Session Start: Sat Jul 25 00:00:01 2009
Session Ident: #wookieepedia
...
[19:58] * Graestan changes topic to '#MOFFERENCE - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki - http://starwars.wikia.com - Site status: Teh Mofference is approaching! - Please respect the IRC rules. Off-topic chat is welcome in #wookieepedia-social - Quotes: [Redacted by administration]'
...
[20:00] <@Graestan> *DARK GREETINGS*
[20:00] <@Imperialles> I bid you all Dark Greetings.
[20:00] <@Darth_Culator> For the log:
[20:00] <+Tommy9281> Dudes have shit to do
[20:00] <@Darth_Culator> !hieverybody
[20:00] <@Nuku-Nuku> Hello, AdmirableAckbar, Axims, CC7567, ChackJadson, Chack|Away, ChanServ, charitwo, CommanderTony, Cylka, Darth_Culator, DarthTrayus, Graestan, GrandMoffTranner, GreenTentacle, Grunny, Havac, IFYLOFD, Imperialles, Ineedaname|Away, ixesha, JangFett, Jaymach, Jedimca0, JMAS, jSarek, Jujiggum, Kilson, LordHydronium, LtNOWIS, MasterJonathan, Mauser, Nuku-Nuku, Pranay_Sobusk, (1 more message)
[20:00] <+IFYLOFD> Dark Greetings.
[20:00] <@Darth_Culator> !more
[20:00] <@Nuku-Nuku> Darth_Culator: Riffsyphon1024, salacio, sekrit, SillyDan, Tm_T, Tommy9281, Toprawa, and Tyber !!!
[20:00] <@Graestan> Welcome to the Mofference.
[20:00] <@ChackJadson> HI!
[20:00] <@Riffsyphon1024> Ok it's official, everyone keep things professional as possible
[20:00] <+IFYLOFD> Bwahahaha.
[20:00] <+Kilson> Yeah.
[20:01] <+JangFett> Hello
[20:01] * +Tyber nods.
[20:01] <+Kilson> You got to be kidding.
[20:01] * +GrandMoffTranner nods
[20:01] <+IFYLOFD> Yes.
[20:01] <@Graestan> Alright, let us begin.
[20:01] * Darth_Culator sets mode: -v ixesha
[20:01] <@Riffsyphon1024> as possible
[20:01] <+Kilson> Me professsional.
[20:01] * Darth_Culator sets mode: -v salacio
[20:01] <@Graestan> *SILENCE*
[20:01] * Darth_Culator sets mode: -v Tm_T
[20:01] <@Graestan> "Banning self votes on RFRs. While this probably doesn't need to go through a Mofference, I'm doing it just to be safe. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[20:01] <@Graestan> * Addendum: While I don't really care one way or the other, I see no point in banning self-votes in one election process but not in others. Therefore, just to be consistent, I'd like to extend the proposal to cover RFAs and RFBs also. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "
[20:01] <@Graestan> Chack? Jonathan?
[20:01] <@ChackJadson> eh, barring it entirely is fine with me
[20:02] <@Graestan> I refrain from comment. ;)
[20:02] <@Graestan> Anyone else?
[20:02] <@Riffsyphon1024> I figure the person will support themselves, why should it count?
[20:02] <@Imperialles> I don't think we need to codify it. It has never been an issue.
[20:02] <+Jaymach> you could just vote :P it's going to pass
[20:02] <+Kilson> For once.
[20:02] <+MasterJonathan> As I said, I don't care what we do, but it needs to be consistent across all three.
[20:02] <@SillyDan> No serious objections here.
[20:02] <@Toprawa> The President can vote for himself. Why can't a nominee here?
[20:02] <@LtNOWIS> eh... is this really a problem?
[20:02] <@Imperialles> Besides, I voted for myself for my RFA. :p
[20:02] <+Tommy9281> Per Rif & NOWIS
[20:02] <@Darth_Culator> I don't see it being necessary.
[20:02] <+Mauser> I support
[20:02] <+IFYLOFD> I support.
[20:02] <@Havac> I support.
[20:02] <@ChackJadson> it's not a big deal
[20:02] <+Jujiggum> I support
[20:02] <@Riffsyphon1024> Aye
[20:02] <+JMAS> Support
[20:02] <+Kilson> I support.
[20:02] <@AdmirableAckbar> Self votes on WOTM are banned, no reason not to here.
[20:02] <@AdmirableAckbar> I support.
[20:02] * +JangFett nods
[20:02] <+Tyber> support
[20:02] <@Grunny> Support
[20:02] <+Pranay_Sobusk> I support.
[20:02] <@Toprawa> Object.
[20:02] <@Riffsyphon1024> keep it consistent
[20:02] <+GrandMoffTranner> Support
[20:02] <@GreenTentacle> Total support.
[20:02] <@jSarek> Per Acky. Support.
[20:02] <+DarthTrayus> Support.
[20:02] <+CC7567> Support.
[20:02] <@Darth_Culator> Oppose.
[20:02] <@Cylka> Support.
[20:02] <@Havac> No user rights should be selv-votable.
[20:02] <@Havac> *self
[20:03] <@Graestan> Wait, will this be retroactive? :P
[20:03] <@Toprawa> Democracy hereby dies on Wookieepedia :P
[20:03] <+Jaymach> I oppose too, purely because it makes me look like a douche for voting for myself :P
[20:03] <+Tommy9281> I guess that means I support
[20:03] <@Darth_Culator> Nothing is retroactive unless specified.
[20:03] <@ChackJadson> Graestan: do you want it to be
[20:03] <@GreenTentacle> Jaymach: Your are a douche. :P
[20:03] <+Kilson> I think Jon wins.
[20:03] <+Jaymach> true
[20:03] <@Darth_Culator> Language, children.
[20:03] <+Jaymach> but it makes me -look- like it too
[20:03] <+IFYLOFD> Per Acky - We don't allow self-votes on WOTM, so let's be consistent for user rights votes.
[20:03] <@jSarek> Jaymach: I don't think we'll be making it retroactive. Also, per Tent. :-p
[20:03] <@Riffsyphon1024> only if there's explicit language making it retroactive
[20:03] <@Graestan> Per Toprawa: *NO MORE SELF-VOTES on RFURs* Alright, next topic.
[20:03] <@Graestan> "If this is the proper venue, I'd like to discuss developing and implementing a system of consistently updating the Wookieepedia:Search icons/In use page. What's there has been there at least since I joined and very likely much longer.—Tommy9281 (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 06:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "
[20:03] <+Jaymach> I think I'd prefer being a retroactive douche to a current douche, really
[20:03] <@Imperialles> No, it is not retroactive.
[20:04] <@Imperialles> Search icons, who needs em?
[20:04] <+MasterJonathan> per Imp
[20:04] <@LordHydronium> Monobook users
[20:04] <+Mauser> I don't care about search icons, I never see them in Monaco
[20:04] <@Graestan> Whoever would like to make more, please do so.
[20:04] <+Tommy9281> If we don't need them, then get rid of it
[20:04] <@ChackJadson> update them I'd say
[20:04] <@LtNOWIS> I suppose some change would be good
[20:04] <+Jaymach> 90% of the users don't see the search icons anyway
[20:04] <@Riffsyphon1024> lots of new material to use in search icons, people might like some Clone Wars
[20:04] <@ChackJadson> I'm not making them though
[20:04] <+MasterJonathan> Kill.
[20:04] <@Darth_Culator> This seems like something that we could just set up a new Senate Hall page for. Not even a CT, necessarily.
[20:04] <@Imperialles> All this would take is an admin who actually gives a damn to go over the page once in a while. No one is interested in doing so.
[20:04] <@Graestan> Anyone want tomake them?
[20:04] <@LordHydronium> The only one we need is an Omas one when he's eventually pictured
[20:04] <@Riffsyphon1024> someone would up to it I'm sure
[20:04] <+Tommy9281> Otherwise, I say that project leads should update the thing
[20:04] <+Kilson> Yeah.
[20:04] <@GreenTentacle> Per Culator.
[20:04] <@AdmirableAckbar> If people want new ones, just make them.
[20:04] <+Kilson> Kill.
[20:04] <+Tommy9281> An admin isn't necessarily necessary
[20:04] <@Riffsyphon1024> Peter Finch as Omas
[20:04] <+IFYLOFD> I say no.
[20:04] <+Tyber> are they really necessary?
[20:04] <+CC7567> Killify.
[20:05] <+Kilson> I don't have search icons.
[20:05] <@Darth_Culator> Monobook will never die.
[20:05] <+IFYLOFD> Kill.
[20:05] <+Kilson> What's the point.
[20:05] <@Havac> They look nice.
[20:05] <+JangFett> Per Imp
[20:05] <+Tommy9281> Per Havac
[20:05] <@Darth_Culator> Not as long as Wikipedia uses it, so we might as well spiff it up to the extent possible.
[20:05] <@LtNOWIS> Per Culator
[20:05] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Havac.
[20:05] <+Tyber> they do
[20:05] <@GreenTentacle> They look nice.
[20:05] <@Riffsyphon1024> we should keep them going
[20:05] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Culator
[20:05] <@GreenTentacle> Monaco sucks balls.
[20:05] <@Darth_Culator> Also, we may one day be able to implement them in other skins.
[20:05] <+Kilson> If I can't enjoy it, no one shall!
[20:05] <@GreenTentacle> The list goes on.
[20:05] <+Kilson> Muwahahaha.
[20:05] <@Cylka> I don't really care either way.
[20:05] <+Tyber> Monobook won't die
[20:05] <@Graestan> We will keep them, and per Imp, any of us can make the changes.
[20:05] <+Jujiggum> per Cylka
[20:05] <+Jaymach> if someone could be bothered to look into it, Monaco could have them
[20:05] <@Graestan> Next topic:
[20:05] <@jSarek> Per Tommy. Put someone who gives a damn in charge, and let them worry about it.
[20:05] <+Tommy9281> I just wanted to see the thing updated. I'll just add what I want there.
[20:05] <@Darth_Culator> So we'll put together a forum for it, and start the submission process again.
[20:05] <+JangFett> It enhances that skin, but a lot of users use Monaco
[20:05] <+Jaymach> but I doubt you'll get someone
[20:05] <@Graestan> "I'm going to be putting together a list of proposed amendments to our voting eligibility policy. Main point: consensus and election voting eligibility should be a bit harder to achieve than QotD voting eligibility. MyWookieeSpace users shouldn't be allowed to vote for things that make us less of an encyclopedia. If we don't nip it in the bud, next thing you know we'll be Halopedia 2. --...
[20:05] <@Graestan> ...Darth Culator (Talk) 14:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (link)"
[20:06] <@Graestan> Moving on.
[20:06] <@Riffsyphon1024> any move to make Monobook the favored skin of Wookiee?
[20:06] <+IFYLOFD> I wholeheatedly support.
[20:06] <+IFYLOFD> *Wholeheartedly
[20:06] <+Tommy9281> I'd volunteer
[20:06] <+Kilson> Me too.
[20:06] <@Imperialles> Elaborate, please.
[20:06] <@Darth_Culator> Just two things, really.
[20:06] <+Kilson> It makes complete sense.
[20:06] <@jSarek> Riffs: We ain't allowed. :-(
[20:06] <@Graestan> Culator.
[20:06] <@LordHydronium> I guess this'll be a CT?
[20:06] <@Darth_Culator> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Darth_Culator/morffoffororfforenceesce#Voting_policy_proposals
[20:06] <+Jaymach> (jSarek): you are, actually :P
[20:06] <@GreenTentacle> Riffsyphon1024: Always has been. ;)
[20:06] <@Darth_Culator> We have the "excessive user edits" policy on WP:USER
[20:06] <@jSarek> Really? Huh.
[20:06] <@Riffsyphon1024> so who are we considering MyWookieeSpace users again?
[20:07] <+Kilson> GotD isn't really worth much, but GA and FA voting is.
[20:07] <+Kilson> Why should they be the same.
[20:07] <@AdmirableAckbar> FA doesn't matter.
[20:07] <@Riffsyphon1024> just to be clear
[20:07] <@Graestan> For the first item:
[20:07] <@ChackJadson> support Culator's idea
[20:07] <@Graestan> "Regardless of the overall total number of edits, a user's combined total of content namespace, Wookieepedia:, and MediaWiki: edits must be at least double the combined total of Forum:, User:, and User_talk: namespace edits in order to vote on any matters affecting the site or other users. This does not alter the minimum requirement of fifty non-reverted main namespace edits required to vote...
[20:07] <@Darth_Culator> This creates a quantifiable proportion for edits without a numeric requirement.
[20:07] <@Graestan> ...on anything. This does exclude "fun" votes such as Mister/Miss Star Wars and WP:QOTD. "
[20:07] <@Graestan> All in favor?
[20:07] <@Graestan> Aye.
[20:07] <+Mauser> support with wording on Culator's page
[20:07] <@ChackJadson> aye
[20:07] <@Imperialles> Aye.
[20:07] <+GrandMoffTranner> Aye
[20:07] <+MasterJonathan> Aye
[20:07] <+IFYLOFD> Aye.
[20:07] <@Darth_Culator> Support, obviously.
[20:07] <+JangFett> Aye
[20:07] <+CC7567> Aye aye.
[20:07] <+Jujiggum> aye
[20:07] <+Tyber> aye
[20:07] <@AdmirableAckbar> Aye
[20:07] <+Tommy9281> Yup.
[20:07] <+DarthTrayus> Aye
[20:07] <@Cylka> Support.
[20:07] <+IFYLOFD> Aye, cap'n.
[20:07] <@jSarek> Oppose.
[20:07] <+Kilson> 100 edits for GA and FA voting.
[20:07] <@Havac> not in favor.
[20:07] <+JMAS> Aye
[20:07] <@Riffsyphon1024> Ow my eyes
[20:07] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Aye
[20:07] <@Toprawa> Support
[20:07] <@Havac> It could catch productive users.
[20:07] <@Graestan> It passes.
[20:07] <+Tommy9281> Per Riff
[20:07] <@Riffsyphon1024> But Aye
[20:07] <@SillyDan> How many MyWookieeSpace users do we even have anymore? Userpage restrictions seem to have driven most of them away.
[20:07] <@Graestan> For the next:
[20:08] <@Graestan> "A blocked user's votes or comments do not count on any active discussion or vote of any type (except WP:QOTD at the discretion of an administrator) for the entire duration of the block. "
[20:08] <@Havac> For example, people editing on user subpages.
[20:08] <@Graestan> All in favor?
[20:08] <@Graestan> Stong aye.
[20:08] <@ChackJadson> Yes
[20:08] <+GrandMoffTranner> Aye
[20:08] <+Jujiggum> aye
[20:08] <@Darth_Culator> YES
[20:08] <+JangFett> Aye
[20:08] <@Riffsyphon1024> doesn't this seem to be going a little fast?
[20:08] <@SillyDan> And user talk edits which are warnings.
[20:08] <+Kilson> Aye.
[20:08] <+Tyber> strong support
[20:08] <@Grunny> Support
[20:08] <+MasterJonathan> Aye
[20:08] <@Imperialles> Yarr.
[20:08] <+Tommy9281> Support
[20:08] <+Mauser> Roger Roger
[20:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> Aye.
[20:08] <+CC7567> Aye.
[20:08] <@Graestan> Banned user: nonexistent user.
[20:08] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Aye.
[20:08] <+DarthTrayus> Aye.
[20:08] <@Cylka> support.
[20:08] <+Tommy9281> Though for consistency, that should include QOTD
[20:08] <+IFYLOFD> Aye.
[20:08] <@Riffsyphon1024> if he's blocked, he has no say right?
[20:08] <@Imperialles> Riff: welcome to Mofference 2.0 :p
[20:08] <@jSarek> How can you make their comments not apply?
[20:08] <+IFYLOFD> Weak aye, but aye.
[20:08] <+JangFett> Per Tommy
[20:08] <@Riffsyphon1024> Right, the old fart Wookiee here
[20:08] <@LtNOWIS> what if it's a short block?
[20:08] <@AdmirableAckbar> No, QotD doesn't matter.
[20:08] <@LtNOWIS> like 3 days?
[20:08] <@Darth_Culator> Making it retroactive for the kind of VOLUME on QotD is technically difficult.
[20:08] <@jSarek> If someone who later got blocked made a good comment, it's still a good comment.
[20:09] <@LordHydronium> per jS
[20:09] <+MasterJonathan> per jSarek
[20:09] <+Tommy9281> So what? Lets be consistent or be nothing at all
[20:09] <@ChackJadson> no
[20:09] <@ChackJadson> not per jSarek
[20:09] <@Havac> I don't see a need.
[20:09] <@SillyDan> Maybe only if the block is two weeks or more?
[20:09] <+IFYLOFD> Strike, per Sarek.
[20:09] <+Kilson> Per JS.
[20:09] <@Darth_Culator> Yes, but sometimes people format TCs weird.
[20:09] <@Graestan> per jS, but really only voting will be affected
[20:09] <+Tyber> the comment should be considered but the vote shouldn't be counted
[20:09] <@LtNOWIS> commenting has never been restricted, I don't think
[20:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> per Grae
[20:09] <+IFYLOFD> Set a minimum block length for this.
[20:09] <@Grunny> The comment can be valid but not the vote
[20:09] <@Cylka> Per Grae.
[20:09] <@Darth_Culator> Okey-dokey. Comment wording goes.
[20:09] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Grae.
[20:09] <+Jujiggum> oer Grae
[20:09] <@Graestan> So, it passes.
[20:09] <@Riffsyphon1024> I'm unsure on this one
[20:09] <+IFYLOFD> If it's over two weeks.
[20:09] <+Mauser> the comment counts, the vote does not
[20:09] <+Tyber> indeed
[20:09] <+Kilson> True enough.
[20:10] <@Graestan> Next up (Chack, if I am booted for an excess flood you get the Hammer :P ):
[20:10] <@Graestan> "Our current policy for administrative absences states that "if an administrator does not edit or use admin tools for four months or more, the following steps are to be taken outside of the RFRA process: 4 months' absence, attempts to communicate will be made, 5 months' absence, warning that removal will occur at 6 months, 6 months' absence, Bureaucrat will remove sysops." So basically, as...
[20:10] <@Graestan> ...long as an admin edits once every six months, they won't get their adminship removed. I'd like to change this policy to something like 50 mainspace edits in 6 months (I'd actually like it to be a lot higher, say, 250, but that's probably not realistic, much to my chagrin). If an admin doesn't meet that pathetically easy minimum requirement, they should lose their power. There's no point...
[20:10] <@Graestan> ...in having adminship if you're not going to use it, and believe me, we have admins that never use their power. As is, there are a couple of admins that I feel should not be admins, and I'd like to see them lose that status, but part of that is a separate issue which will hopefully be addressed in another agenda item. Anyway, I'd like to raise the minimum benchmark number of edits for...
[20:10] <@Graestan> ...admins to get their power. This, and removing power from a couple other admins, is something I feel very strongly about. I believe it would be in the Wook's best interest. In conclusion, we'll talk more about this at the meeting; I just wanted to get it off my chest. Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "
[20:10] <@ChackJadson> heh
[20:10] <@Riffsyphon1024> well if its a comment, that's not applying towards a change in policy (any addition or deletion of content)
[20:10] <@ChackJadson> my item
[20:10] <@Imperialles> Sounds reasonable to me.
[20:10] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[20:10] <+Kilson> I'm leaving this up to the Admin.s
[20:10] <@ChackJadson> I say raise the minimum bar
[20:10] <@Graestan> To be quite honest, I completely agree.
[20:10] <@ChackJadson> 250 is the best, IMO
[20:10] <@AdmirableAckbar> Yeah.
[20:10] <+GrandMoffTranner> Support.
[20:10] <@Graestan> No more absentee crap.
[20:10] <+Mauser> Support
[20:10] <+IFYLOFD> Aye, cap'n.
[20:10] <+CC7567> Support, please.
[20:10] <@Darth_Culator> Damn skippy.
[20:10] <+Jujiggum> support
[20:10] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:10] <+Tommy9281> Can't fault folks for having real lives.
[20:10] <+Tyber> support
[20:10] <@Grunny> I think 250 at least plus a use of sysop abilities
[20:10] <+DarthTrayus> Support. Strongly.
[20:10] <@jSarek> Per Tommy.
[20:10] <@Graestan> Anyone can make that minimal time.
[20:10] <+Tommy9281> But they should make there prior obligations known ahead of time
[20:10] <+MasterJonathan> per Grunny
[20:10] <@ChackJadson> wait, can I amend this?
[20:10] <@ChackJadson> Graestan
[20:10] <+Tyber> per Grae
[20:10] <@Riffsyphon1024> Yeah not really that difficult
[20:11] <@Graestan> Especially those who were elected to serve the wiki.
[20:11] <@AdmirableAckbar> Unless someone says they'll be away etc etc, right?
[20:11] <+Kilson> Per Grae
[20:11] <@Grunny> I think they should have to have used their rights to maintain them
[20:11] <+MasterJonathan> par Acky
[20:11] <+Tommy9281> My point
[20:11] <+MasterJonathan> per*
[20:11] <@ChackJadson> Graestan: can I amend it to be Grunny's policy?
[20:11] <@LordHydronium> We need an amendment that allows for scheduled vacations.
[20:11] <@LtNOWIS> yeah, we should be allowed to take leaves of absence and so forth
[20:11] <@Riffsyphon1024> they better be overseas fighting, we might allow that
[20:11] <@LordHydronium> Otherwise, against
[20:11] <@Graestan> per Hydro
[20:11] <@ChackJadson> we have one, Hydro
[20:11] <+Jaymach> will this policy affect BCs as well as Admins?
[20:11] <@LordHydronium> Oh, is there?
[20:11] <@Imperialles> Yes, Jay.
[20:11] <@Darth_Culator> Add "with the exception of users who clearly state prior obligations preventing editing."
[20:11] <+Tyber> per hydro
[20:11] <@Grunny> Yeah, if they say they are going to be away that's fine
[20:11] <@Graestan> yeah, the regular vacation one
[20:11] <@Imperialles> But not me.
[20:11] * @Imperialles cackles
[20:11] <+Tommy9281> Thanks Culator
[20:11] <@Riffsyphon1024> unless they can edit from said place of conflict
[20:11] <@Darth_Culator> Or something.
[20:12] <@Imperialles> Per Culator.
[20:12] <+MasterJonathan> 250 + use of admin powers w/ exception for stated absence
[20:12] <+JMAS> Per Culator
[20:12] <@SillyDan> I think 250 is too much, but 50 would be fine.
[20:12] <+IFYLOFD> If they're fighting commies, it's alright with me.
[20:12] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[20:12] <+Tommy9281> Per Dan
[20:12] <@LordHydronium> Hm. Can we change 50 mainspace edits to 50 productive edits?
[20:12] <@Riffsyphon1024> either way most people that try to get in an edit or two here shouldn't be criticized for not giving enough love to the wiki, should they?
[20:12] <@GreenTentacle> 50 is fine.
[20:12] <+Tommy9281> 250 seems like a bit much
[20:12] <+JangFett> Per Dan
[20:12] <@Graestan> per Hydro
[20:12] <@LordHydronium> Because I'll often do work on a subpage
[20:12] <@Havac> 250 is too many.
[20:12] <@GreenTentacle> In fact, per Hydro.
[20:12] <@SillyDan> Right, LH, productive.
[20:12] <@LtNOWIS> edit count is an imperfect measure of actual editing
[20:12] <@Riffsyphon1024> Real World is a big factor nowadays
[20:12] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Hydro.
[20:12] <@Graestan> 50 /productive/ edits
[20:12] <+Tyber> yeah, 50 is sufficient
[20:12] <@AdmirableAckbar> per Hydro
[20:12] <+Kilson> 100.
[20:12] <@Havac> Per Hydro.
[20:12] <@ChackJadson> 150, then?
[20:12] <@jSarek> Per SillyDan and Hydro.
[20:12] <@ChackJadson> no, not as low as 50
[20:12] <@Grunny> 50 is way too low
[20:12] <+IFYLOFD> 150 is good.
[20:12] <@LtNOWIS> 50 is low
[20:12] <+Tyber> ok, then 100
[20:12] <@AdmirableAckbar> if someone's abusing it then they can be called out on it
[20:12] <+Tommy9281> Nah, 50 is fine
[20:12] <+DarthTrayus> 100 sounds good.
[20:12] <@ChackJadson> strong oppose on my part to 50
[20:12] <@Riffsyphon1024> you can make 5000 crappy edits but 10 real good ones
[20:12] <+Tommy9281> Per Ackbar
[20:13] <+Kilson> 100.
[20:13] <@Graestan> you'd be surprised how few we've seen from some, Chack
[20:13] <@GreenTentacle> 50 is fine.
[20:13] <@ChackJadson> 150, 100 minimum
[20:13] <+JangFett> 50 sounds reasonable
[20:13] <@Havac> 50 is fine.
[20:13] <@Grunny> How about 50 mainspace
[20:13] <+Kilson> Those 5000 crappy edits would be mine. :P
[20:13] <@Graestan> I am for 50
[20:13] <+DarthTrayus> 150 is too high
[20:13] <@Imperialles> How do we define "productive"?
[20:13] <@ChackJadson> am I gonna lose this?
[20:13] <@Havac> Some people make few, but large edits.
[20:13] <+Tommy9281> 50
[20:13] <@Riffsyphon1024> 50 mainspace
[20:13] <+GrandMoffTranner> I'm for 50.
[20:13] <+Jujiggum> 50 mainspace
[20:13] <@ChackJadson> :|
[20:13] <@Grunny> Plus 150 total
[20:13] <+Kilson> I still say 100.
[20:13] <@ChackJadson> wtf is going on?
[20:13] <+Tommy9281> Flat 50
[20:13] <+Tyber> Imp: non-spam
[20:13] <+DarthTrayus> 50's good.
[20:13] <+Jaymach> 50 edits in how long a period of time?
[20:13] <@Grunny> So 150 total, 50 of which must be mainspace
[20:13] <@Cylka> I would be happier with 100 mainspace
[20:13] <@Havac> Chack, if it's still a problem, we can come back to it later and raise it.
[20:13] <+Tommy9281> Stop trying to force folks to do stuff when they have other things going on
[20:13] <+IFYLOFD> Chack: Democracy. :P
[20:13] <+Jujiggum> per Grun
[20:13] <@LtNOWIS> Per Hydro
[20:13] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Grunny.
[20:13] <@AdmirableAckbar> Imp: contributing to a mainspace page or mediawiki page or user workbench, stuff of that ilk
[20:13] <@jSarek> Per Havac. I did a featured article nom all in one edit.
[20:13] <@Grunny> But 50 is way too easy over that length of time
[20:13] <@ChackJadson> Grunny's idea is food
[20:13] <@LtNOWIS> er, Havac
[20:14] <@ChackJadson> strong support that
[20:14] <@SillyDan> Maybe we should CT the number?
[20:14] <+Jaymach> 50 in the 4 month period, 6 month period, or 12 month period?
[20:14] <@Cylka> You only need 50 mainspace to vote on the Wook.
[20:14] <+MasterJonathan> per Dan
[20:14] <+Tommy9281> Which is why if fifty can't be met, there is a problem
[20:14] <+Jujiggum> per Dan
[20:14] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Dan.
[20:14] <+Tommy9281> Meh
[20:14] <@Riffsyphon1024> if they dont meet the 50, does that ban them from voting, thus creating more difficulty in editing?
[20:14] <+Tommy9281> We're here now, lets solve it now
[20:14] <@Grunny> That's the point if they can't meet 50 they shouldn't be an admin
[20:14] <@Graestan> per TOmmy
[20:14] <@Graestan> per Tommy entirely
[20:14] <+Tommy9281> Folks have real lives
[20:14] <@ChackJadson> no Riff
[20:14] <@Graestan> let's vote on number right now
[20:14] <@Grunny> If you accept the responsibility you should be around enough
[20:14] <+Tommy9281> IF they can't make 50, there must be a reason
[20:14] <@ChackJadson> they already have 50
[20:14] <+Tyber> i say 100
[20:15] <+Kilson> Per Tyber.
[20:15] <+JangFett> 150
[20:15] <@Riffsyphon1024> understood, I support the min of 50
[20:15] <@ChackJadson> fine, are we voting now?
[20:15] <@Grunny> Okay, how about this for the vote
[20:15] <@Graestan> yes
[20:15] <@Cylka> 50 is needed to vote, an admin should have a higher minimum.
[20:15] <@Riffsyphon1024> below that is pathetic
[20:15] <@Havac> CT the numbers.
[20:15] <+MasterJonathan> 50 mainspace, 100 productive
[20:15] <+Tommy9281> Per Ackbar's earlier statement.
[20:15] <@Havac> Let's move on.
[20:15] <@ChackJadson> 150
[20:15] <@AdmirableAckbar> Tommy: if they state the reason, it doesn't apply to them anyway though.
[20:15] <+IFYLOFD> Per Grun. 150, 50 mainspace.
[20:15] <+Tommy9281> Cool
[20:15] <+Jaymach> 1 million edits!
[20:15] <+Tommy9281> 50
[20:15] <@Graestan> we're voting on the number, type it in
[20:15] <@Grunny> 150 total edits, 50 of which must be mainspace
[20:15] <@GreenTentacle> Yes!
[20:15] <@jSarek> 50
[20:15] <+Jujiggum> per Grun
[20:15] <@GreenTentacle> Per Jaymach! :P
[20:15] <@LordHydronium> 50 total productive
[20:15] <+Tommy9281> 50 flat edits
[20:15] <@Havac> CT THE NUMBERS.
[20:15] <@AdmirableAckbar> *not even the reason itself, just that there is one
[20:15] <@Graestan> per Grunny
[20:15] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Grunny.
[20:15] <+Tommy9281> No total this or that, just 50
[20:15] <+IFYLOFD> 1 Bajillion?
[20:15] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Grunny.
[20:15] <@Havac> We're not getting anywhere all shouting numbers at each other.
[20:15] <@ChackJadson> ARE WE GONNA CT THIS OR DECIDE IT NOW?
[20:15] <+Kilson> That's not a number.
[20:15] <@ChackJadson> Per Hav
[20:15] <+IFYLOFD> Decide now.
[20:15] <+Tommy9281> Decide now.
[20:15] <@Graestan> vote now
[20:15] <@GreenTentacle> CT.
[20:15] <+DarthTrayus> Now.
[20:15] <@Riffsyphon1024> yeah lets just make it a googolplex....
[20:16] <@Cylka> Per Hav. CT the numbers.
[20:16] <@LordHydronium> Let's vote on whether to vote
[20:16] <@jSarek> Actually, per Havac. CT the number.
[20:16] <@LordHydronium> CT.
[20:16] <+Tyber> decide now
[20:16] <@AdmirableAckbar> CT.
[20:16] <+Tommy9281> Heavens.
[20:16] <@Imperialles> Set it to 50 now, if there is a need to increase we can CT later.
[20:16] <@Imperialles> Jesus.
[20:16] <+MasterJonathan> per Imp[
[20:16] <@Graestan> per Imp
[20:16] <@Riffsyphon1024> ok CT it
[20:16] <+Tommy9281> Per Imp
[20:16] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Imp.
[20:16] <+DarthTrayus> Per imp.
[20:16] <+CC7567> Per Imp.
[20:16] <@Darth_Culator> Per Imp.
[20:16] <+Jujiggum> per Imp
[20:16] <@ChackJadson> wait, vote on the CT first :P
[20:16] <@ChackJadson> if we want to CT it or now
[20:16] <+Tyber> per imp
[20:16] <@Graestan> All in favor of 50 now?
[20:16] <@Havac> Per Imp.
[20:16] <@GreenTentacle> Per Imp.
[20:16] <@LordHydronium> Imp has a good idea.
[20:16] <+Mauser> Per Imp
[20:16] <@ChackJadson> wtf?
[20:16] <+Kilson> I still say 100 mainspace.
[20:16] <+IFYLOFD> Per Imp.
[20:16] <@ChackJadson> lag
[20:16] <+JMAS> Per Imp
[20:16] <@Cylka> Support the measure, CT the numbers.
[20:16] <+Tommy9281> 50
[20:16] <@Graestan> Alright, it *passes at 50*
[20:16] <+Kilson> 200 overall.
[20:16] <@Riffsyphon1024> 50 for now, CT it
[20:16] <@SillyDan> Per Imp, follow with CT.
[20:16] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:16] <@Graestan> "Wikia keeps adding "features" nobody wants, which often break things and regularly violate existing policies just by existing. I think we need a blanket rule we can point to that says that new "features" must be turned off by default until approved by proper consensus procedures. Administrators would then link to this policy every time Wikia introduces a new "feature" and no further...
[20:16] <+Tommy9281> Thank you.
[20:16] <@Graestan> ...justification to disable it will be required. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (link)"
[20:16] <@ChackJadson> Support
[20:16] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[20:16] <@Toprawa> Support
[20:16] <+Tyber> strong support
[20:16] <@Darth_Culator> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Darth_Culator/morffoffororfforenceesce#Wikia_.22feature.22_policy
[20:16] <+GrandMoffTranner> Support.
[20:16] <+Jujiggum> Support
[20:16] <+Tommy9281> Support
[20:16] <+CC7567> Support.
[20:16] <+IFYLOFD> !wikia
[20:16] <@Nuku-Nuku> Whatever it is, it's Wikia's fault.
[20:16] <+Kilson> Support.
[20:16] <@Graestan> Support.
[20:16] <+DarthTrayus> support.
[20:16] <+Mauser> No Blogs!
[20:16] <+JangFett> Strong support
[20:16] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:16] <@AdmirableAckbar> Strong support
[20:16] <+Kilson> Although I'm not certain what it means.
[20:16] <@SillyDan> Support, and I hope Wikia comes up with a useful addition one day.
[20:16] <+JangFett> Per mauser
[20:16] <@GreenTentacle> !wikiakov
[20:17] <@Imperialles> Wait a minute. How do we know that Wikia would allow this?
[20:17] <+Jaymach> you mean you didn't want the blogs? :P
[20:17] <+Kilson> I'm not good at this tech stuff.
[20:17] <@Riffsyphon1024> let someone stick their toe into the water to try it out, but generally to prevent conflicts, turn them off
[20:17] <@jSarek> Support, but I'd like to see it CT'd so we can point to a bunch of real signatures whenever they do this.
[20:17] <+MasterJonathan> Strong Support
[20:17] <@Graestan> It passes.
[20:17] <+IFYLOFD> So we don't have another Infolinks fiasco.
[20:17] <@Darth_Culator> I don't CARE if Wikia allows it.
[20:17] <@Havac> Support.
[20:17] <+Mauser> Jaymach: No!
[20:17] <@Cylka> Support.
[20:17] <@Graestan> "IMO, succession boxes are extremely redundant when an corresponding box that lists dates—such as {{RogueLeader}} or {{GACOS}}—is used on the same article, so I'd like to discuss eliminating succession boxes in this situation. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "
[20:17] <@LtNOWIS> Support
[20:17] <@LordHydronium> I thought we already did that
[20:17] <+Mauser> Snowball
[20:17] <@Havac> Opposed.
[20:17] <@Riffsyphon1024> support with hesistancy to look into the benefits of each feature
[20:17] <@LordHydronium> I'm sure we did it with Chancellors
[20:17] <+IFYLOFD> Oppose.
[20:17] <+Tyber> yeah, get rid of it
[20:17] <+Tyber> support
[20:17] <@AdmirableAckbar> Opposed.
[20:17] <@Graestan> Jonathan, to that my answer is this: You have to source succession boxes, not the other templates.
[20:17] <@GreenTentacle> Oppose.
[20:17] <@Imperialles> Those templates are butt ugly.
[20:17] <@Graestan> I say keep
[20:17] <@LordHydronium> Support
[20:17] <@Havac> Boxes are boxes; templates are something else.
[20:17] <@Graestan> The templates are extraneous
[20:17] <@Riffsyphon1024> that vote was for before
[20:17] <+Tommy9281> Per Imp
[20:17] <@AdmirableAckbar> Per Havac.
[20:18] <@Graestan> Keep.
[20:18] <+Kilson> I hate templates.
[20:18] <+Mauser> I think successions currently look crappy anyway
[20:18] <@AdmirableAckbar> I'd rather lose the boxes than templates.
[20:18] <+GrandMoffTranner> Keep.
[20:18] <+Kilson> They repeat the same thing over and over.
[20:18] <+Tyber> per mauser
[20:18] <+JangFett> Per Acky
[20:18] <@LordHydronium> The problem comes when you have a bunch of disconnected items in a series
[20:18] <+MasterJonathan> Per Mauser
[20:18] <+JMAS> Per Imp
[20:18] <@LordHydronium> Like Chancellors
[20:18] <@Graestan> perHydro
[20:18] <+Tommy9281> Per Ackbar
[20:18] <@ChackJadson> oppose removing any
[20:18] <@LordHydronium> Succession boxes are near-useless there
[20:18] <@LordHydronium> It's all "eventually"
[20:18] <+Jaymach> why not just remove the ones that are covered by other templates and keep the ones that aren't?
[20:18] <+MasterJonathan> and per Hydro
[20:18] <@jSarek> Per Hydro.
[20:18] <@Riffsyphon1024> I favor keeping succession boxes
[20:18] <+Kilson> Why don't we put the templates on the talk page.
[20:18] <+Tyber> just arrange everything chronological
[20:18] <@Imperialles> Hydro has a point, we should perhaps look into eliminating them entirely.
[20:18] <@Graestan> are there even rules requiring succession boxes at all?
[20:18] <@ChackJadson> Kilson: Nooo
[20:18] <@LtNOWIS> I support sucession boxes
[20:18] <@Riffsyphon1024> Kilson: they're part of the article
[20:18] <@LordHydronium> Grae: It's in the MOS
[20:19] <@LordHydronium> Or LG
[20:19] <@Graestan> oi
[20:19] <@LordHydronium> Whichever that is
[20:19] <+Tyber> per Hydro
[20:19] <@Imperialles> They are not really meant for our format. Just an artifact from Wikipedia.
[20:19] <@jSarek> Imp: I'd be in favor of that. Always had a distaste for the things.
[20:19] <@LtNOWIS> For things like New Republic era leaders, they are nice.
[20:19] <@Toprawa> Kill all succession boxes. Period.
[20:19] <@LordHydronium> For things with a specific series, they're good
[20:19] <@Havac> I don't see any reason to eliminate succession boxes. The templates don't /need/ years; they're about collecting names in a bunch.
[20:19] <@LordHydronium> And we should have them, not templates, in those instances
[20:19] <+JangFett> Per Hydro
[20:19] <+Mauser> Kill or converge then into templates
[20:19] <@Riffsyphon1024> Imp: so we're trying to get away from Wikipedia as much as possible?
[20:19] <@Havac> The succession boxes are about presenting years.
[20:19] <@AdmirableAckbar> I support generally not using succession boxes when they're totally useless, as in the case Hydro mentioned with the "eventually"s
[20:19] <+IFYLOFD> Per Havac.
[20:19] <+MasterJonathan> I would support killing them entirely
[20:19] <@ChackJadson> eh, Acky has a point
[20:19] <@Havac> Sticking years in templates does not make them replace succession boxes.
[20:19] <@Graestan> this is too jumbled
[20:19] <@AdmirableAckbar> killing them entirely isn't the topic though
[20:19] <@Graestan> I believe a CT would be best
[20:19] <@Havac> It's the templates that shouldn't try to replicate succession boxes.
[20:19] <@Riffsyphon1024> I say we CT it
[20:19] <@Imperialles> I propose we create a standard, good-looking box akin to those linked in the original proposal. Standardize width, etc, make it look good and consistent.
[20:19] <+MasterJonathan> per Grae
[20:20] <@Graestan> too many points to make
[20:20] <+Tommy9281> Per Grae just now
[20:20] <+Tyber> per Imp
[20:20] <+IFYLOFD> Bah, CT it.
[20:20] <+DarthTrayus> Successions are just too messy more often then not.
[20:20] <@jSarek> Yeah, CT it.
[20:20] <+Jaymach> (Imperialles): good luck doing that when nobody can decide on what look to go for :P
[20:20] <+GrandMoffTranner> CT it.
[20:20] <@Cylka> Per Grae.
[20:20] <@Riffsyphon1024> its too controversial to finish it here
[20:20] <+JangFett> CT
[20:20] <+Mauser> take it to CT
[20:20] <+Jujiggum> CT
[20:20] <@Grunny> CT
[20:20] <@ChackJadson> CT
[20:20] <+JMAS> CT
[20:20] <+DarthTrayus> CT.
[20:20] <+Pranay_Sobusk> CT
[20:20] <@Graestan> GT?
[20:20] <+MasterJonathan> CT
[20:20] <+Tyber> go ahead, CT it
[20:20] <@Riffsyphon1024> snowball CT
[20:20] <@Imperialles> Too controversial? What the hell? :p
[20:20] <@LtNOWIS> yeah, I got long arguments and stuff
[20:20] <@Darth_Culator> Too many variables.
[20:20] <@Imperialles> But sure, CT.
[20:20] <@LtNOWIS> I have*
[20:20] <+DarthTrayus> Well that was productive.
[20:20] * Fiolli (n=Fiolli@wikia/Jedimasterfiolli) has joined #wookieepedia
[20:20] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +v Fiolli
[20:20] <@GreenTentacle> What?
[20:20] <+IFYLOFD> Conway Twitty it.
[20:20] <@jSarek> Greetigns Fiolli.
[20:20] <@Riffsyphon1024> welcome Fiolli
[20:20] <@ChackJadson> Fiolli
[20:20] <+Tyber> Fiolli
[20:20] <+IFYLOFD> Fiollf.
[20:20] <+Fiolli> Greetings.
[20:20] <@Grunny> Hey Fiolli
[20:21] <+Jujiggum> Fiolli
[20:21] * @Graestan glares
[20:21] <@ChackJadson> haven't missed your item
[20:21] <@Cylka> Hey Fiolli.
[20:21] <+Kilson> I think we might break 50.
[20:21] <+Fiolli> Floyj
[20:21] <@AdmirableAckbar> Once we don't CT every bloody thing.
[20:21] <@ChackJadson> Kilson: i hope not
[20:21] <@Graestan> Alright, we will *CT that item for now*
[20:21] <@Havac> Hey, a person's here. Let's get on with the Mofference.
[20:21] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:21] <+Fiolli> !topic
[20:21] <@Graestan> ""# WP:I currently requires that speech bubbles be blanked if they are cut off and that the text inside be left as is if the bubble is intact. An issue came up on GAN in which one bubble in each of two pictures had to be blanked while other bubbles in each image retained the text, and both CC7567 and I agree that this is "unsightly". I'd like to propose requiring all bubbles in one image to...
[20:21] <@Nuku-Nuku> Fiolli: *hiss*
[20:21] <@Graestan> ...be the same—i.e. if one bubble is cut off, all bubbles should be blanked. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[20:21] <@Graestan> * Minor addendum to this item: It would also be good to reword that point as "if any text in the bubble is cut off, all text in the bubble should be removed." The bubble itself isn't really the issue, and if some people are going to enforce it in such a way as to require silly things like this then it needs to be fixed ASAP. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC) ""
[20:21] <@LordHydronium> Death to speech bubble blanking
[20:21] <+Tyber> i say blank ALL bubbles
[20:21] <@Riffsyphon1024> if cut off, no text
[20:21] <+Kilson> I agree completely.
[20:21] <@Imperialles> Who are "some people"? :p
[20:21] <@LordHydronium> No on Jonathan's, yes on Culator's
[20:21] <@GreenTentacle> Always blank.
[20:21] <+IFYLOFD> Per Hydro.
[20:21] <@ChackJadson> per Hydro
[20:21] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support consistency in each image.
[20:21] <+DarthTrayus> blank all
[20:21] <+Jaymach> I say it doesn't matter if you blank bubbles or not
[20:21] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Hydro.
[20:21] <+CC7567> Per Hydro.
[20:21] <@Darth_Culator> Yes on both.
[20:21] <@Graestan> per Hydro
[20:21] <+Tommy9281> Per Ackbar
[20:21] <+Kilson> It doesn't look for the article.
[20:21] <@GreenTentacle> Or never blank.
[20:21] <+JangFett> Per Hydro. Why clear out the bubbles
[20:22] <@GreenTentacle> Just don't mix it.
[20:22] <+IFYLOFD> Why the hell do we need to blank speech bubbles anyway?
[20:22] <+Mauser> sometimes you need text in bubbles
[20:22] <@Havac> I don't think you need to be completely consistent.
[20:22] <+Jaymach> blanking them is technically a breach of fair use seeing as you're modifying the source image, so you shouldn't require people to break the law to contribute images
[20:22] <@Riffsyphon1024> fair use issue I think
[20:22] <+Tyber> Mauser: do we?
[20:22] <+Kilson> Why do you need the text.
[20:22] <+Tommy9281> Hmm
[20:22] <+Kilson> The article explains it for you.
[20:22] <@LordHydronium> Kilson: Because it looks [Redacted by administration] otherwise
[20:22] <+DarthTrayus> Im for one or the other 100% of the time.
[20:22] <@jSarek> Per Jaymach.
[20:22] <@ChackJadson> Jaymach: :|
[20:22] <@Graestan> the old argument was that the shrunken text looks dodgy in thumbs
[20:22] <@Havac> If you can have an intact bubble, and one cropped bubble where you blanked an H, what's the harm?
[20:22] <@Riffsyphon1024> we're only using the pictures, not copying the whole comic
[20:22] <+Jaymach> (ChackJadson): not a joke
[20:22] <@LordHydronium> Big empty ugly-ass spaces in the middle of the thing
[20:22] <+DarthTrayus> No "ifs"
[20:22] <+CC7567> If no bubbles are cut off, then it can be decided, but if text is cut off, then you blank.
[20:22] <@Graestan> I see no point in pbeing overly picky
[20:22] <@ChackJadson> oh
[20:22] <+Mauser> per Jaymach
[20:22] <+Kilson> Having the text there makes it look [Redacted by administration].
[20:22] <+Mauser> let the uploader decide
[20:22] <@Riffsyphon1024> it would be nice if someone could photoshop out the bubbles
[20:22] <+Kilson> It makes the article look like a comic.
[20:22] <+MasterJonathan> Blank all if any text is cut off.
[20:22] <+Kilson> Not like an article.
[20:22] <@ChackJadson> wait, should we discuss Jaymach's thought then?
[20:23] <@Riffsyphon1024> that's because they came from a comic
[20:23] <+Tyber> Riff: that's not always possible
[20:23] <+JangFett> I like seeing the words instead of seeing ugly white blank bubbles
[20:23] <@jSarek> Riffs: And make up background? That's fanon imagery.
[20:23] <@Imperialles> Would be nice to get source material without bubbles, but hey.
[20:23] <@LordHydronium> Having text out of there makes it look like a comic someone used MSPaint on
[20:23] <@Riffsyphon1024> that is true
[20:23] <@Havac> I don't support blanking all.
[20:23] <@Cylka> Riff: It takes a lot of time to do.
[20:23] <@LtNOWIS> The words are part of the canonical reality
[20:23] <+Fiolli> Ii agree with Havac.
[20:23] <+Jaymach> meh, we breach fair use completely already :P I just don't think you should enforce a rule -making- people break it
[20:23] <+Kilson> Sometimes, the text is the same as a quote.
[20:23] <@Riffsyphon1024> then if we're editing the bubble, isn't that technically fanon too?
[20:23] <+Kilson> That just looks stupid.
[20:23] <@Havac> There are some that look fine with one partial bubble blanked and other bubbles intact.
[20:23] <@LordHydronium> Per Hav
[20:23] <@Havac> If it doesn't look good, then take it up individually.
[20:23] <+Fiolli> I agree with Havac, here.
[20:23] <@Graestan> SO, what are we doing? So far consensus is no to Jonathan's, yes to Culator's.
[20:23] <+Tyber> it's possible for backgrounds in one color but not with complex structures
[20:23] <@LtNOWIS> If you made speach bubbles on a picture of Churchill, it would be no less representative of reality
[20:23] <@Grunny> I think if one's blanked they all should be
[20:23] <@Riffsyphon1024> I say we blank em, all of em
[20:23] <+JangFett> I'd say don't modify the sourced image and leave the text in the bubble
[20:23] <@Grunny> It looks ugly otherwise
[20:24] <+Mauser> no rule needed - let the uploader decide
[20:24] <@Grunny> Consistent one way or the other
[20:24] <@Darth_Culator> I rather like Mauser's idea.
[20:24] <@Riffsyphon1024> it will still be overridden anyway
[20:24] <@Grunny> Same
[20:24] <@Cylka> Personally I like blanking all, but we probably shouldn't.
[20:24] <+GrandMoffTranner> Per Cylka.
[20:24] <@jSarek> My rule of thumb would be only blank when the text of a bubble is no longer legible, but that's just me.
[20:24] <+Tyber> per cylka
[20:24] <+Kilson> I think blanking all look better.
[20:24] <@Grunny> I don't think it should be up to the individual
[20:24] <+MasterJonathan> per Kilson
[20:24] <+Tyber> per kilson
[20:24] <@Grunny> Per Mauser
[20:24] <+DarthTrayus> Per Kilson.
[20:24] <@Cylka> Per Grunny.
[20:24] <@Riffsyphon1024> but then what if the bubble includes speech that is relevant to that frame?
[20:24] <+Kilson> Blanking partially look unprofesional.
[20:24] <+Fiolli> It might "look" better, but we cannot force people to break the law too contribute.
[20:24] * +Jedimca0 (n=chatzill@unaffiliated/jedimca0) Quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.0.12/2009070611]")
[20:24] <@Nuku-Nuku> Wikia staff they changed the channel is open the QDB search.
[20:24] <+IFYLOFD> Don't blank bubbles.
[20:24] <@LordHydronium> Too many "pers", I have no idea who's voting for what
[20:25] <@ChackJadson> Per Nuku
[20:25] <@Havac> Blanking partially only sometimes looks bad.
[20:25] <@Darth_Culator> ...the hell?
[20:25] <+Kilson> OK, vote now.
[20:25] <@Riffsyphon1024> support to blank all
[20:25] <@Havac> Lots of times it looks fine.
[20:25] <+Kilson> Who wants partial.
[20:25] <@ChackJadson> wait, who triggered Nuku?
[20:25] <@Imperialles> Oppose leaving it up to the uploaders. Uploaders are idiots.
[20:25] <+JangFett> I'd like keeping the text in the bubbles. Blanking will just void the image and violate the source.
[20:25] <+MasterJonathan> blank all
[20:25] <+Tommy9281> Per Hydro lol
[20:25] <@Grunny> I think leaving it up to the uploader may be messy
[20:25] <+Kilson> Yeah, I'm one of them.
[20:25] <@Riffsyphon1024> be consistent
[20:25] <+IFYLOFD> Per Imp.
[20:25] <@Cylka> Oppose leaving it to individuals.
[20:25] <+MasterJonathan> don't leave it to the uploader
[20:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> This is going nowhere.
[20:25] <+Kilson> Per Riff.
[20:25] <+JangFett> Per Imp
[20:25] <@GreenTentacle> ChackJadson: Me, about 10 minutes ago. :P
[20:25] <+Tommy9281> Per Ackbar
[20:25] <@Graestan> per Acky 9_9
[20:25] <+Tyber> Riff: i don't know where this would be necessary
[20:25] <+Kilson> We need to be consistant.
[20:25] <@ChackJadson> ah
[20:25] <@Grunny> I say if they are all intact leave them that way, if one speech bubble is blank them all
[20:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> hate to say it, let's just bloody CT this
[20:25] <+IFYLOFD> This is chaotic. Just CT it.
[20:26] <@Riffsyphon1024> another one
[20:26] <@Graestan> I am calling this a *no decision; CT if you really care that much*
[20:26] <@Havac> Yeah.
[20:26] <@jSarek> CT.
[20:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> there's like five issues being mashed into one
[20:26] <+GrandMoffTranner> CT it.
[20:26] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:26] <+CC7567> Just CT already.
[20:26] <@Darth_Culator> Gah!
[20:26] <@Cylka> We can'y break fair use laws.
[20:26] <@Graestan> "Contacting LucasFilm regarding a possible Featured picture feature on our Main Page. With their blessing, this could be a huge help in drawing readers to our articles. --Imperialles 12:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "
[20:26] <@Riffsyphon1024> I now realize why we don't have that many Mofferences nowadays
[20:26] <+Kilson> I like this.
[20:26] <@LordHydronium> Cylka: Sure we can. We do every day. :|
[20:26] <@Graestan> Riff, stay on topic
[20:26] <+Kilson> Just like Wikipedia.
[20:26] <+IFYLOFD> Good idea.
[20:26] <@Riffsyphon1024> yes to Featured Picture
[20:26] <@Havac> No.
[20:26] <@Riffsyphon1024> pardon Grae
[20:26] <+Kilson> But the problems is.
[20:26] <+Tommy9281> I like the idea.
[20:26] <@Darth_Culator> Whoo, that's a toughie there Imp. If they say yes, it would be neat.
[20:26] <+Mauser> Strong oppose. We're not wikipedia
[20:26] <+Fiolli> Agree. No.
[20:26] <@Havac> Don't bother LFL and draw attention.
[20:26] <@jSarek> No on featured images.
[20:26] <+Kilson> Text or no text.
[20:26] <@Graestan> I say no for featured picture.
[20:26] <@LordHydronium> I just want to mention I proposed this years ago, and it was dismissed for being copyvio :P
[20:26] <+MasterJonathan> per Havac
[20:26] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support contacting them about it at least.
[20:26] <+GrandMoffTranner> No to featured images.
[20:26] <+Fiolli> I agree with Havac, here.
[20:26] <@LordHydronium> But asking LFL avoids that
[20:26] <@LtNOWIS> We're article-based
[20:26] <@ChackJadson> oppose this
[20:26] <+DarthTrayus> Yes.
[20:26] <+CC7567> Oppose.
[20:26] <+Jujiggum> Per Acky
[20:27] <@Darth_Culator> But I'm opposed to drawing any attention.
[20:27] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Acky.
[20:27] <@Imperialles> Yeah, I just want us to ask.
[20:27] <+Tyber> per Grae, oppose
[20:27] <@AdmirableAckbar> May as well do that.
[20:27] <@jSarek> Oppose even contacting them.
[20:27] <+Kilson> Who's going to contact them?
[20:27] <@LtNOWIS> I don't think we need more main-page crap
[20:27] <+IFYLOFD> I like the idea, but I would stay away from LFL.
[20:27] <+IFYLOFD> So no for now.
[20:27] <@Havac> We don't need to pester LFL drawing attention to fair use.
[20:27] <+Fiolli> We are NOT Wikipedia.
[20:27] <@LordHydronium> Yeah, we got a lot of stuff on the main page already
[20:27] <+Tommy9281> What do we have to hide that no one wants to draw attention?
[20:27] <@Cylka> Per Hav.
[20:27] <+JangFett> Per Fiolli
[20:27] <+Kilson> We're a wiki.
[20:27] <@LordHydronium> I don't think we need this
[20:27] <@ChackJadson> strong per Havac
[20:27] <@Graestan> LFL will not answer
[20:27] <+Mauser> Images for sake of images? Meh
[20:27] <@jSarek> Our pictures, by policy, are not supposed to have creativity in them, unlike Wikipedia's pics.
[20:27] <@ChackJadson> if you want a featured pic do it
[20:27] <@SillyDan> Oppose
[20:27] <@Imperialles> I don't see how asking them for permission would hurt.
[20:27] <+Kilson> Probably the best Wiki.
[20:27] <@ChackJadson> but don't contact them
[20:27] <+Tommy9281> Nevermind
[20:27] <+Kilson> Why not take a few ideas from Wikipedia.
[20:27] <+Tommy9281> lordhavemercy
[20:27] <+Kilson> The orginal wiki.
[20:27] <+IFYLOFD> And WP:NOT.
[20:27] <+MasterJonathan> Oppose.
[20:27] <+IFYLOFD> Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia.
[20:27] <+Tommy9281> I think we all know that
[20:27] <+Tyber> yes, since all images are under copyright laws there is no need in featuring them
[20:27] <@ChackJadson> what is the point of said Featured pic, Imp, no offense?
[20:28] <+IFYLOFD> Main Page is cluttered already.
[20:28] <+JMAS> Don't even contact LFL
[20:28] <+Kilson> We have it a the bottom.
[20:28] <@Riffsyphon1024> well if copyvio
[20:28] <@Havac> Main Page has plenty going on.
[20:28] <+JangFett> Per JMAS and Floyd
[20:28] <+DarthTrayus> Eh... I don't see there being a point to it.
[20:28] <@Imperialles> Drawing readers in to our articles. Images are a nice visual element on the most viewed page to do so.
[20:28] <@Graestan> Alright, consensus is *not to contact LFL about a featured picture*
[20:28] <@Havac> We don't need "Here's a cool TFU image!" stuck on.
[20:28] <+Tommy9281> I don't understand this fear of LFL
[20:28] <@LordHydronium> Kilson: The difference with Wikipedia is that it uses free or public domain pictures
[20:28] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:28] <@Graestan> "Dissemination of personal information: I would like to revise current policy, without retroactive repercussions, to regard the publication of other Wookieepedians' personal information (anything about the user as a person that is not available on Wookieepedia already) or private conversations (IRC private messages and private, unaffiliated channels; other instant messages and e-mails),...
[20:28] <@Graestan> ...whether on the site, in the site's public IRC channels, or on the administrative e-mail list, as a permanently bannable offense, regardless of the user's status on the site. This has been carried out in regards mainly to off-site trolls in the recent past, per the admin discretion clause of the blocking policy, but an actual policy beyond precedent has not been established. Graestan(Talk)...
[20:28] <@Graestan> ...17:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC) "
[20:28] <@ChackJadson> support
[20:28] <@LordHydronium> OK, very against this.
[20:28] <@Graestan> I naturally support.
[20:28] <+Tyber> Imperialles: there are other ways to draw readers in
[20:28] <+Tommy9281> Is this retroactive?
[20:28] <@Darth_Culator> Support as worded without further elaboration.
[20:28] <+Tommy9281> nevermind
[20:28] <+GrandMoffTranner> Support.
[20:28] <@AdmirableAckbar> There has to be leeway for people making mistakes.
[20:28] <@Toprawa> Support
[20:28] <+Tommy9281> didn't read. Support
[20:28] <@LordHydronium> Abuse that takes place in back-channels is still abuse.
[20:29] <@Imperialles> Yes, but images are a good way of doing so.
[20:29] <+Tyber> support
[20:29] <@Havac> Oppose.
[20:29] <@Grunny> Strong support
[20:29] <+MasterJonathan> Support
[20:29] <+Tommy9281> Per Hydro
[20:29] <@jSarek> Per Ackbar.
[20:29] <@ChackJadson> Hydro: why?
[20:29] <+Jujiggum> support
[20:29] <@Graestan> LH: Not if the abusee never hears it
[20:29] <@ChackJadson> strong support
[20:29] <+Kilson> Support, I guess.
[20:29] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[20:29] <+Tyber> Imp: we can discuss that later ;)
[20:29] <+Kilson> I'm not really sure though.
[20:29] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:29] <@LordHydronium> Grae: I'm not speaking of that issue.
[20:29] <+Fiolli> Oppose.
[20:29] <@Graestan> We're not the damn Thought Police
[20:29] <+DarthTrayus> support.
[20:29] <@LordHydronium> I mean things like PMs.
[20:29] <+Fiolli> Sorry, Imp.
[20:29] <+Tommy9281> But they always do
[20:29] <@Riffsyphon1024> neutral at the moment
[20:29] <@Havac> If someone PMs someone else and harasses them, there's no reason to say that's inadmissible.
[20:29] <@Havac> We've used offsite behavior to justify /bans/ in the past.
[20:29] <@LordHydronium> We already ban people for harrassing others outside official channels.
[20:29] <@jSarek> I mean, Graestan mentioned part of my last name when he greeted me. What if I'd decided to remove that from my user page sometime in the past few days and he didn't know?
[20:29] <@GreenTentacle> Oppose.
[20:29] <@LordHydronium> Per Havac
[20:29] <@Havac> I don't think we need to make it bannable to bring up offsite stuff.
[20:30] <@Grunny> But conversations that are meant to be private should stay that way
[20:30] <@GreenTentacle> Personal information is totally unacceptable.
[20:30] <+Kilson> Look at Goodwood, we used something like this in the past.
[20:30] <@Havac> This is a huge overreaction.
[20:30] <+Tyber> per GT
[20:30] * +GrandMoffTranner (n=Tranner@wikia/GrandMoffTranner) Quit ("And that's the way it is.")
[20:30] <@Riffsyphon1024> if used against an user
[20:30] <@Cylka> Per GT.
[20:30] <@LordHydronium> Grunny: But what if someone harrasses another user through PM or e-mail?
[20:30] <+Tommy9281> Per Havac
[20:30] <@LordHydronium> Should that stay private?
[20:30] <+IFYLOFD> If used in bad faith.
[20:30] <@Riffsyphon1024> if casual conversation, why should that be bannable
[20:30] <+Jaymach> I couldn't care less about this one...all of my info is available anyway
[20:30] <@GreenTentacle> But the way it's worded for private conversations is unfortunate.
[20:30] <@Graestan> Someone's /address/ came into play recently
[20:30] <@Riffsyphon1024> I say bad faith
[20:30] <+Kilson> Like making fun of someone because he or she is gay.
[20:30] <@jSarek> Per Tent.
[20:30] <+Kilson> That should not be allowed, anywhere.
[20:30] <@Havac> We can take things play-by-play.
[20:30] <+JMAS> Pet GT
[20:30] <@Graestan> There will naturally be admin discretion and plenty of discussion, I am certain
[20:30] <+Tommy9281> Shame on them for making that sort of info known, but nevertheless, it shouldn't be used to harass them.
[20:30] <@jSarek> We should have safety rules for whistleblowers, not harsh punishments.
[20:31] <@Havac> If someone researches someone's address and posts it, then that's harassment already and can justify a ban.
[20:31] <@LordHydronium> Grae: I frankly don't trust admin discretion here.
[20:31] <+Tommy9281> Per JSarek
[20:31] <+IFYLOFD> Use it on a case-by-case basis.
[20:31] <+Tommy9281> This Isn't the Empire
[20:31] <@Grunny> I think it's a touchy area, if it's just harrassment then it should be admissible, but if it's personal conversations then no
[20:31] <@Havac> But per Hydro.
[20:31] <+Tommy9281> Why don't folks just keep their personal BI to themselves?
[20:31] <+Tommy9281> That would solve alot
[20:31] <@ChackJadson> there's a difference between harassment and giving out personal info here
[20:31] <+Fiolli> Agreed.
[20:31] <+MasterJonathan> per Tommy
[20:31] <@Riffsyphon1024> people are people
[20:31] <+Tyber> Hydro: it should be that way
[20:31] <@Grunny> Per Chack
[20:31] <@Graestan> it's personal until someone /else/ decides to make it public
[20:31] <+Tommy9281> I guess so
[20:31] <+Jujiggum> per Chack
[20:31] <+Fiolli> Do we need another safeguard against stupidity?
[20:31] <@Havac> We don't need a blanket YOU ARE BANNED rule for bringing up offsite points.
[20:31] <+Kilson> Do you want to pass rules against personal info.
[20:31] <+Tommy9281> Fiolli: Apparently lol
[20:31] <@Graestan> Alright, then:
[20:32] <@ChackJadson> strong per Chack :P
[20:32] <+Fiolli> I guess.
[20:32] <@Riffsyphon1024> sounds too harsh to me
[20:32] <@Havac> It's not personal if you put it out on the web where someone can get at it. :p
[20:32] <+Kilson> Because then I might not be able to say I like PIE.
[20:32] <@Riffsyphon1024> i.e. Facebook
[20:32] <@Graestan> I propose it again, minus "private conversations"
[20:32] <+Tyber> everyone knows you like pie :P
[20:32] <@Graestan> Now?
[20:32] <+Jaymach> you could always word it so that, should someone bring up personal information, then the regular banning policy is to be followed
[20:32] <@Havac> Still opposed.
[20:32] <+Jaymach> eg. warning, small ban, larger ban
[20:32] <@Darth_Culator> I supported before, I still support.
[20:32] <+MasterJonathan> Grae: support
[20:32] <+Kilson> True enough.
[20:32] <@Grunny> Still strong support
[20:32] <@Riffsyphon1024> warning
[20:32] <@jSarek> Per Jaymach.
[20:32] <@GreenTentacle> Per Jaymach.
[20:32] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support.
[20:32] <@Havac> Harassment on Facebook is still harassment.
[20:32] <@LordHydronium> Opposed.
[20:32] <+Tyber> per jaymach
[20:32] <+Kilson> Support.
[20:32] <@ChackJadson> /still support/
[20:32] <+IFYLOFD> Oppose.
[20:32] <+Jujiggum> per Jaymach
[20:32] <+JangFett> Support
[20:32] <+Tommy9281> People are people. A shame.
[20:32] <@AdmirableAckbar> (with leeway for mistakes, accidents etc etc)
[20:32] <+Jaymach> you can warn someone, remove the edit, then if they put it in again then give them a ban
[20:32] <@jSarek> Oppose in its current state.
[20:32] <+Mauser> per Jaymach
[20:32] <@SillyDan> Per Jaymach
[20:32] <+DarthTrayus> support Jaymach
[20:32] <@Riffsyphon1024> just referencing access to personal information Havac
[20:33] <+Tyber> per jaymach, again
[20:33] <+IFYLOFD> Oppose in its current state.
[20:33] <@Cylka> Per Jaymach, but make the banning stricter.
[20:33] <+Kilson> It depends on the offense.
[20:33] <@Riffsyphon1024> per Ack
[20:33] <@Havac> Strong oppose.
[20:33] <+IFYLOFD> Take it on a case-by-case basis.
[20:33] <@Grunny> Floyd vote once, it's confusing the vote counting :P
[20:33] <+JangFett> Per Kilson
[20:33] <@Cylka> Not permaban immediately.
[20:33] <+Tyber> per kilson
[20:33] <@Havac> Case by case.
[20:33] <+Kilson> If someone is making death threats.
[20:33] <+Kilson> They should be immediately banned.
[20:33] <@Riffsyphon1024> per Kilson
[20:33] <@Imperialles> Death threats? Come on.
[20:33] <+Tommy9281> Maturity had gone out the door.
[20:33] <+JangFett> Per Pie man
[20:33] <+Jaymach> if someone is making death threats then it's already covered by other rules
[20:33] <+Tommy9281> Who the hell is making death threats now
[20:33] <@Darth_Culator> It has happened.
[20:33] <+Kilson> You would be surprised.
[20:33] <+Tommy9281> I guess so.
[20:33] <+Tyber> meh.
[20:33] <+JangFett> Imp: It can happen
[20:33] <@Riffsyphon1024> that's just inexcusable
[20:34] <+Jaymach> WP:PA already allows people to be banned immediately
[20:34] <@Havac> Anything genuinely bannable here should already be covered by other rules.
[20:34] <+Jaymach> bah, WP:NPA
[20:34] <@LordHydronium> Per Hav
[20:34] <@Riffsyphon1024> no different than trolls
[20:34] <+Kilson> But if you're calling some guy names.
[20:34] <+Jaymach> this is just a rule to cover information being given
[20:34] <+Tommy9281> Define troll
[20:34] <+Kilson> Give the guy a warning.
[20:34] <+IFYLOFD> If there's death threats the person should be banned anyway.
[20:34] <+Fiolli> agree with Havac and Jaymach.
[20:34] <+Tommy9281> IF there is a death threat then get the damn authorities involved. Sheesh.
[20:34] <@Imperialles> Ok, bit of a derailing here. Do we have consensus, or not?
[20:34] <@Grunny> This is turning messy
[20:34] <@Havac> Any new rule is just going to cause problems.
[20:34] <+Kilson> We need to make a case by case rule through CT.
[20:34] <+Tommy9281> Been messy.
[20:34] <@Riffsyphon1024> case by case CT
[20:34] <+Tyber> Grae: consensus?
[20:34] <@ChackJadson> /Per Grunny/
[20:34] <@Darth_Culator> I think the "per Jaymach"s had it.
[20:34] <@Graestan> alright, per Jaymach clause of warnings minus "private conversations," it *passes*
[20:34] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:34] <@Riffsyphon1024> scratch CT
[20:35] <@Darth_Culator> Since that is effectively case-by-case.
[20:35] <+Fiolli> We don't need another CT, we just need to take a moment and vote organized.
[20:35] <@LordHydronium> Kilson: We have a case by case rule. It's all our current policies.
[20:35] <@SillyDan> Sounds good to me.
[20:35] <@ChackJadson> next!
[20:35] <@Graestan> "Discussion on democratization: There are a number of policies and other official items on the site which were never voted on by the user base, and this concerns me. I'd like to invite users to feel free to bring forward any policies that need revision or that they would like to see voted on as opposed to the early unilateral adapting-from-Wikipedia format. Wookieepedia has functioned...
[20:35] <@Graestan> ...extremely well in a largely democratic format for some time, and I feel that users should have some say in every process on the site. Graestan(Talk) 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC) "
[20:35] <@ChackJadson> SUPPORT VERY STRONGLY
[20:35] <@Darth_Culator> YES
[20:35] <+Jujiggum> Support
[20:35] <+Tyber> yeah, support
[20:35] <+DarthTrayus> support
[20:35] <+CC7567> Support.
[20:35] <@Graestan> Any policies for me to target?
[20:35] <+Tommy9281> sure
[20:35] <@LordHydronium> Gah, the last thing we need is /more/ democracy
[20:35] <@Imperialles> What policies, specifically?
[20:35] <@Grunny> Support
[20:35] <@Cylka> Support.
[20:35] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[20:35] <@SillyDan> Which policies?
[20:35] <+MasterJonathan> support
[20:35] <+Mauser> why bother? they'll all be snowablled anyway?
[20:35] <+JangFett> Strong support
[20:35] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:35] <+Kilson> Long live democracy.
[20:35] <@Riffsyphon1024> please specify
[20:35] <@Havac> Oppose.
[20:35] <@jSarek> How is that any difference then status quo?
[20:35] <+Kilson> SUPPORT!!!
[20:35] <@Toprawa> Support
[20:35] <@Graestan> I am just asking for people's opinions.
[20:35] <@Grunny> The community should be able to vote on anything
[20:35] <@Darth_Culator> Anything that was imported needs at least a rubber stamp.
[20:35] <@LordHydronium> We can CT out anything we don't like. Oppose.
[20:35] <@Havac> You can already bring anything up to CT you want to.
[20:35] <@ChackJadson> Mauser: so
[20:35] <@Graestan> A lot ofthis crapis outdated.
[20:35] <+Jaymach> you could always put current CTs in the SiteNotice :P
[20:35] <@ChackJadson> that's not a reason to not do it
[20:35] <@Riffsyphon1024> which crap
[20:35] <@ChackJadson> a lot
[20:35] <@Imperialles> Why support? There has been no proposal. Muppets.
[20:36] <@Graestan> LH: This isn't an auto-vote, just a field for opinion.
[20:36] <+Kilson> It is only fair to relatively new users.
[20:36] <@GreenTentacle> Meh. People have always been free to CT any old policies they disagree with.
[20:36] <@Havac> This is nothing but saying "You can CT rules we have and you don't like."
[20:36] <@Graestan> I am wondering what people feel
[20:36] <@LordHydronium> point :P
[20:36] <@jSarek> Per Tent.
[20:36] <@Graestan> Mofference isn't just votes ;)
[20:36] <@LordHydronium> What GT said, then
[20:36] <@ChackJadson> but it's rules that were never voted on
[20:36] <+Kilson> It's name calling.
[20:36] <@ChackJadson> just adopted!
[20:36] <+Mauser> let's approve them all right now and move on ;)
[20:36] <@ChackJadson> how should this not be CT'd?
[20:36] <+IFYLOFD> Per WP:NOT.
[20:36] <@ChackJadson> not approved, I mean
[20:36] <@Graestan> This will be CTed
[20:36] <+MasterJonathan> per Mauser
[20:36] <@Graestan> Inquest after all the support I see
[20:36] <+IFYLOFD> Rules that we adopted from Wikipedia.
[20:36] <@Havac> If there's a specific proposal, CT it.
[20:36] <@Darth_Culator> More like "you can CT rules we imported without procedure without people bitching at you for it."
[20:36] <@ChackJadson> Yes, CT them all, democracy!
[20:36] <+Kilson> Wikipedia has some good rules.
[20:37] <@jSarek> Grae: Other than maybe a SH brainstorming session to find things that might be outdated, I'm not sure what we could do that would be different from our current situation.
[20:37] <@Riffsyphon1024> involves quite a bit of the wiki then, should be CT'd itself
[20:37] <@LordHydronium> Culator: People shouldn't be bitching at others for CTs anyway
[20:37] <@Imperialles> WP:MoS was crafted with basically no community input.
[20:37] <@Cylka> Per Culator.
[20:37] <+Tyber> it should already have passed
[20:37] <+JangFett> WP:BOLD, and others that were adapted.
[20:37] <@Imperialles> WP:LG as well...
[20:37] <@SillyDan> You can CT rules we adopted under procedure too anyway, though.
[20:37] <@LordHydronium> Change from the status quo is not a bad thing.
[20:37] <@Cylka> Some users are afraid to CT long established but not quite great policies.
[20:37] <+Tyber> per cylka
[20:37] <@Riffsyphon1024> but that would indicate that no one can challenge anything that's been laid down
[20:37] <+Mauser> I tried to improve the naming conventions: the page still has most examples from Wikipedia. It failled, but I'll try again
[20:37] <@Graestan> Not me anymore. ;)
[20:37] <@LordHydronium> Some users don't like the reverse either, to be fair. :P
[20:37] <@Grunny> Plus I think democracy is the important thing here
[20:37] <+JangFett> Per Grunny
[20:37] <@ChackJadson> Per Grunny
[20:38] <@Riffsyphon1024> things get reversed all the time
[20:38] <+MasterJonathan> per Grunny
[20:38] <@LordHydronium> We should be less concerned with democracy than consensus, but that's another rant
[20:38] <+Kilson> Wikis are founded on democracy.
[20:38] <+Jaymach> the only way to -really- implement this would be to CT every single rule that's on the site -just in case- there's any disagreement
[20:38] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Grunny and Cylka.
[20:38] <+Kilson> You vote on what it will look like.
[20:38] <+Jaymach> you're better leaving it as it is
[20:38] <+Tommy9281> Per Jaymach
[20:38] <+Kilson> How things are decided.
[20:38] <@LtNOWIS> Per Jaymach
[20:38] <+Jaymach> people can vote if they see something they dislike
[20:38] <+Mauser> do we need 15 CT threads at one time?
[20:38] <@Grunny> I say make a list in an SH thread
[20:38] <@Darth_Culator> Open it up as a request for comments on the senate hall and move on.
[20:38] <+Jaymach> if they don't see something they dislike, why vote?
[20:38] <@Graestan> Well, anyone with anything they want me to look at, feel free to let me know
[20:38] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:38] <+MasterJonathan> per Culator
[20:38] <@Graestan> "There are many articles that have several cleanup tags at the top, which can be really annoying when reading (for example this article has 4 tags before you can read its intro). I'd like to propose to tag these articles with just one template that lists all issues instead of several tags. A draft of such a template can be found here. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC) "
[20:38] <@Grunny> And do a CT to end all CTs
[20:38] <@Graestan> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Pranay_Sobusk/Template:Article_issues
[20:38] <@Graestan> I like this.
[20:39] <@ChackJadson> looks good to me
[20:39] <@Imperialles> Horrible colors.
[20:39] <+Tyber> me too
[20:39] <@SillyDan> Yes!
[20:39] <@Riffsyphon1024> support
[20:39] <@GreenTentacle> Graestan: Deja vu. :p
[20:39] <+Jujiggum> Stron Support
[20:39] <+Mauser> what's the proposed template?
[20:39] <+Jujiggum> *strong
[20:39] <+Kilson> OK, move the tags to the talk page.
[20:39] <+Jaymach> cleanup tags should be on the talk page
[20:39] <@Imperialles> Good in theory, needs to be implemented better.
[20:39] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support, it can be tweaked if necessary.
[20:39] <+Jaymach> it's [redacted] to have them on the actual article
[20:39] <+Fiolli> Agree.
[20:39] <@ChackJadson> Imp: what would you prefer?
[20:39] <@Graestan> Imp: Feel free to tweak them. ;)
[20:39] <+DarthTrayus> Support, alter the temp
[20:39] <@LordHydronium> I dunno, lots of tags sort of helps signal a complete disaster.
[20:39] <+Kilson> Makes thing easier.
[20:39] <+Tyber> but i would say that the issues should be explained
[20:39] <@ChackJadson> yeah, we can change it
[20:39] <@Darth_Culator> Nice template idea. Bad colors.
[20:39] <+JangFett> But what exactly do the suggested tags mean? people might get confused
[20:39] <@Riffsyphon1024> did we fix the colors on the template?
[20:39] <+Kilson> And nicer to look at.
[20:39] <@Havac> The template is horrible.
[20:39] <+CC7567> Support and alter.
[20:39] <@Imperialles> No, Jay, they should not. Certain tags, sure, but not cleanup/accuracy ones.
[20:39] <@Havac> The idea is great.
[20:39] <+Jaymach> it doesn't bring it to someone's attention, it just makes it look nasty
[20:39] <+IFYLOFD> Strong support, but change the template.
[20:39] <+Tyber> alter the colors
[20:39] <+Jaymach> accuracy ones, fair enough
[20:39] <@LtNOWIS> We need at least one tag on a jacked up article to indicate its crappiness
[20:39] <@Riffsyphon1024> better colors, then I'll support the template
[20:39] <@Graestan> Who gives a crap what it looks like right now, it's a great idea.
[20:39] <@LtNOWIS> So people are forewarned
[20:39] <+JangFett> I'd say Hide/Show the Tags.
[20:39] <+Kilson> I agree witht the idea.
[20:39] <+Jujiggum> Per Grae
[20:39] * SirTopHat (n=sth@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia
[20:39] <@ChackJadson> Per Grae
[20:39] <+Jaymach> cleanup ones though? who needs to know that an article has too many redlinks
[20:39] <+IFYLOFD> Alter the colors.
[20:39] <@Graestan> Who supports with provisions?
[20:39] <@Riffsyphon1024> welcome Sir
[20:39] <@Graestan> Me.
[20:39] <+Mauser> sorry, but that template is bad
[20:39] <+Jaymach> if they can't see that themselves then they're idiots
[20:39] <+MasterJonathan> Support the idea, hate the color
[20:39] <+Kilson> But we need the tags on the talk page.
[20:39] <@ChackJadson> support
[20:39] <+Tyber> JangFett: it's already in there
[20:40] <@Cylka> Great idea. I agree we should tweak the template a bit.
[20:40] <@Imperialles> The idea is good, but passing it here would just lead to it being spewed everywhere in its current form.
[20:40] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support with provisions.
[20:40] <@Imperialles> Fix, then implement.
[20:40] <+Tyber> support
[20:40] <@Darth_Culator> Set it up like the new Appearances CT.
[20:40] <@Grunny> Support
[20:40] <@Riffsyphon1024> every article tagged with redlinks allows people to fill those redlinks
[20:40] <+Jujiggum> support
[20:40] <@Graestan> The template idea *passes* - per Imp on fixing then implementing
[20:40] <+JangFett> I'd say alter the "Excessive tags" and show/hide tags like {{CleanUp}}, ect
[20:40] <+JMAS> Agreed that good template, must have better colors
[20:40] <@LordHydronium> CT it so we can hammer out a good idea of the specifics
[20:40] <+Mauser> just make them Hidden by default
[20:40] <+Kilson> I vote it be red.
[20:40] <@LordHydronium> Like when to use it.
[20:40] <@GreenTentacle> Per LH.
[20:40] <@Havac> Just pass it, and someone will change the colors on the template five minutes after it's official.
[20:40] <@jSarek> Per Hydro.
[20:40] <@Cylka> How about we CT which tags should be left out of the new template.
[20:40] <+Jaymach> (Riffsyphon1024): but does every single user wanting to read about something have to see that an article has too many redlinks? or could the template be on the talk page, and thus allow people to still find them through the category?
[20:40] <@Graestan> per Cylka
[20:40] <@Imperialles> It's not just the colors...
[20:40] <@Imperialles> Get Xwing to take a swing at it.
[20:40] <+CC7567> Let's say support the /idea/, and CT the /specifics/.
[20:40] <@Cylka> Oops. :-P Per Hydro.
[20:41] <+Tyber> i have seen articles with 4 templates...
[20:41] <+MasterJonathan> per CC
[20:41] <@Graestan> anyhow, it will be pursues, that's what's important
[20:41] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:41] <+JangFett> Per CC
[20:41] <@Darth_Culator> I like to avoid CTing things, but this /should/ be sent to a committee. :-P
[20:41] <@Riffsyphon1024> Jay: I'm all for announcing faults to better the wiki
[20:41] <@Havac> Pass the implementation.
[20:41] <@jSarek> Per CC.
[20:41] <+JMAS> Per CC7567
[20:41] <@Havac> Leave the implementation up to CT.
[20:41] <@Graestan> "Standardizing colon use for articles on OOU works with "Star Wars" in the title. Essentially, "Star Wars: Empire" versus "Star Wars Empire". --Imperialles 19:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC) "
[20:41] <+Mauser> Oh, there comes the tricky one
[20:41] <+DarthTrayus> Anyway
[20:41] <@Graestan> support, and finally
[20:41] <@Imperialles> Basically, I propose that we follow the publishers. If a publisher uses the colon, we go for that (as is the case with Star Wars: Empire, Star Wars: The Old Republic, etc). If they do not use the colon (Star Wars Galaxies) we follow that.
[20:41] <@LordHydronium> I will not watch my articles suffer and die while you discuss these issues in a committee!
[20:41] <@Darth_Culator> Hoboy.
[20:41] <@SillyDan> Per Imp.
[20:41] <+Kilson> That's tricky.
[20:41] <@AdmirableAckbar> Sure, support.
[20:41] <@Havac> I agree.
[20:41] <+JangFett> Per Imp
[20:41] <+Tyber> support, go on
[20:41] <+Kilson> But I think it makes sense.
[20:41] <+IFYLOFD> Per Imp.
[20:41] <+Fiolli> I agree with Imp.
[20:41] <+DarthTrayus> sypport
[20:41] <@Havac> Also, we have some issues with comics articles not even being consistent.
[20:41] <@ChackJadson> support
[20:41] <+Kilson> It is the official name after all.
[20:41] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Imp.
[20:41] <+Tommy9281> Support
[20:41] <@LtNOWIS> Don't see any downside
[20:41] <@LordHydronium> I like Imp's idea
[20:41] <@GreenTentacle> Per Imp.
[20:41] <+Mauser> Imagine Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Slaves of the Republic: Chapter 1: Mystery of Kiros
[20:41] <+Tommy9281> keep it movin
[20:41] <@Havac> We have "Star Wars: Empire" for the series.
[20:41] <+Kilson> support.
[20:41] <@Riffsyphon1024> what articles don't follow this already?
[20:41] <@Darth_Culator> Right then. Time to give the site a colonic. :|
[20:41] <+JangFett> You can't say, Star Wars: Galaxies
[20:41] <+Mauser> there's another issue
[20:42] <+Jaymach> I still think we should have "Star Wars" in the title for everything that has it on the cover
[20:42] <@Havac> But all individual articles are at "Star Wars Empire: ISSUE ISSUE".
[20:42] <@jSarek> Are teh publishers always consistent?
[20:42] <@Grunny> Support, as long as we're consistent
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> Hav: We also have some articles from a series one way, and some the other way
[20:42] <+Jaymach> but that's another similar issue
[20:42] <@Riffsyphon1024> keep Star Wars in the title
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> I think Republic might do that
[20:42] <+Mauser> we can't follow the publisher because they name comics with a #
[20:42] <@Havac> That needs to be fixed.
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> Some are colon'd, some aren't
[20:42] <@Imperialles> Havac: No, we don't. I fixed it long ago.
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> Someone half-changed them,
[20:42] <+Kilson> Then don't colon the none colons.
[20:42] <@Imperialles> The other series, however, are at Star Wars Blah.
[20:42] <+Mauser> and wikia doesn't allow # in names
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> Oh, wait, maybe that was Imp fully changing them :P
[20:42] <@Riffsyphon1024> or Star Wars Legacy: issue, versus Star Wars Legacy
[20:42] <@LordHydronium> nm
[20:42] <+Kilson> Video games don't usually have colons.
[20:42] <@Riffsyphon1024> rather Star Wars: Legacy
[20:42] <+Tyber> Star Wars Galaxies doesn't need colons
[20:42] <+MasterJonathan> Meh.
[20:42] <+JangFett> Per Mauser " Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Slaves of the Republic: Chapter 1: Mystery of Kiros" Way to much colon use. I'd say it depends on the author
[20:42] <+Kilson> And yet we put colons.
[20:42] <+Kilson> It makes no sense.
[20:43] <@jSarek> Mauser: Which is why that's one area specifically where we deviate due to site limitations.
[20:43] <@Graestan> hey, if it's what the publisher says, we do it
[20:43] <@Imperialles> Depends on what author?
[20:43] <@Havac> Use the colons if that's what belongs there.
[20:43] <@Graestan> that is what makes sense
[20:43] <@Havac> It doesn't matter how many there are.
[20:43] <+Tommy9281> Per Graestan
[20:43] <@Imperialles> Per Havac.
[20:43] <@Riffsyphon1024> we should seek the publisher/author
[20:43] <+Mauser> also two or more colons in a name looks ugly
[20:43] <@Havac> We're not here to "fix" LFL's aesthetics.
[20:43] <@AdmirableAckbar> Per Grae, per Havac.
[20:43] <+IFYLOFD> Per Grae.
[20:43] <@Graestan> we should not impose our own interpretations /ever/
[20:43] <+Jaymach> I love how we use full titles for comics, but shortened titles for novels
[20:43] <@ChackJadson> per Grae and Hav
[20:43] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Grae.
[20:43] <@ChackJadson> Jaymach: :|
[20:43] <@Grunny> Per Grae
[20:43] <@LordHydronium> Hav said what that thing is I vote
[20:43] <+JangFett> Imp: I mean the publication. All Star Wars material don't use colons.
[20:43] <+Jaymach> eg. that TCW comic versus "Omen"
[20:43] <@jSarek> Per Graestan. Still, I think some kind of guideline when publishers AREN'T consistent may be warranted.
[20:43] <@ChackJadson> we're inconsistent that way
[20:43] <+Kilson> I don't care if it's Star Wars: Bla Blah: #Blah: Blah: Blah.
[20:43] <@ChackJadson> :P
[20:43] <@Darth_Culator> Ugh. Even though it's going to require bot editing out the wazoo, per Imp and Havac.
[20:43] <+Kilson> If it's the official name, it works.
[20:43] <+MasterJonathan> per jSarek
[20:43] <@Cylka> Per Grae and jSarek.
[20:43] <@Graestan> jSarek: newest?
[20:43] <+Mauser> Again, we can't follow publisher's format because if wiki limitations
[20:44] <@LordHydronium> Star Wars: Darth Bane: Path of Destruction: A Novel of the Old Republic
[20:44] <+Fiolli> I agree with Imp.
[20:44] <@Grunny> Okay so consensus is support
[20:44] <@ChackJadson> like what, mauser?
[20:44] <@Riffsyphon1024> seems LFL is inconsistent, which makes it difficult for us to be consistent
[20:44] <@Graestan> i mean, we use newest for everything else
[20:44] <+JangFett> We can't change the official publication names with colons in the name
[20:44] <+Tyber> what about the use of "-"
[20:44] <@LordHydronium> Wait, I want to hear Mauser out on this.
[20:44] <+Mauser> it's Star Wars: Empire #1 at Dark Horse
[20:44] <@ChackJadson> oh
[20:44] <@jSarek> Grae: Too prone to typos, I'd think.
[20:44] <+Kilson> That is not good.
[20:44] <@Riffsyphon1024> cant use # in titles
[20:44] <@LordHydronium> Oh, the pound sign?
[20:44] <+Jaymach> I think we actually could use the "#"
[20:44] <+Kilson> How was it published?
[20:44] <@Riffsyphon1024> it redirects to sections
[20:44] <+Jaymach> we'd just have to use the code to get it
[20:44] <+Mauser> and we are bound to make it Star Wars: Empire 1: Something
[20:44] <@Imperialles> This has nothing to do with other signs. Just the colon. Keep it on topic.
[20:44] <+Tyber> Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - Commencement
[20:44] <@jSarek> Perhaps go with what's on the title page
[20:45] <@LordHydronium> Jaymach: Eh. I could live without pound signs.
[20:45] <@Graestan> I say for numbers, leave it out of the URL, put it in the {{title}}
[20:45] <@AdmirableAckbar> Per jSarek.
[20:45] <+Fiolli> I agree with Imp. Stay on topic.
[20:45] <+Mauser> Star Wars: Series # (X) - The title ; that's how Dark Horse names them
[20:45] <+MasterJonathan> per Grae
[20:45] <@Imperialles> We are not here to discuss that, Mauser. Just the colon use in "Star Wars: Title"
[20:45] <@LordHydronium> Of course, we can do this for pound signs:
[20:45] <@LordHydronium> !wiki Cantina Band 2
[20:45] <@Nuku-Nuku> LordHydronium: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Cantina_Band_2
[20:45] <+Mauser> I say nio
[20:45] <@Riffsyphon1024> I think I'm even more confused now
[20:45] <+Tyber> bah, go on, though
[20:46] <@LordHydronium> Sorry. :P
[20:46] <@LordHydronium> Colons. Per Imp.
[20:46] <+IFYLOFD> Per Imp.
[20:46] <@Grunny> Okay so let's actually vote
[20:46] <@ChackJadson> Per Imp
[20:46] <+Mauser> like I pointed above, it can lead to too many colons in one mane
[20:46] <+Fiolli> About colons ONLY.
[20:46] <+Mauser> *name
[20:46] <@Graestan> the measure *passed already* ;)
[20:46] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:46] <@Grunny> Consensus to use colons per Imp?
[20:46] <@Havac> Yes.
[20:46] <+IFYLOFD> Aye.
[20:46] <@ChackJadson> PASSED ALREADY :p
[20:46] <@Imperialles> Support.
[20:46] <+Fiolli> Grae is on it.
[20:46] <@LordHydronium> Yes, let's use Imp's colon
[20:46] <+Kilson> Aye.
[20:46] <@Graestan> "Banning the use of user images and userpages for trafficking encoded data. Basically, I feel that doing anything like this or this using Wookieepedia as a vector requires a specific policy with severe penalties. I'll write up a nice technobabbley explanation and a detailed policy proposal by Mofference time. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (link)"
[20:46] <@Toprawa> Colons per Imp
[20:46] <@Riffsyphon1024> standardize as long as no conflict with Wiki
[20:46] <@ChackJadson> NEW TOPIC
[20:46] <@Darth_Culator> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Darth_Culator/morffoffororfforenceesce#Hidden_data_prohibition
[20:46] <@ChackJadson> support
[20:46] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support.
[20:46] <+Mauser> Support
[20:46] <@Toprawa> Support
[20:46] <+Tyber> support
[20:46] <+JangFett> Support
[20:46] <@Imperialles> But I want to use Wookieepedia to peddle .torrents :(
[20:46] <+Kilson> Support
[20:46] <@Imperialles> Support.
[20:46] <@Darth_Culator> TOO BAD
[20:47] <@Cylka> Support.
[20:47] <+MasterJonathan> support
[20:47] <@Darth_Culator> XD
[20:47] <@Graestan> per Culator, I trust it completely
[20:47] <@ChackJadson> technobabbly, but Culator knows his stuff
[20:47] <@ChackJadson> I'll take his word
[20:47] <+IFYLOFD> I don't really understand what this means so I'll refrain from voting.
[20:47] <@Havac> Unlikely to be an issue, but no harm in making a policy.
[20:47] <@Riffsyphon1024> that creates hosting issues, doesnt it?
[20:47] <@SillyDan> If that ever happens, yes. WP:NOT a steganography thingy.
[20:47] <@LordHydronium> ...huh.
[20:47] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:47] <@LordHydronium> Never heard of that.
[20:47] <@Riffsyphon1024> or what's the word
[20:47] <+Jaymach> support because it doesn't affect anyone but the idiots using us as an image host
[20:47] <@LordHydronium> Sure, unlikely, but support
[20:47] <@Imperialles> IFYLOFD: You can encrypt a file in another image file, basically.
[20:47] <@Riffsyphon1024> bandwidth
[20:47] <@Graestan> Okay, easily *passes*
[20:47] <+Tommy9281> Per Floyd
[20:47] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:47] <@jSarek> Support.
[20:47] <@Graestan> "Using Wookieepedia as a host for personal avatar or signature images should be expressly prohibited. Right now, there's no rule saying you can't hotlink your 500kb worth of Wookieepedia-hosted user images from another website or forum. I feel that such images should be immediately deleted if an administrator discovers (or a user notifies an administrator) they're being used in such a way....
[20:47] <@Riffsyphon1024> support
[20:47] <@Graestan> ...This would not include hotlinking article images for the purpose of discussion, just abusing our hosting for personal benefit. This and the prior proposal may not seem especially important now, but bandwidth costs Wikia money and Wikia's costs have to be covered by ever more intrusive advertising. Plus if Wookieepedia ever moves to another host, it would be best to have such bandwidth-saving me
[20:47] <@Graestan> asures in place without having to unilaterally implement them after moving. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (link)"
[20:47] <@ChackJadson> support
[20:47] <@jSarek> Curious, have we had any instances where it's happened?
[20:47] <@Imperialles> Support. Dear God, support.
[20:47] <@Darth_Culator> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Darth_Culator/morffoffororfforenceesce#Image_hotlinking_policy
[20:47] <@ChackJadson> per Imp
[20:47] <@Graestan> per Imp, support
[20:47] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:47] <@ChackJadson> :P
[20:47] <@Grunny> Support
[20:47] <@Toprawa> Support
[20:47] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support, though any examples?
[20:47] <+JangFett> Support
[20:47] <+Tyber> support
[20:47] <+MasterJonathan> support
[20:48] <@Riffsyphon1024> yeah bandwidth hurts, support
[20:48] <+Fiolli> support
[20:48] <@Cylka> support.
[20:48] <+Kilson> Support.
[20:48] <@LordHydronium> We already have personal image restrictions. This seems logical.
[20:48] <@LordHydronium> Support.
[20:48] <+Kilson> Another easy pass.
[20:48] <+Jaymach> (Darth_Culator): is there any way to find out if someone is hotlinking without just stumbling upon the image?
[20:48] <+IFYLOFD> Support, but per Acky. Has this ever happened?
[20:48] <@Darth_Culator> Acky: Not off the top of my head, but several user images are suspiciously sized.
[20:48] <+Tommy9281> support
[20:48] <+JangFett> ugh, I've seen people hotlink photobucket images to Wook.
[20:48] <@Riffsyphon1024> are they in their signatures?
[20:48] <@AdmirableAckbar> cool
[20:48] <@Imperialles> JangFett: That makes no sense.
[20:48] <@Darth_Culator> Jaymach: Probably we can google filenames of suspect images, but serendipity is the most likely method.
[20:48] <+JangFett> In there userpages mostly
[20:48] <+Jaymach> figures
[20:48] <@LtNOWIS> support
[20:49] <@Darth_Culator> JangFett: We broke that a few days ago, actually.
[20:49] <@Darth_Culator> Imperialles: I think he means the reverse of my proposal.
[20:49] <@jSarek> I think I can support this.
[20:49] <@Imperialles> I know he does. I just don't see why he brough it up. :p
[20:49] <@Imperialles> brought*
[20:49] <@Graestan> another hole in one for Culator, it *passes*
[20:49] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[20:49] <@Graestan> "I believe elections should be held for those administrators/bureaucrats who were never appointed in a democratic fashion, early in the site's history. In the same vein as Graestan's point above, users should have a say in this - there's no reason why they shouldn't. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC) "
[20:49] <@Grunny> Strong support. Once again democracy is the most important thing, if they are worthy, of the position they will get voted in again
[20:49] <@Graestan> We need to discuss this.
[20:49] <@Graestan> Acky?
[20:49] <@Imperialles> Ouch, tricky.
[20:49] <+Kilson> I agree.
[20:50] <+MasterJonathan> STRONG SUPPORT
[20:50] <@Darth_Culator> Oh dear lord yes.
[20:50] <@AdmirableAckbar> It doesn't seem right to have people in leadership positions if they've never undergone any kind of election from the userbase.
[20:50] <@jSarek> Oppose.
[20:50] <@Riffsyphon1024> I'm willing to undergo scrunity
[20:50] <@Toprawa> Strong support
[20:50] <+Kilson> It's not ture democracy.
[20:50] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[20:50] <@Graestan> I personally don't like the notion of anyone having unelected power.
[20:50] <@GreenTentacle> Strong oppose.
[20:50] <+Tyber> who would be in question?
[20:50] <@LordHydronium> Oppose.
[20:50] <+Kilson> Who fallss under this?
[20:50] <+Mauser> point? If they are inactive, they cease to be admins. otherwise all fine
[20:50] <+Kilson> *falls
[20:50] <+DarthTrayus> support
[20:50] <@Imperialles> The admins in questions are WhiteBoy, Riffsyphon1024, Aidje and SparqMan, I believe.
[20:50] <@AdmirableAckbar> Riff, WhiteBoy, SparqMan and QG - afaik
[20:50] <+Tommy9281> Lol
[20:50] * ChackAttack (n=chatzill@[REDACTED]) has joined #wookieepedia
[20:50] * Nuku-Nuku sets mode: +o ChackAttack
[20:50] <+JMAS> Support
[20:50] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:50] <+Jujiggum> Support
[20:50] <@Toprawa> A community should have the /opportunity/ to elect who leads them
[20:50] <@ChackAttack> that just gave me a heart attack
[20:50] <@Toprawa> This isn't a monarchy
[20:50] <+Tyber> Support
[20:50] <+IFYLOFD> Aidje resigned, IIRC.
[20:50] <+Kilson> Support.
[20:50] <@ChackAttack> Acky's thing?
[20:50] <@Riffsyphon1024> Sparq has been gone a while hasn't he?
[20:50] <@GreenTentacle> Aidje is gone already isn't he?
[20:50] <+Kilson> They'll pass anyway.
[20:50] <@Havac> Oppose.
[20:50] <@Grunny> Everyone who holds rights should have the support of the community
[20:50] <+Tommy9281> Oppose.
[20:50] <+Tyber> Chack: yes
[20:50] <@Havac> If they're gone, they're gone.
[20:50] <@ChackAttack> SUPPORT 1000%
[20:50] <@AdmirableAckbar> Sparq is still an admin.
[20:50] <+CC7567> Support.
[20:50] <@SillyDan> Oppose, use the existing/new inactivity rules.
[20:50] <@Havac> If they're here, being here early really isn't a problem.
[20:51] <@GreenTentacle> Per Dan.
[20:51] <+Mauser> we just voted above that inactive admins will lose their rights, what's the point in this one?
[20:51] <@Grunny> The inactivity rules shouldn't matter
[20:51] <@ChackAttack> how can you oppose this?
[20:51] <+IFYLOFD> But Sparq basically falls under inactivity rule.
[20:51] <@AdmirableAckbar> It's not about them being inactive.
[20:51] <@Riffsyphon1024> so what would I go through? standard RFA? RFB?
[20:51] <@ChackAttack> explain to me that
[20:51] <+MasterJonathan> still support
[20:51] <@Grunny> This is about the community electing it's leaders
[20:51] <@ChackAttack> how cna you oppose this, it's a monarchy
[20:51] <@Toprawa> per Grunny
[20:51] <@ChackAttack> this is a democracy
[20:51] <+Kilson> It's about Democracy.
[20:51] <@ChackAttack> STRONG SUPPORT
[20:51] <@Grunny> It's democracy
[20:51] <@Havac> I've been on a lot of sites. Very few were led by democratically-elected persons. They run /better/ than Wookieepedia. I'm not going to get tied up in a knot about it.
[20:51] <+Jujiggum> Still support
[20:51] <@Imperialles> This is not a democracy.
[20:51] <@LordHydronium> It's not a democracy.
[20:51] <@Grunny> Not about inactivity that's a completely separate issue
[20:51] <@ChackAttack> boo hoo
[20:51] <+Tyber> count the votes, though
[20:51] <+Jaymach> it's a website :P not any form of system
[20:51] <+Mauser> In this case, I abstain
[20:51] <@GreenTentacle> It's never been a democracy.
[20:51] <@Darth_Culator> They need to be voted on the merits of their contributions, without the loophole of being able to cram in recent activity.
[20:51] <+IFYLOFD> Meh, I guess per Havac.
[20:52] <@ChackAttack> per Culator
[20:52] <+Kilson> What do you call this.
[20:52] <+MasterJonathan> per Culator
[20:52] <@Riffsyphon1024> might I offer my background on this
[20:52] <+Kilson> This is democracy for the qualified.
[20:52] <+Fiolli> I agree Culator there.
[20:52] <@Graestan> per Culator
[20:52] <@Darth_Culator> Which is why this needs to be separate from the inactivity rule.
[20:52] <@Grunny> Per Culator
[20:52] <@AdmirableAckbar> indeed
[20:52] <@Riffsyphon1024> when I was made an admin, we really didn't have an admin voting system in place
[20:52] <+Fiolli> Agreed.
[20:52] <+Jujiggum> yes
[20:52] <@ChackAttack> well, we do now, Riff
[20:52] <@Toprawa> But we do now because the community has changed
[20:52] <+Jaymach> there's no need to add this as a rule, really...you'd be better doing a RfRA on the 4 relevant parties
[20:52] <@ChackAttack> that's why we should vote on it
[20:52] <@ChackAttack> per Tope
[20:52] <+Kilson> Obvously Riff will make it.
[20:52] <@Toprawa> that's the nature of any wiki
[20:52] <+Jaymach> because after they've been voted on, there will never be any more random people with power
[20:52] <@Riffsyphon1024> but does that mean I have to prove my muster and suddenly dish out 5 FAs a month?
[20:52] <@ChackAttack> Jaymach: they don't qualify
[20:52] <+Kilson> Wait HOLD ON>
[20:53] <@AdmirableAckbar> FAs have nothing to do with adminship.
[20:53] <@ChackAttack> or I would have ages ago
[20:53] <+Tommy9281> 99
[20:53] <+Jaymach> (ChackAttack): anyone qualifies
[20:53] <@Toprawa> FAs are irrelevant
[20:53] <@jSarek> They've been in those positions all along, by merit of having started this community in the first place. If they're not doing their job, fine, RFRUR them, or hit them with the infactivity rules. Don't come up with a way to kick them out the back door.
[20:53] <+Kilson> Imagin I was hear when the site started.
[20:53] <@Riffsyphon1024> although they do help
[20:53] <@SillyDan> per jSarek
[20:53] <@Havac> Per jSarek.
[20:53] <@LordHydronium> Per jS.
[20:53] <+Kilson> Then I would be an Admin.
[20:53] <+Tommy9281> Per JSarek
[20:53] <@GreenTentacle> And per jSarek.
[20:53] <@ChackAttack> Jaymach: not really
[20:53] <+Tommy9281> Glad somebody said it
[20:53] <@ChackAttack> it would fail miserably
[20:53] <+Fiolli> I agree with jSarek.
[20:53] <@LtNOWIS> per jSarek
[20:53] <@ChackAttack> Come one, jSarek, that's absurd
[20:53] <@Riffsyphon1024> bias here
[20:53] <+Kilson> Do you guys really think a guy like me would be a good Admin.
[20:53] <+Kilson> Or say Goodwood.
[20:53] <+DarthTrayus> Its not kicking them out the back door.
[20:53] * Imperialles sets mode: -v Kilson
[20:53] <@Graestan> Kilson: :P come on
[20:53] <+DarthTrayus> It's a vote. Period.
[20:53] <+Fiolli> Thanks, Imp.
[20:53] <+IFYLOFD> Per Sarek.
[20:54] <+Tommy9281> Thank you for that
[20:54] <@GreenTentacle> It's absurd that somebody who's doing their job should have to apply for it?
[20:54] <@Grunny> I just don't see why heads of the community shouldn't be voted on by the community. And if they deserve the position they will get the votes
[20:54] <+Jaymach> seriously though...why add a rule? it's going to be all of 4 votes in the short term then never anything ever again
[20:54] <@Riffsyphon1024> if you want to talk to Chad about it, go ahead
[20:54] <@Graestan> Alright, we need to vote, period:
[20:54] <@Graestan> Support or oppose?
[20:54] <@Havac> If you have a problem, RFUR them.
[20:54] <@Graestan> Support.
[20:54] <@Grunny> Strong support
[20:54] <@LordHydronium> Oppose.
[20:54] <@SillyDan> Oppose.
[20:54] <@Riffsyphon1024> go ahead and dethrone him if you feel that will make everything better
[20:54] <@ChackAttack> SUPPORT
[20:54] <+Fiolli> Oppose.
[20:54] <+Jujiggum> support
[20:54] <+Tommy9281> Oppose
[20:54] <@GreenTentacle> Oppose.
[20:54] <+IFYLOFD> Oppose.
[20:54] <@Havac> Oppose.
[20:54] <@Darth_Culator> Support.
[20:54] <+MasterJonathan> Support
[20:54] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support.
[20:54] <@Toprawa> SUpport
[20:54] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:54] <@jSarek> Oppose.
[20:54] <@ChackAttack> AS STRONG AS POSSIBLE, SUPPORT
[20:54] <@LtNOWIS> Oppose
[20:54] <+DarthTrayus> support
[20:54] <@Cylka> Support.
[20:54] <@ChackAttack> M VOTE COUNTS FOR 2 :p
[20:54] <@ChackAttack> *my
[20:54] <+Tyber> if you do your job good, you will easily be reconfirmed
[20:54] <+Jaymach> I'm opposed to it being added as a rule, but support it being done for the 4 relevant admins
[20:54] <@ChackAttack> Thanks
[20:54] <@Riffsyphon1024> do I have a vote here?
[20:54] <+Mauser> Abstain :p
[20:54] <@Graestan> yes
[20:54] <+CC7567> Support.
[20:54] <+Tyber> support
[20:54] <+Tommy9281> Sure you do
[20:54] <@ChackAttack> pass, baby, pass
[20:54] <@Riffsyphon1024> Oppose
[20:55] <@ChackAttack> come on, baby
[20:55] <+Fiolli> It is close.
[20:55] <@ChackAttack> yes
[20:55] <+Tommy9281> This is ridiculous
[20:55] <@Graestan> alright, give me a second to count
[20:55] <@Graestan> everyone shut up
[20:55] <@Riffsyphon1024> no consensus?
[20:55] <@GreenTentacle> No consensus.
[20:55] <@Grunny> Supports have more votes though it's close
[20:55] <@Imperialles> It's no consensus, basically.
[20:55] <+IFYLOFD> No consensus.
[20:55] <+Tommy9281> No consensus
[20:55] <@AdmirableAckbar> [01:54] <Graestan> everyone shut up
[20:55] <@Imperialles> We do not follow the laws of vote count here.
[20:55] * Imperialles sets mode: +v Kilson
[20:55] <@Graestan> no consensus
[20:56] <+Kilson> Thank you.
[20:56] <@Riffsyphon1024> k
[20:56] <@Darth_Culator> Feh.
[20:56] <@ChackAttack> sorry I lost my temper there, guys
[20:56] <+Kilson> Support.
[20:56] <+Kilson> By the way.
[20:56] <+IFYLOFD> Okey-day.
[20:56] <+Tommy9281> Seriously.
[20:56] <@Grunny> XD
[20:56] <@Graestan> imp?
[20:56] <+Jujiggum> lol
[20:56] <@ChackAttack> I apologize for my "insanity" there
[20:56] <+Tyber> i say per Jaymach
[20:56] <@Imperialles> Yes?
[20:56] <@Graestan> 14-10?
[20:56] <+Jaymach> I still think your should RFUR the 4 people you're talking about
[20:56] <@Cylka> Don't follow laws of vote count?
[20:56] <@Riffsyphon1024> but should it ever come down to a revote, I won't let you guys down
[20:56] <@Graestan> I agree with Jaymach
[20:56] <+Tommy9281> Lol
[20:56] <@ChackAttack> Per Jaymach
[20:56] <@AdmirableAckbar> I'm not that bothered.
[20:56] <+Tyber> why don't we follow the laws of vote count here?
[20:56] <@Havac> Do whatever you want. Let's move on to the next item.
[20:56] <@Riffsyphon1024> next
[20:56] <@AdmirableAckbar> Indeed.
[20:57] <@Cylka> Wait.
[20:57] <+Kilson> It's kind of a relection when you think about it.
[20:57] <@Cylka> Imp: what did you mean?
[20:57] <+DarthTrayus> good.
[20:57] <@Imperialles> Clearly there is a fairly large portion of the users present who oppose this sort of rule. We follow consensus, not a simple counting of yays and nays.
[20:57] <@ChackAttack> I was immature there, I apologize
[20:57] <+Kilson> Without there being an electon to start with.
[20:57] <@Cylka> Thanks.
[20:57] <@Riffsyphon1024> then what is voting if it doesnt result in a consensus or lack thereof?
[20:57] <@SillyDan> Next item, please. I think this one's done.
[20:57] <+Tyber> i'm still per jaymach
[20:57] <@Darth_Culator> Eh. Moving on.
[20:57] <@Graestan> Fiolli has the next point. "Slight tweaks to {{Main}} and {{Seealso}}. I will have a demonstration page available by the mofference time. —Unsigned comment by Jedimasterfiolli (talk • contribs)."
[20:57] <+Tommy9281> Per Havac
[20:57] <+Mauser> Links?
[20:58] <+Fiolli> The templates {{main}} and {{see also}} often times do not stand out enough, especially with quotes at the head of sections or subsections. I propose adding an image to the templates to make certain they stand out.
[20:58] <+Fiolli> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jedimasterfiolli/studio
[20:58] <@ChackAttack> support
[20:58] <+Fiolli> Two options or no change.
[20:58] <@Riffsyphon1024> sounds good
[20:58] <+Mauser> Support option Two
[20:58] <+Fiolli> I personally support two.
[20:58] <@Graestan> Option two
[20:58] <@Havac> I don't think they should stand out.
[20:58] <@LordHydronium> Chack: There's two support options. :P
[20:58] <@Darth_Culator> Oooh. Option two.
[20:58] <@AdmirableAckbar> Per Havac.
[20:58] <@Imperialles> Option one.
[20:58] <+Tyber> i'm not sure if i like it
[20:58] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[20:58] <+Jujiggum> option two
[20:58] <@LordHydronium> I agree with Hav. No change.
[20:58] <+MasterJonathan> Support #2
[20:58] <@Havac> We don't need them to be obnoxious; we just need them to be there.
[20:58] <@GreenTentacle> Per Havac.
[20:58] <@Cylka> Option 2
[20:58] <+IFYLOFD> Option 2.
[20:58] <+Kilson> I like tow.
[20:58] <+Tyber> but then i support option 2
[20:58] <+Kilson> *two
[20:58] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Option 2.
[20:58] <@Darth_Culator> Option one looks too HTMLey.
[20:58] <@LordHydronium> Main should fall along with the rest of the text
[20:58] <@Grunny> Option 2
[20:58] <+JMAS> Option 2
[20:58] <+Jaymach> bah, more annoying images
[20:59] <@Riffsyphon1024> gotta get it open first
[20:59] <@Imperialles> Option two looks too Commander Keen-ish
[20:59] <@GreenTentacle> And per Jaymach.
[20:59] <@Riffsyphon1024> definitely Option 2, the arrows
[20:59] <+Tyber> Fiolli: can you de-link the images?
[20:59] <+Fiolli> Yes, we can.
[20:59] <+Fiolli> This was just a trial for the mofference.
[20:59] <@jSarek> Per Havac. Unobtrusive is best for these.
[20:59] <+Tyber> or link them to the article
[20:59] <@Havac> We just voted to make cleanup templates less intrusive; I don't see a reason to make these more obtrusive.
[20:59] <@Riffsyphon1024> option one looks like my control bar on Firefox
[20:59] <@Havac> They're obvious enough already.
[21:00] <+Fiolli> This is for the navigation for our visitors and readers, not for our users who edit.
[21:00] <+Kilson> Per Riff
[21:00] <@Cylka> I think option two is more pleasing.
[21:00] <+Jaymach> why not have it as a blue banner like we do on the Stargate wiki? only make it curved or whatever you like
[21:00] <+Fiolli> There is a difference.
[21:00] <+Kilson> Doesn't look good enough.
[21:00] <+Jaymach> http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Otheruse
[21:00] <@GreenTentacle> See also definitely shouldn't stick out.
[21:00] <+Jaymach> makes it stand out slightly
[21:00] <@Darth_Culator> It's barely even a template. I see no problem with drawing people's attention to the fact that there's more to see.
[21:00] <+Jaymach> and doesn't have a silly image
[21:00] <+Mauser> nah, don't like the blue banner
[21:00] <@GreenTentacle> And I did it. :p
[21:01] <@Riffsyphon1024> meh, Option 2 goes just a small step farther
[21:01] <+Jaymach> yeah, and he did it :P
[21:01] <@Graestan> Overwhelmingly it's *Number Two* - have fun, Fiolli ;)
[21:01] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[21:01] <@Graestan> "This may seem pretty trivial in relation to the above agenda items, but I would like to see future Mofferences held at 23:00 UTC instead of 0:00 UTC. As sannse pointed out on IRC, when something is scheduled for midnight, problems can come up over whether that is midnight at the end of the previous day or midnight at the beginning of the next day. There was some confusion over this issue...
[21:01] <@Graestan> ...between Chack and me, in which Chack said "Saturday" below in the "Comments" section, leading me to believe it was Saturday morning UTC/Friday night in the U.S., when in fact it was Saturday night. Moving the Mofference away from midnight would likely solve this issue and prevent future such problems. This may not even need a formal vote—and indeed, it probably doesn't—but I feel it's...
[21:01] <@Graestan> ...worth a brief discussion. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC) "
[21:01] <@Graestan> Oppose!
[21:01] <@Graestan> TRADITION!
[21:01] <@AdmirableAckbar> People are gonna get confused at any time.
[21:01] <@Graestan> Read the infobox, peoples.
[21:01] <@ChackAttack> this is so trivial, IMO
[21:01] <+Kilson> This is good for Americans and Europeans.
[21:01] <@AdmirableAckbar> It's really quite simple.
[21:01] <@ChackAttack> I don't care, really
[21:01] <+Kilson> But it hurt the Asians.
[21:01] <+Tyber> i don't care
[21:01] <@Riffsyphon1024> solution: more than one Mofference (not really serious)
[21:01] <+Kilson> *hurts.
[21:01] <@AdmirableAckbar> Though, purely for time reasons, I'd rather 23 UTC
[21:01] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Per Grae.
[21:01] <+Mauser> Point? the next one is 6 months away
[21:01] <+IFYLOFD> Oppose. I reserve my right to watch two or three innings of the Nats game before the Mofference.
[21:02] <+Tyber> per grae
[21:02] <+Jujiggum> meh. oppose
[21:02] <+Kilson> I like it myself.
[21:02] <+Tyber> read the infobox, that should clearify everything
[21:02] <@Riffsyphon1024> there needs to be a better way to indicate if its under Daylight Savings Time or not
[21:02] <+MasterJonathan> I just put the idea up because there was some confusion and wanted some opinions
[21:02] <@LordHydronium> I dunno, 11 for the English seems easier to manage than midnight as well.
[21:02] <+Fiolli> I have no problem with 23UTC, but it SHOULD NOT BE because someone accidentally typed it wrong on the mofference page.
[21:02] <@Imperialles> Oppose. 23:00 UTC is not Dark enough.
[21:02] <@Graestan> And those who schedule anything: pay close attention and make sure everything is laid out as though for babies.
[21:02] <+CC7567> As long as the infobox is correct. :P
[21:02] <@Riffsyphon1024> I had that problem, thought it was at 6 pm
[21:02] <+Jaymach> man, you still get confused after I made that bigass infobox with dates and times?
[21:02] <@Grunny> People will always be confused, this was just a mistake
[21:02] <+Tommy9281> Per Ackbar
[21:02] <+Jaymach> idiots :P
[21:02] <@ChackAttack> Per Fiolli
[21:02] <@Havac> I think there are a whole host of problems with mofference scheduling; I'm not sure if this would fix it.
[21:02] <+Tyber> Imp: XD
[21:02] <+Mauser> the infobos is perfectly legal, i mean clear
[21:02] <@ChackAttack> Sorry all :P
[21:02] <@LordHydronium> What Riff said, too. We need to make some note about DST in there.
[21:02] <@Grunny> Per Imp :P
[21:02] <@Riffsyphon1024> 18:00 is now 7 pm, not 6 pm
[21:02] <@GreenTentacle> LordHydronium: This was at 1am, not midnight. :P
[21:02] <@AdmirableAckbar> Anyone who can't figure out the times shouldn't really be here though.
[21:02] <+Tyber> Oppose, though
[21:02] <@Riffsyphon1024> because of DST
[21:03] <@LordHydronium> GT: Really...
[21:03] <@Riffsyphon1024> Ack: that's just ridiculous
[21:03] <@AdmirableAckbar> Just look at the recent changes and figure the difference between your time and wiki time, and work on that.
[21:03] <@Havac> Acky: we have lots of bus timetable experience.
[21:03] <@LordHydronium> Like, the (EST) note might read (EST, CDT)
[21:03] <@Graestan> GT: Because you have Summer Time
[21:03] <@Darth_Culator> Oppose the time change. Also oppose the infobox. Remove it and make people figure it out themselves.
[21:03] <@LtNOWIS> Is this even policy?
[21:03] <@Cylka> DST is very difficult to schedule in the infobox.
[21:03] <@SillyDan> Suggestion: put a prominent link to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
[21:03] <@Grunny> Leave it as is
[21:03] <+Fiolli> I agree with Culator!
[21:03] <@Riffsyphon1024> I made the Wookieeclock but there was no indication for DST
[21:03] <@Graestan> It's not policy, it's tradition!
[21:03] <@LordHydronium> Acky: I've actually seen problems the other way, where meetings are started an hour early
[21:03] <@Cylka> It occurs at different times around the world.
[21:03] <+Jujiggum> Per Dan
[21:03] <+Kilson> Silly Dan makes sense.
[21:03] <@LordHydronium> Inqmoots, mostly
[21:03] <@AdmirableAckbar> Hmmm.
[21:03] <+Kilson> I hate having to do math.
[21:03] <+IFYLOFD> Per Dan.
[21:03] <+Kilson> Me no like math. :P
[21:03] <@Graestan> per Dan, and measure does not pass
[21:03] <+Fiolli> So what?
[21:03] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[21:03] <+Tyber> Kilson: there is an infobox :P
[21:04] <@Graestan> "Rollback requirements: I'd like to see the six-month requirement shortened somewhat, perhaps to three months. IMO three months is plenty of time for a user to demonstrate whether they can be trusted with the tool, and as admin votes are counted separately in RFRs, it's highly unlikely that anyone will get rollback that shouldn't have it. Also, the tenure requirements are currently identical...
[21:04] <@Graestan> ...for both rollback and adminship, and rollback is a lower level of user rights, so it should be somewhat easier to qualify for IMO. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 06:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) "
[21:04] <@Riffsyphon1024> if a reschedule helps, I support
[21:04] <@ChackAttack> oppose
[21:04] <+Kilson> Oppose.
[21:04] <@GreenTentacle> Oppose.
[21:04] <+Fiolli> Absolutely Not.
[21:04] <@Imperialles> Oppose.
[21:04] <+Mauser> Oppose
[21:04] <@Darth_Culator> Eh, six months is fine.
[21:04] <@SillyDan> Oppose.
[21:04] <+JangFett> Oppose
[21:04] <+Kilson> Three months is too early.
[21:04] <@Graestan> Oppose, look at guys like Lucius.
[21:04] <+CC7567> Oppose.
[21:04] <+Jujiggum> oppose
[21:04] <+IFYLOFD> Oppose.
[21:04] <@Riffsyphon1024> oppose, keep at six months
[21:04] <@LtNOWIS> Oppose
[21:04] <+Tyber> oppose
[21:04] <@Cylka> Oppose.
[21:04] <+CC7567> Please, not another Lucius.
[21:04] <+MasterJonathan> Alright, then
[21:04] <@Grunny> Oppose
[21:04] <@Havac> Oppose.
[21:04] <@AdmirableAckbar> Oppose
[21:04] <@Graestan> He gone.
[21:04] <+DarthTrayus> oppose
[21:04] <@jSarek> Oppose, as well.
[21:04] <@LordHydronium> Oseopp
[21:04] <+Jaymach> support, just because I feel bad for Jonathan now
[21:04] <@Havac> If anything, extend the adminship waiting period.
[21:04] <+Kilson> I think it should be even longer, but that's another issue.
[21:04] <@Riffsyphon1024> 6 months RB, 1 year admin, whenever BC
[21:04] <@Graestan> ooo, a fun non-screaming item
[21:04] <+Mauser> I wouldn't trust myself after 3 months here looking from now
[21:04] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[21:04] <@Graestan> "Wookieepedia Newsnet: I'd like to ask site members what new segments they would like to see added to the Newsnet in coming months. Aside from a GA recap, nothing else new is really in the works. Graestan(Talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC) "
[21:05] <@Graestan> So?
[21:05] <@AdmirableAckbar> Opinion pieces!
[21:05] <@LordHydronium> Oppose! I mean, support!
[21:05] <+Kilson> I was shitty after three months.
[21:05] * @Graestan will just log this all
[21:05] <+IFYLOFD> IFYLOFD's Rant Corner. :P
[21:05] <+Kilson> Adn even shittier after six. :P
[21:05] <@Riffsyphon1024> we out of the Mofference?
[21:05] <+Kilson> *and
[21:05] <@ChackAttack> Chack's rant corner :P
[21:05] <+Tyber> Grae: what do you think of?
[21:05] <@AdmirableAckbar> Opinion pieces!
[21:05] <+Jaymach> (Graestan): the Wookieepedia is an encyclopedia, not a social site that should have a blog :P
[21:05] <@LordHydronium> I don't even know what we have on the blog now
[21:05] <@Graestan> I have been considering opinion pieces
[21:05] <+Fiolli> I agree with Kilson, about Kilson ( ;) )
[21:05] <@Cylka> Actually, a rant corner might be fun.
[21:05] <@Darth_Culator> Give posting access to more people!
[21:05] <+Jujiggum> Per Cylka
[21:05] <+Kilson> Thanks for the support.
[21:05] <@Riffsyphon1024> the Newsnet acts as our blog, outside TFN and TOS
[21:05] <+Fiolli> NP
[21:05] <@Graestan> Whoever wants access can beg the Monarch
[21:05] <+Kilson> I like rant corners.
[21:05] <+IFYLOFD> Especially if I get a column. :P
[21:05] <@LtNOWIS> I dunno if opinion is really our domain
[21:05] <@Cylka> A different user each month.
[21:05] * +IFYLOFD begs
[21:05] <+Tyber> explain opinion pieces
[21:05] <@AdmirableAckbar> Let anyone send you a blog about anything, and if it gets approval it can go on.
[21:05] <+Mauser> FA/ GA, canon updates, user awards - that makes it for me
[21:05] <@Havac> I'm not even convinced we need a blog.
[21:06] <@Riffsyphon1024> the wiki itself shouldnt be the blog, but nothing against Newsnet
[21:06] <+Jujiggum> Per Cylka again
[21:06] <@LordHydronium> We should post rants about foreigners.
[21:06] <@Havac> So I have no real opinion here.
[21:06] <+Kilson> They help me deal with all the hatred I have towards you people.
[21:06] <@Graestan> per Cylka, that one is going to happen
[21:06] <@Riffsyphon1024> interviews please?
[21:06] * @Chack|Away (n=chatzill@wikia/ChackJadson) Quit (Connection timed out)
[21:06] <+Jaymach> you should probably add on a policy updates section at the end of every month
[21:06] <+Jaymach> just in case people miss that page
[21:06] <@Riffsyphon1024> we haven't been interviewing people lately have we?
[21:06] <+IFYLOFD> How about Ask A Vandal? :P
[21:06] <+Kilson> Star Wars news too.
[21:06] <@Graestan> Riff: Anyone who conducts a new Wookieepedia Interview can send it my way
[21:06] <+Mauser> we can also cover events like list purge
[21:06] <@SillyDan> no, that's fallen by the wayside hasn't it?
[21:06] <@Graestan> IFYLOFD: GO ask your pals.
[21:06] <@Riffsyphon1024> support Ask a Vandal
[21:06] <+IFYLOFD> lolz
[21:06] * @ChackJadson (n=chatzill@wikia/ChackJadson) Quit (Connection timed out)
[21:06] <+DarthTrayus> Eh opinion isn't a great idea.
[21:06] <@Imperialles> LordHydronium: :(
[21:06] <+Kilson> Who, ask me. :P
[21:07] * ChackAttack is now known as ChackJadson
[21:07] <@AdmirableAckbar> There already is opinion on it, in the form of user interviews.
[21:07] <@LordHydronium> Imp: But to you, we're foreigners, so it's all good :P
[21:07] <@Graestan> Trayus?
[21:07] <@Riffsyphon1024> more external opinions of Wookieepedia, Wookiee fanbase?
[21:07] <@jSarek> I've really got nothing to suggest for the blog. So long as it covers our basic news, I'm pleased with it.
[21:07] <+MasterJonathan> per jSarek
[21:07] <+Mauser> external opinions on wook sounds good
[21:08] <@Graestan> per Riff, I might pursue this with friends/fans, and maybe some of our more active TFNers and TOSers can help
[21:08] <@Graestan> send anything to graestan@wookieepedia.com
[21:08] <@Riffsyphon1024> I'd like to see more integration between fans
[21:08] <@Imperialles> Sounds good. I make it a point to read every new article, usually over breakfast.
[21:08] <@Riffsyphon1024> and we might get a peek of how people see us
[21:08] <@Graestan> thanks, Imp :D
[21:08] <+Kilson> Everyone already loves us, so what's the point. :P
[21:08] <@GreenTentacle> We have a blog? :P
[21:08] <@Riffsyphon1024> Wookieepedia in Print, send subscriptions to all admins for morning coffee
[21:08] <@Graestan> Kilson doesn't read the Lit board :P
[21:09] <@AdmirableAckbar> I like the current state of the blog, but I'd like a higher copy to list ratio.
[21:09] <+Kilson> I just don't read. :P
[21:09] <+IFYLOFD> The Daily Wookieepedian.
[21:09] <@jSarek> Grae: Indeed. ;-)
[21:09] * +Fiolli facepalms.
[21:09] <+Kilson> Whoever you pick for the editer.
[21:09] <@Riffsyphon1024> then while doing the crossword, the admin can make a change to the print article and submit it
[21:09] <+Kilson> Don't pick me. :P
[21:09] <+Jaymach> you should probably move on, Graestan
[21:09] <@Graestan> I am.
[21:09] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[21:09] <+Tyber> Grae: i might have some ideas for external opinions
[21:09] <@Graestan> "While we're at it… I have an idea for a reworking of {{Jedi Civil War}} and possibly other war templates, should this be viewed favorably, which I would like to propose. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) "
[21:09] <@Riffsyphon1024> yes
[21:09] <@jSarek> Don't worry Kilson, you were in no danger. :-p
[21:09] <+Fiolli> Ideas have been bantered by users in the past for a revised template. After talking with a few and taking suggestions, here is what I've come up with: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jedimasterfiolli/Guider
[21:09] <@Graestan> Fiolli?
[21:10] <+Kilson> Thanks be to Jesus.
[21:10] <@Graestan> I personally love this
[21:10] <@Graestan> Cylka?
[21:10] <+Kilson> And PIE.
[21:10] <@SillyDan> Looks good to me.
[21:10] <@Darth_Culator> Pretty.
[21:10] <+Jujiggum> looks good to me
[21:10] <+JangFett> Support
[21:10] <+Mauser> just do it. If I REALLY dislike, i revert it back :p
[21:10] <@Riffsyphon1024> I dig it
[21:10] <@LordHydronium> I like it.
[21:10] <@Imperialles> Looks very nice.
[21:10] <@AdmirableAckbar> This could probably be raised on the template's talk page.
[21:10] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[21:10] <+Tyber> very well
[21:10] <@ChackJadson> support
[21:10] <@AdmirableAckbar> But yeah, go for it
[21:10] <@LordHydronium> Our current war templates are quite shit
[21:10] <+Tommy9281> I like that
[21:10] <+Tyber> Strong support
[21:10] <+Tommy9281> Support
[21:10] <+MasterJonathan> Strong support
[21:10] <@Riffsyphon1024> support
[21:10] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[21:10] <@jSarek> Looks pretty good. Support.
[21:10] <@Havac> It's a bit too big and unwieldy for me.
[21:10] <@LordHydronium> Support like a bra
[21:10] <+Kilson> Could we make the text bigger?
[21:10] <@Riffsyphon1024> btw, link to the one old?
[21:10] <+Kilson> Just a little.
[21:10] <+Tyber> i thought about a similar template for Jedipedia
[21:10] <+Mauser> actually many templates could use improving
[21:10] <@Havac> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Jedi_Civil_War
[21:11] <+Fiolli> !Template:Jedi_Civil_War
[21:11] <@Riffsyphon1024> thank you
[21:11] <+Fiolli> Thanks, Havac.
[21:11] <@Havac> The current one could be improved, but this seems a bit bulky.
[21:11] <+IFYLOFD> The Jedi Civil War template now sucks.
[21:11] <@Imperialles> Mauser: Indeed, but we need to come up with a consistent look first.
[21:11] <@Riffsyphon1024> yuck
[21:11] <@Graestan> Kilson: CTRL and + :P
[21:11] <@Riffsyphon1024> yeah definitely the new one
[21:11] <+Tyber> implement hide / show
[21:11] <@Darth_Culator> Ooh, the new one has all kinds of condensed info. I like it.
[21:11] <@Cylka> Looks Good.
[21:11] <@Darth_Culator> Super-support.
[21:11] <@Riffsyphon1024> infomania
[21:11] <@GreenTentacle> Ooh, square.
[21:11] <+Fiolli> I know it is a little blocky, but I like the fixed size which compliments our succession boxes and other templates we've been making lately.
[21:11] <@Graestan> Fiolli is the new Template King. This passes.
[21:11] <+Kilson> I'm good with it.
[21:11] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[21:11] <+DarthTrayus> ike
[21:11] <@Cylka> Wait.
[21:11] <+Tommy9281> What's the difference between support & strong support?
[21:12] <+DarthTrayus> Like* Support
[21:12] <@Graestan> Waiting...
[21:12] <@Cylka> Can I add a topic
[21:12] <@Imperialles> See, this is the kind of thing we could be doing with square corners.
[21:12] <+Mauser> While we're at it, I have a quick proposal
[21:12] <@Riffsyphon1024> they still support it
[21:12] <@Grunny> It's a feeling Tommy :P
[21:12] <@Graestan> Cylka: After this one:
[21:12] <@LordHydronium> Tommy: The principle of the thing. :P
[21:12] <@Graestan> "Apparently we can ask Wikia to enable users on the individual wikis to perform CheckUser. I'd like to propose that Darth Culator, the only person I know with copious knowledge of IP ranges and so forth and a very active administrator, be put forth for consideration, and a petition be sent to Wikia staff. Graestan(Talk) 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) "
[21:12] <+Fiolli> We're not done yet.
[21:12] <@Graestan> Culator is the man.
[21:12] <+Tommy9281> Nah man, let's keep it movin
[21:12] <@ChackJadson> support
[21:12] <@Darth_Culator> Cylka: Tack it to the agends before the end.
[21:12] <@Toprawa> Natural support
[21:12] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[21:12] <+Kilson> I agree.
[21:12] <@AdmirableAckbar> Support.
[21:12] <@Graestan> We need to give this to him and no one else.
[21:12] <@Grunny> Suppory
[21:12] <@Cylka> How about adotping Fiolli's idea for all of our war templates.
[21:12] <+Fiolli> Support.
[21:12] <@Imperialles> I have already asked them, Grae.
[21:12] <+MasterJonathan> support
[21:12] <+Kilson> Culator deserves it.
[21:12] <+Jujiggum> support
[21:12] <@Riffsyphon1024> he is.. the man
[21:12] <@Grunny> Support*
[21:12] <@Grunny> :P
[21:12] <@Imperialles> Angela said no.
[21:12] <@Graestan> Imp: For Culator?
[21:12] <+Mauser> Support, even though I have no idea what it is
[21:12] <+Tyber> support
[21:12] <+JangFett> Support
[21:12] <+IFYLOFD> CULATOR IS VICTORIOUS ON ALL FRONTS
[21:12] <@Graestan> Why did she say no?
[21:12] <@Imperialles> No, for any admin.
[21:12] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[21:12] <@Cylka> KK.
[21:12] <@Havac> I'd support for more than Culator.
[21:12] <@Graestan> What about us, then?
[21:12] <@Darth_Culator> Charitwo said they loosened this in the last few months.
[21:12] <@Grunny> BC?
[21:12] <@Imperialles> She didn't want to compromise private user information
[21:12] <@AdmirableAckbar> Give her a petition and ask again.
[21:12] <+Kilson> Does anyone else want to go?
[21:13] <@Darth_Culator> So if it wasn't recent, ask again.
[21:13] <@ChackJadson> Per Acky
[21:13] <+Tyber> it's ridiculous
[21:13] <@SillyDan> I'd support, but suggest at least one other user get nominated: of course, if Wikia won't allow it, it's moot.
[21:13] <+Fiolli> Give her the mofference results! ;)
[21:13] <@Imperialles> It was in late 2007.
[21:13] <@Graestan> We can present them with a petition.
[21:13] <@AdmirableAckbar> SD: anyone in particular?
[21:13] <@Darth_Culator> Oh, that was ancient.
[21:13] <@ChackJadson> want to nominate a user, then?
[21:13] <@Graestan> I'll draw one up if I must.
[21:13] <@ChackJadson> a BC?
[21:13] <+Tyber> i say abandon Wikia and you can get it for every admin :P
[21:13] <+Kilson> I nominate Greastan.
[21:13] <+IFYLOFD> It was in late 2007.
[21:13] <@Darth_Culator> Tyber: Baby steps.
[21:13] <@Riffsyphon1024> support at least for Wookiee's personal bulldog DC
[21:13] <@GreenTentacle> Culator and a BC.
[21:13] <@Imperialles> Then again, we did recently get bot rights from Wikia (hells yeah).
[21:13] <+Tyber> it's a quite handy tool
[21:13] <+Kilson> *Graestan.
[21:13] <@Toprawa> per GT
[21:13] <@Grunny> Culator and Graestan
[21:13] <+Fiolli> Abandoning wikia is something we have considered on the side a touch.
[21:13] <@ChackJadson> Culator and Grae
[21:13] <+Kilson> I should probably get his name right. P
[21:13] <+Jujiggum> Per Grun
[21:13] <@AdmirableAckbar> Just Culator, imho.
[21:14] <@SillyDan> Our active BCs would be OK with it, I think.
[21:14] <+Tyber> Culator: i know, i know ;)
[21:14] <+Kilson> Can we send more than one?
[21:14] <@Imperialles> Why not just Culator a BC?
[21:14] <@Havac> All active BCs.
[21:14] <+Tyber> support, Culator and Grae
[21:14] <@Riffsyphon1024> umm
[21:14] <@Imperialles> just make*
[21:14] <+MasterJonathan> Culator and Grae
[21:14] <@ChackJadson> Havac: who are those?
[21:14] <@Graestan> per Imp :D
[21:14] <@Grunny> Indeeed Culator for BC
[21:14] <+Tommy9281> Per Ackbar
[21:14] <+Mauser> Support both
[21:14] <+Kilson> How many active BCs do we have?
[21:14] <+Jujiggum> Culator and Grae
[21:14] <@LordHydronium> Would Wikia have a limit if they allowed if? If not, then when not all BCs like Hav said?
[21:14] <@Riffsyphon1024> might have to oppose that one
[21:14] <@LordHydronium> *why
[21:14] <@AdmirableAckbar> Oppose all BCs.
[21:14] <@ChackJadson> oppose all BCs
[21:14] <@SillyDan> (I realize for practical purposes it might just be Culator using the powers.)
[21:14] <@Toprawa> Oppose all BCs
[21:14] <@Havac> Why oppose?
[21:14] <+Mauser> oppose all BCs
[21:14] <+Kilson> I'm good with Grae and Culator.
[21:14] <@Cylka> Oppose all BCs.
[21:14] <@Darth_Culator> I already have a job where personal information is basically all I deal with. If I passed an FCC-regulated vetting process, Wikia shouldn't have a problem with me.
[21:14] <+Fiolli> oppose all BCs
[21:15] <@Grunny> Oppose all BCs
[21:15] <+Kilson> They both do a good job on the site.
[21:15] <@Havac> What's any bureaucrat other than Grae going to do wrong with CheckUser?
[21:15] <@Grunny> Culator and Grae would put it to most use
[21:15] <+Kilson> Not to take anything away from the other BCs.
[21:15] <@Riffsyphon1024> then this is down DC's alley
[21:15] <@ChackJadson> Havac: find out their SSN :P
[21:15] <@AdmirableAckbar> Havac: I want just Culator.
[21:15] <+IFYLOFD> Oppose all BCs. Just Culator.
[21:15] <@Imperialles> How would Grae put it to use exactly? :p
[21:15] <@Riffsyphon1024> Culator, define your relationship with CheckUser?
[21:15] <@Graestan> I am flattered. But then someone else should draw up a petition.
[21:15] <+Kilson> Shame 4Dot isn't here.
[21:15] <@Grunny> As long as Culator gets it I don't mind
[21:15] <+Kilson> Or Gonk.
[21:15] <@Toprawa> I think they're married, Riff
[21:15] <@Graestan> Kilson?
[21:15] <+Kilson> What?
[21:15] <@ChackJadson> who's married?
[21:16] <+charitwo> i know my opinion doesn't matter but Culator and Graestan sound like good CU candidates
[21:16] * +Fiolli facepalms.
[21:16] <+charitwo> fwiw
[21:16] <+Tyber> ...
[21:16] <@Graestan> Thank, Chari
[21:16] <+Fiolli> Thanks, Charitwo.
[21:16] <@Riffsyphon1024> just want him to acknowledge his devotion to the tool
[21:16] <@Darth_Culator> Charitwo: You have voice, don't you? :P
[21:16] <@jSarek> That just sounds wrong.
[21:16] <@Imperialles> Dear God, Riff. :p
[21:16] <+charitwo> Darth_Culator: yeah, but there is a huge wall of ops
[21:16] <@Havac> I oppose giving it to just one BC. All or none.
[21:16] <@Riffsyphon1024> I didn't mean it that way
[21:16] <@Graestan> Culator is the main vandal hunter etc. on the site, RIff
[21:16] <+Tommy9281> Hmm
[21:16] <@ChackJadson> Culator is very trustworthy with this
[21:16] <@Cylka> I think Culator would be best.
[21:16] <+Tommy9281> I like Hav's point
[21:17] <+Fiolli> Havac: Culator isn't even a bc.
[21:17] <@Graestan> And he has the knowledge
[21:17] <@AdmirableAckbar> Culator is the most equipped to use it.
[21:17] <@Riffsyphon1024> then there you go, he gets CheckUser responsibility, as if he hasnt done it enough already
[21:17] <@Darth_Culator> My "relationship" with checkuser is more that I'd be the one best able to compare IP data than that I have experience with the tool itself.
[21:17] <@Graestan> And he can teach me :P
[21:17] <@Imperialles> Get Culator passed first and foremost. If it's cool, we can petition for more users.
[21:17] <@Graestan> I agree with Imp
[21:17] <@ChackJadson> per Imp
[21:17] <+Jujiggum> per imp
[21:17] <@Grunny> Per Imp
[21:17] <@Toprawa> per Imp
[21:17] <+Mauser> per Imp
[21:17] <@Riffsyphon1024> per Imp
[21:17] <@Cylka> Yes, per Imp.
[21:17] <@jSarek> Per Imp.
[21:17] <+charitwo> Being a bureaucrat doesn't have anything to do with being a Checkuser, other than...level of community trust?
[21:17] <@GreenTentacle> Sounds reasonable.
[21:17] <+MasterJonathan> per Imp
[21:17] <+IFYLOFD> Per Imp.
[21:17] <+Pranay_Sobusk> per Imp.
[21:17] <@Graestan> Keep your eyes peeled for a petition on the NB forums
[21:17] <@Riffsyphon1024> that's just another level of trust
[21:17] <+Tyber> per Imp
[21:17] <@AdmirableAckbar> charitwo: something like that
[21:18] <@Riffsyphon1024> done with this topic?
[21:18] <+Tyber> go on
[21:18] <+IFYLOFD> Pass. Move on to the next topic.
[21:18] <@Darth_Culator> What did Cylka want to bring up?
[21:18] <@Graestan> Okay, I have a last-minute proposal.
[21:18] <+Mauser> I have a quick proposal
[21:18] <@Graestan> "GA redlink rule proposal: three maximum for under 500 words, five maximum for over."
[21:18] <+Fiolli> Admins: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:Kota250
[21:18] <@AdmirableAckbar> Cylka's is already on the agenda.
[21:18] <@Graestan> Support.
[21:18] <+Kilson> I support.
[21:18] <@Riffsyphon1024> hmm
[21:18] <+Jujiggum> Support
[21:18] <+MasterJonathan> Support
[21:18] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[21:18] <+Kilson> But I think this should go to the AC.
[21:18] <@Riffsyphon1024> what is it at right now?
[21:18] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[21:18] <+Fiolli> Support.
[21:18] <+Mauser> aren't we on Ct with this one?
[21:19] <+Tyber> i don't mind redlinks
[21:19] <+Fiolli> Mauser: CT is different.
[21:19] <+IFYLOFD> I think it should be less, personally.
[21:19] <+Kilson> They don't really look good.
[21:19] <@Riffsyphon1024> remember redlinks promote growth
[21:19] <+Tyber> let the AC decide
[21:19] <@Graestan> Not on CT
[21:19] <+Jujiggum> Per Floyd, but I'll setle for this
[21:19] <+Jujiggum> *settle
[21:19] <@Graestan> The AC already came up with this.
[21:19] <+Mauser> Fiolli: how exactly?
[21:19] <@GreenTentacle> Don't let the AC decide.
[21:19] <@AdmirableAckbar> Too complicated.
[21:19] <+Fiolli> The CT is about redlinks being removed from the intro/infobox/etc.
[21:19] <@Graestan> That's why it's here
[21:19] <+Kilson> OK, well, as long as it's good with the AC.
[21:19] <@AdmirableAckbar> Just have a set number - it really makes no difference.
[21:19] <@Cylka> Too many redlinks on a short article are god awful.
[21:19] <+Fiolli> This is the entire article.
[21:19] <@GreenTentacle> They can't set GA rules. The Inq can't set FA rules.
[21:19] <+CC7567> It's the community, not the AC.
[21:19] <@AdmirableAckbar> Most redlinks that are created are shit anyway.
[21:19] <@Graestan> GT, I already clarified.
[21:19] <+Mauser> ok, in this case I support
[21:19] <@GreenTentacle> And support.
[21:19] <@Riffsyphon1024> if its a GA, its not a short article necessarily
[21:20] <+CC7567> Support.
[21:20] <@Toprawa> Support
[21:20] <@ChackJadson> it is, Riff
[21:20] <+Jujiggum> Still support
[21:20] <+Fiolli> Support.
[21:20] <@ChackJadson> they must be under 3000 words
[21:20] <+MasterJonathan> Support
[21:20] <+CC7567> Riff: 90% of the time.
[21:20] <+Kilson> If I haven't already supported.
[21:20] <+Kilson> I support.
[21:20] <@AdmirableAckbar> Oppose
[21:20] <@ChackJadson> support
[21:20] <+DarthTrayus> support
[21:20] <@Riffsyphon1024> but short enough to be a pain to see redlinks?
[21:20] <+Tyber> i'm not sure if this redlink policy is that effective for quality
[21:20] <@Graestan> Enough about other things.
[21:20] <@Cylka> Support.
[21:20] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[21:20] <@Graestan> This measure passes
[21:20] <@Graestan> NEXT!
[21:20] <@Graestan> "# I think that Fiolli had a great idea with the war templates. I would like to propose that it be implemented for all of our war templates. Cylka-talk- 01:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC) "
[21:20] <@Darth_Culator> DO IT
[21:20] <+Tommy9281> Support
[21:20] <@Imperialles> Well, duh. :p
[21:20] <@Riffsyphon1024> sure
[21:20] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Support.
[21:20] <@AdmirableAckbar> Sure
[21:20] <+Jujiggum> support
[21:20] <@Graestan> Please, Fiolli!
[21:20] <+CC7567> But /please/ exclude Clone Wars.
[21:20] <+Fiolli> I'm willing to do it.
[21:20] <@Graestan> Please!
[21:20] <+IFYLOFD> Yes indeed.
[21:20] <+Kilson> Sure, why not.
[21:20] <+Tyber> support, by default
[21:20] <@ChackJadson> support
[21:20] <+JangFett> Support, per CC
[21:20] <+DarthTrayus> YES
[21:20] <@Darth_Culator> CC: XD
[21:20] <@GreenTentacle> It's still square. :P
[21:20] <+MasterJonathan> Per CC
[21:20] <@Graestan> CC: Of course ;)
[21:20] <+Fiolli> Clone Wars will not be touched until we have a timeline.
[21:20] <+DarthTrayus> Per CC
[21:20] <@Imperialles> Standardize the width of the things, though.
[21:20] <@ChackJadson> CC: hypocrite :P
[21:21] <+MasterJonathan> Support otherwise
[21:21] <+CC7567> There is *no way* we are doing a template for that. :P
[21:21] <@Riffsyphon1024> looks like you got some work to do Fiolli
[21:21] <@jSarek> If those were good examples of our current and new templates, then heck yes, support.
[21:21] <+IFYLOFD> Support and Per CC.
[21:21] <+Fiolli> I know.
[21:21] <+Jujiggum> heh. Per CC
[21:21] <+Tommy9281> lol Per Chac
[21:21] <+DarthTrayus> Please Per CC
[21:21] <+Kilson> Hey, CC owns the Clone Wars.
[21:21] <+Tommy9281> k*
[21:21] <@Imperialles> Gotta go!
[21:21] * @Imperialles (n=Imperial@wikia/Imperialles) Quit ("Leaving")
[21:21] <+Mauser> Have a quick proposal: remove hide option from all infoboxes. Reason: we do want out readers to see the infoboxes.
[21:21] <+Tommy9281> True
[21:21] <@Riffsyphon1024> the Clone Wars should finish first, at least the series should end before that can be set
[21:21] <+Tyber> very true
[21:21] <+Kilson> I support that.
[21:21] <+MasterJonathan> Who uses the hide button anyway?
[21:21] <@Graestan> per MJ XD
[21:21] <+Fiolli> I do, sometimes.
[21:21] <+Kilson> People who hate kittens. :P
[21:21] <+Tommy9281> I hit it accidentally and don't know how to undo it
[21:21] <+Tyber> no, no
[21:21] <+DarthTrayus> For the infobox???
[21:22] <+DarthTrayus> Who does that?
[21:22] <+Fiolli> Only on things like /Executor/ where it is FOREVER.
[21:22] <+Tyber> support for mauser's proposal
[21:22] <@GreenTentacle> Tommy9281: Try clicking show. :P
[21:22] <@Riffsyphon1024> how'd you hide the infobox?
[21:22] <@Havac> I don't see a need to take hiding away.
[21:22] <+Tommy9281> LMAO
[21:22] <+Kilson> I forget we have that most of the time.
[21:22] <+Tommy9281> I guess that'd do it
[21:22] <@Havac> So long as it's not default-hidden, people are seeing it.
[21:22] <@Graestan> So, support or oppose?
[21:22] <+Jujiggum> oppose
[21:22] <+Kilson> Support.
[21:22] <+IFYLOFD> Support.
[21:22] <@Havac> Why take away the ability to collapse it?
[21:22] <@GreenTentacle> Oppose. If you don't want to hide, don't click it.
[21:22] <@Riffsyphon1024> I personally dont have any reason to hide them
[21:22] <+Tyber> support
[21:22] <+MasterJonathan> Support
[21:22] <+Fiolli> Oppose.
[21:22] <+Tommy9281> support
[21:22] <@Graestan> no need for rule; oppose
[21:22] <+CC7567> Oppose and per GT.
[21:22] <+Pranay_Sobusk> Oppose.
[21:22] <+Fiolli> I agree with Havac.
[21:22] <@LordHydronium> oppose
[21:22] <@Havac> Strong oppose.
[21:22] <@jSarek> Oppose per GT.
[21:22] <@Darth_Culator> Epic meh.
[21:22] <@Cylka> Oppose.
[21:22] <+Mauser> it's for the readers: we don't want them to hide useful info
[21:23] <@Graestan> most infobox data is already redundant especially in GA/FA
[21:23] <+DarthTrayus> oppose
[21:23] <@AdmirableAckbar> Oppose
[21:23] <@Grunny> It's no harm leaving it there
[21:23] <@Grunny> Oppose
[21:23] <+Mauser> whatever
[21:23] <@Graestan> per Grunny
[21:23] <+CC7567> It's already default show. I fail to see why it's necessary.
[21:23] <@jSarek> Mauser: Why? If they want the info, they won't click it.
[21:23] <@Riffsyphon1024> I guess a choice isn't a bad thing
[21:23] <+Jujiggum> Per CC
[21:23] <+IFYLOFD> Whatever. Oppose.
[21:23] <@Havac> How is this for the readers?
[21:23] <+Tyber> well, go on then
[21:23] <@Havac> They already can hide it.
[21:23] <+DarthTrayus> Whats the issue with having the option?
[21:23] <@Havac> They can show it.
[21:23] <+Fiolli> Next! (If there is one.)
[21:23] <@Havac> They have everything they need.
[21:23] <+Kilson> I have a quick question/proposal.
[21:23] <@Riffsyphon1024> this isn't becoming an issue on browsers is it?
[21:23] <@AdmirableAckbar> no
[21:23] <@Graestan> Kilson has the floor.
[21:24] <+Kilson> We use {{App}} for OOU articles.
[21:24] <+Kilson> It starts off not showing the apps.
[21:24] <+Jaymach> just thought I'd make a note from earlier: Wikia's official position is to not allow people to hotlink from Wikia servers
[21:24] <+Kilson> Can we change it so that it shows it at first, and then have the option to collapse it?
[21:24] <+Jaymach> they can link to the image page or the page the image is on, but not the image directly
[21:24] <+Kilson> I work on OOU articles a lot.
[21:25] <@Grunny> Kilson that was voted on in the CT
[21:25] <+Mauser> unfortunately the cinsensus was to hide by default
[21:25] <+MasterJonathan> per Grunny
[21:25] <+Kilson> Great, I missed it. :(
[21:25] <@Darth_Culator> Jaymach: Yes, but they don't enforce it, even when we bring it to their direct attention. This is really just bringing our enforcement in line with their policy, so I don't see an issue.
[21:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> I'd support showing by default.
[21:25] <@Darth_Culator> Anyway, back on topic.
[21:25] <+Kilson> Me too.
[21:25] <+Jaymach> I know, just thought I'd comment :P
[21:25] <+Tyber> Kilson: isn't that something you can live with?
[21:25] <+Mauser> though I personally have to click it every time I visit an article - it's irritating
[21:25] <@Grunny> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:CT:Appearances_revamp_project&t=20090723004037#Show.2FHide
[21:25] <+MasterJonathan> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:CT:Appearances_revamp_project
[21:25] <@Graestan> per these linking cats
[21:25] <@AdmirableAckbar> I don't get why we hide by default.
[21:26] <@Darth_Culator> This was CT'ed already, recently, so I don't see the merit in overturning it.
[21:26] <@jSarek> That CT is still open, isn't it?
[21:26] <+Kilson> Well, I think App makes small OOUs like Hoth look wierd.
[21:26] <+Kilson> But that's just me.
[21:26] <+Mauser> and me
[21:26] <+Tyber> per culator
[21:26] <+Fiolli> I agree with Culator.
[21:26] <@Riffsyphon1024> how did I vote in that, wait a sec, I guess I didn't
[21:26] <@Cylka> Per Culator.
[21:26] <+Jujiggum> It's CT'd, let's move on
[21:26] <+Kilson> I'll bring it up next time then.
[21:26] <+Kilson> Give you guys sometime to think about it.
[21:27] <@LordHydronium> Wait, we put {{App}} in every OOU, even the one-or-two-entry ones?
[21:27] <+Fiolli> Is that a threat? ;)
[21:27] <+Kilson> You know me.
[21:27] <+Kilson> I don't make threats.
[21:27] <@ChackJadson> don't say it
[21:27] <@Riffsyphon1024> moving on?
[21:27] <@ChackJadson> :P
[21:27] <+Mauser> currently, yes
[21:27] <@LtNOWIS> App is long overdue
[21:27] * +Tyber gives Kilson some PIE
[21:27] <+Kilson> I make promises.
[21:27] <+Kilson> :P
[21:27] <@Graestan> There is nowhere to move on to.
[21:27] <@SillyDan> AOB?
[21:27] <@Riffsyphon1024> so its done?
[21:27] <@Graestan> DARK FAREWELLS