Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Meeting Twenty-one
 The incoming nominations threaten to overtake the FAN page | |
| Inquisition Meeting Times | |
|---|---|
| Americas | |
| UTC-12 | Saturday 11th 12:00 |
| UTC-11 | Saturday 11th 13:00 |
| UTC-10 (HST) | Saturday 11th 14:00 |
| UTC-9 | Saturday 11th 15:00 |
| UTC-8 (PST) | Saturday 11th 16:00 |
| UTC-7 (MST) | Saturday 11th 17:00 |
| UTC-6 (CST) | Saturday 11th 18:00 |
| UTC-5 (EST) | Saturday 11th 19:00 |
| UTC-4 (AST) | Saturday 11th 20:00 |
| UTC-3 (NST) | Saturday 11th 21:00 |
| UTC-2 | Saturday 11th 22:00 |
| Europe and Africa | |
| UTC-1 | Saturday 11th 23:00 |
| UTC/GMT | Sunday 12th 0:00 |
| UTC+1 | Sunday 12th 1:00 |
| UTC+2 | Sunday 12th 2:00 |
| Asia and Australasia | |
| UTC+3 | Sunday 12th 3:00 |
| UTC+4 (MSK) | Sunday 12th 4:00 |
| UTC+5 | Sunday 12th 5:00 |
| UTC+6 | Sunday 12th 6:00 |
| UTC+7 (NOVST) | Sunday 12th 7:00 |
| UTC+8 (AWST) | Sunday 12th 8:00 |
| UTC+9 (JST/KST) | Sunday 12th 9:00 |
| UTC+10 (AEST) | Sunday 12th 10:00 |
| UTC+11 | Sunday 12th 11:00 |
| UTC+12 | Sunday 12th 12:00 |
- "There's…too many of them!"
- ―Lieutenant Telsij, after opening up the FAN page
It's that time of the month again. October's Inq meeting has been scheduled for Saturday the 11th, or the 12th if you live in the Old Country. Go ahead and show up. Admission is free.
Agenda
Last meeting's festerings
- Winter Celchu - probed last meeting; final decision awaits
- Gaerial Captison - probed last meeting; final decision awaits
- Ephant Mon - probed last meeting; final decision awaits
- Knights of the Old Republic (comics) - probed last meeting; final decision awaits
New articles to purge (add to as needed)
- Padmé Amidala's wardrobe - Content approaching tag/missing info
- Stinger - Content approaching tag/missing info
- Reading the book at the moment and will hopefully get it updated before the meeting. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- All done. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reading the book at the moment and will hopefully get it updated before the meeting. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mandalore the Ultimate - Content approaching tag/missing info; apparently there's some kind of hubbub going on with this thing, of which I am not entirely clear due to my innate desire to avoid all things Mandalorian. Let's figure this thing out.
- This really just needs someone to hunker down and just do the work. Especially since it's an FA. The deal is that all of the info from TotJ needs to be moved to the Unidentified Taung Mandalore page per the KOTOR Campaign Guide. It's a bit discouraging that a non-Inq actually tried to fix the info, but was immediately reverted because he didn't source. Discouraging because that was over a month ago. :P Cull Tremayne 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, I hope it's as simple as that, since I haven't been able to even get my hands on the KOTOR Campaign Guide, and won't be able to until at least November. According to Sentry on the article's talk page, there is actually some ambiguity with regards to what actually is said and/or happens with regards to the history of Mandalore the Ultimate. Since I'm largely responsible for this article and it's various promotions, I've advised Graestan in my email (mentioned below) that when I buy the necessary book, I'll be giving it an overhaul in the relevant sections. I wasn't aware that someone had attempted to, hopefully properly, update the article, so it may just be as simple as reverting the reverter and going with what that non-Inq originally wrote — tweaking, expanding, and sourcing as required, of course. Anyways, if no one with the KOTOR Guide gets their hands on the article before I get home in the next few weeks, then I'll get 'er done ;) Greyman(Talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- This really just needs someone to hunker down and just do the work. Especially since it's an FA. The deal is that all of the info from TotJ needs to be moved to the Unidentified Taung Mandalore page per the KOTOR Campaign Guide. It's a bit discouraging that a non-Inq actually tried to fix the info, but was immediately reverted because he didn't source. Discouraging because that was over a month ago. :P Cull Tremayne 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cerea - Content approaching tag/missing info
- I dealt with the missing KOTOR info. --Imperialles 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Harrar—Could be longer, and a lot more detailed.
- Rokur Gepta—It needs a better intro and BTS. Also, the article contains words like "backstory is unknown". I (Chack) have never read the Lando series, but surely this article could be longer as well.
Other discussion items to get our blood pressures in the red zone
- What a hilariously appropriate section title. We need to hash things out about snarky remarks on the FAN page. Civility may not be an official policy on the site, but by goodness I'd like to think the Inquisitors stand out as a more professional group than most. I am absolutely tired of seeing comments like these being left in response to objections. If so many of the Inq weren't admins, I'd be doling out blocks for this sort of business. We can't even have the decency to leave this nonsense off the wiki? It's inappropriate, it's counterproductive, it's inflammatory, it's downright disrespectful, and it needs to end. Here. Graestan(Talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Civility is a guideline on this site and should be followed. However, for better or worse, there's no rule about making small, easily fixable objections. We've had meeting topics in the past before about the so-called {{Sofixit}} mentality before. Here are the links: Meeting 18, Meeting 19, and though nothing was officially decided, AFAIK it's generally considered bad form to leave minor objections that take more time to correct than not, or at least sort of unnecessary, as noted by Tommy on WP:GAN. So now you're saying that Inquisitors can't fix an objection and comment that it was easily fixed and probably could have/should have been addressed by the objector? I respectfully disagree, and I'm aware of others that do as well. As such, in the case you linked to, I fail to see the "inappropriate" sense of it. If I thought someone was doing something that perhaps could be handled a little bit better, I'd probably bring it to their attention and the gravity of the situation would determine the manner in which I did so. In this case, it was of sufficiently little import to me to initiate an IRC discussion about it. When it comes to the actual objection, all I had to do to fix one of them was add a single word; the objection itself implicitly implied the fix. To me, that's simple to the point where I would do it myself, even if I had no knowledge of the source material. To my second point, where you comment on doling out blocks, I'm not sure that blocks would be warranted. Sure, in the case you linked, it's my post, so I'm naturally not going to believe that. However, nowhere do I make personal attacks on another user. Nowhere. I apologize if you interpreted my comments that way, but that's simply not how I operate. I have a great respect for Toprawa's skill and dedication to the Featured Article process. In fact, our personal attack policy says to "comment on content, not contributor". By commenting on the nature of the objections, I'm commenting on the content, not the contributor—in this case, I was merely trying to point out an opportunity where an objection might have been easier fixed than said. Now, to correct any perceived incivility in the case that was linked to, I'm attempting to clear up my intent on this page, per our dispute resolution procedure. To Graestan, I appreciate your vigilance in trying to insure the civility of the FAN page—we've had problems with that in the past, but I know that it's gotten better, in large part due to the efforts of the Inq in clearing things up. I do want to avoid suppressing of a reasonable freedom to comment on areas not restricted by policy, but I would encourage all of us, myself included, to try and examine things from another point of view before making judgment calls. I would say that, when in doubt, contact the party in question directly first—to me, that's the more professional and mature response. I understand that this is a general topic, and it's certainly one I'm happy to see addressed, since civility on the FAN page concerns all of the Inq. Of course, if there is further individual follow-up that needs to be made with myself, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, contact me in IRC, or e-mail me at my Wookieepedia.com address. Cheers. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- To me, there's a pretty notable difference between saying "Hey, X, please bear in mind {sofixit} when you make objections" and "Another objection that doubtless took more time to make than fix." The latter comes across as snarky; the former is the more professional response. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look, Ataru, I don't need to read your ten-sentence paragraph to know you disagree with me and want to defend your comments. But I am rather tired of the plain hypocrisy of those who would ask others to behave a certain way while walking the line constantly themselves. I know what reading into posts is; I used to do it all the time. But that's simply not the case here. We will be discussing this at the meeting, and I'm sorry that it had to be your comments and not someone else's that sent me looking for a solution. Graestan(Talk) 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look, I know I am not an Inq any more, but as someone who has spent a lot of time on the FAN page and has made some mistakes with comments unintentionally before, I think I have some insight. (Note: I am aware of this because I still kind of monitor Inq proceedings to see if there is an article about to be probed that I might be able to fix. While checking, I found out about this discussion.) I think a big problem is perceived tone just as much as wording. As Acky says, some things are sometimes "snarky" or "condescending" even when not intended. Humor, especially cheesy humor, is very difficult in text. We've all made gaffs. I think if we are all mindful of tone, this would help immensely. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look, Ataru, I don't need to read your ten-sentence paragraph to know you disagree with me and want to defend your comments. But I am rather tired of the plain hypocrisy of those who would ask others to behave a certain way while walking the line constantly themselves. I know what reading into posts is; I used to do it all the time. But that's simply not the case here. We will be discussing this at the meeting, and I'm sorry that it had to be your comments and not someone else's that sent me looking for a solution. Graestan(Talk) 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- To me, there's a pretty notable difference between saying "Hey, X, please bear in mind {sofixit} when you make objections" and "Another objection that doubtless took more time to make than fix." The latter comes across as snarky; the former is the more professional response. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Civility is a guideline on this site and should be followed. However, for better or worse, there's no rule about making small, easily fixable objections. We've had meeting topics in the past before about the so-called {{Sofixit}} mentality before. Here are the links: Meeting 18, Meeting 19, and though nothing was officially decided, AFAIK it's generally considered bad form to leave minor objections that take more time to correct than not, or at least sort of unnecessary, as noted by Tommy on WP:GAN. So now you're saying that Inquisitors can't fix an objection and comment that it was easily fixed and probably could have/should have been addressed by the objector? I respectfully disagree, and I'm aware of others that do as well. As such, in the case you linked to, I fail to see the "inappropriate" sense of it. If I thought someone was doing something that perhaps could be handled a little bit better, I'd probably bring it to their attention and the gravity of the situation would determine the manner in which I did so. In this case, it was of sufficiently little import to me to initiate an IRC discussion about it. When it comes to the actual objection, all I had to do to fix one of them was add a single word; the objection itself implicitly implied the fix. To me, that's simple to the point where I would do it myself, even if I had no knowledge of the source material. To my second point, where you comment on doling out blocks, I'm not sure that blocks would be warranted. Sure, in the case you linked, it's my post, so I'm naturally not going to believe that. However, nowhere do I make personal attacks on another user. Nowhere. I apologize if you interpreted my comments that way, but that's simply not how I operate. I have a great respect for Toprawa's skill and dedication to the Featured Article process. In fact, our personal attack policy says to "comment on content, not contributor". By commenting on the nature of the objections, I'm commenting on the content, not the contributor—in this case, I was merely trying to point out an opportunity where an objection might have been easier fixed than said. Now, to correct any perceived incivility in the case that was linked to, I'm attempting to clear up my intent on this page, per our dispute resolution procedure. To Graestan, I appreciate your vigilance in trying to insure the civility of the FAN page—we've had problems with that in the past, but I know that it's gotten better, in large part due to the efforts of the Inq in clearing things up. I do want to avoid suppressing of a reasonable freedom to comment on areas not restricted by policy, but I would encourage all of us, myself included, to try and examine things from another point of view before making judgment calls. I would say that, when in doubt, contact the party in question directly first—to me, that's the more professional and mature response. I understand that this is a general topic, and it's certainly one I'm happy to see addressed, since civility on the FAN page concerns all of the Inq. Of course, if there is further individual follow-up that needs to be made with myself, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, contact me in IRC, or e-mail me at my Wookieepedia.com address. Cheers. Atarumaster88
- One brief thing: This isn't so much something to talk about at the meeting so much as it is a thing I'd just like to point out now. Can we please try to get a little more work done? I understand we're all busy in RL, and reviewing articles when on Wookieepedia is not our top priority, but could some people make a greater effort to do a bit more? I don't want this to be interpreted as whining about laziness; it's not. I'm just saying I'd appreciate it if some Inqs could make a greater effort to review articles. That's it, really. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- As one of the lazy parties, let's do a quick talk about this so we can push through some articles real quick like. Especially if there are a couple Inq nominated articles that can be quickly reviewed and fixed. And no this isn't a laziness witch-hunt, it's that I have a dream. And that dream is a year-long queue of articles at one article a day. C'mon people! The queue has now become shorter than one year! :P Cull Tremayne 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Attendance
I'll be there
- I'll bring the cole slaw. Graestan(Talk) 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- And I'll bring the POP-TARTS! Gonk (Gonk!) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I got nothing. :P Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Screw it, there's no reason I shouldn't be there. Cull Tremayne 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Leave me alone
- An e-mail with my votes has been sent to Graestan. Greyman(Talk) 14:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not coming, but I'm going throw some crap onto your plate to perpetuate my own illusion of self-worth
- —Xwing328(Talk) 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Winter Celchu: Strike, no work has been done
- Gaeriel Captison: Approve
- Ephant Mon: Strike, again, no work has been done
- KotOR comics: Approve, Mauser has been working hard on it
- Padme's wardrobe: Probation. I don't remember what she wore in TCW, but it's not in the article. Plus, some new stuff will be coming from the TV series.
- Stinger: Approve. It looks like GT added the missing stuff.
- Mandalore the Ultimate and Cerea: Abstain. I don't know much about these.
- Harrar: Approve. Unless somebody can tell me specifically what's missing, I don't have a problem with this one.
- Rokur Gepta: Probation. I don't remember much at all from the Lando series... My objections: Fix those stupid "xxx is unknown" sentences. Also, in the BTS, how are the robes mistakenly colored red? Say what it is a mistake compared to, such as, "The robes were gray in The Flamewind of Oseon."
- AdmirableAckbar:
- Kill Winter and Mon.
- Keep Captison.
- KotOR - while Mauser's probably done enough work to fulfill our previous objections, I'm not sure this really holds up in standard with newer FAs like Tales of the Jedi. Abstain.
- Probe the wardrobe.
- Keep Stinger.
- Abstain on Harrar, Gepta and Mandalore.
- Cerea I can probably sort out myself in the next little while, but probe for the time being.
- Snarky remarks are bad. It's easy enough to conduct yourself well while remaining professional. Sort it out with the objector.
- Speaking for myself, I've been distracted and not particularly active in the last little while and thus haven't done much Inqing, but I intend to get back on track soon.
- -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Green Tentacle:
- Winter Celchu: Kill.
- Gaeriel Captison: Keep.
- Ephant Mon: Kill.
- KotOR: Much improved, but those refs in the intro need to die.
- Padmé Amidala's wardrobe: I doubt the missing info is exactly important, but missing info is missing info. Probation.
- Stinger: Added the missing stuff. Keep.
- Mandalore the Ultimate: Happy to keep on the condition that Greyman's said he'll fix it. We can always probe next time if needed.
- Cerea: Imp appears to have dealt with it. Keep.
- Harra: Not knowing what's lacking, I'm abstaining on this one.
- Rokur Gepta: Probation. Intro could be longer, BTS is pants and the infobox isn't fully sourced. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Results and summary
Attendance
- Cavalier One
- Chack Jadson
- Cull Tremayne
- Darth Culator
- Eyrezer
- Gonk
- Graestan
- Green tentacle
- Imperialles
- Thefourdotelipsis
- Toprawa and Ralltiir
Articles reviewed
- Winter Celchu — Removed.
- Gaeriel Captison — Kept.
- Ephant Mon — Removed.
- Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (comics) — Removed.
- Padmé Amidala's wardrobe — Probed.
- Stinger — Kept.
- Mandalore the Ultimate — Probed.
- Cerea — Kept.
- Harrar — Probed.
- Rokur Gepta — Probed.
Items discussed
- Not being snarky on the FAN page — objections and responses to them should be polite. Keep the rest to IRC.
- Doing more work — Inqs were reminded to review articles occasionally. Vague assurances were muttered by those already eating the post-meeting muffins.