[17:10] -->| LordHydronium (n=LordHydr@cpe-76-167-225-74.socal.res.rr.com) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:10] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o LordHydronium by chanserv
[17:10] <Ataru> I say give Culator 5 more minutes and then we start without him
[17:10] <Gonk> works for me. He's been pinged.
[17:10] <Gonk> Pung?
[17:11] <Grey-man> heh
[17:13] <Ataru> T minus 2 minutes
[17:14] <Ataru> T minus 1 minute
[17:14] -->| Culator|Away (i=TheKip@wikia/Darth-Culator) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:15] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Culator|Away by Grey-man
[17:15] <Gonk> hahaaa
[17:15] <Ataru> Okay
[17:15] <Gonk> RIGHT on the cusp
[17:15] <Ataru> Time to rock and roll
[17:15] <Ataru> First up
[17:15] <Ataru> Old FAs that we placed on probation
[17:15] <Culator|Away> KILL THEM
[17:15] <Grey-man> yes
[17:15] =-= Culator|Away is now known as Darth_Culator
[17:16] <Ataru> Hey Culator, would you handle observer invites so I can pull up links>?
[17:16] <Gonk> Which were they again?
[17:16] <Ataru> Lumiya is first
[17:16] -->| AdmirableAckbar (n=chatzill@86-42-166-231.b-ras1.bbh.dublin.eircom.net) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:16] <Ataru> I'm getting the links now
[17:16] <Darth_Culator> Can't I just set it to non-invite-only?
[17:16] <Gonk> destroy
[17:16] <Ataru> Sure
[17:16] <Grey-man> kill her...please
[17:16] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius -i by Darth_Culator
[17:16] <Ataru> Just keep it on op talk only
[17:16] <Darth_Culator> Yes.
[17:17] -->| Jedimca0 (n=chatzill@cp1082200-a.ndwrt1.lb.home.nl) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:17] -->| Jack_Phoenix (n=Ashley@wikia/Jack-Phoenix) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:17] <Ataru> Wait . . . JMM did some work on the article
[17:17] <Ataru> I'm getting the history now
[17:17] <Grey-man> ...
[17:17] <Ataru> Bloody slow wikia!
[17:18] <Ataru> Someone with a faster Internet might want to pull up the history from when we posted the probation notice until now
[17:18] <Gonk> working on it
[17:18] <Gonk> my internet ain't exactly speedy tho
[17:18] <Grey-man> bah
[17:19] <Ataru> Tell me about it
[17:19] <Darth_Culator> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Lumiya&diff=1464318&oldid=1434097
[17:19] <Ataru> That's not from the 20 July edit, is it?
[17:19] <Grey-man> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Wookieepedia:Inq/Lumiya&t=20070728054035
[17:19] <Ataru> Darth_Culator^?
[17:19] <Gonk> no, july 8
[17:19] <Ataru> Okay
[17:19] * Grey-man put that there just in case it's needed
[17:20] <Ataru> Okay
[17:20] <Ataru> The issues we listed at the last meeting were as follows:
[17:20] <Ataru> Sourcing
[17:20] <Ataru> Quote sourcing
[17:20] <Ataru> P&T section
[17:20] <Ataru> Sectioning
[17:20] <Ataru> Were these addressed? That is what you must ask yourself
[17:21] <Grey-man> there are still a few pieces of info and/or paragraphs that need sourcing
[17:21] <Ataru> Yeah, it's somewhat sourced, but not completely
[17:21] <Havac> Then it dies.
[17:22] * Grey-man grabs his rifle and sets his sights on Lumiya
[17:22] <GreenTentacle> I agree.
[17:22] <Ataru> P&T isn't soured
[17:22] <Ataru> *sourced
[17:22] <Ataru> Vote now
[17:22] <Ataru> I have three removes
[17:22] <Havac> Kill.
[17:22] <Ataru> Gonk
[17:22] <Ataru> JainaSolo
[17:22] <Gonk> Yeah, remove. But it's much better
[17:22] <JainaSolo> Remove
[17:22] <Ataru> Darth_Culator
[17:22] <Ataru> Lord_Hydronium
[17:22] <Ataru> Keep
[17:22] <LordHydronium> Grab its hand and decapitate it.
[17:22] <Darth_Culator> Hmm.
[17:22] <Grey-man> way better, but it's not perfect...yet
[17:23] * Ataru thinks that we can keep it provisionally, provided the sourcing is finished up
[17:23] <Gonk> ehh... two provisional extensions?
[17:23] <Ataru> 6 removes to 1 keep
[17:23] <Ataru> Either way, Culator is the deciding vote
[17:23] <Darth_Culator> Close, but no cigarra. Kill it.
[17:23] <Gonk> She was already On Notice before
[17:23] <Ataru> Article is removed
[17:23] <Ataru> Next up
[17:24] <Ataru> Galactic Chancery election thingy
[17:24] <Ataru> Nothing was done at all
[17:24] <Ataru> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Galactic_Republic_Chancery_election%2C_32_BBY&action=history
[17:24] <Ataru> *Nothing*
[17:24] <Havac> Then it dies.
[17:24] <Ataru> Kill
[17:24] <Gonk> Goodbye
[17:24] <Grey-man> Remove
[17:24] <JainaSolo> Remove
[17:24] <Ataru> JainaSolo LordHydronium Darth_Culator GreenTentacle
[17:25] <Havac> There's no need to vote.
[17:25] <LordHydronium> I vote for no confidence in it.
[17:25] <Havac> Nothing was done.
[17:25] <Darth_Culator> No changes=no keep. Simple.
[17:25] <Ataru> Yeah, it's gone
[17:25] <Ataru> Next up
[17:25] <Havac> It can't have improved.
[17:25] <--| Jack_Phoenix has left #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:25] <Ataru> Nothing was done on Stark War either
[17:25] -->| StarNeptune (i=no@CPE001095973bce-CM001095173bce.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:25] <Ataru> Kill it
[17:25] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o StarNeptune by Grey-man
[17:25] <Havac> Then it is killed.
[17:26] <Ataru> All three probationary articles removed by Inq vote
[17:26] <Ataru> Item Two:
[17:26] <Ataru> I defer to Havac to explain the higher standards item on the agenda
[17:26] <Havac> OK.
[17:26] <LordHydronium> Ah, the meat of the matter. The crux of the issue.
[17:26] <Grey-man> Indeed
[17:26] <Gonk> The sauce on the goose.
[17:26] -->| GHe (n=GHe@wikipedia/GHe) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:27] <LordHydronium> The gravy on the biscuits.
[17:27] <LordHydronium> I'm hungry now.
[17:27] <Grey-man> heh
[17:27] <Ataru> Havac?
[17:27] * Ataru figures he's typing
[17:27] <Havac> Our problem, as I see it, is that we're passing articles which don't deserve to be FAs simply because they meet the bare technical requirements while overlooking the requirements that they be well-written and complete.
[17:27] <Ataru> Do you have a solution?
[17:27] <Havac> I think that the, "Eh, good enough," attitude isn't good enough.
[17:28] <Ataru> Do you have a solution though?
[17:28] <StarNeptune> problem with that is, peole have diffent definistions on what "well-written" is
[17:28] <Ataru> Point
[17:28] <Grey-man> True
[17:28] <GreenTentacle> Indeed.
[17:28] <Havac> True.
[17:28] <Gonk> I'm not so sure
[17:28] <Ataru> So, aside from reading the articles more carefully, what do you propose we do?
[17:28] <LordHydronium> Well, when we still had separate Inq systems, I had no problem with objecting for no reason but "just not FA level".
[17:28] <Gonk> If by "well-written" you mean "interesting," then yes, it varies by individual taste.
[17:29] <Gonk> But "good style" is largely an objective matter.
[17:29] <Havac> But, essentially, I think that to be an FA, something needs to jump out at you and say, "This is FA-worthy."
[17:29] <LordHydronium> Objecting Inq-wise, that is.
[17:29] <Ataru> I've started reading all the FANs more carefully now and leaving more specific objections . . .
[17:29] <Grey-man> Per Sourcing: I think we need to check the references to make sure that all appearances and sources are used
[17:29] <Havac> If you don't get a wow-factor from it, don't pass it.
[17:29] <Ataru> Havac: We specifically have a policy that says only rules-based objections
[17:29] <Grey-man> Havac > True
[17:29] <Ataru> The problem *must* be fixable
[17:29] <Gonk> Ataru: that policy doesn't prevent Inqs from *not* voting on something, does it?
[17:29] <StarNeptune> people seem to be gaming the system when it comes to rules tho
[17:29] <Havac> Ataru: that's why I keep saying well-written and complete *are* rules.
[17:29] <Ataru> No, absolutely not
[17:30] <Ataru> Havac: I agree, but the problem has to be fixable
[17:30] <Havac> What problem?
[17:30] -->| GreenTentacle_ (n=chatzill@82-36-127-19.cable.ubr06.king.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:30] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o GreenTentacle_ by Gonk
[17:30] <Ataru> The "well-written" thing. That objection needs to be specific
[17:30] |<-- GreenTentacle has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.78.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.5/2007071317]")
[17:30] <LordHydronium> Ataru: The problem with that rule is that even if something just passes standards, that doesn't make it FAable.
[17:30] =-= GreenTentacle_ is now known as GreenTentacle
[17:30] <Ataru> I agree that we should *use* the well-written rule more often
[17:31] <Grey-man> Is there a specific article that could help clear this up?
[17:31] <Gonk> How about, instead of saying "well-written"...
[17:31] <Gonk> ...which is vague...
[17:31] <Ataru> I also think we should list our problems in such a way as to aid the primary sponsor instead of saying the whole thing is bad
[17:31] <Gonk> we say "engaging" -- "readable" -- something like that
[17:31] <Grey-man> Havac > An FA that you would like to use as an example?
[17:31] <Ataru> Any of the Selkath ones
[17:31] <Ataru> Ephant Mon
[17:31] <Havac> I'm looking now.
[17:31] <Ataru> They're not well written
[17:31] <Ataru> I can already tell you that
[17:32] <Havac> Ephant Mon.
[17:32] <Havac> Jango Fett for a nom.
[17:32] <Ataru> I disagree on parts of Jango
[17:32] <Grey-man> Ok, that makes it clearer for us with what is being discussed :)
[17:32] <Grey-man> parts, yes
[17:32] <Ataru> Parts of it are pretty goo
[17:32] <Havac> K'Kruhk as something that is "complete" only by being a bare-bones glossover.
[17:32] <Ataru> *good
[17:32] <Ataru> I can't knowledgeably vote on K'Kruhk for completeness
[17:33] <Havac> Whereas, look at something like Zuckuss.
[17:33] <Havac> Or Jerec.
[17:33] <Ataru> Havac: So, you're suggesting we just ignore some noms?
[17:33] <Ataru> That's not fair to the person who put it up for FA
[17:33] <Havac> Or Or Zsinj.
[17:33] <Ataru> . . .
[17:33] <Grey-man> lol
[17:34] <Havac> Dang typos.
[17:34] <LordHydronium> Zsinj - twice the size, twice the "or"s.
[17:34] <Ataru> sigh
[17:34] <Ataru> On topic, please
[17:34] <Havac> Anyway, you can ignore it, or you can say, "This doesn't cut it. It's too bare-bones and the prose is weak," and point them at Jerec.
[17:34] <Ataru> That's not very helpful
[17:34] <Havac> Or whatever other article is obsessively-researched and well-written.
[17:34] -->| Xwing328 (i=Xwing328@unaffiliated/xwing328) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[17:34] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Xwing328 by chanserv
[17:34] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Xwing328 by Grey-man
[17:34] <Ataru> That's exactly what I want to avoid
[17:35] <GreenTentacle> We should definitely aim for completeness, but it can be hard to judge if you don't have the sources yourself.
[17:35] <Havac> Ataru: we can't make everyone an FA writer.
[17:35] <Xwing328> hey everyone
[17:35] <Havac> That's the source of this problem.
[17:35] <Ataru> Saying "it sucks" and not giving specific examples, except in a few cases like Luke and Anakin, is anathema to us
[17:35] <LordHydronium> Adding more material is an easily identifiable and fixable problem.
[17:35] <Ataru> We'll be accused of elitism
[17:35] <Ataru> "Weak prose" isn't.
[17:35] <Havac> Sometimes it's a matter of overall feel.
[17:35] <Gonk> FAs should be elite
[17:35] <Havac> Damn straight.
[17:35] <Grey-man> Point
[17:36] <Ataru> And if Havac's sentence is all the objection he's going to leave, I won't be happy
[17:36] <Ataru> You need to be specific
[17:36] <Ataru> You need to give examples
[17:36] <Ataru> You need to make it fixable
[17:36] <Ataru> Not say "it sucks, go home"
[17:36] <Gonk> The thing for us to remember is, just because someone who can barely put a sentence together does a lot of legwork, doesn't mean someone else can't come in and spiff up the style.
[17:36] <Havac> Then maybe that's what we say.
[17:36] <Gonk> If the nominator can't handle criticism on that level, he shouldn't be shooting for the brass ring.
[17:36] <Ataru> Have fun explaining that one to the community, Gonk
[17:36] <Gonk> If I may mix my metaphors.
[17:36] <Havac> But you can't make an overall feel of weak prose into specifics.
[17:37] <Gonk> Havac: you can
[17:37] <Ataru> I don't like it.
[17:37] <Gonk> It's just tricky.
[17:37] <Ataru> I think you can
[17:37] <Havac> Not without basically feeding them the lines to write back in.
[17:37] <Ataru> It just requires you to be less lazy
[17:37] <Ataru> Anyone else besides Havac, Gonk and me, feel free to jump in ;-)
[17:37] <Gonk> One key term I have found helpful in the past is "clarify"
[17:37] <StarNeptune> you can;t be lazy when writing an FA
[17:38] <Gonk> ...since often, bad style is causing lack of clarity beyond anything else.
[17:38] <Havac> True.
[17:38] <Ataru> I agree with Gonk
[17:38] <Havac> But Ataru: it's not my job, as an Inq, to go in and write their FA for them.
[17:38] <Havac> But Ataru: it's not my job, as an Inq, to go in and write their FA for them.
[17:38] <Havac> I'm here to judge.
[17:38] <Gonk> That's the job of prospective future Inqs ;)
[17:38] <GreenTentacle> No, but it is your job to offer constructive feedback.
[17:38] <Ataru> Even RL judges have to give reasoning
[17:38] <GreenTentacle> Not just "lacks detail".
[17:38] <Havac> And I want to.
[17:39] <Ataru> "Weak prose. Period." is not constructive criticism
[17:39] <GreenTentacle> Look at K'Kruhk, it's been held up for 2 months by an objection which offers no help on how to fix it.
[17:39] <Gonk> I think maybe a very minor tweak to our requirements is in order
[17:39] <Ataru> Seriously
[17:39] <Ataru> I hate that
[17:39] <Gonk> Just being more specific about "well-written"
[17:40] <Gonk> And then enforcing it as nicely and specifically as we can.
[17:40] <Havac> No, but, "Short, simplistic sentences, poor adjective use, whatever," is a constructive criticism.
[17:40] <LordHydronium> I'd think you can at least give examples of problem sentences.
[17:40] <Gonk> Yes
[17:40] <Ataru> In the past few noms, I've reviewed (Winter, Knowledge Bank, etc.), I've offered specific objections
[17:40] <Gonk> "Choppy paragraph; doesn't flow well"
[17:40] <Gonk> that sort of thing.
[17:40] <LordHydronium> Ataru: Yeah, but most of those are specific to the extent that you could just do them yourself. :P
[17:40] <Havac> Quite.
[17:40] <Ataru> Case in point: I made a diction objection to Winter
[17:40] <Ataru> Or context
[17:41] <Ataru> LH: Not so on some of them
[17:41] <Ataru> I'll admit, some of them I could fix myself easily . . . commas, spelling, whatnot
[17:41] <Gonk> LH: if it's a pervasive issue in a long article... oy.
[17:41] <Ataru> Context, diction, choppy flow, not so much
[17:41] <LordHydronium> Yeah, I meant the first.
[17:41] <Ataru> I *could*, but that goes back to the whole nominator thing
[17:41] <Ataru> Look at what I objected to on Jango Fett
[17:42] <Ataru> Rather than just leave a blanket "poor detail"
[17:42] <StarNeptune> It's the nominator's reponsibility to fix that stuff
[17:42] <Ataru> I listed five or six specific things
[17:42] <StarNeptune> not ours...we just point it out
[17:42] <Ataru> That's what I think we should aim for
[17:42] <Gonk> Well, the nominator and anybody else who wants it FAed
[17:42] <LordHydronium> SN: Sure it is. But if we can fix it easily and we don't, that kinda makes us dicks.
[17:42] <Ataru> Per Gonk
[17:42] <Havac> Well, when it's blanket "Poor detail," that means you need to go back in and expand everything beyond the gloss-over it currently is.
[17:42] <LordHydronium> I always give pages a copyedit as I go through.
[17:42] <Gonk> me too LH
[17:42] <Ataru> LH: Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
[17:43] <LordHydronium> Rather than say, "Hey, there's a comma here where there shouldn't be! Sure, it was more work to actually type that than fix it, but it's your nom, right?"
[17:43] <Xwing328> I do to, but that's why I don't alwyas like reveiwing them, it just takes so long
[17:43] * Ataru admits to being in a bad mood when reviewing Winter and Harrar, so he left lots of objections
[17:43] <StarNeptune> If people really want to have their article up to Fa quality, then they should work at it and help address specific objections people have
[17:43] <Ataru> As long as we leave specific objections, I'm fine
[17:43] <Ataru> I strongly disagree with blanket statements though .
[17:44] <Ataru> Such as "weak prose"
[17:44] <Ataru> That's dickish, IMHO
[17:44] <Ataru> That's also lazy
[17:44] <Ataru> Be specific, per Gonk
[17:44] <Grey-man> Weak prose, ex. blah blah...that is easy to add in
[17:44] <Ataru> Right
[17:44] <Havac> Blanket statements for blanket problems.
[17:44] <Ataru> Bah!
[17:44] <Ataru> It's not a blanket problem
[17:45] <LordHydronium> Give a few examples, at least.
[17:45] <Ataru> And even if it is, it's still not fair
[17:45] <Havac> If I'm objecting blanketly, it is.
[17:45] <LordHydronium> Just a couple sentences that you think exemplify the problem.
[17:45] <Ataru> Per LordHydronium
[17:45] <LordHydronium> And note that that's not all the problems you have, but representative of them.
[17:45] <Ataru> Otherwise, it's like you're trying to sabotage the nom
[17:45] <Havac> I'm not adverse to specificity.
[17:45] <Ataru> Not help it
[17:45] <Ataru> But are you for it?
[17:45] <Havac> But I think the Inq needs to *be* more willing to dismiss noms.
[17:46] <Gonk> I agree
[17:46] <Ataru> I agree with that, but only after giving them a chance
[17:46] <Gonk> I worry when people say "my article," "my nom" ... anyone can edit these.
[17:46] <Ataru> Unless, again, it's those articles like Luke or Anakin
[17:46] <Grey-man> True, I don't like feeling that I have to vote for every article
[17:46] <Havac> To say, "This doesn't cut it, expand it radically and get someone to edit it and come back in a few months."
[17:46] <Gonk> We get hesitant about criticizing FAs when we perceive that it's all one person doing the FA.
[17:46] <Grey-man> lag!
[17:46] <Ataru> Havac: I agree with the first two clauses
[17:47] <Ataru> "get someone else to edit and come back in a few months" may not be necessary
[17:47] <Ataru> But that's only for really bad noms
[17:47] <Gonk> Or a few weeks, depending on how little of a life you have
[17:47] <Ataru> Luke is an example of that
[17:47] <Ataru> Jango is not
[17:47] <Gonk> Yeah
[17:47] <Havac> But here are a lot more really bad noms than I think you want to acknowledge.
[17:47] <Ataru> Anakin is an example of that
[17:47] <Ataru> Kjad;fjadjk is not
[17:47] <Ataru> Havac: . . . .
[17:47] <Ataru> ?
[17:48] <Havac> I don't think we need to play rescuer to every nom out there.
[17:48] <Gonk> Was that a veiled reference to Burl Ives, Ataru? ;)
[17:48] <Ataru> On the current nom list, only Harrar and DS II strike me as really poor quality
[17:48] <Ataru> Gonk: No.
[17:48] |<-- JainaSolo has left irc.freenode.net ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
[17:48] <Grey-man> I killed DSII
[17:48] <Grey-man> i think...
[17:49] <Ataru> I thought you killed Mando wars
[17:49] <Grey-man> ah, yes
[17:49] <Grey-man> my mistake
[17:49] <Ataru> And it's still not fair to make blanket objections and purposefully sabotage noms
[17:49] <Havac> I don't see it as sabotage.
[17:49] <Ataru> If we need a mechanism to remove noms, that's a separate issue
[17:49] <Havac> You're making it too personal.
[17:49] <Ataru> Havac: If you won't clarify the objection and just leave it up there, it is sabotage
[17:49] <LordHydronium> Ataru: Don't we have one?
[17:49] <Gonk> They can always, always try again
[17:50] <Ataru> LH: We did. It was called Inq page votes :-P
[17:50] <Grey-man> True
[17:50] <StarNeptune> Most of the noms have been single author FA noms as of late, so it may be seen as personal
[17:50] <Havac> It's saying that it doesn't cut it and won't in the foreseeable future without massive work.
[17:50] <Ataru> Yeah, but you won't help them find what's wrong with it
[17:50] <Ataru> It becomes an unwinnable scenario for anyone else trying to fix it
[17:50] <Havac> If a nom needs an expansion and language overhaul, it shouldn't have been nominated.
[17:50] <Ataru> Shooting in the dark, if you will
[17:50] <Gonk> So we help them find what's wrong.
[17:50] <Gonk> Well StarNeptune, again, if they see it as personal, that's too bad. We can't be held responsible for the delusions of others.
[17:51] <Ataru> Our job is to point them to the target
[17:51] <Havac> We tell them what's wrong and tell them to come back when it's fixed.
[17:51] <LordHydronium> I think at the very least you can add examples of things like weak prose. Even if it's in every sentence, just pick a few to point out what the problem is.
[17:51] <Ataru> Then tell them what's wrong
[17:51] <Ataru> And be specific
[17:51] <Havac> We don't need to hold their hand for two months to try to get it on.
[17:51] <LordHydronium> I'm not saying list every single instance of weak prose and how to fix it, but show enough to explain what you mean.
[17:51] <Grey-man> I believe *what's* wrong in an article, is what we're trying to get at
[17:51] <Gonk> Maybe we should only pull noms on an Inq vote
[17:51] <Havac> I've already said I'm willing to be specific, dammit.
[17:51] <Ataru> That's not what you said exactly . . . but I digress
[17:51] <Grey-man> Havac > I know :)
[17:52] <Ataru> Gonk: Hey, I have no problems with adding a little "Nom removal" section on the FAN page
[17:52] <Gonk> I know you don't
[17:52] <Grey-man> that would work great
[17:52] <LordHydronium> Even on noms like CIS that were pure and utter shit, I tried to list as many things that I could find that it was terrible in. Even though there was no chance of it getting fixed up.
[17:52] <Gonk> but I think you're concerned about being too eager to remove noms, and I share that concern
[17:52] <Ataru> If we feel a nom is beyond caring, add a little section ”'Remove Nom (Inq only)”'
[17:52] <Havac> Essentially, I'm saying if it can't pass as-nominated with only minor changes, it shouldn't be cluttering up the page.
[17:52] <Gonk> Sounds good.
[17:53] <Ataru> Havac: I think it's okay to make major changes while on the FAN page . . . though I don't personally do it
[17:53] <Grey-man> Sounds good to me as well
[17:53] <Havac> If it needs an overhaul, we tell them to take it back to the workshop and bring it back when it's done.
[17:53] <Ataru> Havac: FAN page can be a workshop
[17:53] <Gonk> Hopefully most won't need an overhaul.
[17:53] <Havac> But it shouldn't be.
[17:53] <Ataru> Where does it say it has be completely ready by the time it hits FAN page?
[17:53] <Ataru> You're right, but that doesn't mean it *can't* be
[17:54] <Ataru> Havac: What do you think of a "remove nom" section?
[17:54] <Havac> That's how we get 5,000 sitting noms and Inquisitors feeling an obligation to pass it after a few half-hearted improvement efforts.
[17:54] <Ataru> 5 votes needed to remove, just like to pass
[17:54] <Gonk> It should be in the FA ballpark at least. In other words, don't take a recently-named GA and stick it right on the FA nom page.
[17:54] <Ataru> On any nom that we feel is beyond hope
[17:54] <Grey-man> Unless it's FA ready ;)
[17:54] <Havac> "Well, I told them to clean that one section up, and they did, and it's nto really as good as it should be, but I don't want to be mean."
[17:54] <Havac> That's too much of what I'm seeing.
[17:54] <Ataru> Havac: That's just an internal issue then
[17:55] <Ataru> Inqs: Live up to your name and be "teh evil"
[17:55] <Havac> YES.
[17:55] <Ataru> There, we've been duly instructed :-P
[17:55] * Havac whole-heartedly endorses evil.
[17:55] <Grey-man> heh
[17:55] <Ataru> Havac: Will the introduction of "remove nom" and "be teh evil" satisfy your concerns while keeping the specific objection end happy?
[17:55] <Havac> Yes, a removal section would be good.
[17:56] <Havac> But this is as much about Inq behavior as it is technical.
[17:56] <Grey-man> Would that be on every nom? Or ones deemed unworthy by Inqs?
[17:56] <Gonk> No, not every nom
[17:56] <Havac> It's about Inqs enforcing all the rules and being strict about it.
[17:56] <Gonk> Only as necessary
[17:56] <Ataru> I think the remove nom should only be introduced on noms that need it
[17:56] <Grey-man> Seen
[17:56] <Ataru> I.E. bad noms
[17:56] <Grey-man> Luke...
[17:56] <Grey-man> 9_9
[17:56] <Ataru> :-S
[17:57] <Grey-man> *cough* thanks JK19bby *cough*
[17:57] * Ataru has a nice list that we can point people who want to FA Luke
[17:57] <Ataru> I'll keep it around for posterity
[17:57] <Grey-man> Good
[17:57] <Havac> So, consider this an exhortation to never, ever, vote for an article if you're not absolutely certain it deserves to be on the front page.
[17:57] <Ataru> Sir, yes sir!
[17:57] <Ataru> :-P
[17:57] <Grey-man> Ataru > we can use it for a *future* project :)
[17:57] <LordHydronium> Okie-day.
[17:57] <Ataru> Grey-man: ;-)
[17:57] <Havac> "Well, good enough," passing is my core problem here.
[17:57] <Gonk> But also not to comment "Eh, I dunno, it's just not well-written enough" 9_9
[17:58] * Grey-man agrees with Havac on his last point
[17:58] <Ataru> Gonk: Good point
[17:58] <Havac> It's an attitude thing; the rules are already in place.
[17:58] <Ataru> I will be most annoyed with people who leave objections such as "Eh, I dunno, it's just not well-written enough"
[17:59] * Darth_Culator makes note to self to do this soon.
[17:59] <Ataru> I'm sure I could find a WP:POINT violation in there somewhere.
[17:59] <Ataru> Bah!
[17:59] <Ataru> Havac: Can we move on to the next issue now?
[17:59] * Ataru sincerely hopes someone is logging all this osik
[17:59] <Gonk> I am
[17:59] <Havac> If no one has any more to say.
[18:00] <LordHydronium> Quick summary: Be stricter, but don't be a dick.
[18:00] <Ataru> Okay, last call for Inq attitude and objection posts . . .
[18:00] <Gonk> And be specific
[18:00] <Gonk> And give examples.
[18:00] <Ataru> Okay, moving on
[18:00] <LordHydronium> I'm lumping those under "dickery". :P
[18:00] <Ataru> Queue ordering
[18:00] * Ataru defers to GreenTentacle
[18:00] * Ataru pokes the tentacle
[18:00] <Ataru> Wake up!
[18:00] <LordHydronium> Eh, I've never really seen the big deal with it anyway.
[18:00] <LordHydronium> But that's just me.
[18:01] <StarNeptune> I honestly don't see the point myself
[18:01] <Gonk> Well, I would be willing to work with GT on this
[18:01] <GreenTentacle> What?
[18:01] <LordHydronium> Go team apathy!
[18:01] <Havac> Just let someone go in and rearrange if they feel like it.
[18:01] <Gonk> I do care about the queue. A bit, anyway
[18:01] <Ataru> GreenTentacle: You made the agenda item. You talk about it
[18:01] <Havac> If we bureaucratize it, nothing will be done.
[18:01] <Ataru> I do think that variety is good
[18:01] <Gonk> Yes, Havac
[18:01] <Ataru> I also think we should just go in and fix stuff
[18:02] <Ataru> We've been empowered to do it
[18:02] <GreenTentacle> Ah yes.
[18:02] <Grey-man> Yes
[18:02] <GreenTentacle> We have the power.
[18:02] <Ataru> Heck, let's go with it
[18:02] <GreenTentacle> Let's use it.
[18:02] <Darth_Culator> POWAH!
[18:02] <Ataru> I agree
[18:02] <Ataru> Adding rules and such would be instruction creep
[18:02] <Darth_Culator> You agree with "POWAH!"?
[18:02] <Grey-man> heh
[18:02] * Gonk strongly agrees about not bureaucratizing it
[18:02] <Ataru> I agree that we have and should use it
[18:02] <Havac> The important thing is that anyone who does it makes sure to tinker with the talkpage templates with the dates.
[18:02] <Ataru> Good point
[18:02] <Gonk> mmm
[18:03] * Gonk imagines that the easiest process would be to pick a pair of FAs at a time, and swap 'em
[18:03] * Ataru agrees
[18:03] <Ataru> I think we have consensus on this issue (?), so anything else on this topic?
[18:03] -->| JainaSolo (n=4571a92f@host112.toad-host.com) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius
[18:04] <Grey-man> Nope, not from me
[18:04] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o JainaSolo by Grey-man
[18:04] <GreenTentacle> Er, what exactly are we doing about it?
[18:04] <Ataru> Summary: We can move the queue around, we will move the queue around, and we will change the dates on talk pages appropriately. And no red-taping it
[18:04] <GreenTentacle> So no change whatsoever.
[18:04] <Gonk> No, the change is that we're not gonna ignore it
[18:04] <Gonk> You and I can put our heads together on this sometime, GT
[18:04] <Ataru> Per Gonk
[18:05] <GreenTentacle> Fine.
[18:05] <Ataru> But seriously, we have enough procedure
[18:05] <GreenTentacle> As long as the forum doesn't fill up with people asking about it.
[18:05] <Ataru> FA is probably the most procedural thing in the whole bloody site
[18:05] <Gonk> That's for talk pages :)
[18:05] <Ataru> GreenTentacle: Send to IRC or to our complaint forums, etc.
[18:05] <Ataru> *Send them
[18:05] <Gonk> Send them to Jaymach.
[18:05] <Ataru> We'll gently explain why things have been changed
[18:05] <Grey-man> Sounds good
[18:05] <Ataru> And then we say "And no, we're not changing our minds"
[18:06] * Grey-man likes the new Ataru :P
[18:06] * Ataru thinks this is the same Ataru
[18:06] <Grey-man> jk :P
[18:06] <Ataru> Anyway, moving on
[18:06] <Ataru> This is turning out to be a long meeting, so I want to keep things rolling
[18:06] <Ataru> There is a CT thread on shortening the FA rotation
[18:06] <LordHydronium> Damn right there is.
[18:06] <Gonk> I have a question about this one
[18:06] <Ataru> which a good moderator would have the link to
[18:06] <Ataru> I am not a good moderator though
[18:07] <LordHydronium> Needs to be done.
[18:07] <LordHydronium> Because a year and change long queue is ridiculous.
[18:07] <Gonk> Just how huge is the risk that a queued FA will be so monstrously out-of-date?
[18:07] <Grey-man> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Shortening_the_featured_article_time&t=20070721010405
[18:07] <Ataru> Huge
[18:07] <Ataru> On some of them, anyways
[18:07] <GreenTentacle> It is.
[18:07] <Ataru> An article like Darth Bane, for example
[18:07] <Ataru> *shudder*
[18:07] <Gonk> Maybe we pick those articles and bump 'em up then.
[18:07] <LordHydronium> Check out how long it took for the ones we removed to get out of date.
[18:07] <Gonk> Shortening the rotation seems like a massive change to fix a small problem to me.
[18:07] <Ataru> Or Khiuuk'aafahk
[18:08] <LordHydronium> It's a problem for all of them, since the issue isn't just one of new material
[18:08] <GreenTentacle> Gonk: It's not a small problem.
[18:08] <GreenTentacle> The queue's growing rapidly and it ain't gonna stop.
[18:08] <Gonk> LH: elaborate, with examples :D
[18:08] <Ataru> Can we have a simple up and down vote to see if we think changing the rotation is good?
[18:08] <LordHydronium> Have you read my reasoning on the issue, Gonk?
[18:08] <Havac> It will if we're pickier.
[18:08] <Ataru> I think we can go from there after the vote
[18:08] <GreenTentacle> Bah!
[18:08] <LordHydronium> No it won't, Havac.
[18:08] <LordHydronium> It'll slow down a bit.
[18:09] <Ataru> LH: Have you read Cull's essay on "FA machines"?
[18:09] <LordHydronium> Nope.
[18:09] <Ataru> Unless a lot of us pull a Fourdot, there are multiple FA writers out there
[18:09] <Ataru> All of whom create FAs like rabbits breed
[18:09] <Gonk> LH: I don't know how valid Reason 2 is
[18:09] <LordHydronium> Right now, if we have any more than one FA added per week, it'll grow.
[18:09] <Ataru> I agree with that
[18:10] <GreenTentacle> Yeah, the regulars are producing more than one a week between them.
[18:10] <LordHydronium> Are standards that high that we can exclude all but one a week?
[18:10] <Ataru> No
[18:10] <Ataru> I can flatly tell you that
[18:10] <LordHydronium> Gonk: Let me find the CT.
[18:10] <GreenTentacle> And one a week would just maintain the ridiculously long queue, not make it smaller.
[18:10] <LordHydronium> Exactly.
[18:10] <Havac> Which is why we go back and remove some with our Inqtastic powers . . .
[18:10] * Gonk would like to point out that if we reduce the rotation time, it may well come to pass that we have to crank it back to a week again sometime down the line.
[18:10] <Grey-man> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Shortening_the_featured_article_time&t=20070721010405
[18:11] <Ataru> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Shortening_the_featured_article_time&t=20070721010405
[18:11] <Ataru> Yeah
[18:11] <LordHydronium> Havac: Still won't help. It just mitigates it a little.
[18:11] <LordHydronium> It'll still grow.
[18:11] * Ataru supports shortening the rotation
[18:11] <GreenTentacle> Gonk: Maybe, but not for a few months.
[18:11] <Gonk> I agree about that LH
[18:11] <Ataru> I also support GT's randomly rotating idea on the Inq meeting page idea
[18:11] <Ataru> I think it's great
[18:11] <Gonk> Now what about this two-at-once idea?
[18:11] <Gonk> Can this be done?
[18:11] <Ataru> I like that idea
[18:11] <Gonk> Me too.
[18:11] <Ataru> It'll mean a lot of bot work changing all the dates, but it can be done
[18:12] <Ataru> And basically, we own that CT
[18:12] <GreenTentacle> I think it can be done.
[18:12] <LordHydronium> I'm wondering, what's bad with this idea? Assuming that, worst case scenario, not a single FA is made again, we'll still have seven months before we lose our buffer.
[18:12] <Ataru> With even 7 or 8 votes on that CT, we can swing consensus
[18:12] <GreenTentacle> We had different main page colours once, so the rotation is possible.
[18:12] <GreenTentacle> Though I'd defer to Sikon on the details.
[18:12] <Ataru> We just need to bug LucidFox about it
[18:12] <Havac> Honestly, I'm not sure about that.
[18:12] <StarNeptune> Why can't we do it for ALL the FAs?
[18:12] <Ataru> Heck, we've had two WOTMs before at the same time, why not two FAs??
[18:12] <Havac> I'd prefer a guarantee of equal time rather than complete randomization.
[18:12] <Ataru> StarNeptune: Do what?
[18:13] <LordHydronium> Gonk: I think Reason 2 is a decent reason.
[18:13] <StarNeptune> Have a random FA pop up each time the main page loads
[18:13] <Ataru> Ugh, random FA rotation of more than two. No
[18:13] <Ataru> Ugh, no
[18:13] <LordHydronium> Sure, ideally everyone's doing it just to make the wiki a better place. In reality, people like to see their stuff on the main page.
[18:13] <Gonk> You know, on second thought, per Havac. Better to shorten the FA rotation than randomize.
[18:13] <LordHydronium> Yeah, I'm against randomization.
[18:13] <Ataru> I dunno
[18:13] <Xwing328> no randomization
[18:14] <Ataru> They'll have equal coverage on the Main Page, methinks
[18:14] <GreenTentacle> With only two being randomized, they'd get a fair share.
[18:14] <Ataru> Per GreenTentacle
[18:14] <Ataru> As long as only two are randomized, and both are linked to in the box . . .
[18:14] <LordHydronium> But it's still silly. What if I want to find that article I saw again? Do I just keep refreshing?
[18:14] <GreenTentacle> Plus, we could provide a link to switch to the other one.
[18:14] <Havac> Not really . . . I've had plenty of times that something random comes up almost all the time as one thing.
[18:14] <Gonk> LH: link in the box
[18:14] <Ataru> Link to both articles in the box
[18:14] <LordHydronium> Meh. I think it's still overkill.
[18:14] <Ataru> Havac: I think we can talk to LucidFox about that
[18:15] <Havac> If there were some way to link the randomization to the account . . .
[18:15] <Ataru> Heh
[18:15] <Gonk> No, I'm gonna flip-flop again. Because (going by LH's Reason 2) if I wrote an FA, I'd rather see it randomly appear -- and be perpetually linked -- on the main page for a solid week than only see it for three days or whatever.
[18:15] <Havac> But I still don't like it.
[18:15] <Ataru> Realistically, though, something does need to be done to shorten the queue
[18:16] <Gonk> Yes
[18:16] <Xwing328> What if you just did two at a time, instead of the one, with nothing random about it?
[18:16] <Havac> Am I the only person who doesn't really care about seeing it on the main page right away?
[18:16] <LordHydronium> Space concerns.
[18:16] <Ataru> And risk cramming the Main Page?
[18:16] <Ataru> Not realistic
[18:16] <Xwing328> it's already crammed...
[18:16] <Gonk> That'd be a great solution if we had the room, though
[18:16] <Grey-man> So cutting the time in half is not an option?
[18:16] <Ataru> Havac: We still need to shorten the queue for other reasons
[18:16] <Ataru> It is, but I don't like it
[18:17] <Ataru> :-P
[18:17] <LordHydronium> Grey-man: I'd still like to see that.
[18:17] <Grey-man> I wouldn't have a problem with it
[18:17] <Grey-man> other wiki's do similar things
[18:17] <Havac> I'd prefer half-time with a link to the other week's FA.
[18:17] <Ataru> It boils down to cutting the rotation time in half or randomizing it, unless there is aother alternative
[18:17] <Havac> *other FA of the week
[18:17] <LordHydronium> Havac: I like that idea.
[18:17] <Ataru> I'd prefer a randomization, with a link
[18:17] <Grey-man> so lets vote, if those are the only two options
[18:18] <GreenTentacle> I'd be fine with either, but the half-week thing makes updating a pain to remember.
[18:18] <Havac> More like Wikipedia's system, actually.
[18:18] <LordHydronium> GT: Doesn't the system do it automatically?
[18:18] <Havac> GT: it's already done automatically.
[18:18] <GreenTentacle> It can't be done for half-weeks.
[18:18] <Havac> Can't it?
[18:18] <GreenTentacle> It's based on week number so no.
[18:18] <Grey-man> hmmm
[18:18] <LordHydronium> With a couple conditional statements it could.
[18:18] <Havac> The current method might not be able to.
[18:18] <Ataru> Hmm, looks like we might need LucidFox for this
[18:19] <Havac> But I'm sure it could be coded it.
[18:19] <Havac> *in
[18:19] <GreenTentacle> Perhaps.
[18:19] <Ataru> Maybe
[18:19] <LordHydronium> "If day < 3 and hour <12, then access this page"
[18:19] <Ataru> I think randomization is a much easier technical solution
[18:19] <Havac> Well, vote for what you want and if something's not possible, we'll come back to it.
[18:19] <LordHydronium> Actually, that particular thing wouldn't work. But you get the gist.
[18:19] <Xwing328> No, LH's is all it should take
[18:19] <GreenTentacle> Do we have day and hour things?
[18:19] <Ataru> However, should we take a vote on randomization vs. half time?
[18:19] <Gonk> yes, let's
[18:19] <Grey-man> I believe so
[18:20] * Ataru doesn't care about his work on front page, but he wants the queue shortened
[18:20] <Havac> Well, there are a lot more options than that.
[18:20] <Grey-man> ?
[18:20] <Xwing328> Half time gets my vote
[18:20] <Ataru> Havac: Ok, I suppose doing nothing about the queue isn't really a viable option
[18:20] <LordHydronium> Half time.
[18:20] <Ataru> Randomization
[18:20] <JainaSolo> Half time
[18:20] <Grey-man> Half time
[18:20] <StarNeptune> randomization
[18:20] <Havac> But we can vote for style of randomization and whether or not to have a link for half-time later.
[18:20] <Havac> So I vote half time.
[18:21] <Ataru> Darth_Culator?
[18:21] <Ataru> Gonk?
[18:21] <Ataru> GreenTentacle?
[18:21] <Havac> Gonk, I should kick you.
[18:21] <Gonk> :)
[18:21] <Gonk> hey now.
[18:21] <Grey-man> lmao
[18:21] <GreenTentacle> Randomization
[18:21] <Ataru> 4 vs 3 atm
[18:21] <Ataru> Last two votes could decide consensus, possibly
[18:21] <Gonk> Randomization
[18:21] <Havac> For . . .
[18:21] <Grey-man> I see 5 half time votes...
[18:22] <Ataru> For what we think is the better option
[18:22] <Ataru> *5 vs 3
[18:22] <Ataru> My mistake
[18:22] <StarNeptune> 5 vs 4 now
[18:22] <Havac> For as in "in favor of"
[18:22] <Ataru> Hmm
[18:22] <LordHydronium> Darth_Culator!
[18:22] <Ataru> Ok, not really then
[18:23] <Ataru> Hmm
[18:23] <GreenTentacle> You're right {{CURRENTDOW}} and {{CURRENTHOUR}} would work.
[18:23] <Ataru> If it's 5 vs. 4, that's not really consensus with one more vote
[18:23] <Havac> It is.
[18:23] * Ataru thinks consensus is more than two votes
[18:23] <LordHydronium> So what do we do, nothing?
[18:23] <Havac> It's 60-40.
[18:23] <Ataru> No
[18:24] <StarNeptune> Um, community vote?
[18:24] <Havac> That's reasonable.
[18:24] <GreenTentacle> Could do.
[18:24] <LordHydronium> We do have a CT...
[18:24] <StarNeptune> It affects them, too :P
[18:24] <Gonk> Works for me. As long as the options are kept to those two.
[18:24] <Ataru> We go back to the community thread and say that we think shortening the queue is a good idea
[18:24] <Havac> Nothing wrong with 60-40.
[18:24] <GreenTentacle> We're having two a week, let the people decide how we do it.
[18:24] <Ataru> Per Gonk
[18:24] <Ataru> GreenTentacle: Precisely
[18:24] <Havac> Bah!
[18:24] <Ataru> I'll update the page now, unless there are objections
[18:24] <Havac> POWAH!
[18:24] <Gonk> Go for it dude
[18:25] <Havac> Include the other points raised.
[18:25] <Ataru> Which are . . . technical issues and links?
[18:25] <Havac> Such as the link for half-time, etc.
[18:25] <Gonk> We gotta have the links.
[18:25] <Havac> Yeah, links and such.
[18:25] <Gonk> No one will object to the links.
[18:25] <Ataru> Right, I think both options will have links
[18:25] <Ataru> No one will object to that
[18:25] <Ataru> :-)
[18:25] <Ataru> If they do, we smack them down
[18:25] <Havac> OK, then they're understood.
[18:25] <Ataru> in a very WP:Civility way, of course
[18:26] <Ataru> :-P
[18:26] <Grey-man> heh
[18:26] <Gonk> I think eventually, when we have a big, big supply of solid past FAs, we can do a random-by-the-day type thing maybe. Like StarNeptune suggested
[18:26] <Havac> No point in bringing them up so someone can shout them down.
[18:26] <Ataru> Will someone kindly strip the probationary FAs of their star please?
[18:26] <Ataru> Havac, or Grey-man?
[18:26] <Havac> Hmm.
[18:27] <Ataru> I think the last two issues on the agenda are redundant
[18:27] <Havac> What if, when a stripped FA was re-featured, we added a link-only pointing out it was re-featured the next week.
[18:27] <Ataru> We covered them earlier, but I'll list them again.
[18:27] <Grey-man> ok, so is this topic done with?
[18:27] <Ataru> Yes
[18:27] <Havac> With the other article-of-the-week link.
[18:27] <Grey-man> Ataru > sure
[18:27] <Ataru> Havac: Topic? Stripped FAs aren't put on the Main Page again, even if re-featured
[18:28] <Havac> That's my point.
[18:28] <Ataru> Pass and review of other two articles is completed; we voted to remove them
[18:28] <Havac> It's not putting anything more than a link on the main page.
[18:28] <Ataru> Havac: Wait until end of meeting for non-agenda items then :-P
[18:28] <Havac> :P
[18:28] <Ataru> K'Kruhk: Havac's objection . . . . yeah, we covered that
[18:28] <Ataru> I assume, Havac, that you will be specific with it ;-)
[18:29] <Havac> I'll try and point out more detail when I have time.
[18:29] <Ataru> Ok, fair enough
[18:29] <Ataru> Any more items on the agenda?
[18:29] <Ataru> Speak now :-P
[18:29] <LordHydronium> I don't know why an article should be awarded accolades for getting worse before it got better.
[18:29] <Havac> :P
[18:29] <GreenTentacle> Heh.
[18:29] <Havac> I'm not saying accolades.
[18:29] <LordHydronium> Recognition, then.
[18:29] <Havac> I'm saying point out the hard work to get it re-FA'd with a small link.
[18:29] <Gonk> Question:
[18:29] <Ataru> I don't think it's a good idea either
[18:30] <Ataru> People who know Wookieepedia and how it works are the ones who need to work on FAs
[18:30] <Gonk> How long do we let the CT on our FA queue shortening method go?
[18:30] <Ataru> Not newbies
[18:30] <Havac> It's not anything like being featured; no blurb or anything.
[18:30] <Ataru> Gonk: Until consensus :-P
[18:30] <LordHydronium> Basically, articles that sucked once would get more recognition than articles that always stayed good.
[18:30] <Havac> Just a mention that it happened.
[18:30] <Ataru> Articles that are being de-featured ideally should be watched
[18:30] <Gonk> ok.
[18:30] <Gonk> Probably the CT won't take long to become popular anyway :)
[18:30] <Ataru> We can put a link on *our* page to probationary articles
[18:30] <Ataru> That I would like
[18:30] <Havac> But, to sound like Ataru, I think it's fair to reward the hard work put into re-FAing it with some notice.
[18:31] <Ataru> Assuming it gets to that point, sure
[18:31] <Havac> Otherwise someone can do the same amount of work to FA an article and not get any such recognition.
[18:31] <Ataru> It *does* "earn" you a pretty blue userbox and a star on the article
[18:31] <Gonk> I see your point
[18:31] <LordHydronium> Wait, isn't this just the "people like to see their hard work on the main page" thing again? :P
[18:31] <Havac> It's not about the article, it's about the work.
[18:31] * Ataru is in it for the userpage shinies :-P Oooh, shiny! :-P
[18:32] <Havac> It's just an idea that occurred to me when we were mentioning links.
[18:32] * Grey-man is content with his FA user boxes
[18:32] <LordHydronium> I like my FA user boxes. They're all pretty and golden.
[18:32] <Havac> It's a compromise between not recognizing the achievement and awarding it doubly for having once sucked.
[18:32] <Gonk> I still gotta get me one of those :D
[18:32] * Ataru is content with his FA user-boxes as long as they stay nice and golden and SHINY
[18:32] <Gonk> Havac: well said
[18:34] <Havac> It's not much different from putting a "congrats on adminship" into the Wookieenews, which I think we should do, but we don't, but which wouldn't be controversial if we did it.
[18:34] <Havac> :P
[18:35] <Xwing328> a few have been in the news
[18:35] <Gonk> So do it. Be Bold :)
[18:35] <Grey-man> :)
[18:35] <Havac> I is anon.
[18:35] <Havac> I'm on vacation.
[18:35] <Havac> *you* do it. :P
[18:35] <Gonk> O_o
[18:35] <Ataru> I think we should split up Wookieenews
[18:35] <Ataru> Site news
[18:35] <Ataru> and Star Wars news
[18:36] <Ataru> But that's a different topic
[18:36] <Ataru> :-P
[18:36] <Ataru> If we had site news, we could just put it in there
[18:36] <Xwing328> I don't think we have enough news for that, but yeah, wrong topic
[18:36] <Ataru> :-P
[18:37] <Gonk> Well, sounds like we might be done
[18:37] <Havac> Yeah, not enough news and wrong topic.
[18:37] <Havac> Not on the matter of links for re-FA'd articles.
[18:37] <Havac> Anyone have anything to say, care to vote on it?
[18:37] <Gonk> I vote yes
[18:37] <Havac> Or do we not care?
[18:38] <Xwing328> not really
[18:38] <Xwing328> :P
[18:38] <Havac> I say yes.
[18:38] <Ataru> I vote no
[18:38] <Ataru> I also think we should save it for next meeting
[18:38] <Ataru> It's been an awfully long meeting
[18:38] <Xwing328> So is this for a link in Wookieenews or the FA section?
[18:38] <Ataru> People are tired
[18:38] <Gonk> It is kind of current though
[18:38] <Havac> Why, when we've got everyone right here?
[18:38] <Ataru> Heh
[18:39] <Ataru> Fine
[18:39] <Grey-man> :P
[18:39] <Ataru> I still oppose
[18:39] <Havac> Link in the FA section.
[18:39] <Gonk> Didn't we just get one re-FAed?
[18:39] <Havac> And it's been enough of a pain in the ass to get everyone together once.
[18:39] <Grey-man> not yet...I think Bane will be the first
[18:39] <Gonk> ok, so it's coming up.
[18:39] <Grey-man> yup
[18:39] <LordHydronium> I vote no.
[18:39] <Xwing328> I vote no for anything on the main page
[18:39] <Grey-man> No
[18:39] * Havac votes no to people voting no.
[18:40] <LordHydronium> People want to add a ReFA user box on their page, that's cool.
[18:40] <Gonk> Oh wait, this is for *main page*?
[18:40] <Grey-man> yes, that's fine
[18:40] <Ataru> Yeah, the *main page*
[18:40] <Ataru> That's why I vote no
[18:40] <Gonk> hmmm.
[18:40] <Ataru> We're already going to have LucidFox irked at having to tweak his coding anyway :-P
[18:41] <Gonk> Yeah, I gotta change my vote to no. Seems like someone who goes to the trouble of re-FAing is accepting no mainpage recognition from the beginning anyhow.
[18:41] <Havac> Fair enough. Meeting over.
[18:41] <Grey-man> Point
[18:41] <Ataru> Any other business before this body?
[18:41] * Ataru hopes not
[18:41] <Xwing328> Alright. Goodbye.
[18:41] <Ataru> Then see you next time!
[18:41] <Ataru> Thanks for coming, all!
[18:41] =-= Xwing328 is now known as Xwing328|Away
[18:41] * Gonk waves
[18:42] <LordHydronium> Y'all come back now, y'hear?
[18:42] <Ataru> We need a log up
[18:42] <Gonk> Working on it
[18:42] <Ataru> We need a meeting summary on the page
[18:42] <Ataru> :-P
[18:42] <GreenTentacle> Anything important happen in the past few minutes?
[18:42] <Gonk> XD