Nuku-Nuku> AdmirableAckbar! Ataru! CavalierOne! ChackJadson! Cull_Tremayne! Darth_Culator! Eyrezer! Fiolli! Gonk! Graestan! GreenTentacle! Grey-man! Imperialles! JainaSolo! LordHydronium! The4dotelipsis! Tommy9281! Toprawa! Xwing328!
[20:09] <@Darth_Culator> Blsrg.
[20:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> Item #1: Battle of Coruscant
[20:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> Battle of Coruscant
[20:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> - changes
[20:09] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:09] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:09] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:09] <@Toprawa> are these the articles reviewed last meeting?
[20:09] <@GreenTentacle> Heh.
[20:09] <@GreenTentacle> Had them ready.
[20:09] <@AdmirableAckbar>
[20:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> Bah! :P
[20:09] <@GreenTentacle> We've already voted on this so this isn't actually needed.
[20:10] <@AdmirableAckbar> Oh.
[20:10] <@GreenTentacle> 7 to 1 in favour of keeping.
[20:10] <@GreenTentacle> Though I'd be happier if Acky's issue is addressed.
[20:10] <@Darth_Culator> But we can't skip the layers of bureaucracy. That would be blasphemy.
[20:10] <@GreenTentacle> It's not skipping them.
[20:10] <@AdmirableAckbar> There is one ref now at least.
[20:11] <@GreenTentacle> Nobody ever said the vote had to be on IRC.
[20:11] <@AdmirableAckbar> I'll go with keep.
[20:12] <@AdmirableAckbar> Right, that's consensus to keep, unless someone actually says something.
[20:13] <@AdmirableAckbar> That's that, then.
[20:13] <@AdmirableAckbar> Item #2: Battle of Nar Shaddaa
[20:13] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:13] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:13] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:14] * The4dotelipsis (n=chatzill@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:14] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o The4dotelipsis
[20:14] <@The4dotelipsis> Sorry about that, chaps.
[20:14] <@LordHydronium> Bah.
[20:14] <@GreenTentacle> Better late than never. :P
[20:14] * Ozzel (n=chatzill@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:14] <@GreenTentacle> For 4dot...
[20:14] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:14] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:14] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> The lack of a BTS is what concerns me.
[20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> The other elements aren't enough.
[20:15] <@GreenTentacle> It's hardly changed since last time.
[20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> Remove based on no BTS.
[20:15] * Cull_Tremayne (n=chatzill@REDACTED) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[20:15] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Cull_Tremayne
[20:15] <@AdmirableAckbar> Still no infobox sourcing.
[20:15] * ChanServ sets mode: +v Cull_Tremayne
[20:15] <@The4dotelipsis> Yes, but that's fixed easily enough.
[20:15] <@GreenTentacle> And for Cull's benefit...
[20:15] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:15] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:16] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:16] <@AdmirableAckbar> Heck, I'll russle up a BtS and source the infobox.
[20:16] <@AdmirableAckbar> Is there anything else wrong with it though?
[20:16] <@The4dotelipsis> The formatting is could probably do with a bit of shuffling.
[20:16] <@The4dotelipsis> Way I see it, just move the Fleets thing into a supplementary section, and put the other three sections under a "History" Header.
[20:16] <@AdmirableAckbar> Might it be best to axe it and take it back to FAN?
[20:16] <@The4dotelipsis> The fleets thing is important for that battle.
[20:17] <@AdmirableAckbar> *someone to take it back
[20:17] <@The4dotelipsis> Yes, axe it.
[20:17] <@Darth_Culator> Quite.
[20:17] <@GreenTentacle> I'd say kill.
[20:17] <@The4dotelipsis> If we were going to fix it, should have done it in the past few weeks. My fault, I didn't look at it.
[20:17] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm going to say kill as well. It's well away from being "up to snuff".
[20:17] <@AdmirableAckbar> Kill.
[20:18] <@Darth_Culator> Dead. Dead dead deadski.
[20:18] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, killed.
[20:18] <@AdmirableAckbar> Item #3: Ebon Hawk
[20:18] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:18] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:18] <@GreenTentacle>
[20:18] <@GreenTentacle> :P
[20:19] <@AdmirableAckbar> Has this had sufficient change?
[20:19] <@Darth_Culator> Didn't seem too bad to begin with, honestly.
[20:19] <@The4dotelipsis> My only problem is the ordering of the sections.
[20:19] <@The4dotelipsis> The Layout thing should be before the history.
[20:19] <@GreenTentacle> It's certainly improved.
[20:19] <@LordHydronium> Overreffed BTS. :P
[20:19] <@The4dotelipsis> But that's just for consistency.
[20:19] <@Cull_Tremayne> Sectioning is weird, but it's definitely improved.
[20:20] <@Darth_Culator> Well the layout is a thirty-second fix.
[20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> Indeed.
[20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> From here, I'd say keep.
[20:20] <@GreenTentacle> The BTS could benefit from paragraphs.
[20:20] <@AdmirableAckbar> I don't like all the small paragraphs, but yeah, keep.
[20:20] <@Cull_Tremayne> Keep I guess.
[20:20] <@Toprawa> that BTS is disgusting
[20:20] <@GreenTentacle> It's essentially a list without bullets.
[20:20] <@LordHydronium> Keep. Not sure what the "refs in BTS" was doing anyway...
[20:20] <@The4dotelipsis> Someone can have a word to Naru about it.
[20:21] <@GreenTentacle> Yeah. Keep but get him to fix the rest.
[20:21] <@AdmirableAckbar> Should we extend the probation then?
[20:21] <@Toprawa> considering the layout of that entire section, I vote kill.
[20:21] <@GreenTentacle> Ooh, per Acky.
[20:21] <@GreenTentacle> It's not there yet, but it's fixable.
[20:22] <@The4dotelipsis> Sticking by keep.
[20:22] <@GreenTentacle> He did everything on the Inq page, but we never mentioned this stuff.
[20:22] <@Cull_Tremayne> Just merge all those one sentence blurbs into a paragraph.
[20:22] <@LordHydronium> Keep and make minor formatting changes. Not big enough to probe.
[20:24] <@LordHydronium> ...we doing anything? :P
[20:24] <@AdmirableAckbar> That's one kill, three keeps, two probes.
[20:25] <@Toprawa> Graestan votes kill too, considering I have his vote power :)
[20:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, I think the thing to do is extend the probe, since there's no consensus and that's the middle ground.
[20:25] <@The4dotelipsis> Wait a second. Isn't the rule that 2 keeps = keep?
[20:26] <@The4dotelipsis> Or has something changed very recently?
[20:26] <@GreenTentacle> 4dot has a point.
[20:26] <@GreenTentacle> Though that never took keeping on probation into account.
[20:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> Well, on account of that, let's keep but tell NaruHina to fix the other stuff.
[20:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> If he doesn't, we can re-probe.
[20:27] <@GreenTentacle> Fair enough.
[20:27] <@The4dotelipsis> Indeed.
[20:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, next up is Winter Celchu.
[20:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> - unsourced infobox and unsourced info in "Early life." Presentation issues with lots of massive images. No mention of her working with Dendo frequently around the time of Endor, and no mention of Dendo in the Tatooine section. Some issues with "The Tatooine affair" - parts of it read as a summary of the comic itself, not of Winter's role in it....
[20:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> ..."Masquerade" part could be expanded and there is apparently some issues with clarity. "Dark Empire" info needs to be expanded majorly - the text doesn't even mention the Dark Jedi attack pictured. "Destiny's Way" info needs an expansion, and possibly "The Unifying Force" too.
[20:28] <@Toprawa> something in the P/T is unsourced
[20:28] <@AdmirableAckbar> Kill.
[20:28] <@Toprawa> it might just be a sentence
[20:28] <@Cull_Tremayne> Needs a pretty big expansion.
[20:28] <@Toprawa> probe
[20:28] <@AdmirableAckbar> Some bits of it are grand, but then bits that the author wasn't familiar with get glazed over.
[20:28] <@The4dotelipsis> Gah. A picture in the appearances list.
[20:28] <@The4dotelipsis> KILL. :P
[20:28] <@Cull_Tremayne> Is this on probation?
[20:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> No.
[20:29] <@Cull_Tremayne> Probe then.
[20:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Seriously though, kill.
[20:29] <@Darth_Culator> I am entirely in favor of probing Winter.
[20:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, Winter is probed.
[20:29] <@GreenTentacle> Probe.
[20:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Simply based on the fact that the Dark Jedi attack isn't mentioned. :|
[20:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> - bunch of appearances not referenced, and I'm fairly sure at least one contains new info.
[20:29] <@The4dotelipsis> And by kill, I mean probe.
[20:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Yeah, which one, though.
[20:29] <@LordHydronium> Probe it.
[20:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> 4dot's added some stuff I think.
[20:29] <@The4dotelipsis> I can't do it unless I know what it is I'm supposed to do... :P
[20:29] <@LordHydronium> Er, probe Winter.
[20:29] <@LordHydronium> Haven't looked at Sabe.
[20:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> Didn't I tell you in IRC?
[20:30] <@The4dotelipsis> Queen's Amulet?
[20:30] <@AdmirableAckbar> The game.
[20:30] <@AdmirableAckbar> Doesn't she do a bunch of stuff on Tatooine with Obi-Wan?
[20:30] <@The4dotelipsis> Sabé?!
[20:30] <@Cull_Tremayne> Which game?
[20:30] <@Cull_Tremayne> Obi-Wan?
[20:30] <@The4dotelipsis> No, I don't think so.
[20:30] <@Toprawa> Obi-Wan isn't a playable character on Tatooine
[20:30] <@Toprawa> you play Qui-Gon for that portion
[20:30] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, maybe not.
[20:31] <@AdmirableAckbar> Alright, go with keep but ask XylonGann or someone if she does anything in it.
[20:31] <@Toprawa> geez
[20:31] <@The4dotelipsis> I'm pretty sure she's just in the bits direct from the movie.
[20:31] <@Cull_Tremayne> The TPM game?
[20:31] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yeah.
[20:31] <@Cull_Tremayne> The only thing I can think maybe the Coruscant level.
[20:32] <@Toprawa> she's not in the final level where the Queen infiltrates the throne room with Panaka?
[20:32] <@The4dotelipsis> That's supposed to be Padmé, though.
[20:32] <@Toprawa> but Sabe is part of the "mission"
[20:32] <@Toprawa> I don't know if she's in teh game or not
[20:32] <@The4dotelipsis> Yes...
[20:32] <@The4dotelipsis> Uhm, IIRC, she pops up when movie Sabé does.
[20:32] <@Cull_Tremayne> I don't remember her being in that part of the game, as the rest of your party sort of abandons you for a while.
[20:33] <@Toprawa> I would suggest someone actually going in and looking at this
[20:33] <@The4dotelipsis> I'll check with Jaymach or someone.
[20:34] <@Cull_Tremayne> Unless the queen that Panaka rescues in the Coruscant mission is Sabe...but I doubt it.
[20:34] <@The4dotelipsis> Which I think I did when I was writing it. :P
[20:35] <@Darth_Culator> This feels like we're losing focus.
[20:35] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, keep but look into it.
[20:35] <@The4dotelipsis> Will do.
[20:36] <@GreenTentacle> Keep. Probe later if needed.
[20:36] <@AdmirableAckbar> Next up:
[20:36] <@The4dotelipsis> If I've forgotten by next time, probe. Probe Keira. :P
[20:36] <@AdmirableAckbar> - needs expansion, and may lack info from Truce at Bakura Sourcebook.
[20:36] <@AdmirableAckbar> Ataru's done a good bit.
[20:36] <@The4dotelipsis> Full body shot in the infobox! PROBE! :P
[20:36] <@Cull_Tremayne> Which means...? :P
[20:36] <@Toprawa> probe if it is in fact missing info
[20:37] <@LordHydronium> Probe Gaeriel's full body?
[20:37] <@Toprawa> TAB sourcebook was always my concern
[20:37] <@AdmirableAckbar> He's added TaB sourcebook info.
[20:37] <@AdmirableAckbar> And done some expansion.
[20:37] <@Cull_Tremayne> The article is painfully short.
[20:37] <@AdmirableAckbar> It looks bad.
[20:37] <@Cull_Tremayne> Also, we need to probe Callista next time. Murder in Slushtime content longer than Children of the Jedi? C'mon.
[20:37] <@AdmirableAckbar> I'm looking at it from the point of view of if it was on the nom page: it would never pass like that.
[20:38] <@LordHydronium> I haven't read the sources, so I don't know how much detail there should be.
[20:38] <@AdmirableAckbar> - here's Ataru's changes
[20:38] <@GreenTentacle> Same here.
[20:38] <@AdmirableAckbar> And here.
[20:38] <@The4dotelipsis> Me too. :S
[20:38] <@AdmirableAckbar> But 25 KBs for a major character like that?
[20:38] <@Cull_Tremayne> The Truce at Bakura content is really...really low. I haven't read the CT stuff though.
[20:38] <@Toprawa> it wouldn't kill me to probe it
[20:39] <@AdmirableAckbar> yeah, I think probe
[20:39] <@LordHydronium> But if we probe it, we need a meetable goal.
[20:39] <@AdmirableAckbar> Ataru votes keep, btw.
[20:39] <@LordHydronium> What are we asking him to add?
[20:39] <@GreenTentacle> We need a reason to probe.
[20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Greater detail on TAB.
[20:39] <@GreenTentacle> "We think it could be longer. Maybe."
[20:39] <@The4dotelipsis> Apparently. I mean, I've never read it.
[20:39] <@AdmirableAckbar> Cull: needs more detail on TaB, right?
[20:40] <@Cull_Tremayne> It's too bad that I haven't read the CT. But the mention of her participation there is about as long as it is in the EC, which doesn't bode well.
[20:40] <@LordHydronium> Cull, have you read TaB? If so, I'll take your word on it.
[20:40] <@Cull_Tremayne> I've read TaB, and I'd like more detail in how she met with the Rebels, etc.
[20:40] <@LordHydronium> OK. Probe per Cull's analysis.
[20:40] <@AdmirableAckbar> Probe.
[20:41] <@The4dotelipsis> P-robe.
[20:41] <@AdmirableAckbar> "During the subsequent Battle of Bakura, Gaeriel worked with both Imperial Governor Wilek Nereus and Rebel Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker. " - that sort of thing reads like the NEGTC
[20:41] <@Cull_Tremayne> Though to give credit to Ataru, he did beef it up more than what it was.
[20:41] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yeah.
[20:41] <@LordHydronium> Cull, when we write up the page, if you could, it would be good if you added what you felt was lacking in TaB.
[20:41] <@LordHydronium> Since none of us apparently know. :P
[20:41] <@Cull_Tremayne> Will do. :P
[20:42] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, it's probed.
[20:42] <@AdmirableAckbar> Next up:
[20:42] <@AdmirableAckbar> - this was my first FA, and while there isn't anything horribly wrong with it, the level of detail and quality of writing leaves something to be desired. I plan to redo it in the coming months, and it would be better if I could go through the usual review process.
[20:42] <@AdmirableAckbar> Same sort of a situation as Gaeriel here.
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> He's not an animal! He is a human being!
[20:42] <@Cull_Tremayne> Honestly, if you say you're going to go back to work on it...
[20:42] <@GreenTentacle> Were there 5 probe votes then?
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> Whoa, that's short for Ephant.
[20:43] <@AdmirableAckbar> GT: Uh, 4 actually.
[20:43] <@GreenTentacle> Then not probed until there's a fifth. :P
[20:43] <@AdmirableAckbar> Tope? Culator? GT?
[20:43] <@LordHydronium> !inqsignal
[20:43] <@Nuku-Nuku> AdmirableAckbar! Ataru! CavalierOne! ChackJadson! Cull_Tremayne! Darth_Culator! Eyrezer! Fiolli! Gonk! Graestan! GreenTentacle! Grey-man! Imperialles! JainaSolo! LordHydronium! The4dotelipsis! Tommy9281! Toprawa! Xwing328!
[20:43] <@Darth_Culator> Then probe the damn thing.
[20:43] <@Cull_Tremayne> Toprawa, 4dot, LH, Ackbar, me. That's 5.
[20:43] <@Darth_Culator> Blarg.
[20:43] <@Toprawa> I already voted probe off the bat
[20:43] * @GreenTentacle is happy. :P
[20:43] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, now it's probed.
[20:43] <@LordHydronium> Ephant: If the writer says it's no good, who am I to disagree. :P
[20:43] <@LordHydronium> Probe.
[20:43] <@AdmirableAckbar> Probe.
[20:43] <@Toprawa> Probe
[20:43] <@GreenTentacle> Can't argue with that logic.
[20:44] <@GreenTentacle> Probe.
[20:44] <@Cull_Tremayne> Fine, Probe, but Ackbar has to write up the reasons. :P
[20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, Probe. I think you should have just rewritten it, though. :P
[20:44] <@GreenTentacle> Inded.
[20:44] <@AdmirableAckbar> Maybe. But this way is kinda easier.
[20:44] <@The4dotelipsis> If you say so...
[20:44] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, I'll do the reasons.
[20:44] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, probed.
[20:45] <@AdmirableAckbar> Final article to look at:
[20:45] <@AdmirableAckbar> - needs some major updating. I asked Sikon in IRC if he had any intention of updating it, and he said he hasn't, so someone will probably need to foster it if it's to stay.
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> Yehp.
[20:45] <@LordHydronium> Big ol' probe.
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> It's a shame, because it was quite good when it was done.
[20:45] <@Toprawa> this is a nice example of my I created that CT
[20:45] <@LordHydronium> Needs the updating.
[20:45] <@The4dotelipsis> Probulate.
[20:45] <@Toprawa> why*
[20:45] <@AdmirableAckbar> In light of TotJ's FAship, this is probably lacking in more ways than just the updating.
[20:45] <@Toprawa> Probe
[20:45] <@GreenTentacle> Probe with a vengeance.
[20:45] <@AdmirableAckbar> But that's the real problem.
[20:45] <@AdmirableAckbar> Probe.
[20:45] <@Cull_Tremayne> No real chance for it to stick around.
[20:45] <@GreenTentacle> And discourage nominating articles if you have no intention of maintaining them.
[20:46] <@The4dotelipsis> That too.
[20:46] <@LordHydronium> This is why I avoid continuing topics. :P
[20:46] <@AdmirableAckbar> Jorrel might fix this, since he's the one who pushed it through after Sikon left.
[20:46] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, it's probed.
[20:46] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, I thought Gryph was dead when I wrote it. C'mon, him being dead would have been a bigger surprise, no?
[20:46] <@AdmirableAckbar> Not reading the full article—during a recent Inq discussion about something different, I mentioned that I had once neglected to read a Legacy section due to spoilers but supported the article, and this wasn't met with much enthusiasm by some Inqs. At the time I voted I didn't give it much thought, but we should decide if that sort of thing is kosher. Note: this isn't about dividing up a...
[20:46] <@AdmirableAckbar> ...long article between Inqs or anything of the sort. This would only be three paragraphs or so maximum.
[20:47] <@AdmirableAckbar> I don't particularly have an opinion on this.
[20:47] <@AdmirableAckbar> Certainly not something to be encouraged but not the end of the world either.
[20:47] <@LordHydronium> I just avoid things I don't want to be spoiled on.
[20:47] <@The4dotelipsis> Nope, you read the thing, the whole thing, and nothing but the thing, so help you Lucas.
[20:47] <@GreenTentacle> I'd avoid the whole article.
[20:47] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'
[20:47] <@The4dotelipsis> Yes, per LH and GT.
[20:47] <@Toprawa> I'm not sure what the point of this topic is
[20:47] <@The4dotelipsis> Even though I don't really avoiding articles at all.
[20:47] <@Toprawa> a reminder?
[20:48] <@The4dotelipsis> *advocate
[20:48] <@Toprawa> Of course it's not kosher
[20:48] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, that appears to be that.
[20:48] <@AdmirableAckbar> Next: Our old FAs—encouraging 'FA machines' to go back and fix up their old FAs, sourcing infoboxes and succession boxes and the like. Most Inqs and prolific FA writers who've been around a while will have a couple of older FAs that, while they might qualify for probation, have a few minor issues that could easily be taken care of.
[20:49] <@AdmirableAckbar> This is just drawing attention to it.
[20:49] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, I've gone back to all my old infoboxes and sourced them.
[20:49] <@GreenTentacle> Me too.
[20:49] <@Toprawa> it seems like a no-brainer for people to go back and maintain their FAs
[20:49] <@Toprawa> but some people do not
[20:49] <@The4dotelipsis> And I redid Orman. Wasn't happy with it.
[20:49] <@Cull_Tremayne> Is it kosher to "take someone's word for it"? That is, can you review everything but the part you don't want to be spoiled on, and have someone else look it over for you?
[20:49] <@The4dotelipsis> But if new info comes out for one of my guys I always try and get onto it as quickly as possible.
[20:49] <@LordHydronium> I need to source some of my infoboxes. :S
[20:49] <@The4dotelipsis> Cull: Not kosher.
[20:49] <@LordHydronium> I do keep them up to date chronologically, though.
[20:49] <@Cull_Tremayne> Fair enough.
[20:50] <@Cull_Tremayne> After the "Toprawa Report" (:P) I went and sourced all the infoboxes for my old FAs.
[20:50] <@AdmirableAckbar> Me too.
[20:50] <@GreenTentacle> I did it last week. :P
[20:50] <@Toprawa> and I certianly appreciate the efforts
[20:50] <@The4dotelipsis> I do plan to go and "restore" all my old articles as well.
[20:50] <@Toprawa> some, however, are still lacking...
[20:50] <@AdmirableAckbar> This one doesn't need much discussion, anyway.
[20:50] <@AdmirableAckbar> It's actually mostly aimed at Ataru and Havac.
[20:50] <@Toprawa> if yuo have FAs with unsourced infoboxes, go do it
[20:50] <@GreenTentacle> Yeah, consider us reminded.
[20:51] <@The4dotelipsis> Havac doesn't live here anymore. :P
[20:51] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, next:
[20:51] <@AdmirableAckbar> Inactive Inqs—I propose that emails be sent to inactive Inqs (from carefully selected people in the Inq) asking them about their continued involvement and if it's a priority to them, and if they want to keep their posts. This isn't about kicking anyone out, merely talking to people.
[20:51] <@AdmirableAckbar> Ataru doesn't seem to get what I saying, so I'll stipulate:
[20:52] <@AdmirableAckbar> this would just be sending emails to one or two people telling them we'd very much like them to get more involved if they wanted to, or whatever
[20:52] <@GreenTentacle> Most of us Inq from time to time.
[20:52] <@AdmirableAckbar> Basically just reminding people of it and that we do want their input.
[20:52] <@GreenTentacle> I don't really know who this would be aimed at.
[20:53] <@AdmirableAckbar> It's mainly aimed at Eyrezer and Cull (though obviously you're here now so no need)
[20:53] <@GreenTentacle> They both Inq.
[20:53] <@GreenTentacle> Eyrezer has at least one objection on the page at the moment.
[20:53] <@Darth_Culator> This is a fair idea, but we should make sure to keep in mind the people who have already explained their absences and the fact that we seem to have a mindset that nobody ever leaves the KGB.
[20:53] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm just hesitant to treat it as a job. Since that drives away Inqs.
[20:53] <@AdmirableAckbar> Eyrezer doesn't seem to vote, though.
[20:54] <@GreenTentacle> Didn't he try to quit once?
[20:54] <@The4dotelipsis> Hmmm, it is a job, though. It is volunteer work.
[20:54] <@GreenTentacle> I seem to remember nagging him to return.
[20:54] <@Cull_Tremayne> More than once I thought.
[20:54] <@GreenTentacle> I've nagged most of you to return at some point. :P
[20:54] <@The4dotelipsis> It's not like just contributing to the Wook, it's something that's required to get FANs through.
[20:54] <@Cull_Tremayne> Worded that wrong. What I meant is, I don't see the purpose in firing Inqs.
[20:55] <@LordHydronium> 4dot:'s also a tag of judgment. If you're an Inq, in theory no matter how much you vote, your vote is expected to be a mark of quality.
[20:55] <@AdmirableAckbar> We wouldn't fire anyone.
[20:55] <@The4dotelipsis> We did. :P
[20:55] <@AdmirableAckbar> Well yeah.
[20:55] <@AdmirableAckbar> But not in this case, I mean.
[20:55] <@GreenTentacle> I see it more like LH than 4dot to be honest.
[20:55] <@AdmirableAckbar> I'd just like to see what inactive people's thoughts on the Inq are.
[20:56] <@AdmirableAckbar> A response like "yeah, I haven't forgotten but am really busy, I'd like to stay on and help out at a later date" would be perfect.
[20:56] <@Cull_Tremayne> I wouldn't mind encouraging people I suppose.
[20:56] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, I don't mind just asking "What's up?"
[20:56] <@The4dotelipsis> Something like that's fine.
[20:56] <@GreenTentacle> Meh.
[20:56] <@LordHydronium> Imp did that to me when I went MIA from the Wook. I just responded I hadn't been around.
[20:56] <@LordHydronium> Everything was copa.
[20:56] <@AdmirableAckbar> Right.
[20:57] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, now de-GAing.
[20:57] <@AdmirableAckbar> De-GAing articles This was mentioned at the Mofference, and I was wondering if we could talk a little about it here, get it straightened out and make it a bit more formal. I know I'm willing to read GAs and determine if they should be stripped or kept. Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
[20:57] <@AdmirableAckbar> Myself and Tope have a proposal on this.
[20:58] <@The4dotelipsis> Good. I have some utterly despicable GAs. :P
[20:58] <@Cull_Tremayne> ...I don't really know anything about the GA process.
[20:58] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, here's the idea:
[20:58] <@GreenTentacle> Cull_Tremayne: Like FA used to be in the dark ages. :P
[20:59] <@Cull_Tremayne> ...ouch. :P
[20:59] <@AdmirableAckbar> We would create a sort of Junior Inq, made up of a few Inqs and a few people who aren't quite there yet. They'd have the power to remove crap GAs. Each article would need two Junior Inq votes and three others not including the nominator vote to pass.
[21:00] <@AdmirableAckbar> "SAGroup" or "Sub-Adult Group" is a possible name ;)
[21:00] <@The4dotelipsis> Hmm...
[21:00] <@LordHydronium> I like the name, but I'm wary about another layer of bureaucracy.
[21:00] <@Cull_Tremayne> Ditto.
[21:00] <@The4dotelipsis> I think that 2 might slow it down. 1 might be nice.
[21:00] <@AdmirableAckbar> Hydro: ideally, it would be a little less formal than the Inq
[21:00] <@Toprawa> 4dot> for as much as support as I've received from this, 2 doesn't seem a pr-oblem at all
[21:01] <@Toprawa> There are 4 or 5 Inqs, including myself, who would be interested in participating in this, I believe
[21:01] <@AdmirableAckbar> And something which wouldn't be as prevalent as the Inq.
[21:01] <@The4dotelipsis> Maybe.
[21:01] <@GreenTentacle> I think 2 would be ok.
[21:01] <@AdmirableAckbar> DC has expressed interest in a joining also.
[21:01] <@The4dotelipsis> Could a real Inq vote count as well?
[21:01] <@Cull_Tremayne> Whatever everyone else thinks is best really.
[21:02] <@LordHydronium> Actually, now that I think about it, we do need some way of managing GA objections.
[21:02] <@The4dotelipsis> Not to say that I would. I flat out refuse to read GAs, simply because of the shoddy rules.
[21:02] <@Toprawa> that's what hasn't really been discussed - whether to have a panel of current Inqs, or just allow Inqs to come around and vote at random
[21:02] <@LordHydronium> Right now there's no way of striking invalid ones.
[21:02] <@LordHydronium> So something like this could pull double-duty.
[21:02] <@GreenTentacle> I'd allow Inq votes plus the SAGroup volunteers.
[21:02] <@The4dotelipsis> I think it could work if both this "Junior Inq" and the real Inq could both contribute "1 Inq vote" on GAN.
[21:03] <@GreenTentacle> An Inq vote being a mark of having read it and all.
[21:03] <@The4dotelipsis> Since a real Inq is likely to be even more "admirably qualified."
[21:03] <@LordHydronium> 4dot's idea isn't bad.
[21:03] <@The4dotelipsis> And I mean, that wouldn't require 1 real Inq vote.
[21:03] <@The4dotelipsis> It could be 2 Juniors, or 2 reals, or 1 of each.
[21:03] <@The4dotelipsis> That could work.
[21:03] <@Toprawa> For the sake of quality, I don't feel 2 Inq votes would be a problem, again citing the popular involvement I'm receiving
[21:03] <@GreenTentacle> What 4dot said.
[21:03] <@Cull_Tremayne> This is only for removing GAs right?
[21:04] <@GreenTentacle> 2 votes from either Inqs or juniors.
[21:04] <@LordHydronium> Cull: I think it should have the power to objection strike.
[21:04] <@AdmirableAckbar> Cull: And passing them
[21:04] <@The4dotelipsis> They might be what you're proposing here, Top, I just didn't quite understand. :P
[21:04] <@LordHydronium> GA has no method for that.
[21:04] <@Toprawa> perhaps :)
[21:04] <@Toprawa> I wouldn't mind seeing this as the voting procedure, eventually, but that's a site-wide thing
[21:04] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay, let's see if we're all on the same frequency:
[21:04] <@Cull_Tremayne> Ah, okay, to objection strike, sure. I just don't think there should be a requirement for one SA member to have voted on it for it to pass.
[21:05] <@AdmirableAckbar> we'd create a few junior Inqs but normal Inq votes would count as one of the necessary 2 votes
[21:05] <@LordHydronium> So SAGroup would have all the abilities of Inqs on the GAN page, but none special on the FAN page. Correct?
[21:05] <@Toprawa> correct
[21:06] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yes.
[21:06] <@LordHydronium> And Inqs would be Inqs on both.
[21:06] <@Toprawa> this is strictly GAN page
[21:06] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yes.
[21:06] <@Toprawa> Correct
[21:06] <@LordHydronium> Works for me.
[21:06] <@GreenTentacle> I totally support this.
[21:06] <@AdmirableAckbar> Same.
[21:06] <@Toprawa> any objections?
[21:06] <@The4dotelipsis> Yep, no problem with this at all.
[21:06] <@The4dotelipsis> Provided only Inqs can select SubInqs.
[21:07] <@The4dotelipsis> And not other SubInqs.
[21:07] <@Toprawa> that was my intention
[21:07] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yeah.
[21:07] <@Toprawa> Acky?
[21:07] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, just fold it into the usual Inqnom system.
[21:07] <@Toprawa> ok
[21:07] <@The4dotelipsis> Good. All for it, then.
[21:07] <@LordHydronium> Cull? Culator?
[21:07] <@Darth_Culator> Eh.
[21:07] <@AdmirableAckbar> We'd need to decide how things would work. As in, would we probe GAs at meetings or on another page or what?
[21:08] <@Cull_Tremayne> What GT said.
[21:08] <@LordHydronium> Subpage?
[21:08] <@Darth_Culator> This seems like the kind of thing that requires a CT.
[21:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> Nah.
[21:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> CT would imo be a bad idea.
[21:08] <@The4dotelipsis> Actually, fair point.
[21:08] <@GreenTentacle> It would have to go to CT.
[21:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> Look at the last GA CT.
[21:08] <@Darth_Culator> I'm all for expanding our power like a cancer, but our charter never included GA.
[21:08] <@GreenTentacle> We can't decide this by ourselves.
[21:08] <@LordHydronium> Culator has a point.
[21:08] <@The4dotelipsis> No, well, we're extending our jurisdiction, without asking anyone else.
[21:08] <@LordHydronium> OK, CT it.
[21:08] <@GreenTentacle> We can however make sure to support said CT.
[21:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> Eh, okay.
[21:09] * @Darth_Culator hates that he had to say that.
[21:09] * @AdmirableAckbar does too :P
[21:09] <@LordHydronium> Note that it has the support of the Inq. Then prove it with the votes. :P
[21:09] <@Toprawa> that's fine, we'll write up the CT in the coming days
[21:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> Okay.
[21:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> Next up:
[21:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> The P&T discussion—this isn't about changing the P&T rule itself, at least not now. But having read over the Mofference discussion on that, I have some very serious concerns on what people think the point of FA rules is for. I also have some thoughts on what I see as very little faith being shown in the ability of Inqs to determine if a particular rule should be applied. I should be able...
[21:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> make it to this meeting, and if so I'll have a statement or so on this, since I think it warrants discussion. - Lord Hydronium 21:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
[21:09] <@GreenTentacle> Hold up!
[21:09] <@LordHydronium> Oh boy, now I get to kill this spirit of camaraderie with bitter recriminations. :D
[21:09] <@GreenTentacle> Stay on GA for a sec.
[21:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> Wait.
[21:10] <@LordHydronium> HALT!
[21:10] <@AdmirableAckbar> Oh, sorry.
[21:10] <@AdmirableAckbar> I totally forgot. Sorry GT.
[21:10] <@Cull_Tremayne> Alright! Conflict!
[21:10] <@LordHydronium> I yield the floor.
[21:10] <@GreenTentacle> I've spoken to some of you already, but there will be more GA CTing soon.
[21:10] <@GreenTentacle> I want to revive .
[21:11] <@GreenTentacle> It failed last time over mandatory P&A, quotes and completeness.
[21:11] <@GreenTentacle> So I propose P&A and quotes only if available.
[21:11] <@AdmirableAckbar> What about P&T?
[21:11] <@LordHydronium> We don't have mandatory P&A even in FAN.
[21:11] <@GreenTentacle> And that completeness is only required on articles 250-1000 words.
[21:11] <@GreenTentacle> Sorry, P&T.
[21:11] <@LordHydronium> I approve. :D :P
[21:11] <@AdmirableAckbar> I approve also.
[21:12] <@GreenTentacle> Anything over 1000 words can just be broad coverage since, if it was complete, it could go for FA anyway.
[21:12] <@The4dotelipsis> Indeed.
[21:12] <@GreenTentacle> Any opposition?
[21:12] <@Cull_Tremayne> ....
[21:12] <@The4dotelipsis> If this went through, I'd start reading GA.
[21:12] <@The4dotelipsis> Even though I'd still prefer it if things over 1000 words were complete and went to FA...
[21:13] <@The4dotelipsis> People obviously don't want that, though.
[21:13] <@GreenTentacle> Right, the CT will be up soonish.
[21:13] <@The4dotelipsis> So, this'll do in the interim.
[21:13] <@GreenTentacle> The other part is recognition of GAs.
[21:13] <@GreenTentacle> I think people might be more inclined to do them with some main page recognition.
[21:13] <@GreenTentacle> We've talked about semi-featuring before, but I have a simple idea.
[21:14] <@GreenTentacle> We do a random GA and a random FA (that's already been featured) link on the main page.
[21:14] <@GreenTentacle> It can work like .
[21:14] <@Cull_Tremayne> ...that's actually not a bad idea.
[21:14] <@LordHydronium> Now that's a thought.
[21:14] <@GreenTentacle> Anybody against this?
[21:15] <@LordHydronium> How do you make it select only FAs that have been featured?
[21:15] <@GreenTentacle> We'd have to update the list.
[21:15] <@GreenTentacle> Which is easy enough.
[21:15] <@LordHydronium> Oh, that's how you do it.
[21:15] <@LordHydronium> I thought it was some random category pick thing.
[21:15] <@Cull_Tremayne> Cool idea. I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented.
[21:15] <@GreenTentacle> Won't work from categories, unfortunately.
[21:15] <@AdmirableAckbar> I can go for this.
[21:16] <@LordHydronium> This isn't a bad idea. Promotes older FAs as well.
[21:16] <@GreenTentacle> Do we need a CT or can we just admin it through?
[21:16] <@Cull_Tremayne> Now nobody do the honorable thing... :P
[21:16] <@The4dotelipsis> No, this doesn't need a CT.
[21:16] <@The4dotelipsis> Just do iii.
[21:17] <@GreenTentacle> I like 4dot's thinking.
[21:17] <@GreenTentacle> And the main page has historically been maintained by the admins.
[21:17] <@LordHydronium> Nuts to CTs. Admin that bitch.
[21:17] <@The4dotelipsis> And hope that some bozo doesn't bring you up for removal. :P
[21:17] <@Cull_Tremayne> Hah, the last three refresh pages landed on my own FAs.
[21:18] * Chack (n=REDACTED@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[21:18] * AdmirableAckbar sets mode: +o Chack
[21:18] <@GreenTentacle> I'll stick it up then.
[21:18] <@LordHydronium> I think that's pure statistics, Cull. You write too much. :P
[21:18] <@Cull_Tremayne> He's aboosing his pwr!
[21:18] <@GreenTentacle> I'm done.
[21:18] <@GreenTentacle> Go ahead LH.
[21:18] <@LordHydronium> OK.
[21:18] <@Chack> Hey, sorry I missed the meeting. Comcast stopped working, my connection just died 5 minutes before the meeting
[21:18] <@LordHydronium> So, because it still wasn't clear on the Inq page, this isn't about overturning the P&T vote. I know we voted on it, I'm not calling for another.
[21:19] <@LordHydronium> However, I was moving at the time, and after reading the transcript, I think there was something of the...point of FA requirements being missed in the discussion.
[21:19] <@LordHydronium> Namely, FA requirements are about the minimum elements that every FA must have, or it is not a good enough article.
[21:20] <@LordHydronium> For example, good writing. Everyone agrees that an article can't be the best without good writing.
[21:20] <@LordHydronium> Mandatory sections I don't feel do this.
[21:20] <@GreenTentacle> At the risk of being burned alive, I agree with LH on this. :P
[21:20] <@The4dotelipsis> I do too.
[21:20] <@LordHydronium> If the information is in there, whether it's in the bio or a separate P&T, the quality of the article isn't changed. In every other case, we try to /discourage/ making sections just for small bits of information.
[21:20] <@Cull_Tremayne> Not really sure I'm getting the "big picture" tbh.
[21:21] <@LordHydronium> Yet with P&T, or any mandatory sectioning, we encourage it.
[21:21] <@AdmirableAckbar> Would this include BtS?
[21:21] <@Cull_Tremayne> is this about removing the P&T section, or not requiring it?
[21:21] <@GreenTentacle> BTS is somewhat unique.
[21:21] <@Toprawa> It's so easy to put together a P/T, and a good one at that, not just putting one together for the hell of it
[21:21] <@LordHydronium> My feelings on BTS are mixed, since in many cases I think we do have redundant ones, but I think every BTS info is helpful to some degree.
[21:21] <@GreenTentacle> There's nowhere else the info can go.
[21:21] <@Toprawa> I don't understand what hte problem is
[21:22] <@LordHydronium> Top: That's the problem. It shouldn't be about whether it's easy or hard.
[21:22] <@The4dotelipsis> The way I see it is that we're trying to jam a template onto something where it doesn't necessarily always fit.
[21:22] <@LordHydronium> It should be about whether it's necessary.
[21:22] <@Cull_Tremayne> I'm also a little fuzzy about what we're talking about.
[21:22] <@Toprawa> It should be about what could reasonably be included into an article
[21:22] <@Toprawa> if a P/T can reasonably be included, and at quality, it should be done
[21:22] <@LordHydronium> It would be easy to require all FAs be in a shade of blue. But that would be silly.
[21:22] <@GreenTentacle> The layout guide basically encourages but notes that not all subjects fit the template.
[21:22] <@GreenTentacle> Yet we apply it rigidly to FAs.
[21:22] <@Toprawa> I agree, maybe there might not be something that /has/ a P/T
[21:23] <@LordHydronium> Top: So do you believe that there are possibilities for exceptions? You specifically note "And at quality" there.
[21:23] <@Toprawa> I, however, have yet to encounter this article
[21:23] <@The4dotelipsis> Top: But if it can't? I can't honestly consider an article that can't feasibly have a quality P&T to be of objectively lesser quality than one that does.
[21:23] <@LordHydronium> Per 4dot.
[21:23] <@Toprawa> if it cannot be done, I'm not going to make you put something in for the hell of it
[21:23] <@AdmirableAckbar> I think there is such thing as an exception.
[21:23] <@AdmirableAckbar> I think when we encounter it, we should act then.
[21:23] <@LordHydronium> Top: That's all I'm asking you to consider.
[21:23] <@Toprawa> absolutely, I do not discount the possibilities of exceptions
[21:23] <@LordHydronium> However, our rules /do/ codify it, thus my attempt to change it.
[21:24] <@The4dotelipsis> Well, we can't change it now.
[21:24] <@LordHydronium> I know.
[21:24] <@AdmirableAckbar> But if you can get a one para P&T that's all already in the bio, I don't see the problem.
[21:24] <@LordHydronium> I think that there was a certain assumption in that vote that removing it would make it a free-for-all. However, I think Inqs have good enough judgment that we would know when it was needed.
[21:24] <@GreenTentacle> I don't have a problem with the rule as long as we're open to being flexible if and when it comes up.
[21:24] <@The4dotelipsis> least now I know that we all are open to exceptions.
[21:24] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, per GT.
[21:24] <@GreenTentacle> For 99% of articles, the rule makes total sense.
[21:24] <@LordHydronium> It does.
[21:24] <@The4dotelipsis> I've gotta admit...Aris Del-Wari...
[21:25] <@Cull_Tremayne> Can't we treat this like an opening quote?
[21:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> Ludi Billane is actually the only article I can think of that might actually be that exception.
[21:25] <@LordHydronium> I don't think I've written an article myself where a P&T didn't have unique information. But I have seen them.
[21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> It was a "Perceptions" section. :P
[21:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> But things like Atha Prime...c'mon, I could write one after only reading the article.
[21:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> And the current one could be longer, from what I recall.
[21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> Exactly. You already knew.
[21:25] <@The4dotelipsis> So it was redundant.
[21:26] <@LordHydronium> Acky: I'm sure you could. But would it add anything to the article?
[21:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> No.
[21:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yes.
[21:26] <@GreenTentacle> Nobody could do P&T for Imperial Ace.
[21:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> He was loyal.
[21:26] <@Cull_Tremayne> That would be funny though.
[21:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> He didn't disobey orders.
[21:26] <@GreenTentacle> Bah!
[21:26] <@LordHydronium> Maybe he was rebellious deep down.
[21:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> He served the Empire diligently.
[21:26] <@GreenTentacle> That's guesswork.
[21:27] <@GreenTentacle> We only see him in one battle.
[21:27] <@The4dotelipsis> OR. :P
[21:27] <@LordHydronium> Maybe he served the Empire using his bare minimum effort. :P
[21:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> So we work from there.
[21:27] <@GreenTentacle> And nobody would disobey Vader's orders.
[21:27] <@GreenTentacle> Maybe Ozzel. :P
[21:27] <@LordHydronium> But does that add anything, Acky? It sounds to me like it's just rewording info already there.
[21:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> I don't see what the massive problem with that is though?
[21:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> * -?
[21:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> Sure, it's not ideal.
[21:28] <@LordHydronium> Because forcing things into a template *just* to meet a template isn't in line with the FA ideals.
[21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> It's redundant.
[21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> Look, I think this is an issue we need to bring up again in a couple of months.
[21:28] <@AdmirableAckbar> But if someone wants only to find out the character's personality then it's certainly helpful.
[21:28] <@LordHydronium> FA is about quality. Rules are only there to create standards for quality. I do not believe what sections an article has determines its quality.
[21:28] <@The4dotelipsis> Because discussing it now isn't going to really achieve anything...
[21:28] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yeah.
[21:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> Look, I'm okay with the Inq waiving it on special exceptions.
[21:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> Aris might be one.
[21:29] <@Cull_Tremayne> Can we not just reword the requirement?
[21:29] <@AdmirableAckbar> But only with resounding consensus.
[21:29] <@LordHydronium> Acky: That's all I ask.
[21:29] <@LordHydronium> Be open to exception in cases that suit it.
[21:29] <@GreenTentacle> Agreed.
[21:29] <@The4dotelipsis> Can't reword the requirement, since there was overwhelming consensus against it at the last Mofference.
[21:29] <@GreenTentacle> That was more civil than I expected. :P
[21:30] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, that went well. :P
[21:30] <@AdmirableAckbar> Ataru wasn't in.
[21:30] <@Cull_Tremayne> We had a Mofference? :P
[21:30] <@The4dotelipsis> Hands are tied for at least three months, IMO.
[21:30] <@AdmirableAckbar> Alright, final item:
[21:31] <@AdmirableAckbar> Kicking up the number of "opposed" needed to prevent an article from being de-FA'd/placed on probation. Currently, 5 is the required quorum, with less than two opposed. I'd like to see perhaps a slight bump up to "less than 3 opposed". Since this clause rarely comes into play, I don't think it'll be that big of a deal. The original limit has been in play since our inception, when we had less...
[21:31] <@AdmirableAckbar> ...than 10 members. Atarumaster88  (Talk page) 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
[21:31] <@Toprawa> I don't...agree
[21:31] * @Toprawa shrugs
[21:31] <@LordHydronium> We still don't have a lot of people in the meetings.
[21:31] <@The4dotelipsis> We have a lot more than we did, though.
[21:31] <@Cull_Tremayne> Umm...against.
[21:31] <@Toprawa> yes, that's kind of my concern
[21:31] <@Toprawa> sometimes we have 5 people at meetings
[21:32] <@Chack> I don't see a problem with keeping it as is
[21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> Wait, he wants the quorum to stay at 5?
[21:32] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yeah.
[21:32] <@The4dotelipsis> Keep as is, then.
[21:32] <@GreenTentacle> Ironically, since he said we hardly ever use the rule, we used it earlier tonight.
[21:32] <@GreenTentacle> That one keep was because of two votes.
[21:32] <@Toprawa> keeping it at 2 seems to work
[21:33] <@GreenTentacle> I'm happy to leave it as it is.
[21:33] <@GreenTentacle> Largely because of these meetings.
[21:33] <@GreenTentacle> If we all turned up every time, it would be different.
[21:33] <@LordHydronium> Leave.
[21:34] <@GreenTentacle> That sounds like consensus to me.
[21:34] <@Darth_Culator> Quite.
[21:36] <@GreenTentacle> Can we go now? :P
[21:36] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yep.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.