[23:00:01] <@GrandMoffTranner> Welcome everyone to Meeting 36. [23:00:06] <@CC7567> Jon: thanks [23:00:20] <@GrandMoffTranner> First up, the stuff from the last meeting. [23:00:26] http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3509629 [23:00:32] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Stewjon [23:00:39] http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Stewjon&action=historysubmit&diff=cur&oldid=3479226 [23:00:45] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Log/2011_May_21 [23:00:49] Stewjon. [23:00:52] <@IFYLOFD> I object tot Stewjon's existence as a thing [23:01:01] <@GrandMoffTranner> Noted. [23:01:02] <@CC7567> No change; kill [23:01:09] <@GrandMoffTranner> Absentees say kill; so do I. [23:01:10] <@Jujiggum> Kill [23:01:16] <@IFYLOFD> Death to the infidel [23:01:48] <@Tommy9281> kill [23:02:04] <@GrandMoffTranner> Stewjon killed. [23:02:12] Next up, the B1. [23:02:16] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mouthy_B1 [23:02:18] http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3537537 [23:02:20] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Mouthy_B1 [23:02:22] http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Mouthy_B1&action=historysubmit&diff=3544534&oldid=3515818 [23:02:39] <@Tommy9281> Save! [23:02:41] <@CC7567> Keep [23:02:46] <@GrandMoffTranner> Absentees vote keep. Same with me. [23:02:47] <@Jujiggum> Keep it [23:02:51] <@IFYLOFD> Keep [23:03:08] <@GrandMoffTranner> Alright, B1 with the name change is kept. [23:03:13] Next, Feemor. [23:03:26] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Feemor [23:03:28] http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?diff=cur&oldid=3546000 [23:03:29] <@IFYLOFD> Feymour Skinner <@GrandMoffTranner> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Feemor [23:03:46] Absentees vote redux. Again, I say the same. [23:03:48] <@Jujiggum> I can go with redux [23:03:53] <@Tommy9281> Me too [23:04:00] <@IFYLOFD> To the dux [23:04:01] <@CC7567> Redux, per Toprawa [23:04:16] <@GrandMoffTranner> Feemor is reduxed. [23:04:22] Now, on to the new stuff. [23:04:31] Shaliz'Na - update tag. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:11, June 24, 2011 (UTC) [23:04:37] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Shaliz%27Na [23:04:45] <@Jujiggum> Probe [23:04:49] <@CC7567> Probe [23:04:52] <@Tommy9281> Probe [23:05:00] <@GrandMoffTranner> Absentees say probe. Surprise, I agree. [23:05:04] <@IFYLOFD> Probe [23:05:20] <@CC7567> [23:05:24] <@GrandMoffTranner> Shaliz'Na probed. [23:05:28] That's what I call efficiency. [23:05:43] Nothing else on maintenance page. [23:05:48] <@CC7567> Anyone else see any articles around? [23:05:53] <@Tommy9281> Nope [23:05:54] <@Jujiggum> 5 minutes. That's gotta be a record for making it through the articles [23:05:59] <@GrandMoffTranner> Now, discussion items. [23:06:03] <@Tommy9281> We've had shorter. [23:06:06] <@GrandMoffTranner> We need to get back to working out a CT for Rule 7, continuing the discussion from meeting 34. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:42, June 22, 2011 (UTC) [23:06:08] <@Tommy9281> I have something to discuss also. [23:06:10] <@GrandMoffTranner> Jon, you have the floor. [23:06:26] <@Jujiggum> Okay, basically this is just bringing back up what we'd discussed back in meeting 34 [23:06:30] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/Log/2011_April_16 [23:06:49] This was back when we had the whole concern over whether or not all GAs should require intros [23:07:04] And we were talking about setting word limits etc. and taking it to CT, but it was never actually done [23:07:17] <@Tommy9281> I'm not doing anything where a word limit is concerned. [23:07:23] For an intro. [23:07:25] <@Jujiggum> I'd forgotten about it, but Bob brought it up recently [23:07:40] I, personally, am in favor of just straight-up requiring an intro for all GAs [23:07:43] But that's just me. [23:07:54] <@Tommy9281> Since when do we not? [23:08:09] <@Jujiggum> Since the rules don't explicitly state it, apparently... [23:08:15] <@Tommy9281> That's preposterous. [23:08:25] <@Jujiggum> I agree [23:08:27] <@Jujiggum> sighs <@Tommy9281> But if it has to be laid out, then I guess it's not that big a deal. [23:08:30] <@IFYLOFD> All GAs should be long enough to have an intro [23:08:33] <@CC7567> Can we designate someone to do the CT to make sure it gets done? [23:08:36] I will, if no one else wants to [23:08:42] <@Tommy9281> We don't need a CT. [23:08:53] All GA's I've ever seen have intros. [23:09:01] And I've probably seen more than most of you. [23:09:07] <@Jujiggum> From last meeting: "<@grunny> that was a very interpretational view of the LG to say it /requires/ an intro " [23:09:12] *meeting 34 [23:09:17] <@GrandMoffTranner> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Nevoota_%28species%29 [23:09:26] This article was brought up at Meeting 34. [23:09:31] <@Jujiggum> Because that's the only rule on the GAN that would require it [23:09:54] <@Tommy9281> I can't believe that got let go. [23:09:57] Well, [23:10:11] Hmm. [23:10:15] <@CC7567> basically because of the current wording with the rules, that's why it got let go [23:10:36] <@Tommy9281> I'm seeing that... [23:10:39] <@Jujiggum> In the most extreme instances, for example the Nevoota species, I can see letting intros not be required [23:10:44] <@Tommy9281> Interesting. [23:10:49] I can agree to that. [23:10:52] <@Jujiggum> But only if the BTS makes up a certain significant percentage of the article text [23:10:58] <@Tommy9281> I'm not a big fan of redundancy, and that's all it would be. [23:10:59] <@Jujiggum> And I mean /significant/ [23:11:00] <@GrandMoffTranner> I believe there are /very few/ instances when an intro is not needed. [23:11:02] <@IFYLOFD> I would just take it case-by-case [23:11:11] <@Tommy9281> So then, do we still need to reword? [23:11:15] <@IFYLOFD> That kind of situation is exceedingly rare [23:11:16] <@Jujiggum> We can case-by-case it for now [23:11:56] But I'm still in favor of getting in a rewording eventually [23:12:02] <@GrandMoffTranner> Agree to no rewording of Rule 7 and just handle the issue on a case-by-case basis? [23:12:05] For now, at least. [23:12:11] <@Tommy9281> I agree to that. [23:12:22] <@Jujiggum> Maybe to something like: "...have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic, unless the BTS makes up X% or more of the article" [23:12:33] <@Tommy9281> Nah [23:12:34] <@Jujiggum> But for now, yeah I agree to handling it case-by-case [23:12:51] <@Tommy9281> I don't know. whatever you all decide <@CC7567> Hmm. [23:13:02] Well, it's just case-by-case because of this one article, currently, right? [23:13:04] <@Tommy9281> CbC for now though [23:13:15] <@Jujiggum> The problem is that people are just going to start to take advantage of the system if we don't make a good rule for it eventually, just like what started happening on the CAN [23:13:18] <@GrandMoffTranner> Personally, I'd rather solve this when more members of the AC are available. [23:13:28] <@CC7567> Yeah, I agree with Tranner [23:13:29] <@Jujiggum> Point, per Tranner <@Tommy9281> I hear GMT [23:13:33] And ultimately, [23:13:46] We are in control of the page. Folks can only take advantage if we let them. [23:13:49] <@CC7567> Save for next meeting, then? [23:13:58] <@Jujiggum> Sure [23:14:01] <@IFYLOFD> Yeah [23:14:10] <@Jujiggum> Case-by-case for now, re-discuss next meeting/as needed [23:14:34] <@GrandMoffTranner> Alright, I think we're agreed to bring this up at some other point. [23:14:43] Tommy, you said you had something to discuss? [23:14:48] <@Tommy9281> Yes. [23:14:52] Ready? [23:14:57] <@Jujiggum> Ready [23:14:59] <@GrandMoffTranner> Go ahead. [23:15:01] <@Tommy9281> Nothing major, [23:15:23] I just would like it if when a decent number of us are gathered for these meetings, [23:15:38] if afterward we could commit to some kind of mini review blitz or something [23:15:51] maybe 2 of us each attack an article quickly or something [23:16:13] <@CC7567> Sure [23:16:18] <@IFYLOFD> Sounds good <@Jujiggum> I'm fine with that, as long as we coordinate copyedits and don't edit-conflict each other [23:16:26] Works for me [23:16:31] <@Tommy9281> Right. [23:16:37] <@CC7567> I don't review articles that still have objections, though [23:16:42] <@Tommy9281> Me neither. [23:16:53] <@IFYLOFD> Same here [23:16:55] <@Tommy9281> It could be something we quickly decide upon at meeting's end [23:16:58] <@GrandMoffTranner> Could you explain what you're proposing a little more in depth? [23:16:59] <@Jujiggum> I typically try to avoid it, but I don't always [23:17:10] <@Tommy9281> Ok, <@GrandMoffTranner> I just want to make sure I'm not missing something here. [23:17:12] <@Tommy9281> one sec [23:17:16] <@CC7567> Basically a review spree [23:17:25] an informal one [23:17:34] <@Tommy9281> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/WP:GAN <@GrandMoffTranner> That's what I thought. [23:17:42] <@Tommy9281> So let's say, [23:17:50] hypothetically at this moment [23:18:06] CC & GMT review right now, [[Christo]] [23:18:14] <@CC7567> That's my article; I can't review it [23:18:15] <@Tommy9281> Floyd and Jon review [[Aang]] [23:18:18] and so forth [23:18:19] heh [23:18:20] <@CC7567> We can discuss specifics after the meeting, I think; I don't think this needs to stay on record [23:18:21] <@Tommy9281> But you get my drift [23:18:37] <@Jujiggum> haha [23:18:42] <@Tommy9281> Right [23:18:45] <@GrandMoffTranner> Honestly, I don't feel it's necessary. We should all be reviewing anyway. [23:18:46] <@Jujiggum> Aye [23:18:50] <@Tommy9281> We should [23:18:54] But we don't [23:18:58] <@Jujiggum> It's not necessary, but it's not gonna hurt anything [23:19:02] <@CC7567> Anyway... [23:19:03] <@Tommy9281> Per Jon [23:19:23] <@Jujiggum> Basically we're all around anyway, so we might as well take advantage of that and review our asses off [23:19:31] <@Tommy9281> Exactly. <@GrandMoffTranner> What I mean to say is, we don't need to schedule this type of thing or make it mandatory. If two AC's want to double up on an article, they should do so whenever they want. [23:19:38] <@Jujiggum> Point [23:19:44] <@CC7567> Point taken [23:19:47] <@Tommy9281> Yes, they should, GMT [23:19:52] <@GrandMoffTranner> We don't need to make a separate policy for this. [23:19:56] <@Tommy9281> But the point is that we're all around, so let's blitz [23:20:00] <@Jujiggum> But I'm still for this just on the basis of encouraging more reviewing [23:20:01] <@Tommy9281> It wasn't going to be a policy. [23:20:06] I don't want to /restrict/ you [23:20:08] <@CC7567> Tranner: I think Tommy means informally, just after the meeting's over [23:20:09] <@GrandMoffTranner> Again, if you want to, go right ahead. [23:20:23] <@Tommy9281> And if you don't want to, that is just as well. [23:20:27] It is an informal thing. [23:20:31] <@CC7567> Anything else for the meeting, then? [23:20:42] <@Jujiggum> Nothing more from me [23:20:47] <@Tommy9281> Done. [23:20:57] <@GrandMoffTranner> Sounds good. [23:21:01] Thank you all for attending. [23:21:08] Meeting 36 is hereby adjourned.