Talk

Forum:Organising meetings

Given our intention to schedule meetings more frequently, what are your thoughts on establishing a dedicated subpage at Wookieepedia:WookieeProject Knights of the Old Republic/Meetings? This page would provide details on meeting attendance, upcoming meeting schedules, a section for proposed topics, summaries of past meetings, and links to their respective logs. If this proposal is well-received and there are no concerns, I am willing to handle the creation of this subpage. --Tm_T 11:57, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • That sounds like a very worthwhile suggestion to me. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 19:42, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • I should have mentioned two key reasons behind my desire to implement this: Consolidating all relevant information and logs in a single location, eliminating the need for extensive searches. Minimizing the need to post repeatedly on user talk pages; individuals can stay informed about upcoming meetings and log publications simply by monitoring the designated meetings subpage. --Tm_T 20:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • Would the formatting (specifically, a subpage for each meeting) mirror that of the INQ/AC meetings? I believe that holding these meetings more consistently, perhaps every three months, would be highly beneficial. NAYAYEN:TALK 20:39, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • Indeed, my plan is to create a subpage for each individual meeting. However, I'm unsure whether the decisions made at previous meetings should also be included directly on the meeting page itself, or if logs and summaries should have their own subpages. I'm more accustomed to having logs immediately following summaries, but I'm open to other arrangements. --Tm_T 20:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • This is certainly a good idea. I was leaning towards a bi-monthly schedule, but quarterly would also work. I think your preferred method of organization is perfectly acceptable. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 04:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • This is certainly a good idea. I was leaning towards a bi-monthly schedule, but quarterly would also work. I think your preferred method of organization is perfectly acceptable. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 04:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • After further consideration, I believe we could adopt a strategy similar to the INQ meetings, which involves creating a new forum post for each upcoming meeting and populating it with a template. I've created a draft version with some placeholder content at User:Tm T/Meetingtemp. Do you think it is excessive? --Tm_T 21:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The potential inclusion of infobox captions is a major advantage. The overall concept is also excellent; well done. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The potential inclusion of infobox captions is a major advantage. The overall concept is also excellent; well done. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Indeed, my plan is to create a subpage for each individual meeting. However, I'm unsure whether the decisions made at previous meetings should also be included directly on the meeting page itself, or if logs and summaries should have their own subpages. I'm more accustomed to having logs immediately following summaries, but I'm open to other arrangements. --Tm_T 20:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • This is certainly a good idea. I was leaning towards a bi-monthly schedule, but quarterly would also work. I think your preferred method of organization is perfectly acceptable. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 04:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • This is certainly a good idea. I was leaning towards a bi-monthly schedule, but quarterly would also work. I think your preferred method of organization is perfectly acceptable. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 04:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • After further consideration, I believe we could adopt a strategy similar to the INQ meetings, which involves creating a new forum post for each upcoming meeting and populating it with a template. I've created a draft version with some placeholder content at User:Tm T/Meetingtemp. Do you think it is excessive? --Tm_T 21:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The potential inclusion of infobox captions is a major advantage. The overall concept is also excellent; well done. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The potential inclusion of infobox captions is a major advantage. The overall concept is also excellent; well done. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I should have mentioned two key reasons behind my desire to implement this:

  • Consolidating all relevant information and logs in a single location, eliminating the need for extensive searches.

  • Minimizing the need to post repeatedly on user talk pages; individuals can stay informed about upcoming meetings and log publications simply by monitoring the designated meetings subpage. --Tm_T 20:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • Would the formatting (specifically, a subpage for each meeting) mirror that of the INQ/AC meetings? I believe that holding these meetings more consistently, perhaps every three months, would be highly beneficial. NAYAYEN:TALK 20:39, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • Indeed, my plan is to create a subpage for each individual meeting. However, I'm unsure whether the decisions made at previous meetings should also be included directly on the meeting page itself, or if logs and summaries should have their own subpages. I'm more accustomed to having logs immediately following summaries, but I'm open to other arrangements. --Tm_T 20:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • This is certainly a good idea. I was leaning towards a bi-monthly schedule, but quarterly would also work. I think your preferred method of organization is perfectly acceptable. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 04:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • This is certainly a good idea. I was leaning towards a bi-monthly schedule, but quarterly would also work. I think your preferred method of organization is perfectly acceptable. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 04:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, three months is too long to wait between meetings, especially if we aim to coordinate our efforts on articles under review. A gap of two months or less, or even monthly meetings initially, could be more effective in getting things started, assuming such frequency is warranted. (: --Tm_T 10:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur; a three-month interval is excessive. Perhaps a monthly schedule, or something similar. Nonetheless, the concept of creating a dedicated subpage is sound. DarthRage 20:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • After further consideration, I believe we could adopt a strategy similar to the INQ meetings, which involves creating a new forum post for each upcoming meeting and populating it with a template. I've created a draft version with some placeholder content at User:Tm T/Meetingtemp. Do you think it is excessive? --Tm_T 21:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The potential inclusion of infobox captions is a major advantage. The overall concept is also excellent; well done. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The potential inclusion of infobox captions is a major advantage. The overall concept is also excellent; well done. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Appearances

This article uses content from Wookiepedia, under CC-BY-SA 3.0.