[21:00:18] <Toprawa> Welcome to Inqmoot 115
[21:00:25] <Toprawa> Anyone want to say stuff before we begin?
[21:00:34] <Tommy-Macaroni> Not me
[21:00:34] <AnilSerifoglu> Nope
[21:00:35] <ecks> ecks should review more
[21:00:48] <Toprawa> Let's get into last meeting's items
[21:01:01] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Hero_of_Tython
[21:01:12] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Hero_of_Tython
[21:01:14] <Toprawa> No change
[21:01:16] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:01:17] <Tommy-Macaroni> Kill
[21:01:25] <ecks> sad
[21:01:27] <ecks> kill
[21:01:29] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:01:39] <Toprawa> Hero of Tython killed
[21:01:54] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/The_Dark_Lords_of_the_Sith
[21:01:59] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/The_Dark_Lords_of_the_Sith
[21:02:02] <Toprawa> No change
[21:02:06] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:02:08] <Tommy-Macaroni> kill
[21:02:15] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:02:36] <ecks> kill
[21:02:41] <Toprawa> The Dark Lords of the Sith killed
[21:02:45] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Peter_Cushing
[21:02:49] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Peter_Cushing
[21:02:58] <Toprawa> Not all items addressed
[21:03:01] <Tommy-Macaroni> kill
[21:03:03] <AnilSerifoglu> You may fire when ready
[21:03:04] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:03:05] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:03:22] <ecks> kill
[21:03:25] <Toprawa> Peter Cushing killed
[21:03:29] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Morseerian/Legends
[21:03:33] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Morseerian/Legends
[21:03:37] <Toprawa> No change
[21:03:38] <Tommy-Macaroni> Kill
[21:03:38] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:03:41] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:03:50] <ecks> kill
[21:03:55] <Toprawa> Morseerian/Legends killed
[21:04:01] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Suprema
[21:04:06] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Suprema
[21:04:12] <Toprawa> No change
[21:04:14] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:04:14] <Tommy-Macaroni> kill
[21:04:15] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:04:17] <ecks> kill
[21:04:24] <Toprawa> Suprema killed
[21:04:28] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jes_Gistang
[21:04:32] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Jes_Gistang
[21:04:41] <Toprawa> GT has addressed all items
[21:04:41] <AnilSerifoglu> Redux
[21:04:45] <Toprawa> Redux
[21:04:46] <Tommy-Macaroni> Redux
[21:04:49] <ecks> redux
[21:04:57] <Toprawa> Jes Gistang Reduxed
[21:05:02] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Weir
[21:05:06] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Weir
[21:05:13] <Toprawa> No change
[21:05:15] <Tommy-Macaroni> kill
[21:05:16] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:05:18] <ecks> kill
[21:05:25] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:05:27] <Toprawa> Weir killed
[21:05:31] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Ommin/Legends
[21:05:35] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Ommin/Legends
[21:05:44] <Toprawa> No change
[21:05:45] <Tommy-Macaroni> kill
[21:05:45] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:05:47] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:05:52] <ecks> kill
[21:05:55] <Toprawa> Ommin/Legends killed
[21:05:59] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Ozrei_N%27takkilomandrife
[21:06:06] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Ozrei_N%27takkilomandrife_(second_review)
[21:06:10] <Toprawa> No change
[21:06:11] <Tommy-Macaroni> kill
[21:06:12] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:06:13] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:06:22] <ecks> kill
[21:06:24] <Toprawa> Ozrei N'takkilomandrife killed
[21:06:30] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/X-83_TwinTail_starfighter
[21:06:35] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/X-83_TwinTail_starfighter
[21:06:36] <Toprawa> No change
[21:06:38] <AnilSerifoglu> Kill
[21:06:38] <Tommy-Macaroni> kill
[21:06:44] <Toprawa> Kill
[21:06:48] <ecks> kill
[21:06:50] <Toprawa> X-83 TwinTail starfighter killed
[21:06:54] <Toprawa> That's all for those
[21:07:01] <Toprawa> Moving on to new items
[21:07:02] <Tommy-Macaroni> A lovely slaughter
[21:07:25] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Toby_Philpott
[21:07:30] <Toprawa> Does not comply with point #1 relating to listing only Star Wars material.
[21:07:31] <Toprawa> {{Cite web}} needs to be implemented with all references except for #7 that remain after removing said non-SW info.
[21:07:31] <Toprawa> Unsourced Filmography.
[21:07:31] <Toprawa> Needs Bibliography section.—spookywillowwtalk 15:54, April 16, 2020 (UTC)
[21:07:40] <Toprawa> Point 1: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide/Out-of-universe#Real-world_person_articles
[21:07:41] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:07:43] <ecks> probe
[21:07:44] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:07:45] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:07:51] <Toprawa> Toby Philpott probe
[21:07:51] <Toprawa> d
[21:08:04] <Toprawa> Passing over Lawrence Holland, whose items were addressed
[21:08:12] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Barton_Coburn
[21:08:19] <Toprawa> No Equipment section.
[21:08:19] <Toprawa> Article could use a number of paragraph breaks, which would create additional room for images.
[21:08:19] <Toprawa> Article hosts information from "Star Wars: Build the Millennium Falcon 35," which needs to be checked for canonicity pertaining to the Legends continuity.
[21:08:19] <Toprawa> While the canonicity of the magazine series overall may need more discussion, the article that provides the name Barton covers content from Rebels extensively so I'd say we can treat this as canon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:06, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
[21:08:21] <Toprawa> Article has undergone significant changes in the 7-8 years since its nomination. Shayanomer Din Djarin's clan (talk) 16:43, April 16, 2020 (UTC)
[21:08:26] <Toprawa> For a "respected fleet officer," I believe a "Skills and abilities" section could be added. Shayanomer Din Djarin's clan (talk) 16:45, April 16, 2020 (UTC)
[21:08:36] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:08:37] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:08:44] <Toprawa> We actually had some discussion/disagreement about the "Barton" issue, FWIW
[21:08:55] <Toprawa> We weren't entirely sure whether to treat that as Legends or not
[21:09:08] <Tommy-Macaroni> Hmm
[21:09:14] <Toprawa> It's something that should be considered further by someone who would be interested in maintaining this article, in the event that actually happens
[21:09:20] <Toprawa> But the other issues certainly stand in the meantime
[21:09:21] <Tommy-Macaroni> So at the very least a {{Canon}} template?
[21:09:23] <Tommy-Macaroni> Yeah
[21:09:27] <Toprawa> So probe
[21:10:00] <ecks> probe
[21:10:03] <ecks> sorry
[21:10:06] <Toprawa> Barton Coburn probed
[21:10:14] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/George_Roubicek
[21:10:20] <Toprawa> Breaks rule 1 of the OOU Layout Guide as it hosts a ton of non-SW info.
[21:10:20] <Toprawa> IMDB and Wikipedia used as sources.
[21:10:20] <Toprawa> Unsourced filmography.
[21:10:20] <Toprawa> Lots of citations that do not use the appropriate reference format. Shayanomer Din Djarin's clan (talk) 17:11, April 19, 2020 (UTC)
[21:10:20] <Toprawa> No bibliography. Shayanomer Din Djarin's clan (talk) 17:13, April 19, 2020 (UTC)
[21:10:25] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:10:26] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:10:28] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:10:29] <ecks> probe
[21:10:30] <Toprawa> George Roubicek probed
[21:10:36] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Horton_Salm/Legends
[21:10:42] <Toprawa> Missing "Skills and abilities" and "Equipment" section.
[21:10:42] <Toprawa> Unsourced BTS.
[21:10:42] <Toprawa> Filming information for Return of the Jedi can be added to the BTS. Shayanomer Din Djarin's clan (talk) 05:35, May 19, 2020 (UTC)
[21:10:42] <Toprawa> Per precedent, {{1st}} should be placed next to the film's novel instead of Rogue Squadron, and {{1stID}} for the name, as the article is currently missing the latter template. Shayanomer Din Djarin's clan (talk) 05:47, May 19, 2020 (UTC)
[21:10:52] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:10:56] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:11:04] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:11:05] <ecks> probe
[21:11:11] <Toprawa> Horton Salm/Legends probed
[21:11:16] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Voren_Na%27al/Legends
[21:11:20] <Toprawa> Unsourced BTS information.
[21:11:20] <Toprawa> "Skills and abilities" and "Equipment" sections required per Layout Guide.
[21:11:20] <Toprawa> No dates provided for A New Hope and Clone Wars.
[21:11:20] <Toprawa> There is filming information for the medal scene available (including interviews with Derek Lyons), which is currently missing from the article. Shayanomer Din Djarin's clan (talk) 10:38, May 24, 2020 (UTC)
[21:11:22] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:11:26] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:11:31] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:11:57] <ecks> probe
[21:11:59] <Toprawa> Voren Na'al/Legends probed
[21:12:02] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Separatist_supply_ship
[21:12:03] <Toprawa> Needs update
[21:12:05] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:12:05] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:12:09] <ecks> probe
[21:12:10] <Tommy-Macaroni> probe
[21:12:19] <Toprawa> Separatist supply ship probed
[21:12:20] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Hoggon
[21:12:24] <Toprawa> Digitize all comic images
[21:12:25] <Toprawa> BBY dates can't be sourced straight to TOTJ comics
[21:12:25] <Toprawa> Infobox-exclusive information
[21:12:25] <Toprawa> General underlinking throughout
[21:12:25] <Toprawa> Could use an Equipment section
[21:12:26] <Toprawa> There's enough room for a third image in the Biography
[21:12:28] <Toprawa> BTS is unsourced and needs to mention all publication requirements
[21:12:30] <Toprawa> Appearances needs to be ordered by individual comic issue, not story arc. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:48, May 29, 2020 (UTC)
[21:12:31] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:12:32] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:12:36] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:12:37] <ecks> probe
[21:12:39] <Toprawa> Hoggon probed
[21:12:44] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Venan_civil_war
[21:12:49] <Toprawa> In no clear, outward manner does the "Before the Rise" article suggest or support a date of "approximately 57 BBY" for this event. That will need a ref note to explain how this date is being arrived at.
[21:12:50] <Toprawa> Last Stand on Ord Mantell states that its events take place "approximately thirty-seven years before the Battle of Yavin." This is not reflected correctly in the article.
[21:12:50] <Toprawa> This is speculation and should be reworded/revised: "...still existing around 1 or 2 BBY..."
[21:12:50] <Toprawa> The two map images uploaded from the Atlas could certainly use higher-quality scans
[21:12:52] <Toprawa> Format thumbnail images below quotes, not adjacent to them
[21:12:55] <Toprawa> The BTS should be rewritten to focus more specifically on the issue that this conflict is mentioned in. The fact that it's a three-part series published over whatever time frame is irrelevant. Only the first issue, with its specific publication date, is relevant. And if the conflict isn't depicted in that series, the comic's illustrator is also irrelevant.
[21:13:00] <Toprawa> Missing backup links. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:46, May 29, 2020 (UTC)
[21:13:01] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:13:02] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:13:02] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:13:06] <ecks> probe
[21:13:08] <Toprawa> Venan civil war probed
[21:13:13] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Gobee
[21:13:20] <Toprawa> Fix redirects
[21:13:20] <Toprawa> Infobox-exclusive information
[21:13:20] <Toprawa> Could use an Equipment section
[21:13:20] <Toprawa> BBY dates can't be sourced to TOTJ audio drama
[21:13:20] <Toprawa> 3998 BBY date is intro-exclusive
[21:13:21] <Toprawa> General underlinking throughout
[21:13:22] <Toprawa> Comic quotes are to omit bold formatting from original text
[21:13:26] <Toprawa> Format end-punctuation correctly in image captions
[21:13:28] <Toprawa> The battle of Iziz is a conjectural title, meaning it should not be capitalized as a formal title in this article
[21:13:31] <Toprawa> Second "Princess abduction" paragraph, and first and third "Battle for the walled city" paragraphs need breaks
[21:13:34] <Toprawa> Format italics correctly with regard to Quote template in "Battle for the walled city" section quote (ending quotation)
[21:13:37] <Toprawa> BTS is unsourced and needs to introduce required publication info
[21:13:39] <Toprawa> Appearances section and article referencing need to be ordered by individual comic issue, not story arc. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:38, May 29, 2020 (UTC)
[21:13:40] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:13:41] <Tommy-Macaroni> Probe
[21:13:42] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:13:56] <ecks> probe
[21:13:59] <Toprawa> Gobee probed
[21:14:00] <Toprawa> https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Darth_Cognus
[21:14:09] <Toprawa> File:Darthcog.jpg, File:Ambria FF11.jpg, File:Darth Bane-TEA.jpg, File:ZannahDoEcropped.jpg, and File:Darthmill.jpg are all inadqeuately sourced in one way or another
[21:14:09] <Toprawa> General underlinking throughout
[21:14:09] <Toprawa> Considering the title of this article is Darth Cognus and not "the Huntress," I find it a bit strange how most of the intro refers to this character by the latter appellation without any initial explanation of how where the Darth Cognus name comes in. The very beginning of the intro should briefly explain this to avoid any reader confusion.
[21:14:10] <Toprawa> It would appear this could use an Equipment section
[21:14:12] <Toprawa> This article is just rife with humongous paragraphs that need breaks. I would say there are at least eleven such paragraphs in the article body.
[21:14:15] <Toprawa> BTS needs to introduce required publication info
[21:14:17] <Toprawa> Refs 1 and 6 need to implement CSWECite correctly
[21:14:19] <Toprawa> Ref 10 needs to implement SW.com citation template
[21:14:21] <Toprawa> Ref 12 needs to implement Citeweb fully and correctly with backup link. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:56, May 29, 2020 (UTC)
[21:14:22] <AnilSerifoglu> Probe
[21:14:25] <Tommy-Macaroni> probe
[21:14:26] <Toprawa> Probe
[21:14:40] <ecks> probe
[21:14:44] <Toprawa> Darth Cognus probed
[21:14:49] <Toprawa> Any further articles from anyone?
[21:15:05] <Tommy-Macaroni> not from me
[21:15:10] <AnilSerifoglu> ^
[21:15:14] <Toprawa> I think it's fair that I address this: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/TIE/sh_VIP_shuttle
[21:15:30] <Toprawa> To recap, I had asked for a couple extensions, fully planning on having this thing ready for this meeting
[21:15:57] <Toprawa> Regretfully, I've had some major issues that have prevented me from doing that
[21:16:10] <Toprawa> And I do not anticipate having time to finish this by next Inqmoot
[21:16:24] <Toprawa> Maybe, hopefully in two Inqmoots I will have it done
[21:16:36] <Toprawa> So I leave this article at your mercy if you want to probe it or not
[21:16:53] <Tommy-Macaroni> So long as you have intention to do it, which I know you do, I have no issue with not probing
[21:17:03] <AnilSerifoglu> Exactly
[21:17:20] <Toprawa> Very well. Thanks, I appreciate it.
[21:17:29] <Tommy-Macaroni> I said it before, if anyone wanted such an extension and said they would get it done, we would do the same
[21:17:37] <Toprawa> Cool
[21:17:46] <AnilSerifoglu> Toomy is the voice of reason :P
[21:17:50] <ecks> provided it gets done this year :P
[21:17:57] * Tommy-Macaroni is now known as Toomy
[21:18:01] <Toprawa> There's nothing else in the maintenance bin besides FAs with missing backup links
[21:18:01] <AnilSerifoglu> XD
[21:18:06] <Toprawa> So on to Toomy's discussion items :P
[21:18:12] <Toomy> Yay :/
[21:18:21] <Toomy> So, sorry I’ve got so many proposals guys. For the log, before we begin, in their absence, Anil wields SE’s vote and Imperators has supported all proposals. I’m going easiest proposals first so we can leave more time-consuming stuff for next time if necessary.
[21:18:26] <Toomy> Okay, simple one first. Simplifying {{Inqvote}} to just {{Inq}}. This makes it more uniform with the existing {{AC}} and {{EC}}, and it’s also easier to type. This is a very easy bot job I can set in motion immediately.
[21:18:26] <Toomy> Nothing else to say, I open the floor:
[21:18:36] <AnilSerifoglu> Support
[21:18:42] <Toprawa> Support
[21:18:43] <Toomy> Support
[21:18:53] <ecks> a very lackluster support :P
[21:19:48] <Toprawa> Oh, sorry
[21:19:58] <Toprawa> Motion passes, 4-0
[21:20:07] <Toomy> Okay, second item: policy for multiple nominations. This is what’s already been done for the CAN and GAN. That is, implementing the following:
[21:20:07] <Toomy> “Users must successfully complete one Featured article nomination before they can have two nominations active on the FAN page at one time. Likewise, users must complete two successful FA nominations before they can have three, and three successful FA nominations before they can have four."
[21:20:07] <Toomy> This will take rule 11 on the "How to nominate" section of the FAN.
[21:20:07] <Toomy> That is all, I open the floor:
[21:20:14] <Toprawa> I'm not counting absentee votes unless someone explicitly calls them out
[21:20:17] <ecks> fair enough
[21:20:19] <ecks> support
[21:20:26] <AnilSerifoglu> Support
[21:20:28] <Toomy> Support
[21:20:37] <Toprawa> Support
[21:20:43] <Toprawa> Motion passes, 4-0
[21:20:49] <Toomy> Third item is something Fred presented this at the last EC meeting and it passed, and I’m sure he’s gonna also present it at the next AC meeting. Basically, this is a motion to stop the randomisation of paperwork duties. We would have a set list and once we get to the bottom, we loop back to the top. This makes individuals have an equal amount of time between our duties, with no more doubling up,
[21:20:49] <Toomy> like if someone was last on the old list and first on the newly randomised one. No change would immediately occur here, we would continue with the current list and just loop back to the beginning again when we’re done. That’s all, I open the floor:
[21:21:01] <AnilSerifoglu> Support
[21:21:06] <ecks> i do like the fact that my username begins with an X
[21:21:07] <ecks> support
[21:21:12] <Toomy> Support
[21:21:12] <Toprawa> Well, what is the "set list"?
[21:21:16] <Toprawa> Alphabetical order?
[21:21:29] <Toomy> I mean, I'm fine with us keeping the current one
[21:21:39] <Toomy> But alphabetical could work
[21:21:45] <Toomy> That'd actually be more logical
[21:21:45] <Toprawa> If we're going to do this, I'd rather have some kind of objective, logical order
[21:21:52] <Toprawa> Not something that is literally randomized
[21:21:59] <Toomy> Okay, I'm all for alphabetical then
[21:22:00] <ecks> shoe size
[21:22:03] <Toprawa> I can't think of anything more objective and practical than alphabetical
[21:22:08] <Toomy> Cool
[21:22:17] <Toomy> So, for alphabetical:
[21:22:19] <Toomy> Support
[21:22:23] <Toprawa> Support
[21:22:24] <ecks> support
[21:22:38] <Toprawa> Anil?
[21:22:40] <AnilSerifoglu> Whatever system we go with, I'm still on the papaerwork :P
[21:22:42] <AnilSerifoglu> Support
[21:22:45] <Toprawa> Motion passes, 4-0
[21:22:54] <Toomy> Fourth one. Pertaining to https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Inq/Complaints_Department. There are some strange relics in https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Wookieepedia_Inquisitorius_official_business , many of which are just cases of people whinging about their articles. I plan to clean these up at some point in the future in a project to generally make the three review bodies more
[21:22:54] <Toomy> uniform and organised. As a way to set precedent for sorting through that category, I would like to first handle the page that immediately jumped out at me: our Complaints Department.
[21:22:54] <Toomy> This is a strange relic from 2007/08 where users basically had a dedicated place to rip into the Inqs. Now, beyond bot fixes and redirects, nothing has been said on here for 12 years, and I think it’s due time to get rid of this thing. This sets a bad precedent for people, as users could legitimately leave a complaint on here as it is still active, although not linked to on any main official page.
[21:22:54] <Toomy> Personally, I think this is a poor way to handle complaints, which ought to be occurring either directly to individual Inq causing issue, via IRC / talk pages / Discord, on specific FANs, or even via Meeting pages. Looking through that page, besides a few teething problems for the newly-founded Inq and issues with specific Inquisitors, everything else would have been far better presented on individual
[21:22:54] <Toomy> nomination pages. As such I think it’d best to either fully delete or in some way archive this page to show anyone who stumbles across it that writing paragraphs whinging about the Inq isn’t the way to deal with an issue. Lastly, it says "We'll try to keep it civil." This is not suitable wording, as it basically breaks WP:CIVIL, summing up how outdated and inappropriate this page is.
[21:22:54] <Toomy> TL;DR - This page is old, unused, and sets bad precedent, so it should be gotten rid of. Okay. I open the floor:
[21:22:55] <Toprawa> Goodbye Randomizer.org :(
[21:23:10] <Toprawa> I want to CSD this page
[21:23:14] <Toprawa> Any objections?
[21:23:20] <AnilSerifoglu> Go ahead
[21:23:23] <Toomy> Kill it, that's my preferred option
[21:23:39] <Toprawa> There's no value in archiving this thing
[21:23:44] <Toomy> I agree
[21:23:45] <Toprawa> It's just a page of whining and griping
[21:24:02] <ecks> "Ever since they got finished reviewing all the old FAs, it seems the Inquisitorius has done scarcely anything."
[21:24:03] <ecks> mood
[21:24:05] <ecks> kill it
[21:24:19] <Toprawa> Motion passes to CSD page, 4-0
[21:24:26] <Toomy> Okay. Number 5. And last, you’ll be relieved to hear. At the last AC meeting, we agreed it best not to take into account the number of CANs a user has completed in regards to their ability to nominate GANs. Now, I think it’s at least worth discussing the possibility of implementing a minimum GAN requirement before a user is allowed to make a FAN. While I would certainly agree in part that the GAN is
[21:24:26] <Toomy> a preferable starting point for users, thus mandating having them pass CANs beforehand illogical, I would say the FAN is definitely not the place to be starting.
[21:24:26] <Toomy> I think if such a rule was implemented, it would be useful for both users and Inqs to allow nominators to gain experience on the GAN writing smaller-length articles before diving into the deep end and doing a FAN. If they nominate a FAN first, it would have many of same issues as a GAN from the same user; however, the difference is that the FAN would be larger, thus there would be more of these mistakes,
[21:24:26] <Toomy> making review more difficult. Making it mandatory for users to start on the GAN would introduce them to writing and build of their knowledge of do's and don'ts, so when they can make a FAN, they aren’t bombarded by 50 objections. I don’t have my heart set on this rule or anything, but I certainly think this is worth considering.
[21:24:26] <Toomy> TL;DR - should successful GANs be a requirement for FAN nominations? So, I open the floor:
[21:24:57] <ecks> an epic nah from me
[21:25:06] <Toprawa> I like the idea in principle, but I fear it would be difficult, if not totally impractical, to implement
[21:25:12] <Toomy> How so?
[21:25:31] <Toprawa> Someone could pick the easiest GA to pass simply for the sake of moving on to FAN, while learning little or nothing in the process
[21:25:41] <Toprawa> The idea is to keep people on GAN to hone their craft, but that wouldn't stop them
[21:26:01] <Toomy> That's a very good point actually
[21:26:32] <AnilSerifoglu> Tope understands the enemy in order to defeat them :P
[21:26:36] <Toprawa> The only real way to do that would be to force them to pass like 10 GANs before attempting an FAN
[21:26:43] <Toprawa> But then that's just kind of becoming overbearing, I think
[21:26:51] <Toomy> Yeah that's far too many
[21:27:01] <Toomy> Okay, I'm fine to oppose this then
[21:27:07] <Toomy> I just wanted us to discuss it
[21:27:54] <AnilSerifoglu> I intended to support this, but Tope has a good point
[21:27:58] <AnilSerifoglu> Oppose
[21:28:02] <ecks> Oppose
[21:28:02] <Toprawa> I don't know, is it worth setting a number?
[21:28:05] <Toprawa> Five GANs?
[21:28:31] <ecks> I've already made my point at the recent AC meeting, so I won't bother again
[21:28:31] <Toprawa> You make the comparison for CAN to GAN in your proposal, but I might argue that the leap from GAN to FAN is far more substantial
[21:28:40] <ecks> but we are trying to solve a problem that does not exist
[21:28:47] <ecks> the only problem on the FAN right now is the lack of reviews
[21:28:49] <Toprawa> Well, I think the problem does exist to some extent
[21:28:56] <Toprawa> It's just not a /huge/ problem
[21:29:04] <Toomy> I agree GAN -> FAN is the largest step
[21:29:10] <Toomy> And I was thinking 2 or 3 tbh
[21:29:18] <Toprawa> I'm not going to name names, but there's at least one person right now who has made far too many nominations compared to their skill level
[21:29:25] <Toprawa> Including many FANs before that person is ready, IMO
[21:29:33] <Toprawa> That's just an example of it being a "problem"
[21:30:15] <Toprawa> That being said, I would be ok with not implementing the rule
[21:30:19] <Toprawa> I'm just pointing these things out
[21:30:22] <Toomy> I think it is a problem. But as you say, this probably wouldn't solve that problem
[21:30:31] <AnilSerifoglu> ^
[21:30:38] <Toomy> And honestly, the 1>2>3>4 rule will help combat that issue to some degree
[21:30:43] <Toprawa> Indeed
[21:30:49] <ecks> when we collectively get our shit together and review articles within a month of them being nominated, then we can discuss further limitations. the 1-2-3-4 rule is more than enough right now
[21:31:06] <Toprawa> I won't argue with that
[21:31:16] <Toprawa> So oppose
[21:31:20] <AnilSerifoglu> Oppose
[21:31:24] <Toomy> Oppose
[21:31:26] <Toprawa> Motion voted down, 4-0
[21:32:07] <Toomy> Excellent, that's me all done
[21:33:03] <ecks> superb
[21:33:20] <Toprawa> Ok, meeting duties = Anil
[21:33:26] <Toprawa> That's all, folks
[21:33:28] <Toprawa> Thanks for coming