FANDOM


Looks nice. Good job guys. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We exist only to serve the community, Lord Syphon! Thanks, though. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Seeing the system at work, I wish I'd voted against it. KEJ 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to hear that. If you have any suggestions to help us, let us know. What exactly are you referring to? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it's your "shameless disrespect for the hard work of other editors." --Imperialles 16:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, boo frickety hoo. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Uh . . . this is a wiki, right? So we edit anyone's and everyone's stuff, including our own, right? Doesn't it say "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, don't submit it?" Did I miss something? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
            • "Shameless disrespect?" We're not disrespecting anything. We're trying to improve things. If we don't believe an article is not up to par, then we tell you. That way you know that we think it needs improvement. De-featuring isn't saying that it just plain sucks, simply that it could use some improvement to be up to par with our best articles. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
              • We're not taking away from the fact that it was once featured. We're simply saying that, through whatever situation, it's not up to snuff anymore, and it's no longer an example of our best. Havac 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah… I was just clarifying KEJ's viewpoint, not expressing my distaste for the Inquisitorius. Just so you know. --Imp 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's not exactly my viewpoint anyway. What bothered me the most was that many FA articles had been nominated for demotion without giving any reason as to why. I think at least we should all know why you want to demote an article (it was kinda Soviet-like). Reasons for demotion have now been provided, which I applaud. Secondly, I find the entire idea of removal of FA status pretty strange, and it's something that I do not agree with at all. It seems like a stick (as in stick and carrot) method of forcing people into making edits to certain articles. It could also be misconstrued as a method for Inqs to get rid of FAs that they don't like. Also, many of the FAs may be pretty sucky now as the result of "merciless editing", but they probably weren't at time time of nomination/promotion. Have you considered that factor? KEJ 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We had just finished the meeting, and so were still working on getting the logs updated- it took us a couple of days. FA removal is A) important to maintain quality among FAs and was B) overwhelmingly approved. And if you've read the consensus procedures necessary, it's awfully hard to demote a FA without overwhelming quorum and approval. For the umpteenth time, we're not saying it was never a FA, just that it no longer meets those standards! Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No need for exclamation marks!!! :-P Whether or not the system had just been implemented, information as to why articles are nominated for demotion should be given at the point of nomination. You say that FA removal is important to maintain quality. That may be so (still I do not agree with it, but nevermind that), but we'll have to know why it was nominated for removal, and what we can do to improve it. Anyway, there's no point in bickering about this. Please just make the reasons for demotion publically known for FA articles nominated for demotion at the same time as the article is demoted. KEJ 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, in the future we will work hard to give reasons immediately as soon as we make such decisions. Also, each FA also has two weeks after being marked for removal before it's actually removed. Hope that we can better help you with this issue with these measures. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure. Thanks. KEJ 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ask,if I may,how one becomes an Inquisitorius?-Lord Thanatos 11:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • By being very active in the FA process, then getting elected at one of our meetings. --ATATatarismall.png 11:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right?Edit

  • Should we really be allowed to remove an articles FA status? I mean, it was chosen to be featured by many of the users on this wiki, and removing it is not only undermining the users, but also defeats the point of the article being "featured". Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought the point of an article being featured was to acknowledge it as one of the best on the wiki. If an article ceases to be that, it shouldn't be featured anymore. It'll still be noted that the article was at one time featured; we're not taking that away from it. It just acknowledges that a wiki is a living thing, and what's the best a year ago won't be the same as it is now, whether that's because the article itself has changed, or because our standards for what's "the best" have increased faster than the article has caught up. - Lord Hydronium 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I love how people are bringing up these objections after the program has gone into effect. Reminds me of all the attacks of PEST and BDS after the 2004 election. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 12:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, you have to see the system in use to see whether or not the system works. KEJ 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In response to Jasca or Darth Aboenis or whatever, A) It was clearly approved with overwhelming consensus. B) It's really hypocritical of us to say "Featured Articles are the best- make everything like those" and then have disgraces like Kyle Katarn, which would never pass FA nomination today. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Just call yourselves admins. Running a star wars wiki is geeky enough without bestowing gay titles on yourselves. (Please don’t get me wrong. I love this site.) Unsigned comment by Rather Dashing (talk • contribs).

  • We're not admins, bub. Read the sign. s. .... 00:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I'm sure I missed something imprtant Edit

Just when exactly did you Inquisitorius get so much power? I mean I really just have to know, cause most of (previously) good articles I read and refer back to on a regular basis have either gone under in previous quality or remade to be rightfully boring (Palpatine and Jedi Apparel respectivly). So I just ask, who are you people (because that page told me nothing), what is your "New Standards", and what is your "main purpose"? --TheUltimate 8:55AM 13, April 2007

  • Well, I'm not an Inq, but I can pretty much tell you how aand why and what they do (correct me if I'm wrong, Inqs). The "New Standards" are actually rather old. They are the guidelines established on the FA nom page. The main purpose is to find past FAs that passed not because of the policy but because people liked the article's topic. It's interesting that you bring up Palpatine, because he's a perfect example. The past FA article, the one that was "interesting", was so full of fluff and weasel words and OR and speculation, that it was no longer under the FA, and therefore needed to be fixed or stripped of its FA status. I hope that explained. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that pretty much sums it up. —Xwing328(Talk) 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok you got me on the Palpatine one. That was by far the most unencyclopedic article here, but it was still enjoyable to read...so I get you on that one. Unsigned comment by TheUltimate3 (talk • contribs).
        • As true as that may be (I never actually read it myself - too long - although I heard it was a good and compelling read), it was unencyclopediatic, and more suitable as an essay than an encyclopediatic article. Also, you can still look at the past Palpatine article, though its history (see here). Same applies to other articles with a history, unless they were deleted. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh the joys of being able to read even the deleted articles :) —Xwing328(Talk) 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FA page/Inq page mergeEdit

Per the meeting today, I just got done making sure all the Inq votes were reflected on the FA nom pages, with the new tag {{inqvote}}. We now do not need to create a separate Inq page for each FA nom. However, in trying to archive the Inq pages and thereby eliminate the need for that section of the main Inq page, I seem to have screwed something up; specifically, I seem to have mis-moved Wookieepedia:Inq/Archives/K'Kruhk and Wookieepedia:Inq/Archives/Jango Fett. Can someone who knows how to archive Inq pages fix that, and archive the rest? Thanks :) Gonk (Gonk!) 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Inquisitorius/InquisitoriusEdit

The Inquisitorius should get the Inquisitorius article to Featured Article status... that would be slightly funny in a strange way --Tom rules 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Joining Inquisitorius Edit

What is the method for joining the Inquisitorius, I could not find any information on the Inquisitorius page. Please tell me on my talk page, --Skypopper 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • They elect their own members, most of which have spent a lot of time raising articles to various statuses and completing reviews for quite a few months. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

QuoteEdit

"We is teh evil"???--B-Boba Fett! He'll kill us all! 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • If you do not understand that, then you is "teh noobz!" Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Most helpful way for non-Inquisitors to contribute Edit

Hey, folks! I find myself with some free time over the holidays, and I was thinking about reviewing a few more articles on the FAN page. Normally, I try to review any alien species nominations (since that's my particular area of interest), with an occasional planet or sector thrown in. Now that I have time to break out into another area, though, I was wondering what you, the Inquisitorius, would find most helpful. Should I continue to review random articles that strike a chord with me? Review articles that are so far reviewless? Review articles that are close to passing, even though my vote won't be counted to push them over the edge? None of the above? Thanks, ~ SavageBob 15:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Can I joinEdit

Can I be an inquisitor or do I have to be a bureaucrat to join? Squid the Baptist 22:02, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Next meetingEdit

I have already noticed that a few of the pre-2008 FA's are just really weak when it comes to linking, with many cases in said articles of something being linked in the intro, then never again in the actual body. This is really bad, and I think that the next meeting should involve scouring all 2005-2007 FA's (that have not lost their status, or been renominated with better quality standards anytime after) and fixing them whenever the issue comes up. I have recalled fixing TK-622, Janu Godalhi, and BoShek (perhaps the worst, only 2 out of over 30 intro links relinked in the body). I will also repost this if I am online at all when the next meeting page is created. Hanzo Hasashi 16:44, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

  • Of all the things that can be wrong with an older FA, I think underlinking is pretty benign. Just sayin'; this is often a case of SOFIXIT, which you seem to be doing. Keep it up. :) ~SavageBOB sig 18:00, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.