Bleach Wiki talk:Article Improvement Unit

Additions
I would like to suggest adding the following to the "Badly Needed" section:
 * Makoto Kibune (which I would like to claim)
 * Maki Ichinose
 * Ran'Tao
 * Ryūsei Kenzaki (which I would like to claim)
 * Rusaburō Enkōgawa (which I would like to claim)

And the following to the "Needed" section:
 * Cloning Arrancar
 * Heizō Kasaki
 * Shinobu Eishima
 * Todō Gizaeimon
 * Rukia Kuchiki

SerialSniper14 06:29, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to what you've suggested, I'm already going under a referencing overhaul on Amagai's page, so I can help with Kibune as well. And assuming nobody's willing to touch the Bount arc again, I'm willing to claim Ran'Tao and Ichinose as well (especially since we had to double-check something on Ran'Tao recently). But yeah, let's see what Tinni and some of the others of the Committee think should be done. I mean, for all we know, they might want the ones already there to be completed first before adding more, but that doesn't mean you yourself can't take on some of these now. Arrancar109 (Talk)  06:35, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Is Rukia's page marked for overhaul? We'll have to check with Salibur about that. But otherwise I am adding the pages. I mean, if they need referencing, they need referencing and should be on the list. Tinni  (Talk)  06:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Done. I marked Rukia's page as marked for overhaul. If Salibur says that is it no marked for overhaul I'll take it off. However, I suspect that page is marked for overhaul as it has a number of other issues, of which referencing is a the least of the problems. Tinni  (Talk)  06:51, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

"Completed" Section
Now that there are articles that have been referenced and completed, could we add a "Completed" section below the "Minor Needed" which lists all articles that have been completed? I think having this list would be a good alternative to leaving the completed articles in the "Needed" sections, and also better than just deleting them from the list as it would be archived in the project. They could also be dated by when they were completed if they need to be referred to in the future. SerialSniper14 18:07, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Section Created. Minato  (Talk)  18:26, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Who can to move articles to the "Completed" section? SerialSniper14 18:59, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone can move pages that they feel r completed to the section. Only Admins or Committee Members r allowed to remove the pages in that section. Minato  (Talk)  19:01, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

New Edits
It probably should come as no surprise that there is significant problems when it comes to new edits popping up. We have a large number of users who like to edit articles by adding new information. More often then not this information is either wrong or not properly referenced. The issue is when its credible information. The same users tend to not reference any of their work. Now its not right that anyone should have to run after others to make references that should have been made when the person decided to put down the information. There is already something stating this much in the manuel of style. In the event that this takes places all members of the policy and standards committee including those who specifically deal in the referencing project are encouraged to fill in this absence of references. Salubri (Talk)  17:19, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Manga References
Several of the reference edits I have seen have been pertaining to anime episodes, rather than the manga chapters. While this would usually be fine, manga references can provide page numbers that show the exact moment in which a referenced event and etc. is shown. On the other hand, an anime episode reference refers to a 20+ minute time frame, making it harder to verify. Several of these articles' references can be practically doubled by replacing anime references with their respective manga counterparts; would it be possible to add manga reference priority to the manual of style? Something is better than nothing, but the issue has been bugging me for a while. Mohrpheus 02:43, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Your right. It is commonly assumed that it should go without saying that manga takes precedent over anime in any case. In references I normally do the manga is always used first and foremost and if this project is about referencing then I figured thats whats happening. Now it seems its not the case. Manga should be the major format for references with anime being secondary except in cases of accurately depicting in color and movement and as well as anime only content. I'll make sure that this is changed to reflect on the manuel of style. Salubri (Talk)  02:53, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Reccomended for Overhaul?
After a short delay, I have been doing extensive work on Pesche's page, not only adding many much-needed references, but putting massive amounts of detail into his synopsis section, as well as fixing various spelling and grammar errors. Near completion, I compared his article to Dondo's (which resembles what Pesche's once looked like), and came to realize that I had practically overhauled the article. With this in mind, should I proceed to fix up Dondo's page as well (since he and Pesche have many identical references), or is it in a severe enough state for admin overhaul? I'm not sure what an article needs to qualify for overhaul, but Dondo's is in need of severe repair. I don't mind either way. Mohrpheus 18:25, January 22, 2010 (UTC)