2013-08-31T22:59:50 <exiledjedi> Welcome to the first EduCorps meeting everyone...
2013-08-31T23:00:54 * Cade has snacks. We may begin.
2013-08-31T23:00:59 <Cal_Jedi> Hello, everyone.
2013-08-31T23:01:12 <Supreme_Emperor> Hi
2013-08-31T23:01:19 <exiledjedi> I would first like to thank everyone who helped get this started, especially Tope.
2013-08-31T23:01:26 <Cade> Agreed
2013-08-31T23:01:32 <Supreme_Emperor> round of applause
2013-08-31T23:02:10 <Olioster> He'd prefer a round of shots.
2013-08-31T23:03:00 <Cade> So, agenda time?
2013-08-31T23:03:04 <exiledjedi> The first point we should discuss is the creation of responsibilities for EduCorps-only users.
2013-08-31T23:03:33 <exiledjedi> Because right now, there aren't any...
2013-08-31T23:04:05 <Cade> I think that while the EC isn't a formal review board to the extent that the AC and the Inq are, the ECs should still have to review.
2013-08-31T23:04:23 <Supreme_Emperor> why not make the responsibilities the same as the other panels
2013-08-31T23:04:25 <Olioster> Don't make me do stuff!
2013-08-31T23:04:35 <Supreme_Emperor> review, archive,
2013-08-31T23:04:39 * Cade throws paperwork at Olioster
2013-08-31T23:04:46 <Olioster> :(
2013-08-31T23:04:57 <Cade> I'd say let's focus just on the reviewing part.
2013-08-31T23:05:08 <exiledjedi> Currently there's not any responsibility to review, archive, or maintain the CA review board...
2013-08-31T23:05:18 <exiledjedi> Reviewing is the primary concern though...
2013-08-31T23:05:51 <Supreme_Emperor> if we can even get more people reviewing, archiving isnt that bad
2013-08-31T23:06:01 <Cade> Is anyone here (other than Olioster) opposed to making reviewing a requirement for the EduCorps?
2013-08-31T23:06:22 <Olioster> Just a joke, I have no opposition.
2013-08-31T23:06:30 <Cade> :P
2013-08-31T23:06:32 <Toprawa> Hey, everyone, sorry, I was a few minutes late.
2013-08-31T23:06:37 <Toprawa> Before we begin, I wanted to make a quick proposal.
2013-08-31T23:06:37 <away> +1 for impeaching Olioster
2013-08-31T23:06:41 <Toprawa> If no one minds
2013-08-31T23:06:43 *** ecks <ecks!ecks@wookieepedia/administrator/pdpc.active.ecks> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps
2013-08-31T23:06:43 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o ecks
2013-08-31T23:06:51 <exiledjedi> Go ahead Tope.
2013-08-31T23:07:01 <Toprawa> I wanted to quickly propose we set a 90-minute length on this meeting.
2013-08-31T23:07:10 <Toprawa> So we don't kill ourselves right away :P
2013-08-31T23:07:11 <exiledjedi> Sounds good to me.
2013-08-31T23:07:18 <Toprawa> Then we can pick up with wherever we're at during Meeting2
2013-08-31T23:07:18 <Olioster> Sounds good
2013-08-31T23:07:33 <Supreme_Emperor> agreed
2013-08-31T23:07:35 <Cal_Jedi> Yes, please.
2013-08-31T23:07:48 <Supreme_Emperor> we should have a mid meeting break so i can eat supper when its ready XD
2013-08-31T23:07:50 * Cade nods
2013-08-31T23:07:54 <Cade> And no.
2013-08-31T23:08:17 <Toprawa> Ok, 90-minute limit it is, then
2013-08-31T23:08:24 <Toprawa> EJ, back to you :P
2013-08-31T23:08:40 <exiledjedi> All right, back to the discussion of EduCorps-only requirements.
2013-08-31T23:08:59 <exiledjedi> How would we make reviewing a requirement?
2013-08-31T23:09:23 <Cade> Add a section similar to the Roles of the Agricorps.
2013-08-31T23:09:25 <Cade> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AgriCorps
2013-08-31T23:09:30 <Toprawa> I think we just need to amend the CAN page wording, which currently says no one is required to actually review.
2013-08-31T23:09:31 <exiledjedi> We can't make everyone review every CAN...
2013-08-31T23:09:47 <Toprawa> We should reword it to say ECs have a responsibility to regularly maintain the CAN page
2013-08-31T23:09:59 <Supreme_Emperor> should be the same as the other panels
2013-08-31T23:10:00 <Toprawa> That responsibility should be only for EC members, though
2013-08-31T23:10:06 <Toprawa> not for Inq-ECs or AC-ECs
2013-08-31T23:10:08 <Cade> Oh, I didn't mean the exact section, but per Tope.
2013-08-31T23:10:24 <exiledjedi> The same should also be done for the CA article review page.
2013-08-31T23:10:42 <Toprawa> yes, that's what I meant
2013-08-31T23:10:43 <Cade> If no one is required to review, then we end up with a bottleneck, as CAs need ECvotes to pass.
2013-08-31T23:10:44 <Toprawa> WP:CAN vs. WP:CA
2013-08-31T23:11:02 <Toprawa> actually, I'm sorry
2013-08-31T23:11:05 <Toprawa> I meant on the EC page itself
2013-08-31T23:11:07 <exiledjedi> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Comprehensive_article_review
2013-08-31T23:11:11 <Toprawa> but anywhere else that wording is found also
2013-08-31T23:11:15 <exiledjedi> How about this page?
2013-08-31T23:11:30 <Toprawa> "The EduCorps is not analogous to either the Inquisitorius or the AgriCorps, in so far as it is not a review panel, it is not subject to continual internal meetings and operations, and most importantly, it is not the obligation of those on the list to review nominations."
2013-08-31T23:11:35 <Toprawa> The last clause of that sentence ^
2013-08-31T23:11:38 <Toprawa> That needs to change
2013-08-31T23:11:41 <Cade> Yes
2013-08-31T23:11:41 <Supreme_Emperor> agreed
2013-08-31T23:11:43 <exiledjedi> Yes
2013-08-31T23:11:44 <Toprawa> It *is* the responsibility of the EC to review :P
2013-08-31T23:12:05 <Toprawa> Ultimately, this need to be approved in a CT, however.
2013-08-31T23:12:15 *** CavalierOne <CavalierOne!~chatzilla@wookieepedia/administrator/CavalierOne> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps
2013-08-31T23:12:15 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o CavalierOne
2013-08-31T23:12:25 <Toprawa> Since we're in agreement on this, motion to create a CT, then?
2013-08-31T23:12:26 <Supreme_Emperor> to the emergency Mofference XD
2013-08-31T23:12:31 <Toprawa> hey Cav
2013-08-31T23:12:33 <Supreme_Emperor> support
2013-08-31T23:12:33 *** CavalierOne is now known as SirCavalier
2013-08-31T23:12:34 <Cade> To a vote.
2013-08-31T23:12:37 <Cade> !support
2013-08-31T23:12:37 <Cal_Jedi> support
2013-08-31T23:12:41 <Toprawa> support
2013-08-31T23:12:42 <Cal_Jedi> yo Cav
2013-08-31T23:12:42 <Supreme_Emperor> !support
2013-08-31T23:12:43 <SirCavalier> Tope, assorted people
2013-08-31T23:12:48 <SirCavalier> Cal
2013-08-31T23:12:51 <IFYLOFD> !support
2013-08-31T23:12:53 <exiledjedi> !support
2013-08-31T23:13:06 <ecks> support
2013-08-31T23:13:10 <Olioster> !support
2013-08-31T23:13:19 <Toprawa> Motion passed, then
2013-08-31T23:13:19 <Cade> I think that's everyone.
2013-08-31T23:13:31 <exiledjedi> On to point two...
2013-08-31T23:13:33 <Cade> Ecks, do we have a voting bot, or is that just GT's thing?
2013-08-31T23:13:41 <Supreme_Emperor> i see no bot XD
2013-08-31T23:13:47 <Toprawa> that's GT
2013-08-31T23:13:50 <Toprawa> We just count votes here
2013-08-31T23:14:00 <ecks> ain't nobody got time fo dat
2013-08-31T23:14:01 <Cade> Alright.
2013-08-31T23:14:42 <exiledjedi> Should we discourage the cutting of words to keep article under 250 words (or under 200 to avoid writing an introduction)?
2013-08-31T23:14:50 <Supreme_Emperor> discourage it
2013-08-31T23:14:54 <Toprawa> Absolutely
2013-08-31T23:15:05 <SirCavalier> Totally
2013-08-31T23:15:07 <Supreme_Emperor> if it can be brought to GAN, it should be
2013-08-31T23:15:16 <Toprawa> The emphasis should always be looking forward
2013-08-31T23:15:17 <SirCavalier> It harms the article to write for a specific word target
2013-08-31T23:15:31 <Supreme_Emperor> also comes off looking lazy
2013-08-31T23:15:42 <Cade> Absolutely.
2013-08-31T23:15:49 *** Toprawa changes topic to "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:EduCorps/Meeting_1 NOW! | Meeting Theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyGzPmgR1QY"
2013-08-31T23:16:06 <Cal_Jedi> So, to a vote?
2013-08-31T23:16:13 <Cade> It'll be an uphill battle to change the culture, but yes.
2013-08-31T23:16:17 <Cade> Question first
2013-08-31T23:16:18 <exiledjedi> Should we add a rule stating that an EC or other reviewer can object to an article that is close to 250 words (or 200 for articles without introductions).
2013-08-31T23:16:35 <Cade> Well, that was sort of my question. :P
2013-08-31T23:16:38 <Toprawa> Unless there's not a unanimous response, I think we can just infer support without the need for a vote for expediency here
2013-08-31T23:16:48 <Toprawa> Meaning if you disagree with something, speak up
2013-08-31T23:17:28 <Toprawa> EJ> You mean if the reviewer believes the article can and should be longer?
2013-08-31T23:17:35 <exiledjedi> Yes
2013-08-31T23:17:42 <Toprawa> Don't we already do that already?
2013-08-31T23:17:51 <Toprawa> I support, but I wonder if we need a literal rule for that
2013-08-31T23:18:13 <exiledjedi> I've had people complain about expanding an article before.
2013-08-31T23:18:24 <Cade> I was thinking more along the lines of something like "it is recommended that articles close to 250 words be expanded and taken to the GAN"
2013-08-31T23:18:32 <exiledjedi> Some insisted that the intro would just repeat information.
2013-08-31T23:18:51 <Cade> We can tack that on to point #14
2013-08-31T23:18:59 <Cade> "…if the nominated article reaches 200 words or greater, the nominator must either provide an intro or draft an intro and provide a link to the revision in the nomination, showing that the intro does not elevate the article over 250 words. Exceptions can be made for articles wherein the majority of the text is in the "Behind the scenes" section."
2013-08-31T23:18:59 <Toprawa> Maybe just a note saying that "articles that approach the 250-word length for Good article nominations should not deliberately make an effort to avoid meeting that word limit."
2013-08-31T23:19:11 <SirCavalier> ^^
2013-08-31T23:19:18 <exiledjedi> Yes, that sounds good.
2013-08-31T23:19:24 <Cade> Yeah,
2013-08-31T23:19:30 <exiledjedi> To the CT then?
2013-08-31T23:19:38 <Toprawa> Yeah
2013-08-31T23:19:41 <Cade> Yep.
2013-08-31T23:19:50 <Cade> That could be added as point #15.
2013-08-31T23:20:01 <Cade> In the CA requirements, I mean.
2013-08-31T23:20:24 <Toprawa> Very good
2013-08-31T23:21:02 <Supreme_Emperor> TO THE CT
2013-08-31T23:21:02 <exiledjedi> All right, any other EduCorps rule issues before we move on?
2013-08-31T23:21:10 <Toprawa> Yes
2013-08-31T23:21:11 <Supreme_Emperor> do all the works
2013-08-31T23:21:15 <Toprawa> Unless you discussed this and I missed it.
2013-08-31T23:21:35 <Toprawa> Did we want to review the EC page wording about not having regular meetings?
2013-08-31T23:21:44 <Toprawa> or did we want to save that for Meeting 2, after we have a meeting
2013-08-31T23:21:53 <exiledjedi> Oh yes, forgot about that one...
2013-08-31T23:21:59 <Supreme_Emperor> imo, there should be regular meetings
2013-08-31T23:22:12 <Cade> Hmmm.
2013-08-31T23:22:14 <Toprawa> I figure there are two choices: regular meetings or meetings as we require them
2013-08-31T23:22:19 <Toprawa> Meaning not necessarily regular
2013-08-31T23:22:23 <exiledjedi> I think the meetings should be fairly regular, but not as often as AC meetings...
2013-08-31T23:22:23 <Toprawa> But when needed
2013-08-31T23:22:32 <SirCavalier> I'd say regular meetings, but maybe not monthly
2013-08-31T23:22:36 <Supreme_Emperor> should be fairly regular
2013-08-31T23:22:45 <Cade> Maybe something like 4 per year?
2013-08-31T23:22:47 <Cade> Or 3?
2013-08-31T23:23:06 <exiledjedi> We'll need more now than we will later hopefully...
2013-08-31T23:23:08 <Supreme_Emperor> more regular than that XD
2013-08-31T23:23:28 <Supreme_Emperor> how about monthly until stuff gets caught up
2013-08-31T23:24:00 <exiledjedi> I could go for that. Maybe once every three months after that?
2013-08-31T23:24:10 <Cade> Seems good.
2013-08-31T23:24:13 <Supreme_Emperor> sounds good, and more could always be scheduled if needed
2013-08-31T23:24:19 <Toprawa> I'm ok with that
2013-08-31T23:24:30 <Toprawa> Something else, also
2013-08-31T23:24:39 *** Jangeth_ <Jangeth_!~JangFett@wookieepedia/administrator/JangFett> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps
2013-08-31T23:24:39 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Jangeth_
2013-08-31T23:24:46 <Toprawa> The current review system right now is handling everything on the page.
2013-08-31T23:24:47 <Supreme_Emperor> O_O Jangeth
2013-08-31T23:24:50 <Supreme_Emperor> quick look busy
2013-08-31T23:24:53 <Toprawa> Do we want to transition that into meeting reviews?
2013-08-31T23:25:04 <Cade> What do you mean?
2013-08-31T23:25:09 <exiledjedi> I think that meeting reviews would be better.
2013-08-31T23:25:19 <Jangeth_> yes I am here
2013-08-31T23:25:20 <Toprawa> Like the Inq and AC does right now, we review problem FAs and GAs at meetings, not on a page
2013-08-31T23:25:22 <Supreme_Emperor> you mean like how the other panels regularily review old articles?
2013-08-31T23:25:27 <Supreme_Emperor> definitely
2013-08-31T23:25:28 *** Jangeth_ is now known as Jangeth
2013-08-31T23:25:29 <Toprawa> Right now, the EC handles problem CAs on a problem review page
2013-08-31T23:25:33 <exiledjedi> No one pays attention to that page...
2013-08-31T23:25:35 <Cal_Jedi> Jang ;D
2013-08-31T23:25:51 <Toprawa> Since we're doing meetings right now, reviewing problem CAs on a page seems obsolete
2013-08-31T23:26:05 <Toprawa> We could do away with the page altogether
2013-08-31T23:26:11 <Cade> So, we'd have something similar to what Meeting 1 has on its page?
2013-08-31T23:26:13 <Supreme_Emperor> tbh how many people even know that page exists :P
2013-08-31T23:26:20 <Toprawa> Ugh
2013-08-31T23:26:20 <exiledjedi> I guess that would require another CT?
2013-08-31T23:26:22 <Toprawa> Cade.
2013-08-31T23:26:24 * away with the review page
2013-08-31T23:26:25 <Toprawa> What do we do at Inqmoots?
2013-08-31T23:26:29 <away> sorry could not resist
2013-08-31T23:26:30 <Toprawa> We review FAs that have issues.
2013-08-31T23:26:34 <Cade> Like normal Inq/ACmoot pages, with lists of articles that need updating/etc.
2013-08-31T23:26:48 <Toprawa> Yes.
2013-08-31T23:26:51 <Supreme_Emperor> nice away, nice
2013-08-31T23:26:53 <Toprawa> And then we review those articles at a meeting
2013-08-31T23:26:59 <Cade> ^ That's what I was trying to say, yeah.
2013-08-31T23:27:01 <Toprawa> Right now, the EC does that on a page
2013-08-31T23:27:12 <Toprawa> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Comprehensive_article_review
2013-08-31T23:27:14 <Toprawa> That
2013-08-31T23:27:17 <Cade> Yeah.
2013-08-31T23:27:18 <Supreme_Emperor> CT it, then transition it into the meetings
2013-08-31T23:27:22 <Toprawa> as EJ says, we ignore that page
2013-08-31T23:27:30 <Jangeth> Cal :DD
2013-08-31T23:27:41 <exiledjedi> Even I rarely check that page...
2013-08-31T23:27:45 <Cade> So we'd likely have an Old Articles & New Articles section on the meeting page like Inq/ACmoots.
2013-08-31T23:27:50 <Toprawa> Yes
2013-08-31T23:27:58 <Toprawa> We'd basically become synonymous to the Inq and AC in that regard
2013-08-31T23:28:08 <Toprawa> Reviewing problem articles at meetings in a real-time setting
2013-08-31T23:28:09 <Cade> That seems like it'd work a lot better. Just look at all the work that's been done with the Meeting 1 page.
2013-08-31T23:28:12 <Supreme_Emperor> sounds quite reasonable
2013-08-31T23:28:13 <Toprawa> instead of on an ongoing page
2013-08-31T23:28:32 <Supreme_Emperor> may take time to catch up, but overall it will make things run smoother
2013-08-31T23:28:37 <Toprawa> Definitely
2013-08-31T23:28:42 <Toprawa> General agreement, then?
2013-08-31T23:28:45 <Cade> Yep.
2013-08-31T23:28:46 <exiledjedi> yes
2013-08-31T23:28:47 <Supreme_Emperor> !support
2013-08-31T23:28:48 <Toprawa> This will all need to go to CT
2013-08-31T23:28:49 <SirCavalier> Si
2013-08-31T23:28:51 <Olioster> Yar
2013-08-31T23:29:15 <Cal_Jedi> rar
2013-08-31T23:29:21 <Supreme_Emperor> gar
2013-08-31T23:29:23 <Toprawa> Ok, keep us moving, EJ :P
2013-08-31T23:29:45 <exiledjedi> All right, there is one more rule related question left...
2013-08-31T23:30:17 <exiledjedi> How many CA votes are required to remove an article from the nomination page before 1 week?
2013-08-31T23:30:30 <Cade> I only asked this because of the Ao Var issue.
2013-08-31T23:30:31 <exiledjedi> It just happened with three yesterday.
2013-08-31T23:30:37 <Toprawa> Do we have a set amount right now?
2013-08-31T23:30:38 <Cade> Three?
2013-08-31T23:30:42 <Cade> I didn't see one.
2013-08-31T23:30:46 <Toprawa> It should be three
2013-08-31T23:30:49 <SirCavalier> Three is standard
2013-08-31T23:30:57 <exiledjedi> Three is fine with me.
2013-08-31T23:31:01 <Supreme_Emperor> i vote 4, just to be different XD
2013-08-31T23:31:01 <Cade> Oh, you mean three votes. I thought you meant three instances.
2013-08-31T23:31:21 <exiledjedi> Three votes...
2013-08-31T23:31:45 <exiledjedi> Does this need to go to a CT as well?
2013-08-31T23:31:46 <Toprawa> I think this is something we can implement on our own outside of a formal CT, since it encompasses our internal procedures
2013-08-31T23:31:55 <Toprawa> We do the same for the Inq and AC
2013-08-31T23:31:56 <Supreme_Emperor> internal EC affair
2013-08-31T23:32:04 <Cade> This is for issues where the nomination is not inactive, but there's an alterior reason that it needs to be removed.
2013-08-31T23:32:14 <Jangeth> per Tope
2013-08-31T23:32:23 <Cal_Jedi> Per Jangeth
2013-08-31T23:32:26 <Cade> And yeah, agreed.
2013-08-31T23:32:31 <Toprawa> Does this not also cover inactivity?
2013-08-31T23:32:32 <Jangeth> and SE the non EC
2013-08-31T23:32:35 <Cal_Jedi> But yeah. Sounds good.
2013-08-31T23:32:40 <Toprawa> This should cover all circumstances for removal
2013-08-31T23:32:41 <Cade> There's a current rule about inactive noms
2013-08-31T23:32:46 <Toprawa> What rule is that?
2013-08-31T23:32:49 <Toprawa> Remind me :P
2013-08-31T23:32:57 <exiledjedi> This really should apply for everything...
2013-08-31T23:33:02 <Cade> "All nominations will be considered idle and are subject to instantaneous removal by EduCorps members if objections are not addressed, or at least not answered, after a period of 1 week."
2013-08-31T23:33:10 <Toprawa> Ah, right
2013-08-31T23:33:16 <Toprawa> And this is for extraneous reasons.
2013-08-31T23:33:19 <Toprawa> Gotcha
2013-08-31T23:33:24 <Cade> It's a bit harsh, imo...
2013-08-31T23:33:36 <Toprawa> Well, let's stick to the first issue.
2013-08-31T23:33:41 <Cade> Yeah. Never mind.
2013-08-31T23:34:12 <Toprawa> Ultimately, this kind of thing should go into a page like this. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:AC/AC_Bylaws
2013-08-31T23:34:21 <exiledjedi> So, should we apply the three vote rule for all nomination removals?
2013-08-31T23:34:29 <Cade> Wait, you guys actually //use// that page? o_O
2013-08-31T23:34:33 <Toprawa> Yes. :P
2013-08-31T23:34:38 <Jangeth> oshit the EC is getting powah
2013-08-31T23:34:46 <Supreme_Emperor> ultimate Powah
2013-08-31T23:35:01 <Toprawa> Do we want to vote to ratify a page like that for the EC? The first thing to add could be for these votes.
2013-08-31T23:35:17 <exiledjedi> I think that would be a good idea.
2013-08-31T23:35:20 <Cade> Yeah.
2013-08-31T23:35:26 <Toprawa> It's just a reminder page so people can see how things are done properly
2013-08-31T23:35:28 <Supreme_Emperor> definitely
2013-08-31T23:35:37 <Cade> I haven't seen an inactive CAN in a while, actually
2013-08-31T23:35:54 <Toprawa> Ok, let's vote: Support for creation of EC Bylaws page?
2013-08-31T23:35:59 <Cade> Support.
2013-08-31T23:35:59 <Supreme_Emperor> support
2013-08-31T23:35:59 <exiledjedi> support
2013-08-31T23:36:01 <Jangeth> \o/
2013-08-31T23:36:05 <SirCavalier> suppoty
2013-08-31T23:36:12 <Toprawa> Support
2013-08-31T23:36:32 <Toprawa> Others?
2013-08-31T23:36:39 <Toprawa> Disagreement?
2013-08-31T23:36:41 <Supreme_Emperor> they all support :P
2013-08-31T23:36:44 <Cal_Jedi> Support
2013-08-31T23:36:45 <Supreme_Emperor> by default
2013-08-31T23:36:52 <Cade> Supreme, hush.
2013-08-31T23:36:55 <Jangeth> so will the EC archive noms only? :P
2013-08-31T23:36:56 <Olioster> Support
2013-08-31T23:37:01 <Toprawa> Ok, EC Bylaws page ratified.
2013-08-31T23:37:06 <Toprawa> No, Jang, one thing at a time :P
2013-08-31T23:37:06 <Cade> No, I think anyone can archive CANs
2013-08-31T23:37:20 <Jangeth> Ok so "Paperwork and meeting scheduling duties" is out of the question? :P
2013-08-31T23:37:21 <Toprawa> The EC Bylaws page is blank right now.
2013-08-31T23:37:25 <Jangeth> Oh
2013-08-31T23:37:25 <Cade> They're just a drag, like all archiving.
2013-08-31T23:37:27 <Toprawa> Now we need to ratify what to put into it :P
2013-08-31T23:37:29 <Supreme_Emperor> mind if i bring up a small side note?
2013-08-31T23:37:36 <Toprawa> Go ahead, SE
2013-08-31T23:37:44 <Jangeth> This is the bylaws page ~~~~
2013-08-31T23:37:57 <Jangeth> 10/10 would read again
2013-08-31T23:38:09 <Supreme_Emperor> Seeing as we already display FA and GA articles on the main page, now that the EC is moving up, should we consider showing some of them on the main page as well?
2013-08-31T23:38:21 <Cal_Jedi> XD
2013-08-31T23:38:23 <Cade> Meh.
2013-08-31T23:38:29 <Cal_Jedi> @ Jang
2013-08-31T23:38:30 <Toprawa> I think it's something to consider, but I wouldn't support it right now.
2013-08-31T23:38:35 <Toprawa> I would have to see a vast improvement in CA quality
2013-08-31T23:38:35 <Cal_Jedi> and per Tope
2013-08-31T23:38:37 <Supreme_Emperor> just something to think about
2013-08-31T23:38:39 <exiledjedi> Not yet, maybe later...
2013-08-31T23:38:50 <Supreme_Emperor> and agreed, not now but sometime down the road
2013-08-31T23:39:01 <Toprawa> Yeah, we could monitor it
2013-08-31T23:39:06 <exiledjedi> The quality needs to be higher first.
2013-08-31T23:39:06 <Toprawa> When the time feels right, we could discuss it more seriously
2013-08-31T23:39:38 <Toprawa> Ok, back to the voting removal thing.
2013-08-31T23:39:39 <exiledjedi> So should we get to work on the Bylaws page now?
2013-08-31T23:39:45 <Toprawa> Yes :P
2013-08-31T23:39:55 <Toprawa> let's vote on the required number of votes needed to remove something from the page
2013-08-31T23:40:09 <Toprawa> Support 3 votes for removal of a nom for extraneous reasons outside of idleness.
2013-08-31T23:40:14 <Toprawa> ?*
2013-08-31T23:40:17 <Supreme_Emperor> support
2013-08-31T23:40:20 <exiledjedi> support
2013-08-31T23:40:22 <ecks> support
2013-08-31T23:40:24 <SirCavalier> support
2013-08-31T23:40:24 <Olioster> Aye
2013-08-31T23:40:51 <Cade> support
2013-08-31T23:41:01 <Cal_Jedi> support
2013-08-31T23:41:06 <Toprawa> Support
2013-08-31T23:41:16 <Toprawa> Ok, motion granted, and this will be added to the Bylaws page
2013-08-31T23:41:19 <Toprawa> passed*
2013-08-31T23:41:34 <Toprawa> Ok, second
2013-08-31T23:41:35 <Toprawa> Cade's thing
2013-08-31T23:41:42 <Toprawa> Do we want to change that idle policy?
2013-08-31T23:42:08 <Cade> I don't care, really. My thing was the extraneous reasons removal.
2013-08-31T23:42:11 <Supreme_Emperor> i vote 2 weeks idle, a vote for removal can be started
2013-08-31T23:42:12 <exiledjedi> Consistency is nice...
2013-08-31T23:42:23 <Toprawa> I think two weeks is way too long, considering how short the nominations are.
2013-08-31T23:42:25 <Toprawa> A week at most.
2013-08-31T23:42:30 <Olioster> 1 week is a bit harsh, per Supreme
2013-08-31T23:42:31 <Supreme_Emperor> good point
2013-08-31T23:42:36 <Toprawa> The idea is to keep the CAN page moving at a brisk pace
2013-08-31T23:42:48 <exiledjedi> One week and then a vote for removal?
2013-08-31T23:42:50 <Supreme_Emperor> week and a half, to meet in the middle XD
2013-08-31T23:42:55 <Toprawa> It's already one week right now.
2013-08-31T23:43:03 <Toprawa> But do we want to change it to require three EC votes to remove it?
2013-08-31T23:43:05 <Toprawa> That was the issue
2013-08-31T23:43:19 <Toprawa> Right now they're just removed automatically after one week of being idle
2013-08-31T23:44:15 <exiledjedi> Seems like a good idea.
2013-08-31T23:44:17 <Olioster> A vote would be good, me thinks
2013-08-31T23:45:01 <Toprawa> Disagreement?
2013-08-31T23:45:08 <Cal_Jedi> none
2013-08-31T23:45:54 <Toprawa> Ok, let's vote, then: Support to change the requirements for removing an idle nom. This would now require support from three EC members, who would vote on the nomination.
2013-08-31T23:46:03 <exiledjedi> support
2013-08-31T23:46:06 <Cade> support
2013-08-31T23:46:11 <SirCavalier> support
2013-08-31T23:46:13 <Olioster> support
2013-08-31T23:46:15 <Cal_Jedi> support
2013-08-31T23:46:50 <Toprawa> Motion passed, then
2013-08-31T23:46:55 <Toprawa> We'll add this to the Bylaws page as well
2013-08-31T23:47:19 <Toprawa> Do we also want to add a note saying this vote may also be obtained via IRC?
2013-08-31T23:47:26 <Toprawa> The Inq and AC also do it this way
2013-08-31T23:47:37 <Toprawa> Example:
2013-08-31T23:47:37 <exiledjedi> That would be fine with me.
2013-08-31T23:47:39 <Toprawa> "Likewise, a consensus of at least 3 AC support votes is needed on the GAN page to strike an objection from a reviewer that is deemed otherwise invalid (For what constitutes an invalid objection, refer to the accompanying section below). This consensus of 3 support votes can alternatively be obtained from present users in IRC, in which case a note will be left on the GAN page that the...
2013-08-31T23:47:41 <Toprawa> ...objection has been stricken via AC consensus. However, if the nominator of the article in question is an AC member, he/she cannot be included in the 3 support votes. "
2013-08-31T23:48:08 <Cade> Agreed/
2013-08-31T23:48:13 <Supreme_Emperor> sounds reasonable
2013-08-31T23:48:37 <Toprawa> Vote Support or Oppose
2013-08-31T23:48:44 <Olioster> support
2013-08-31T23:48:45 <exiledjedi> support
2013-08-31T23:48:47 <SirCavalier> support
2013-08-31T23:48:50 <Cade> support
2013-08-31T23:48:55 <Cal_Jedi> support
2013-08-31T23:48:59 <Toprawa> Support
2013-08-31T23:49:05 <Toprawa> Motion passed
2013-08-31T23:49:42 <exiledjedi> Ok, now we can move on to more general article issues...
2013-08-31T23:50:13 <exiledjedi> A lot of CAs assume that a species in non-sentient...
2013-08-31T23:50:47 <exiledjedi> The question is: Are there situations where non-sentient can be inferred without being stated?
2013-08-31T23:51:09 <SirCavalier> I think non-sentience can be inferred, definitely. If, for example, the animal is described as a herd or livestock animal, or is used for food and clothing.
2013-08-31T23:51:54 <exiledjedi> Any other opinions?
2013-08-31T23:52:21 <Cade> I think in the absence of that, there just shouldn't be any mention of sentience.
2013-08-31T23:52:41 <Supreme_Emperor> if nothing is mentioned, assuming anything is speculation
2013-08-31T23:53:00 <exiledjedi> What about plants?
2013-08-31T23:53:14 <Cade> I'd say leave out sentience.
2013-08-31T23:53:20 <Cal_Jedi> There have been plenty of non-sentient plants in SW.
2013-08-31T23:53:22 <Cal_Jedi> er
2013-08-31T23:53:23 <Cal_Jedi> sentient*
2013-08-31T23:53:26 <Cal_Jedi> just sayin.
2013-08-31T23:53:27 <Cade> O
2013-08-31T23:53:29 <Jangeth> wat
2013-08-31T23:53:42 <exiledjedi> What about the categories?
2013-08-31T23:53:43 <Cade> *I'd say treat it like we do unspecified gender/species
2013-08-31T23:53:48 <SirCavalier> Are there any truly sentient plants that we would deal with as being separate from an alien species?
2013-08-31T23:54:06 <Cade> EJ: Category:Species of unspecified sentience?
2013-08-31T23:54:52 <exiledjedi> Yeah, I was making checking to see if you meant that we should include that.
2013-08-31T23:55:23 <exiledjedi> So, how do we want to handle this?
2013-08-31T23:55:52 <Cade> Does anyone object/disagree with my proposal of leave-out-unless-stated-or-herd/livestock ?
2013-08-31T23:57:06 <exiledjedi> Anyone?
2013-08-31T23:57:19 <Cade> Okay, does anyone /support/ that proposal?
2013-08-31T23:57:33 <exiledjedi> support
2013-08-31T23:57:37 <Olioster> Support
2013-08-31T23:57:42 <SirCavalier> Support
2013-08-31T23:58:00 <Cal_Jedi> support
2013-08-31T23:58:07 <ecks> support
2013-08-31T23:58:47 <Cade> Tope/Supreme/Jang/Floyd?
2013-08-31T23:58:53 <IFYLOFD> Support
2013-08-31T23:58:54 <Supreme_Emperor> support
2013-08-31T23:59:05 <Supreme_Emperor> does my vote even really count here XD
2013-08-31T23:59:11 <Supreme_Emperor> seeing as im the only non EC here :P
2013-08-31T23:59:16 <Jangeth> +m :
2013-08-31T23:59:17 <Jangeth> :P
2013-08-31T23:59:18 <Cal_Jedi> XD
2013-08-31T23:59:22 <Cal_Jedi> /kick
2013-08-31T23:59:30 <Jangeth> Sounds fine, Cade
2013-08-31T23:59:31 <Supreme_Emperor> nnnnnnoooooooooo
2013-08-31T23:59:32 *** Cade was kicked by IFYLOFD (Cade)
2013-08-31T23:59:33 *** Cade <Cade!~Cade_Calr@wookieepedia/Cade-Calrayn> has joined #wookieepedia-educorps
2013-08-31T23:59:33 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Cade
2013-08-31T23:59:36 <Supreme_Emperor> :P
2013-08-31T23:59:38 <ecks> per floyd
2013-08-31T23:59:39 <Jangeth> :D
2013-08-31T23:59:40 <Cade> o_O
2013-08-31T23:59:43 <Jangeth> dat Xd
2013-08-31T23:59:44 <Cade> What just happened?
2013-08-31T23:59:45 <IFYLOFD> To truly inaugurate the EC
2013-08-31T23:59:50 <Jangeth> Continue please :P
2013-08-31T23:59:51 <Cade> >_>
2013-08-31T23:59:51 <exiledjedi> All right, the next part also involves species: Should plants that are food have a food or species infobox?
2013-09-01T00:00:28 <Olioster> Species should probably override food.
2013-09-01T00:00:29 <exiledjedi> Food: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Takhal_nut
2013-09-01T00:00:29 <Supreme_Emperor> both XD
2013-09-01T00:00:33 <SirCavalier> At the risk of overdoing infoboxes, I would consider creating a separate plant infobox
2013-09-01T00:00:40 <Cade> ^
2013-09-01T00:00:53 <Olioster> or per Cav
2013-09-01T00:00:55 <Cade> Well, first, let's see how many that would apply too
2013-09-01T00:00:58 <exiledjedi> Species: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Antarian_pea
2013-09-01T00:01:23 <Cade> Oh, there's a lot of plans.
2013-09-01T00:01:25 <Cade> *plants.
2013-09-01T00:01:28 <exiledjedi> I've got 15 cases on the CA page.
2013-09-01T00:01:28 <Cade> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Plants
2013-09-01T00:01:40 <SirCavalier> The current species infobox is heavily boased towards actual humoanoid and animal species
2013-09-01T00:01:45 <Cade> 237 stubs.
2013-09-01T00:01:56 <exiledjedi> So, should we create a plant infobox?
2013-09-01T00:02:00 <Cade> Yeah.
2013-09-01T00:02:05 <Supreme_Emperor> yep
2013-09-01T00:02:06 <Cade> support.
2013-09-01T00:02:11 <Toprawa> support
2013-09-01T00:02:15 <exiledjedi> support
2013-09-01T00:02:18 <SirCavalier> Support
2013-09-01T00:02:40 <Supreme_Emperor> suooort
2013-09-01T00:02:41 <ecks> support
2013-09-01T00:02:47 <Olioster> support
2013-09-01T00:02:51 <Cal_Jedi> support
2013-09-01T00:02:55 <Cade> I'll get on that
2013-09-01T00:03:17 <exiledjedi> Next, should articles like Dining at Dex's be italicized, in quotes, or neither?
2013-09-01T00:03:28 <exiledjedi> This also applies to short stories.
2013-09-01T00:03:38 <Toprawa> This is really something that should be discussed in a wider forum
2013-09-01T00:03:41 <Toprawa> Since this affects all articles
2013-09-01T00:03:44 <Toprawa> not just CAs
2013-09-01T00:03:47 <SirCavalier> Per Tope
2013-09-01T00:03:48 <Supreme_Emperor> CT
2013-09-01T00:03:51 <Olioster> yeah
2013-09-01T00:03:59 <Cade> I know Naru's a stickler for quotes instead of italics
2013-09-01T00:04:02 <exiledjedi> CT or SH?
2013-09-01T00:04:07 <Cade> SH
2013-09-01T00:04:08 <Supreme_Emperor> SH*
2013-09-01T00:04:09 <SirCavalier> SH first
2013-09-01T00:04:17 <exiledjedi> Ok, we'll move that to SH...
2013-09-01T00:05:48 <exiledjedi> Next: Should we contact people about their articles, or should we figure they already know or don't care.
2013-09-01T00:06:02 <Toprawa> Contact them regarding what?
2013-09-01T00:06:14 <Cal_Jedi> outstanding objections, I'm assuming.
2013-09-01T00:06:17 <exiledjedi> If their article goes under review...
2013-09-01T00:06:21 <Cal_Jedi> ah
2013-09-01T00:06:23 <Cal_Jedi> nevermind, then. :{
2013-09-01T00:06:25 <Cal_Jedi> :P*
2013-09-01T00:06:28 <Toprawa> We don't do that for Inq or AC
2013-09-01T00:06:44 <Toprawa> We figure if someone wants to maintain article, it's their responsibility to monitor it
2013-09-01T00:06:52 <Olioster> per tope
2013-09-01T00:06:54 <Toprawa> They should have their article on a watchlist anyway
2013-09-01T00:06:57 <Cal_Jedi> indeed.
2013-09-01T00:07:01 <exiledjedi> Ok, that should work...
2013-09-01T00:07:03 <SirCavalier> We assume nominators watch their articles and are aware of clean up tags and the like being added
2013-09-01T00:07:10 <Supreme_Emperor> one day ill actually bother using that watchlist XD
2013-09-01T00:07:24 <Toprawa> I honestly don't know how anyone doesn't have one
2013-09-01T00:07:31 <Toprawa> I can't possibly monitor everything I need to without one
2013-09-01T00:07:37 <SirCavalier> ^^
2013-09-01T00:07:41 <Cal_Jedi> The watchlist is like the thing I look at the most on Wookieepedia :P
2013-09-01T00:07:48 <Supreme_Emperor> i normally do a check of the RC for the last 12 hours or so whenever im here anyway
2013-09-01T00:07:52 <ecks> I haven't used a watchlist... and I've been here for 4 years
2013-09-01T00:08:12 <Supreme_Emperor> i just check back till i reach my last edit
2013-09-01T00:08:13 <Cade> I mostly use Special:RelatedChanges for Project Hero.
2013-09-01T00:08:16 <Olioster> well arent you special ecks
2013-09-01T00:08:19 <exiledjedi> Should we pursue the Star Wars Galaxies TCG dating thing that Mauser brought up on a SH thread?
2013-09-01T00:08:20 <Toprawa> XD
2013-09-01T00:08:25 <ecks> a special snowflake
2013-09-01T00:08:28 <Cal_Jedi> XD XD
2013-09-01T00:08:38 <Toprawa> We could discuss it briefly, but ultimately that probably deserves a wider audience as well
2013-09-01T00:08:55 <SirCavalier> Aye
2013-09-01T00:09:09 <Supreme_Emperor> ^
2013-09-01T00:09:41 <exiledjedi> He says that it happened in an undefined era, while I think that the main storyline occurred during the Galactic Civil War after the Battle of Yavin...
2013-09-01T00:09:47 <Cade> ^^
2013-09-01T00:10:09 <Toprawa> I have no idea personally
2013-09-01T00:10:11 <exiledjedi> Hanzo already changed his articles to remove the mention of the Rebellion era.
2013-09-01T00:10:32 <SirCavalier> From what I can see, a lot relates to the actual game itself which is 0 ABY - 3 ABY
2013-09-01T00:10:42 <Cade> Yeah, that's what I've seen.
2013-09-01T00:10:50 <SirCavalier> Maybe some individual cards are sketchy, but as a whole ...
2013-09-01T00:11:16 <Cade> What I've been saying is go with the Rebellion era as a default unless the card says different
2013-09-01T00:11:45 <exiledjedi> There are a very few cards that seem to appear in the Clone Wars, plus a couple that might be due to dating inconsistencies.
2013-09-01T00:12:02 <exiledjedi> So, take this to SH thread?
2013-09-01T00:12:07 <Toprawa> yeah
2013-09-01T00:12:58 <exiledjedi> So, what all CTs and SH threads do we need to create?
2013-09-01T00:13:06 <exiledjedi> We're done with the agenda.
2013-09-01T00:13:09 <Toprawa> We'll go back in the log and make a list :P
2013-09-01T00:13:11 <ecks> ALL the threads
2013-09-01T00:13:24 <Toprawa> I think that's pretty good for a first meeting.
2013-09-01T00:13:27 <exiledjedi> One last thing: When will the next meeting be held?
2013-09-01T00:13:29 <Toprawa> Unless anyone else has anything else they want to bring up
2013-09-01T00:13:37 <Cade> I'll have the plant infobox done in a moment.
2013-09-01T00:13:38 <Toprawa> Two weeks?
2013-09-01T00:13:45 <Supreme_Emperor> seems reasonable
2013-09-01T00:13:55 <Toprawa> That way, some of these procedural things might be decided in a CT by then
2013-09-01T00:14:05 <Cade> Question.
2013-09-01T00:14:09 <Toprawa> Answer.
2013-09-01T00:14:17 <Cade> Template:Plant or Template:Plant_infobox?
2013-09-01T00:14:44 <Toprawa> whatever you do will affect the way it looks in the preload list
2013-09-01T00:14:49 <Toprawa> most include "infobox," I think?
2013-09-01T00:14:57 <Olioster> Infoxbox plant?
2013-09-01T00:15:01 <SirCavalier> Characters do
2013-09-01T00:15:07 <Cade> We've got Template:Species and Template:Food_infobox
2013-09-01T00:15:11 <Supreme_Emperor> plantboxinfo
2013-09-01T00:15:17 <Olioster> lol
2013-09-01T00:15:21 * Cade slaps Supreme
2013-09-01T00:15:40 <Olioster> So much physical abuse from Cade
2013-09-01T00:15:46 <exiledjedi> How about the 21st of September at the same time for the next meeting?
2013-09-01T00:15:47 <Olioster> We should have a meeting about that
2013-09-01T00:15:48 <Supreme_Emperor> i shall stand my ground
2013-09-01T00:15:53 <Cade> Only because I receive so much, Olioster
2013-09-01T00:15:56 <Cade> And sounds good
2013-09-01T00:16:00 <Supreme_Emperor> indeed
2013-09-01T00:16:04 <Olioster> Deserved, Cade
2013-09-01T00:16:08 <Cade> False
2013-09-01T00:16:24 <Cade> I did nothing to deserve Floyd's treatment of me
2013-09-01T00:16:27 * exiledjedi pounds the gavel...
2013-09-01T00:16:30 <IFYLOFD> Fuck off, Cade
2013-09-01T00:16:33 <Cade> o_O
2013-09-01T00:16:38 <Supreme_Emperor> O_O
2013-09-01T00:16:40 <ecks> k/ick Cade
2013-09-01T00:16:41 <Toprawa> EJ> either 21 or 14
2013-09-01T00:16:41 <ecks> er
2013-09-01T00:16:44 <Toprawa> whichever you think is best
2013-09-01T00:17:02 <Toprawa> Thanks for coming, everyone
2013-09-01T00:17:04 <Toprawa> This was pretty good
2013-09-01T00:17:12 <exiledjedi> Three weeks would give more time for things to get handled in CTs and SH threads.
2013-09-01T00:17:17 <Toprawa> That's true
2013-09-01T00:17:25 <exiledjedi> Thank you for coming...
2013-09-01T00:17:31 <Cal_Jedi> Good meeting, everyone.
2013-09-01T00:17:40 <ecks> that left me hungry
2013-09-01T00:17:45 <exiledjedi> This meeting is done.