Bleach Wiki talk:Policy & Standards Committee

Zangetsu Rename
Okay, this has been overdue for awhile now. I've been waiting for some of the previous discussion to be resolved before I started this, and now that they have been, we can get down to business. With the revelations and events that occurred in the recent chapters, Zangetsu (spirit) and Hollow Ichigo. I've heard names for both, and now I think it's time we rename it.


 * Old Man Zangetsu: Zangetsu (Quincy spirit), Zangetsu (Old Man), Old Man, Zangetsu (Quincy powers)
 * True Zangetsu: Zangetsu (Zanpakuto spirit), Zangetsu (Hollow spirit), Zangetsu (Zanpakuto & Hollow spirit), Zangetsu (spirit), Zangetsu (Shinigami & Hollow powers)

I would have previously suggested calling the old man "Zangetsu (false)", but I'm thinking that since Ichigo considers them both Zangetsu, I'm withdrawing that name nomination. Additionally, we will NOT be entertaining any thoughts of merging the two pages with anything, as it will serve no purpose other than to create a ridiculous amount of bulk for one article. So, Administrators and Committee members, please pick your choice and vote.

NOTE: Only Administrators and Committee members are allowed to vote on this. If you vote, but are not an Administrator or a Committee member, your vote will be ignored and deleted. Arrancar109 (Talk)  06:32, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll start off. For Old Man Zangetsu, I'm thinking "Zangetsu (Quincy spirit)", and the Hollow, "Zangetsu (Zanpakuto spirit)". Arrancar109 (Talk)  06:33, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Im for simply Hollow Ichigo named Zangetsu (Zanpakuto Spirit) as he rightly should be and for the Quincy Powers to be named Zangetsu (Old Man), because he isnt really zangetsu except to ichigo, he himself stated he wasnt and the only official name for him in the series is old man per what ichigo calls him since day one.--


 * Since both are implied to be his Zanpakutō spirits, I think that using "Zanpakutō" as a descriptor would be inaccurate. With that in mind, I vote for "Zangetsu (Quincy powers)" and "Zangetsu (Shinigami & Hollow powers)" since they generalize a bit more. Mohrpheus   (Talk)  06:46, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think naming Zangetsu (spirit) as Zangetsu (Quincy spirit) and Hollow Ichigo as Zangetsu (Zanpakutō spirit) would be the most accurate and provide a clear contrast between the two scratch that, Mohrp's idea makes more sense..--Xilinoc (talk) 14:57, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I like both suggestions as they are both relevant as both have taken on the persona of Zangetsu and the Old man has not given us any other relevant name to give him!! His real name could be George for all anyone cares, it has not been given to us and for the time being, most fans attribute the Quincy representation as Zangetsu!! So many only watch the anime so yes dividing them up but keeping the relevant name is fine by me!! Personally will be glad that he won't be listed in an article like the other awful Zanpakutō spirits!!

Agreed.-- 16:56, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of anything better.

For Hollow Ichigo I prefer Zangetsu (Zanpakutō Spirit) and for the 'old' man, Zangetsu (Quincy Spirit), but I would not be opposed to the "Quincy/Shinigami & Hollow powers" idea either. 15:40, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Both suggestions, as Sunxia pointed out, do a fairly accurate job of describing things. As Sunxia pointed out, we do have to keep in mind how there are a fair number of fans who follow only the anime. I agree with how many attribute Zangetsu to be the Quincy representation. In any case, I think that Zangetsu (Quincy spirit) would be appropriate for "Old Man Zangetsu." For "Hollow Ichigo", either Zangetsu (Zanpakuto & Hollow spirit) or Zangetsu (Shinigami & Hollow powers) could work since it has been said that Ichigo's Shinigami powers are very much his Hollow powers. ---Mr. N (Discuss)   02:04, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Violation Warning Count
You know what I'm thinking? We need to create a chart on what activities violate policies and how many times we will warn them about said activity before blocking them, as well as state the baseline duration of the block. (ex. table saying action x will be warned y number of times, block will last for duration z) This can include stuff like vandalism (which will be blocked indefinitely and without warning), to failure to follow image policy (warn like, oh say 5 times, with a week ban?), to what happens when policy is repeatedly violated after a ban. Anyways, this chart can help people understand exactly how much patience we have on certain actions by showing how many times they will be warned and how long they will be banned, and keeps bans and warnings consistent, since there are cases where some people are warned more often or banned shorter than another person of the same violation, which isn't fair and makes my OCD side slightly ticked.


 * Interesting Concept, lets see about it.--
 * I would certain support this. I recall suggesting something similar, except it was to serve as a tracking tool for keeping track of problematic users that the Administrators might not catch (see here: Policy Violations Page - Additional Tool for Committee?. The suggestion was not able to be implemented. I like this idea a bit more, however. I think I have seen other sites have something like that, so this would help in curtailing inconsistent disciplinary actions. ---Mr. N (Discuss)   02:09, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * It would certainly help us keep some uniformity in the way we punish people both on the Wiki and in chat. I think we can all agree on which offenses are most severe, so I'd definitely like to see some kind of draft. Mohrpheus   (Talk)  03:12, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. I feel that this is a more responsible way of dealing with people-- 23:49, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I will have a draft up by 6 PM EDT on Friday.

As promised, I have created a draft on my sandbox. If you feel that anything needs to be added, message me on my talk page.

Alright, I have gotten plenty of feedback on the chart. I believe now we can finalize the table and put it on an official page.

Self Nomination - Schiffy
As there are three open spaces, I would like to nominate myself for a position. Recently, I have become very active on the wiki, and have, in the past, helped in enforcing the policies here. I am aware, and will readily admit to, that in the past I have failed to follow the MoS, but of course, ceased doing so after being told of such (never anything to get me blocked, for that matter). Overall, I believe I would be a good addition to the committee, and I plan to help out as much as I have been in the past, and more. I appreciate it if this would be taken into consideration.


 * 1) - Not in a bad way but I want to see more Project things done, like I said before I am not rushing into these things so I want more edits and more Project things, this is one of the main responsibilities of a Committee Member!! there have been those who have come and gone and not done any projects and I think this needs to be a focus at the minute!! Also has been argumentative with me, violated Edit War policies and argued with me in regards to it!! Argued with me again in chat when I was merely asking if a User was interested in editing at the wiki in line with our Chat Policies in my capacity as a Chat Moderator, but he got involved throwing accusations which were not true!! Until he shows acceptance of the rules and my role in this matter, I cannot change my vote!!
 * 2) I suppose it's about time I gave my two cents on this. Believe me, Schiffy is an all-around good guy, and I don't think he'd make a bad committee member. However, I have to agree with SunXia in that he needs to do more work in regards to projects, some of which are in need of quite a bit of assistance, and though I don't doubt he doesn't slack in regards to editing on here, I think he should be active for another few months to prove his commitment. If all this happens, I'll happily welcome him to the committee, but until then I'll have to oppose his nomination.--Xilinoc (talk) 21:44, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

I am going to abstain on this. I really haven't seen enough of his work to make a profound conclusion.-- 23:51, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) From a cursory inspection, I've determined that Schiffy's edits over the past two months, while not necessarily hugely ambitious nor project-related, have been considerable enough in quality, quantity, and variety for him to become a member. He's created redirects, contacted users regarding policy violations, fixed grammar, made a few wide-scale edits, and it's rather apparent that he keeps his eye on the Recent Changes page. Overall, he's rather easy to work with and while there is certainly room for improvement, I do not see any particular reasons not to sign him on.  Mohrpheus   (Talk)  01:50, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Although I'd rather he be less harsh towards new users accidentally violating policy, I think he's a good editor and knows the policy well. And good help is hard to come by.

I too will abstain on voting on this. I think I may have seen Schiffy and their work a few times. However, I have not seen enough of it to support or oppose.---Mr. N (Discuss)   20:59, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Sun and My Little Project
Alright, so as some of you may notice, Sun and I have been active on her sandbox. We've been working on standardizing how to handle policy violations and such, 'cause inconsistency in this is bound to bring problems. In that sense, she helped me set up the Bleach Wiki:Policy Violations Guide so that all users are dealt with in a fairer manner.

Also, Sun wanted to standardize warnings and make them look more noticeable on the talk page. So we have created these templates to do so. The instructions for using them are on their page. They're mostly just inserting template name, your username, and the # of warnings they get, but some take more or less parameters. I tasked Schiffy with creating the remainder from the chart.


 * And now we have all of them

Forum Abilities
Alright, so Sal and I are thinking of contacting Wiki Staff to grant Committee to close Forums. Basically, it keeps the forum up, but prevents anymore replies to it. This can help close old forums and resolved forum issues. Better than the default "Remove Thread", which doesn't make sense unless you're removing an inappropriate thread. Thoughts?

To be honest, most of the time I try not to touch the forums with a ten-foot long pole. However, it is easy enough to spot when a legit forum has served its purpose. That being said, removing threads that were actually productive in some matter is counterproductive. I think it would be a good tool for us to have. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  13:05, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Why not just ask an admin to close it? The three of us can easily handle that. We don't need 10 people able to do this. I'll happily close any forums that might need doing so. I just don't see the point in giving out a new right when there are already sufficient people perfectly capable of doing this. I am back from my little unplanned sabbatical and will review the existing forums once I have caught back up. 22:10, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Idea to improve on the warning templates
So, I recently came across a method to adding sigs to the recent warning templates that were added. I got this idea from looking at Bulbapedia's welcome template, just for the record. Currently, the templates have it signed just with a link to the userpage of the person leaving the template. However, if the person leaving it wanted to have their own sig added when used, a couple changes would have to be made. First, in place of that userpage link, the following code would need to be added: " " (three ~'s could also be used, since some people here use a signature template with the date as a parameter). Now, Sun and I tried this, but the ~'s did not default a signature, so I went to Bulba's staff for a reason. What would have to be done if this system is implemented to fix that issue is anyone leaving the warning template on a talk page would have to use "subst:" to substitute the template in, in which case the signature will replace the ~'s. This has some pros and some cons, so I figured I'd get a committee consensus.
 * Pros
 * Sigs are used in the template (the actual intention in the first place)
 * If the template is ever changed later on, old uses of the template will not be changed (this is actually a pro in my opinion, because if a template used on a lot of pages is changed, all the changes happening at once actually can cause some server-side issues)
 * Cons
 * If the template is substituted and this change is made, all old uses of the templates will have a few ~'s on them that won't default to a sigs (not so bad, since the name of the person leaving it is also at the top of the template)
 * Simply because of how template substitution works, all future uses of the templates will be replaced by the entire code on the talk page its used on, which also isn't a major flaw, aside from the amount of data it could add to talk pages if enough of them are used (I doubt anything will end up as large as, say, the Ichigo Kurosaki page in sheer size, so it's not as if page loading times will be a major issue).

Anyway, it may seem rather trivial, but I feel that this should be agreed upon before it's done.


 * Naturally I agree with this!!
 * In my rare opportunity of doing my job, I agree, this seems like the next logical step. -- 20:27, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * This would simplify things sorta.
 * Agh, so many words and new ideas. They confuse me! Mohrpheus   (Talk)  22:31, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Featured Stuff Voting Requirement
For the Featured Article, Image, and Quote, there is an editing requirement for voting. I am putting into question the effectiveness of this rule. De facto, it limits votes to just the committee rather than the community, as many people would rather just vote. They aren't really touching the articles in question, so there really isn't any vandalism being done. And besides, we only get very few serious editors and that's only a portion of the community, we need the whole community. So I say do away with the edit requirement.
 * 1) It just doesn't seem like there needs to be such a requirement for Featured voting. I have seen many an instance where even someone with no edits can come up with a valid vote on a Featured Article/Image/Quote.

I'm sure this was brought up somewhere else before and as was said there, the voting requirement was introduced to counter repeated voting irregularities and manipulation of the vote by certain individuals. It served its purpose effectively at the time, but I think we are long passed the point of needing that. I would support the removal of the requirement as without its original primary purpose being there, it is now an impediment. These things occasionally need review to make sure they are still fit for purpose and in the event that there are problems down the road as a result of removing the requirement, it can be re-examined at the time. But in the meantime I think it should be relaxed. 10:08, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we have progressed a long way, but I think there still needs to be some structured rules.-- 01:46, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as the Featured Votes go, I do not think they really need stringent requirements, or perhaps any at all. Voter turnout tends to be rather low as is, and as already mentioned, even people who don't edit can come up with legitimate reasons. On top of which, two of the votes do not even require extensive knowledge of the articles to make. Mohrpheus   (Talk)  15:03, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I was just thinking about proposing this, and it looks like it got brought up a long time ago but never went anywhere. Anywho, this is a bump for this discussion because after thinking about it, I've realized that a lot of people who could make proper votes based off of what they think is best and not "who's my favorite character" can't with the current edit requirement because they can't edit as often, an example being Kamikaze839. Anyone else in favor of removing that requirement?--Xilinoc (talk) 16:33, December 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * I still support removing it. We also do tend to protect alot for the week after a chapter is out, which really does seem to contribute to the "can't edit as often" bit.

Battles And Events Add
I think we should create a subpage for each character to list the Battles and Events they participated in. It would be much easier to find such events that way.
 * Seems reasonable. We already have the tabber that links to subpages, so having fights and major events listed shouldn't be an issue. The only obstacle would be deciding how large these subpages will need to be and in what format.
 * I would say it would have to depend on how many fights and events each character has participated in if we were to do so. For example, Rukia's been in enough fights and events to warrant a page, but someone like, say, Starrk, who has only been in 9 or so, wouldn't warrant an entire page for fights and events.--Xilinoc (talk) 21:11, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Un-Tended To Affiliation Requests
So two things: I have created individual sections for these.
 * 1) We have a bunch of affiliation requests left untended to, so we need to discuss and decide
 * 2) We need to find a better way of doing these requests, 'cause leaving them on a template talk apparently makes them unnoticeable.

Affiliation Request for UtaPri Wiki

 * 1) It does not have many references, I don't see a manual of style or policy.
 * 2) Not only do they lack references, but they seem to have no real consistency in their style, from what I can tell.
 * 3) Also too many red links for my liking!!

Request for Natsume Wiki

 * 1) The wiki's pages seem very lacking in detail. Also, no FUR or references. It also appears that only the admin is active on the wiki.
 * 2) Same opinion as Kami. Not a whole lot of detail, not ideal for an affiliation.
 * 3) Very short profile pages, I know quality over Quantity butthere has to be something, references and details for a dedicated Wiki, I see nothing here we wouldn't get from a Google Search or a Wikipedia page!!

Request for Weekly Shonen Jump Wiki

 * 1) As much as it makes sense to affiliate ourselves with the publication that include Bleach, it currently does not meet some of the stadards set, namely images lack FUR, and there does not seem to be a page for a Manual of Style or Policy.
 * 2) Only for now, at least. I remember talking with the founder in our chat before he made it. It seems he's trying, but it needs a little more work before an affiliation is reasonable.
 * 3) Don't even need to go passed the first page for this, it needs improvement on a grander scale before considering this!!

Request for Black Bullet Wiki

 * 1) It meets all our standards
 * 2) Seems they have some red-link problems to sort out, but otherwise it has the necessary specifications.
 * 3) I can't support this until I see no red links, if there isn't a page then don't put in the link!!

Request for Dragons Rioting Wiki

 * 1) This wiki has been thoroughly referenced, images have licensing, great detail. Basically it meets all the requirements we've set.
 * 2) Like Black Bullet, it has the proper specifications. Not exactly surprised given that one of the admins is a former P&S Committee member, and for those reasons, I give this one my support.

Suggestions to Improve Affiliation Process
Shameless bump
 * 1) For this, I would say we need to layout the guidelines for the standards we want to see from the requestors, so that it would be consistent.
 * 2) I agree, there needs to be some consistency. Right now it's not too bad, but it's still really random.-- 11:51, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) As was stated, I also agree that there could possibly be a better place for these requests to go than the template's talk page. Maybe a page with a title like Bleach Wiki:Requests for Affiliation would be a better place. I'm not entirely sure about guideline ideas at the moment, though I do agree some need to be set to make the process easier and more efficient.
 * 4) I would like other users to weigh in on this. Until we resolve how to get Affiliation requests easier to notice and get a less random method of affiliation, voting on affiliations would be clunky.
 * There does needs to be some standards indeed like the Wiki requesting affiliation should have similar standards to our own including references and good number of pages and be active in terms of having editor contribute to the community!!
 * Agreed on there being some sort of set standards. In the past I've just eyeballed a few would-be affiliates without giving any input, but that's hardly a comprehensive process. We'd need more discussion on just how stringent we want our guidelines to be. Mohrpheus   (Talk)  21:48, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I got the Bleach Wiki:Requests for Affiliation page up.

Having looked over the new request page everything seem's to be in order. The only thing i have issue with is the first point about the references which makes it a requirement that all pages have to have references. While i fully agree that wasnt a requirement for a good few of the sites we have accepted already. If anything it probably could be reworded to say something along the lines of a ongoing effort to reference the pages in the event the pages already exist, to be fair and consistent. Other then that the page looks awesome and the criteria is the best determination for the site to become affiliated with us.--
 * Donezo

I don't like spamming this, but I'd like to get input from committee so I can respond to the admins by the end of this week. They've been waiting for several months now.

Twitter Use?
Just a reminder, this wiki does have a Twitter. Problem is, we haven't been using it since July 22nd. Is it possible to open up the account to all committee so we all can keep things updated? If not, then we need someone we know who can keep it up and running.

I agree, I have been noticing it for awhile, both Yyp and I (unless he has changed the password again) are the only users with current access to the account. I think a combination of all committee members having access and having a tweetbot or some automated tweet system would be beneficial.-- 23:20, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Shameless bump.

It is certainly something that can be better utilized, though I confess that I have personal caveats with Twitter in general. I do think that sharing it among all the staff should work, though. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  21:50, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

So.......anyone else want to weigh in?
 * I knew I forgot to comment on something here. Anyway, yeah, I agree with this (though we probably shouldn't be putting any passwords on this page.....)

Upcoming changes with wikia
Hey Kami already knows about this but there will be a change to editing interface in the near future. Personally I think this is a great idea (as I have always been terrible with codes and templates) but I think we need to prepare ourselves for the change. I have created a test article in central for you guys to play around with in the beta mode of the new visual editor. -- 23:41, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Just something that caught my attention. Seeing as this is only a change to the visual editor (at the moment), this may not be a huge issue for us since I beleive it is disabled across the whole wiki.

New Nomination Area
There is a slight modification to nominating committee. I have discussed this change with Schif, Sal, and Xil in chat and they seem to be willing to try out. All nominations will now be made on this page. On that page, I have created a button that will pull up the editor, and they will see the form they have to fill out on the editing screen. The form is filled out and will be published under a new section on the page with all relevant information pulled up for us so that we don't have to spend as much time looking through their contributions. Also, by having such a system rather than having them just drop their name in seems much much much more professional. Anyways here is the form they will fill out. The button works by creating a copy of the form onto the page. Schif and I tested it, it works rather well and once we get a set standard for affilations, I will use it for that as well.
 * P.S if you would like to see it run, you can test it on my sandbox.

Looking good Kami I will give it a few test runs in a bit.-- 23:19, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the Editor
As some of you may have noticed, when editing articles, we now are using the new visual editor developed by staff. The link describes its current functions. It is possible to edit the page in source mode by hitting the "more" button and clicking source editor.

Resignation
Hi guys. Unfortunately, this semester in college has been the worst time of my life. It is stressing me out a lot and I am afraid I am unable to keep up with what college requires of me. I will need to take time off from editing the wiki to focus on studying and overcoming other obstacles in my life and putting my life back together, and I have no idea when I'll be able to get back to editing the wiki. So unfortunately, I will have to resign from being part of the committee. I am sorry that it has come to this. Please take care and keep up the good work on the wiki.

Well I am sorry to hear that Kami. I wish you all the best. Feel free to drop by anytime.😹-- 19:37, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I can't say I saw this coming. however, believe me when I say I understand what it feels like to be overwhelmed by school. I know I can be kind of an asshole toward you at times, but I respect your decision and commend you for making such a choice - one that is, in all fairness, likely for the best, given what I've heard from you about your college life. Know that you'll always be welcome around these parts.--Xilinoc (talk) 23:06, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to say other than good luck with everything. As Xil and Lemurs said, if and whenever you feel that you are able to return, you'll be welcome, of course. Godspeed, Kami.

I can't say I know exactly what you're going through, but I understand just how overwhelming college can get. It sucks that you have to go, but it's good that you have your priorities straight. Best of luck! Mohrpheus  (Talk)  00:58, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear Kami, I hope things pick up for you soon. As the others have said above, you're always welcome back and I know you'll be missed around here. Take care, 13:35, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

Just some updates
Well, I have a few minutes of free time now, so I guess I should give an update. I don't plan on becoming active again any time soon, though I may pop in every now and then over winter break. In the mean time, I've been studying for finals, and I've been looking for a psychologist to help me so I can get a better start in life. However, until spring semester finishes, I don't think I'll be able to get active and rejoin the committee again...

Possible change
So, it seems this topic has been discussed many times in chat, but it was never really decided on, and after having a small discussion with Ginhikari, I think it's time for this to actually come to a full discussion and possibly vote between the admins and committee members. The question being what should we do as far as capitalizing "reiatsu"? Gin pointed out to me that currently, the Manual of Style actually does say to capitalize it, but from what I've seen, some people are in favor of the opposite. My point being is that it's not really a proper noun/name like "Zangetsu" or "Renji Abarai" or "Kurohitsugi". I really do think this needs full discussion here among all admins and committee members (I'm also inclined to allow both Kami and Gin to give their input if no one objects to that).


 * I prefer having only the team vote given that it would be unfair if others wanted to have an input we would not allow them to do so sorry but I am always in favor of being as fair and consistent as possible!!


 * This was brought to my attention as well a while back, since I was and still am the main perpetrator. Here's my logic: the words "spiritual pressure" are not, together, a proper noun; however, the term "Reiatsu" is a proper noun because it's the Japanese version of that term, and was really kind of invented for the series by Kubo. The whole "proper noun" thing doesn't really hold water, at least not with me, because using that rule would mean Zanpakutō also wouldn't be capitalized, since it's just the word for "Soul-Cutting Sword" in Japanese. My point is, Reiatsu/Reiryoku/Reishi/Reiraku, while not proper nouns by definition, should remain capitalized because they're terms that Kubo invented for the series, and because Zanpakutō is also capitalized.--Xilinoc (talk) 20:01, February 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I definitely prefer having the Bleach-only words remaining capitalized, it definitely makes it easier to identify unique terms and it looks more professional to me!!

I agree with the general logic of capitalizing all of the Japanese terms that Kubo has invented. However, there are a few problems with that line of thinking in general. "Reishi" and "spirit particles" are already used interchangeably throughout the site, particularly on the Quincy pages (note that while the former is capitalized, the latter is not). Another one is chousoku saisei, high-speed regeneration, which is only noted as its Japanese name on its own page. I think there is more inconsistency present than just the issue of capitalization. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  21:55, February 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that as well, but I'm fairly certain we opt to use Reishi over "spirit particles" and, likewise, Reiatsu over "spiritual pressure", with the only odd one out being Reiryoku, which is "Spiritual Power" in most P&A sections because of reasons. As for High-Speed Regeneration, I'm honestly not sure about how it should be mentioned or if it's comparable to Reiatsu, since the latter has been used as such many, many times while Chōsaku Saisei has never been used over High-Speed Regeneration, making it more a case of familiarity.--Xilinoc (talk) 22:24, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty much in agreement with Xi. I think familiarity is key because if the visitors have no idea of what the article is saying, then we have pretty much failed. -- 22:30, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Furigana Template
This is an issue I've been kicking around in my head for about a week now. Currently, whenever we list a technique that is spelled in katakana with underlying kanji (namely any technique named in a language other than Japanese, e.g. Spanish), we list the kana and kanji in the translation template in the following manner:



However, on at least one other wiki I've been to, all foreign-named techniques have the Japanese arranged in a manner similar to how it appears on a manga page - the kana lying above the kanji, rather than next to it in parentheses, like so:



This is known as Ruby, and Schif's outlined the basic code for it here. In my opinion, this makes the translation section look a bit more professional because it more closely resembles the original text (you can see an example of it in use here. Now, I'm sure there are at least a few people who would like to make a case for keeping it the way it is so that users can see the katakana more clearly, but I'd like to know who else would be in favor of using this format over the current one; if enough people support it, I'm sure it could be put into a template format (resembling this) for ease of use, though it would admittedly take quite a bit of time to make the appropriate changes across all the pages listing these techniques without use of a bot. Thoughts?--Xilinoc (talk) 23:35, February 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly it looks too small for me to see it, its tiny and very difficult to see.
 * I'm the one proposing this, so obviously I support it, but I'd just like to say that I can still read the kana quite easily, and to me the reading listed to the right of the kana and kanji is what's more important anyway; since that's being preserved, I don't take issue with the smaller size of the kana.--Xilinoc (talk) 00:10, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of this. The new template would slightly cut down on the length of the translation listing (if not the template itself) by cutting out those parentheses (parentheses within parentheses have always looked awkward to me). I can also see the merit of the "professionalism" argument; frankly, it just looks aesthetically pleasing. Seeing as the kana (or even the kanji) generally aren't what's being read by the common reader, I don't think making it smaller is an issue.  Mohrpheus   (Talk)  00:19, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this looks a bit more professional, really. Not only is it used regularly in many Japanese media, it's used in WSJ, so all the more reason to go with it.