[18:59]<ChackJadson>	!inqsignal
[19:00]	<Nuku-Nuku>	CavalierOne! CC7567! ChackJadson! Cylka! Darth_Culator! Eyrezer! Fiolli! GrandMoffTranner! GreenTentacle! Grunny! Harrar! IFYLOFD! Jujiggum! Tommy9281! Toprawa and/or Ralltiir! Xwing328!
[19:00]	<GreenTentacle>	Just keep it short. :P
[19:00]	<ChackJadson>	Welcome
[19:00]	<Fiolli>	ChackJadson?
[19:00]	<Fiolli>	What do you want? ;)
[19:01]	<ChackJadson>	Articles from last time are up now
[19:01]	<ChackJadson>
[19:01]	<ChackJadson>
[19:01]	<ChackJadson>	No change
[19:01]	<GreenTentacle>	Kill.
[19:02]	<Darth_Burger>	Kill
[19:02]	<CC7567>	Kill
[19:02]	<ChackJadson>	I say kill
[19:02]	<ChackJadson>	Absentees agree with kill
[19:02]	<Fiolli>	Kill
[19:02]	<Fiolli>	Culator agrees with kill.
[19:02]	<ChackJadson>	Right, Shelvay killed, then
[19:02]	<ChackJadson>
[19:03]	<ChackJadson>
[19:03]	<Fiolli>	Kill.
[19:03]	<Darth_Burger>
[19:03]	<ChackJadson>
[19:03]	<Fiolli>	I'm sorry, but kill.
[19:03]	<ChackJadson>	Darth_Burger: sorry, my comp was being slow
[19:03]	<Darth_Burger>	Nayayen evidently requests a probe extension
[19:03]	<Fiolli>	Ok... I know Nayayen has just requested extension of the probe period, but this is so far away from what I can see.
[19:03]	<Darth_Burger>	m 22:48 Jedi Civil War‎ (diff; hist) . . (+144) . . Nayayen (Talk | contribs | block) (feh, I'll see if the INQ will extend the probe 'cause I'm not wasting time now) [rollback]
[19:03]	<ChackJadson>	I think we have been extending probe too much lately, personally
[19:03]	<Darth_Burger>	I know Nayayen and Tm were trying to work on it
[19:04]	<Darth_Burger>	I don't know what the deal with the article is, though
[19:04]	<ChackJadson>	They could have started soon, could they not?
[19:04]	<Fiolli>	This is going to take much more work than what has been put in already.
[19:04]	<ChackJadson>	Fiolli is the expert on this subject, if I may
[19:04]	<ChackJadson>	I'm going to agree with him and vote kill
[19:04]	<Fiolli>	They could have. This seems very last minute. Look, I admit that I plan to tackle it in the future, but that's only because we've really dropped the ball on that article.
[19:05]	<GreenTentacle>	I have no objection to extending.
[19:05]	<GreenTentacle>	But none to killing either.
[19:05]	<Fiolli>	I see some things that need to be addressed with IU-POV and IU-spec, campaigns from the Atlas, a myriad of stuff from the timelines, no chronology...
[19:05]	<ChackJadson>	3 absentees say kill
[19:05]	<Fiolli>	I think it is a mess that doesn't warrant holding on to.
[19:05]	<ChackJadson>	1 says probe is fine if offered
[19:05]	-->|	IFYLOFD ( has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[19:05]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o IFYLOFD by chanserv
[19:05]	=-=	Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o IFYLOFD by Nuku-Nuku
[19:05]	<ChackJadson>	*4, sorry
[19:05]	<IFYLOFD>	Sorry I'm late.
[19:05]	<Fiolli>	Again, I'm also biased, because I do intend to work on it. So, take that for what it is worth.
[19:05]	<ChackJadson>	Hey Floyd, we're on Jedi Civil War
[19:06]	<IFYLOFD>	Righty-o.
[19:06]	<Darth_Burger>	what do you want us to do with it, Fiolli?
[19:06]	<Fiolli>	I only suggest kill because I can't get to it right away. I don't want it sitting on the probe list forever.
[19:06]	<Fiolli>	I may not get to it until September.
[19:06]	<Fiolli>	It needs a full thorough Inq'ing on the FAN page, anyway.
[19:07]	<Darth_Burger>	Fine. I vote kill it, then. If others want to work on it, it would benefit from a full Inq review on the FAN page.
[19:07]	<ChackJadson>	again, I think we should prohibit extend probe to when it's really needed, like for massive overhauls or whatever started ahead of time
[19:07]	<ChackJadson>	They just started on this a few days ago
[19:07]	<ChackJadson>	Well, we've got 7 kills now...anyone object to killing it?
[19:07]	<CC7567>	I'd say kill, then
[19:08]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, it's dead
[19:08]	<ChackJadson>
[19:08]	<ChackJadson>
[19:09]	<ChackJadson>
[19:09]	<ChackJadson>	Ignore the second one :P
[19:09]	<ChackJadson>
[19:09]	<ChackJadson>	QuiGon says he got it
[19:09]	<IFYLOFD>	Looks alright.
[19:09]	<IFYLOFD>	Keep.
[19:09]	<Fiolli>	I looked at this one earlier, too. I say this one is fine. I don't see anything major that looks like it needs work.
[19:09]	<CC7567>	Keep
[19:09]	<Fiolli>	Keep.
[19:09]	<ChackJadson>	Looks fine to me, keep
[19:09]	<GreenTentacle>	Looks done. Keep.
[19:10]	<Darth_Burger>	Skills and abilities needs to be merged into the P/T
[19:10]	<ChackJadson>	Absentees vote keep
[19:10]	<Darth_Burger>	She's not a Force character.
[19:10]	<ChackJadson>	I'll get that, Tope
[19:10]	<Darth_Burger>	But keep it.
[19:10]	<ChackJadson>	After the meeting
[19:10]	<Darth_Burger>	Thanks
[19:10]	<ChackJadson>
[19:10]	<Fiolli>	Actually, Toprawa, we have precedent for keeping it separate for non-Force users: Zam Wesell, for one.
[19:10]	<ChackJadson>
[19:10]	<Fiolli>	Then again, those are "special powers"
[19:10]	<ChackJadson>
[19:10]	<Darth_Burger>	Then it needs to be included into the WP:LG via a proper CT
[19:10]	<Darth_Burger>	Precedent =/= policy
[19:11]	<GreenTentacle>	LG allows for skills section for non-Force users.
[19:11]	<ChackJadson>	Fiolli, KOTOR guy, what say you on the sewers?
[19:11]	<Darth_Burger>	Where, GT?
[19:12]	<Darth_Burger>	Everything I'm reading discusses only Force-sensitive characters.
[19:12]	<GreenTentacle>	"Skills and abilities or Powers and abilities for Force-sensitive characters"
[19:12]	<Fiolli>	I'm reluctant to let this pass. I see issues with the prose, some speculative things based upon KOTOR statements. Frankly, I'm not sure how this one passed initially because of things cited to KOTOR that don't really actually come from it.
[19:12]	<ChackJadson>	4 say extend probe for the sewers, 1 says kill
[19:12]	<Fiolli>	I vote kill.
[19:12]	<GreenTentacle>	Skills and abilities is for non-Force users.
[19:12]	<ChackJadson>	I'd say kill based on what you said
[19:12]	<IFYLOFD>	Extend probe
[19:12]	<CC7567>	Kill then
[19:13]	<ChackJadson>	Tope, GT?
[19:13]	<Darth_Burger>	I could care less about the sewers
[19:13]	<Darth_Burger>	I'm reading the LG.
[19:13]	<Fiolli>	XD
[19:13]	<ChackJadson>	I know, I know 9_9
[19:13]	<ChackJadson>	Fine, I'll go with extend to avoid a stalemate
[19:13]	<Darth_Burger>	Just wait a second.
[19:14]	<Darth_Burger>	Fine.
[19:14]	<Darth_Burger>	GT is right.
[19:14]	<Darth_Burger>	I've never read it that way for some reason
[19:14]	<Darth_Burger>	Kill the damn swers
[19:14]	<Darth_Burger>	sewers*
[19:14]	<GreenTentacle>	I know I'm right. I wrote the CT. :P
[19:14]	<Darth_Burger>	heh
[19:14]	<Fiolli>	XD
[19:14]	<Fiolli>	I'm lost. What was the count, Chack?
[19:14]	<ChackJadson>	5-5
[19:14]	<GreenTentacle>	Anyway, I thought our objections to sewers were pretty vague in the first place.
[19:15]	<IFYLOFD>	Rock paper scissors?
[19:15]	<ChackJadson>	5-4 in favor of probe, actually
[19:15]	<ChackJadson>	*extend probe
[19:15]	<GreenTentacle>	Then extend.
[19:15]	<IFYLOFD>	Paper covers rock. Probe extended.
[19:15]	<ChackJadson>	Extend it is
[19:15]	<ChackJadson>
[19:16]	<GreenTentacle>	Since we can't kill with more than two objections anyway.
[19:16]	<ChackJadson>
[19:16]	<ChackJadson>
[19:16]	<ChackJadson>	Jang says he got it
[19:16]	<CC7567>	I can vouch for that, so keep
[19:16]	<Darth_Burger>	Keep
[19:16]	<GreenTentacle>	Keep.
[19:16]	<Fiolli>	I agree. Keep.
[19:16]	<IFYLOFD>	Keep.
[19:16]	<ChackJadson>	Keep
[19:16]	<ChackJadson>	It is kept
[19:16]	<ChackJadson>
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>	Tommy says it's fixed
[19:17]	<Fiolli>	Ah, yes. Keep.
[19:17]	<Darth_Burger>	Keep
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>	Keep
[19:17]	<IFYLOFD>	Keep.
[19:17]	<GreenTentacle>	Keep.
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>	Absentees say keep
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>	It's kept
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>
[19:17]	<ChackJadson>
[19:18]	<ChackJadson>
[19:18]	<ChackJadson>	Mj says he got it
[19:18]	<ChackJadson>	I say keep
[19:18]	<IFYLOFD>	Keep.
[19:18]	<Darth_Burger>	Keep, though we need an LG section for war articles
[19:18]	<GreenTentacle>	There was nothing wrong with it in the first place. :P
[19:18]	<GreenTentacle>	Keep.
[19:18]	<CC7567>	Keep
[19:18]	<ChackJadson>	It's kept
[19:19]	<ChackJadson>	New articles, now
[19:19]	<Fiolli>	Yes, keep.
[19:19]	<ChackJadson>	Ric Olié—needs BTS update. See history
[19:19]	<ChackJadson>
[19:19]	<ChackJadson>	01:02, July 15, 2010 Xicer9 (Talk | contribs | block) (14,332 bytes) (There's an interview with the guy who played Ric, a Bts update is needed) (undo)
[19:20]	<Darth_Burger>	Probe it, then
[19:20]	<CC7567>	Probe
[19:20]	<IFYLOFD>	Probe.
[19:20]	<ChackJadson>	Probe
[19:20]	<GreenTentacle>	Probe.
[19:20]	<Darth_Burger>	Note in the probation material that there's also this:
[19:20]	<Darth_Burger>
[19:20]	<Darth_Burger>	I don't know what that involves
[19:20]	<ChackJadson>	Noted, thank you
[19:20]	<Darth_Burger>	For whoever is doing the paperwork
[19:21]	<ChackJadson>	Ric is probed
[19:21]	<ChackJadson>	Drovian—doesn't follow Layout Guide
[19:21]	<ChackJadson>
[19:21]	<ChackJadson>	Relatively minor, but I'd like to leave this up the original writer, so I vote probe
[19:21]	<Darth_Burger>	How doesn't it follow the LG?
[19:21]	<ChackJadson>	No society and culture
[19:21]	<GreenTentacle>	Society and culture?
[19:22]	<GreenTentacle>	Is there anything?
[19:22]	<Darth_Burger>	It might not need one.
[19:22]	<Darth_Burger>	I have no idea myself
[19:22]	<GreenTentacle>	Same here.
[19:22]	<ChackJadson>	I say probe and let the original writer look into it
[19:22]	<Fiolli>	I think we might need to probe it until we can be told otherwise.
[19:22]	<ChackJadson>	Drovian society had developed into a pastoral network of tribes by the time the Galactic Republic first made contact with them, with many tribes operating slugranches.[8] The two major tribes were the Drovians—from whom the species name was derived—and the Gopso'o. Though only cultural differences separated the two tribes, war raged between them for hundreds of years. Though the exact...
[19:22]	<ChackJadson> of the war were lost over time, some believed it started as a dispute over the grammatical construction of the Drovian word for "truth": one side believed it was singular, and the other plural.[2]
[19:22]	<ChackJadson>	Bits of that could go in S&C
[19:22]	<IFYLOFD>	Yeah, alright. Probe.
[19:22]	<ChackJadson>	For one example
[19:22]	<Darth_Burger>	Can we just merge that into a S&C section?
[19:22]	<Fiolli>	Unless there is nothing, we have to go on the assumption there is.
[19:23]	<Darth_Burger>	I'm just convinced probe is needed.
[19:23]	<ChackJadson>	*not?
[19:23]	<CC7567>	Going from that example, a S&C section should be warranted, even if it only includes that, so probe
[19:23]	<Darth_Burger>	Assuming it's comprehensive, since it is an FA, rightfully it should only require a minor section reworking
[19:23]	<ChackJadson>	Absentees say probe
[19:23]	<Darth_Burger>	The section could be added in two seconds.
[19:23]	<GreenTentacle>	Per the meaty Sith.
[19:23]	<ChackJadson>	Sorry, Drovian is probed
[19:23]	<Darth_Burger>	I vote no probe. Just fix it.
[19:24]	<ChackJadson>	Platt Okeefe—First name usage. "Repaying the Debt" section needs to be completely rewritten (full of speculation, written in present tense, reads like a Bts).
[19:24]	<ChackJadson>
[19:24]	<GreenTentacle>	Hang on.
[19:24]	<Darth_Burger>	That was pretty dumb.
[19:24]	<ChackJadson>	Darth_Burger: huh?
[19:24]	<GreenTentacle>	"With the approval of at least 5 Inquisitors and less than 2 opposed, an article being considered for removal of FA status"
[19:24]	<Darth_Burger>	I think absentee votes need to be included with a grain of salt, since they're not privy to the actual discussion of an article.
[19:25]	<Darth_Burger>	They don't know the circumstances we're discussing here
[19:25]	<GreenTentacle>	We have two opposed.
[19:25]	<Darth_Burger>	They only know what someone put on the page
[19:25]	<ChackJadson>	Counting absentees, it's 8-2, GT. So it depends if we count them
[19:25]	<GreenTentacle>	8-2 still isn't enough.
[19:25]	<Darth_Burger>	I would to convince you all present that a probe is not necessary.
[19:25]	<Darth_Burger>	But make up your own minds
[19:25]	<Darth_Burger>	hope to convince*
[19:26]	<Fiolli>	Platt doesn't need probe, Toprawa?
[19:26]	<ChackJadson>	No, Drovian
[19:26]	<Fiolli>	Oh.
[19:26]	<ChackJadson>	You know, I guess it's an easy fix, I'll vote no probe
[19:26]	<Fiolli>	I'm with Toprawa on this. Just fix it.
[19:27]	<Fiolli>	No probe for Drovian.
[19:27]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, no probe it is. This time it's final :P
[19:27]	<Darth_Burger>	I'll fix it after the meeting.
[19:27]	<ChackJadson>	Platt O'Keefe is up
[19:27]	<Fiolli>	Ok.
[19:27]	<ChackJadson>	Thank you
[19:27]	<Darth_Burger>	If the original nominator wants to tweak my changes from there, feel free
[19:27]	<CC7567>	Probe O'Keefe
[19:27]	<ChackJadson>	Platt Okeefe—First name usage. "Repaying the Debt" section needs to be completely rewritten (full of speculation, written in present tense, reads like a Bts).
[19:27]	<Fiolli>	Probe Platt.
[19:27]	<ChackJadson>
[19:27]	<ChackJadson>	Probe
[19:27]	<Darth_Burger>	probe
[19:27]	<Fiolli>	There's stuff missing from the Atlas, too. We should add that to the list.
[19:28]	<IFYLOFD>	Probe.
[19:28]	<ChackJadson>	Noted
[19:28]	<ChackJadson>	I'll probe her ;
[19:28]	<ChackJadson>	;)
[19:28]	<GreenTentacle>	Probe Man Okeefe.
[19:28]	* ChackJadson	made the requisite joke, carry on, carry on
[19:28]	<Fiolli>	Not a lot, if I remember correctly, but it needs to be updated a little more.
[19:28]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, she's probed
[19:28]	<ChackJadson>	*he-she
[19:28]	<Fiolli>	I wouldn't touch her with duracrete gloves.
[19:29]	<ChackJadson>	Anyone have any other articles for discussiob?
[19:29]	<Darth_Burger>	I would touch her. But only with duracrete gloves :P
[19:29]	<Fiolli>	No, and not for discussion, either.
[19:29]	<Fiolli>	:p
[19:29]	<Darth_Burger>	we're not discussing this TOR thing?
[19:29]	<ChackJadson>	We will, silly
[19:30]	<ChackJadson>	Wevare finishing articles
[19:30]	<ChackJadson>	*we are
[19:30]	<ChackJadson>	No one has anything, so we'll move on to discussion
[19:30]	<ChackJadson>	Continuing a previous discussion: I understand that this is out of our control due to the nature of the new TOR-related projects, but I want to express my concern about a nominations of these articles, for they could change drastically with the release of a series of new products. I trust that they will be kept up-to-date when the barrage of new information becomes available in quick...
[19:30]	<ChackJadson>	...succession. I'm not suggesting that these nominations violate our requirements on stability or that they should not be nominated. I just want it known that these types of articles need to be constantly policed as they are obvious fanon targets and will need updating. I only mention this because any article, such as this one, could change dramatically from when the Inq approves it to the...
[19:30]	<ChackJadson>	...point where it reaches the main page. I want to see it retain FA status, but if it is a completely different article, then we will be forced to reevaluate it at a meeting. I think we should continue to talk about this, as we have in the past, to make sure we are prepared for such situations. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 16:32, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
[19:30]	<ChackJadson>	Want the other comments posted, Fiolli? :P
[19:31]	<Darth_Burger>	Just fully protect all FAs.
[19:31]	<Darth_Burger>	Problem solved :P
[19:31]	<GreenTentacle>	Just ban everybody.
[19:31]	<ChackJadson>	I think this is a good idea, and we should evaluate all majorly overhauled articles at meetings
[19:31]	<ChackJadson>	Very similar to what we do now, in some ways
[19:31]	* IFYLOFD	has no problem with it
[19:31]	<ChackJadson>	Absentees support re-evaluating them, FWIW
[19:31]	<Fiolli>	Let me say this, though...
[19:32]	<ChackJadson>	I think that doing it at meetings would be the easiest way
[19:32]	<Fiolli>	I'm saying we meet either here or vote on a page if something is updated with a large amount of information.
[19:32]	<Fiolli>	However...
[19:32]	<Fiolli>	If something is completely overhauled and is essentially a new article, I feel that we need to have something in place that allows us to completely look at it anew.
[19:33]	<ChackJadson>	Like a mini-FAN?
[19:33]	<Darth_Burger>	I think we should have that in place for any article.
[19:33]	<Fiolli>	We can't just assume that something is fine if it was updated to the point where very little of it is in tact from when we voted on it.
[19:33]	<Darth_Burger>	I've said before it makes no sense when an FA undergoes a HUGE update
[19:33]	<Fiolli>	I agree. The TOR situation, has just brought that to light, Toprawa.
[19:33]	<ChackJadson>	Well, I'm assuming we'll all be thorough
[19:33]	<ChackJadson>	But continue
[19:33]	<Darth_Burger>	because it no longer resembles what the Inq originally looked at
[19:33]	<CC7567>	Per Toprawa; I do understand the basis for using this primarily for TOR-based articles, but it should be implemented for all FAs to be fair
[19:33]	<GreenTentacle>	Don't poorly updated articles end up here anyway?
[19:33]	<Fiolli>	Yes, but that's assuming someone notices it.
[19:34]	<ChackJadson>	Per GT; we usually do, though
[19:34]	<Darth_Burger>	No one questions whenever an article requires an update and then someone adds three pages worth of text.
[19:34]	<Darth_Burger>	We just mark down that it's been updated and move on
[19:34]	<Darth_Burger>	No one actually reviews the new text
[19:34]	<Darth_Burger>	That's the problem I see
[19:34]	<ChackJadson>	Toprawa: if this was implemented (and it should be for all articles, not just TOR), any idea how it would work?
[19:34]	<Fiolli>	All I'm saying is that if any article is suddenly overhauled, we need to reserve the right to immediately reevaluate it. It was not what we bumped to FA!
[19:34]	<GreenTentacle>	Hmm, makes sense.
[19:35]	<CC7567>	You can do, if you feel the need to :P (because I just had to update it)
[19:35]	<Darth_Burger>	I think articles that are identifies as undergoing SIGNIFICANT updates should be put back on the FAN page. Or at least the updated text should for a fresh review
[19:35]	<Darth_Burger>	identified*
[19:35]	<ChackJadson>	What about a "mini-FAN," requiring 3 Inq votes on a subpage?
[19:35]	<ChackJadson>	Like:
[19:35]	<Fiolli>	Case and point: I went through very diligently with Jaina Solo and tweaked a couple things when Ataru made his updates. We kept it from kills, but it was also very unlike the original in some areas.
[19:35]	<ChackJadson>
[19:36]	<ChackJadson>	Like that but with some TOR thing
[19:36]	<GreenTentacle>	We'd still be relying on somebody to notice there was an update.
[19:36]	<ChackJadson>	And we vote support or oppose if needed
[19:36]	<Fiolli>	Again, Chack... not just TOR articles. Any articles, but essentially, yes.
[19:36]	<ChackJadson>	GT: easy
[19:36]	<ChackJadson>	We've got
[19:36]	<ChackJadson>	(lemme find it) :P
[19:36]	<Darth_Burger>	Let me also name another example:
[19:36]	<CC7567>
[19:36]	<CC7567>	Someone just has to monitor it properly
[19:36]	<ChackJadson>	Thank you, CC
[19:37]	<Darth_Burger>	I think the Cronal article became an FA before Mindor came out.
[19:37]	<ChackJadson>	I check it whenever a new meeting is scheduled
[19:37]	<ChackJadson>	It did
[19:37]	<Darth_Burger>	Then it obviously required a HUMONGO update (which never happened)
[19:37]	<GreenTentacle>	Not everything ends up on that page.
[19:37]	<ChackJadson>	That's a good example
[19:37]	<Darth_Burger>	if it HAD been updated, would anyone have actually looked at that article's changes?
[19:37]	<Darth_Burger>	It would have been a completely different article from its original FA state.
[19:37]	<ChackJadson>	Well then, what's your point, GT? If no one notices, there's nothing we can do
[19:37]	<ChackJadson>	We are pretty vigilant already
[19:37]	<ChackJadson>	I think
[19:37]	<Fiolli>	I hope.
[19:38]	<GreenTentacle>	Trying to make sure everything gets the same treatment.
[19:38]	<ChackJadson>	Well then, what do you guys think of my subpage idea
[19:38]	<ChackJadson>	For anything that gets a big update
[19:39]	<ChackJadson>	How does 3 Inqvotes sound for needing it to pass?
[19:39]	<Darth_Burger>	We should have an FA Update Review page.
[19:39]	<ChackJadson>	That's good
[19:39]	<Darth_Burger>	operating in the same manner as FAN
[19:39]	<IFYLOFD>	I like it
[19:39]	<ChackJadson>	I like that better, Tope
[19:39]	<Darth_Burger>	but we should also establish what requires an article to go on the update review page
[19:39]	<Darth_Burger>	Obviously a two-sentence update probably won't need it.
[19:40]	<CC7567>	How about 500 words or more added to an article?
[19:40]	<ChackJadson>	I'm thinking "the thing plays a major role in a new novel or comic"
[19:40]	<CC7567>	I mean, the number is flexible, but something like that may work
[19:40]	<ChackJadson>	CC's idea is better; less subjective
[19:40]	<GreenTentacle>	Do it in bytes.
[19:40]	<Fiolli>	Not just added, though. Anything largely rewritten.
[19:40]	<GreenTentacle>	Easier to measure.
[19:40]	<Darth_Burger>	I like bytes too, but I have no real comprehension for how many bytes equals what amount of text
[19:40]	<Darth_Burger>	Any ideas for a set number, GT?
[19:41]	<CC7567>	(keep in mind, though, that bytes do include /all/ text added to an article, from templates to images to formatting stuff, etc.)
[19:41]	<ChackJadson>	So what about bytes OR a substantial rewrite (admittedly, that is subjective)?
[19:41]	<GreenTentacle>	Sure, but it's an indication.
[19:41]	<GreenTentacle>	Average word is about 5 bytes I guess.
[19:42]	<Darth_Burger>	500 words = roughly 2500 bytes, then
[19:42]	<ChackJadson>	Hmm...that could work
[19:42]	<CC7567>	Can we set it at 3000, to give room for images, linking, and stuff?
[19:42]	<ChackJadson>	hon 2500 bytes?
[19:42]	<ChackJadson>	XD
[19:42]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, thoughts on 3000 bytes?
[19:42]	<Darth_Burger>	CC> I like that
[19:43]	<ChackJadson>	I like it
[19:43]	<IFYLOFD>	Sounds good
[19:43]	<ChackJadson>	Fiolli, GT?
[19:43]	<GreenTentacle>	Yeah, that'd allow for spaces, punctuation, etc.
[19:44]	<GreenTentacle>	All of which are a byte.
[19:44]	<CC7567>	Hmm.
[19:44]	<CC7567>	Actually, I have another question
[19:44]	<ChackJadson>	Shoot
[19:44]	<Fiolli>	I'm not really for this, to be honest, only because if something does not substantially increase, but is overhauled and similar in size, we are ignoring it.
[19:44]	<ChackJadson>	Well, Fiolli, I'm gonna get to that in a sec
[19:45]	<ChackJadson>	After CC goes
[19:45]	<CC7567>	For stuff like, who (as some of you know) is going to be appearing a lot in TCW's Season Three, should there be some way to have him update-reviewed /after/ his appearances are done for a set amount of time?
[19:45]	<CC7567>	I mean, while I wouldn't mind having each individual episode update to undergo scrutiny, it would be a bit of a hassle for others to do
[19:45]	<ChackJadson>	That's a whole new can of worms :S
[19:45]	<ChackJadson>	Maybe wait till after the season, or is that too long?
[19:46]	<CC7567>	The thing is, I don't know when that is actually going to be :P
[19:46]	<CC7567>	So waiting that long might not be a good idea, but I'd thought I'd bring it up
[19:46]	<Darth_Burger>	well, you don't know for a fact that Cad Bane is going to appear in every episode
[19:46]	<Darth_Burger>	nor do you know he's going to require a huge update every time
[19:46]	<ChackJadson>	Well, once season 3 ends, we could put it up on the page
[19:46]	<CC7567>	I hope to God he isn't :P
[19:46]	<Darth_Burger>	maybe in the instance we encounter something like that, we could codify some kind of procedure
[19:47]	<Darth_Burger>	it might be best to potentially reevaluate that in the future
[19:47]	<ChackJadson>	I'd say deal with that when we get to it
[19:47]	<ChackJadson>	So per Tope
[19:47]	<ChackJadson>	Who's to say it will face major weekly updating, after all?
[19:47]	<CC7567>	okay, I just came up with another question :P
[19:47]	<CC7567>	sort of
[19:47]	<ChackJadson>	heh
[19:48]	<CC7567>	In what specific manner would articles be placed on the page?
[19:48]	<ChackJadson>	Explain, please
[19:48]	<Darth_Burger>	I envision it just like the FAN page.
[19:48]	<ChackJadson>	By an Inq, with ==name== ===support=== etc.
[19:48]	<Darth_Burger>	we'll Inq the updated text and leave objections
[19:48]	<CC7567>	not formatting, hang on
[19:48]	<Darth_Burger>	if we like the update, we vote support
[19:49]	<CC7567>	I mean, after /every time/ 3000 bytes are added, or with the approval of the nominator (or whoever did the update) saying that it's ready?
[19:49]	<Darth_Burger>	what do you mean by "saying it's ready"?
[19:49]	<CC7567>	What I'm trying to get at is whether we should be placing them on the page, or requiring nominators to do so when they are done
[19:49]	<Darth_Burger>	maybe we should add this as a new agenda item for every Inqmoot
[19:49]	<ChackJadson>	CC wants to prevent an article going there before the update is finished
[19:49]	<CC7567>	Yeah, thanks Chack
[19:49]	<Darth_Burger>	identifying articles for Update Review
[19:50]	<GreenTentacle>	I like that.
[19:50]	<ChackJadson>	That could work
[19:50]	<CC7567>	Yeah, that sounds better
[19:50]	<GreenTentacle>	Then they go to the full thing if we agree it's needed.
[19:50]	<Darth_Burger>	yes
[19:50]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, so so far we have updates over 3000 bytes go on the update page, and we identify said updated articles at Inq meetings
[19:50]	<CC7567>	But the Update Review page would still operate separately from meetings, right?
[19:51]	<CC7567>	I mean, we look at the articles on our own time, not during meetings
[19:51]	<ChackJadson>	NYes
[19:51]	<Darth_Burger>	identify articles needing the update procedure at Inqmoots*
[19:51]	<ChackJadson>	*yeah
[19:51]	<GreenTentacle>	It'd have to, unless you want these meetings to get even longer. :P
[19:51]	<CC7567>	9_9
[19:51]	<Darth_Burger>	heh
[19:51]	<ChackJadson>	Now, what about a proviso for re-written articles that aren't expanded much? Would they still go there?
[19:51]	<Fiolli>	I have no objection to talk ing about them here if we are already assembled.
[19:51]	<ChackJadson>	Obviously, that is subjective, but I don't think we can make that not subjective
[19:51]	<GreenTentacle>	I'd say so, yes.
[19:51]	<Darth_Burger>	I think we could also identify those on a case-by-case basis.
[19:51]	<GreenTentacle>	If we have to agree before the mini-review then it's less subjective.
[19:52]	<ChackJadson>	That's good, Tope
[19:52]	<Darth_Burger>	It's rather rare when an FA undergoes a complete overhaul, I think
[19:52]	<CC7567>	I did Tambor a while ago 9_9
[19:52]	<Fiolli>	I agree, but it happens.
[19:52]	<Darth_Burger>	in that case, we can identify an article like Tambor and send it to Update Review
[19:52]	<CC7567>	But yeah, case-by-case is good
[19:52]	<ChackJadson>	So we'd identify those at meetings?
[19:52]	<ChackJadson>	as well?
[19:52]	<Fiolli>	Ok. I'm on board the proposal now.
[19:52]	<Fiolli>	Let's do it.
[19:53]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, any other items we need to settle before we create this?
[19:53]	<Darth_Burger>	Wait
[19:53]	<Darth_Burger>	Yes
[19:53]	<ChackJadson>	Sure
[19:53]	<Darth_Burger>	What will the voting procedure be?
[19:53]	<Darth_Burger>	3 Inq supports? 5 Inq supports?
[19:53]	<Fiolli>	Anyway, I do have to run, guys. Sorry to bail. I just got a call I have to take... and I need to go.
[19:53]	<Darth_Burger>	Same as FAN page?
[19:54]	<Fiolli>	I'll support whatever on this... 3 or 5.
[19:54]	<ChackJadson>	Ah, thanks for reminding me
[19:54]	<ChackJadson>	Later, Fiolli
[19:54]	<Fiolli>	Have a good one.
[19:54]	<CC7567>	(I have another question too, after this one is done)
[19:54]	<CC7567>	Bye Fiolli
[19:54]	<GreenTentacle>	I think 3 should be sufficient.
[19:54]	<Darth_Burger>	later Fiolli
[19:54]	<ChackJadson>	I like 3 Inqs
[19:54]	<GreenTentacle>	Bye Fiolli.
[19:54]	<ChackJadson>	And only Inqs, tbh
[19:54]	<Fiolli>	Oh, and I support Cav's thing, too.
[19:54]	<Darth_Burger>	I could do 3 too
[19:54]	|<--	Fiolli has left freenode (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.6/20100625231939])
[19:55]	<ChackJadson>	Can only Inqs vote on this?
[19:55]	<CC7567>	Three is more appropriate, since this isn't an entire article we're talking about, only the updated section
[19:55]	<Darth_Burger>	non-Inq votes really shouldn't count
[19:55]	<Darth_Burger>	since this is an extension of the Inqmoot review
[19:55]	<ChackJadson>	Agreed
[19:56]	<ChackJadson>	IFYLOFD: thoughts on 3 Inqvotes?
[19:56]	<GreenTentacle>	Agreed.
[19:56]	<IFYLOFD>	3 sounds appropriate.
[19:56]	<CC7567>	I vote 3
[19:56]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, so 3 Inqvotes, non-Inqvotes don't count
[19:57]	<ChackJadson>	Any other items regarding this?
[19:57]	<GreenTentacle>	No, sounds good.
[19:57]	<ChackJadson>	3...2...1... :P
[19:57]	<Darth_Burger>	All other procedure would be the same
[19:57]	<CC7567>	Mine, I think, though it was kinda answered
[19:57]	<Darth_Burger>	as FAN, I think
[19:57]	<GreenTentacle>	We can always tweak later if needed.
[19:59]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, moving on to Cav's guys want me to recap this thing first?
[19:59]	<Darth_Burger>	If you want.
[19:59]	<Darth_Burger>	I like it.
[19:59]	<Darth_Burger>	Makes perfect sense
[20:00]	<ChackJadson>	New page will be created for articles that have undergone updates of over 3000 bytes or received major rewrites (to be determined on case by case), we decide these articles at meetings, 3 Inq votes needed, non-Inq votes don't count
[20:00]	<ChackJadson>	K, moving on
[20:00]	<Darth_Burger>	oh, I was speaking of Cav's idea :P
[20:00]	<ChackJadson>	# I would like to propose a motion to reimplement the "edit section" links on the FA page. As I understand it, the links were originally removed to remind the Inqs to manually change the number of FAs at the top of the page when adding new content. However, with the automatic script doing it for us, I see no reason why the edit section tab can't be reimplemented. As the FA page gets longer,...
[20:00]	<ChackJadson> takes more time to scroll down and search for the appropriate sections; by bringing the edit sections option back, Inqs can simply add the article list to the appropriate subsection with a minimum of fuss. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 14:03, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
[20:01]	<GreenTentacle>	Support.
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	heh, I like Cav's idea to
[20:01]	<CC7567>	Support
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	I literally see no reason not to
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	Absentees agree
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	We'll re-add section edit links
[20:01]	<Darth_Burger>	I see a reason not to.
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	Oh?
[20:01]	<Darth_Burger>	Just so things are more difficult for us :P
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	:S
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	:P
[20:01]	<CC7567>	Overruled!
[20:01]	<ChackJadson>	Ok, anything else?
[20:02]	<ChackJadson>	Meeting adjourned!
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.