Wookieepedia:AC/Meeting Thirty-Four

< Wookieepedia:AC
Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:AgriCorps > AC/Meeting Thirty-Four
Vital Strike SoC
The AC meeting? It's SRS bidness.
AgriCorps Meeting Times
Americas
UTC-12Saturday 16th 8:00
UTC-11Saturday 16th 9:00
UTC-10 (HST)Saturday 16th 10:00
UTC-9Saturday 16th 11:00
UTC-8 (PST)Saturday 16th 12:00
UTC-7 (MST)Saturday 16th 13:00
UTC-6 (CST)Saturday 16th 14:00
UTC-5 (EST)Saturday 16th 15:00
UTC-4 (AST)Saturday 16th 16:00
UTC-3 (NST)Saturday 16th 17:00
UTC-2Saturday 16th 18:00
Europe and Africa
UTC-1Saturday 16th 19:00
UTC/GMTSaturday 16th 20:00
UTC+1Saturday 16th 21:00
UTC+2Saturday 16th 22:00
Asia and Australasia
UTC+3Saturday 16th 23:00
UTC+4 (MSK)Sunday 17th 0:00
UTC+5Sunday 17th 1:00
UTC+6Sunday 17th 2:00
UTC+7 (NOVST)Sunday 17th 3:00
UTC+8 (AWST)Sunday 17th 4:00
UTC+9 (JST/KST)Sunday 17th 5:00
UTC+10 (AEST)Sunday 17th 6:00
UTC+11Sunday 17th 7:00
UTC+12Sunday 17th 8:00
"The article has made a critical error and the time for our attack has come."
―JangFett plans the AC Attack[src]

Rally your forces, o valiant warriors of the AC. The 34th Meeting is upon us. The attack is scheduled for April 16th at 4 PM ET in the AC Briefing Room. I have no idea whether the time box was ever adjusted for DST, so take that all with a grain of salt. Just remember that the meeting is at the usual time. As always, leave notes if you cannot attend.

Attack plan

Targets of opportunity

Probed from Meeting 33.

"Squad leaders, we've picked up a new group of signals. Enemy fighters coming your way."

  • Sacking of Coruscant - Some substantial updates probably makes this Redux-worthy. Though I suspect taking it to FAN might just be the easier route. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:16, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
    • I most likely will be taking this to the FAN when I'm done updating, but I'm not certain how quickly that will happen due to recent RL complications. Hopefully it will be fully updated and put on the FAN by the 16th. That actually raises the question, would you guys do a redux if it is up for FA nomination? I understand that they're two different processes, but that would essentially be two concurrent reviews. Thanks. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:29, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
      • If the nom was up for FAN, I imagine we would not. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:31, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
        • Alrighty, just checking. Again, I'll do my best to get this up to the standards of both the FAN and GAN by the 16th. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately, several RL concerns and general inertia prevented me from completing this article by the date of the AC meeting. I should finish it today (it just needs red-link reduction, source completion, and the participants, which I may or may not keep). But regardless, it likely won't be done by the time of your meeting. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 10:07, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Got a bunch of droid articles pointed out by Kreivi that have some infobox-exclusive information:
    • Unidentified OOM command battle droid lieutenant
    • TJ-55
    • Tactical droid (unidentified planet)
    • 1138 (Trade Federation)
    • Mouthy B1
    • SSA-1015
    • SSA-719
    • SSA-306
    • 3B3-21
    • 3B3-888
    • Also, 1138 through 3B3-888 should probably have their sections renamed/reorganized to make them more up to standards with our current droid article layouts. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:41, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry to butt in here, but I agree with what Kreivi has said on the GAN and I really have a problem with this. I just don't think that following this no "infobox-exclusive information policy" to the letter is doing any good to the site. Some information, like physical description, just fits perfectly in the infobox and does not require additional description in the article proper. If a reader sees a picture of a red droid, he can tell that it's red, I see no need to spell it out. Alternatively, if we list clone troopers' height in their infoboxes, what's the point of adding that to, say, the P&T, especially in cases where there is no other P&T info available? I'm sorry, but I just find that redundant. While we are at it, where exactly is this rule stated? Because the Inq and the AC have been enforcing it on the respective nomination pages, and yet I can find no mention of such rule in the FA and GA requirements at the top of the FAN and GAN pages, nor is there anything said about the "infobox-exclusive" information in the Layout Guide or the Manual of Style, if I'm not missing anything. If there is such a rule, then I'd like to create a CT or something to propose a change. If this rule is not officially stated anywhere, then I think a CT is in order anyway. In the meantime, you might as well probe almost every character article, because in most cases things like height, hair color, or eye color, are, you know, infobox-exclusive. Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to get my message across. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 20:25, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • StarWarsTales-Icon "Being Boba Fett" — Star Wars Tales 18 - Kilson suggested bringing this to our attention. He notes that the summary is in serious need of expansion, and it could possibly use a Main characters section. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:17, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Mopping up

  • A discussion of post-meeting paperwork and meeting-scheduling procedures. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:16, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to discuss the weak wording of Rule 9, and bringing a proposal to CT for rewording it. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:43, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to discuss CTing a rewording of Rule 7 in order to avert attempts at getting by the system; we shouldn't need to reword it, but the wording technically is misleading, so we might as well just fix it and end the debate now. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:33, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • Just a quick note that this isn't aimed at any particular user; but rather aimed at the occasional byproduct of slacking on the CAN, and avoiding letting it carry over to the GAN. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:01, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

AC Squadron

Reporting in

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:16, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
  2. w00t 1358 (Talk) 18:18, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
  3. AgriCorps Three, standing by. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:41, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
    lol JangFett (Talk) 19:26, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
  4. It's a trap! Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:35, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Possibly one I can attend. A rarity to say the least. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 19:27, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
  6. CC7567 (talk) 22:12, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Grunny (talk) 00:49, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
  8. ACvote—Tommy 9281 Saturday, April 16, 2011, 11:41 UTC

Pulling out

  1. Due to my inactivity and three major papers due within a few weeks, I don't think I can attend. JangFett (Talk) 00:17, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Minutes

Attendance

The following articles were granted extended probation

The following articles had their GA status removed

The following articles maintained GA status

The following articles were placed on probation

Note: Sacking of Coruscant will be allowed to sit while in progress until article is eventually taken to FAN.


  • Implemented a more formalized process for determining who will be named post-meeting "paperwork [Redacted by administration]" and new meeting scheduler. Paperwork [Redacted by administration] and new meeting scheduler will be announced at the end of each new meeting, according to a randomly drawn order. This week's paperwork [Redacted by administration] is Tommy9281. Next meeting will be scheduled by Jonjedigrandmaster.
  • Discussed a possible change to GAN Rule 9, which will ultimately be brought to CT.
  • Discussed the wording of GAN Rule 7 and ongoing situation regarding intros between CAN and GAN. Any proposed revision will ultimately be brought to SH or CT.
  • Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing and Kilson admitted to AgriCorps.
  • Lawg.