Bleach Wiki talk:Featured Article

Remind on voting rules
Please remember that this is not a vote to determine who is the most popular character or the most awesome at the moment (we have a forum for that at this link). Instead, this is a vote on the articles, and as such reasons for supporting a candidate should be based on the merits of the article only. Give proper reasons for your choice. A full list of valid reasons is now given in the Voting Policy. Also remember to sign your comments using 4 tildes ( ~ ), otherwise your vote will not count. Thank you. -- Yyp  (Talk)  13:25, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Votes
Wait, you can't vote for two different things? I added Aaroniero and voted for him since if Yammy doesn't make it, Aaroniero would hopefully be up front.--Lazer81095 01:05, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Dude, basic rule of democracy, one (wo)man, one vote. It's kinda worrying in this day and age that we have to explain something like that for people. Pick one and stick with it (just quietly I'll be really happy if you don't vote for Yammi as I want Byakuya to win and their dead even! :P jk) BollyW 01:15, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Someone please tell em how to get to this article!

Shouldn't you delete one of your votes Lazer?? Or else I don't think either should be counted!! Or else I'd vote for Ukitake too :D SunXia 01:12, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

It is now explicitely stated on the page and in the Voting Policy that users can only vote in support of one candidate and in opposition to one candidate. Yyp
 * Resolved

Starrk
Why is Starrk on the list? He won in October. It hasn't even been two months, let alone four! Tinni 17:05, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I was changing the list of arrancar and forgot he was a recent winner. Fixed --Yyp 17:09, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved

New Voting System
As you can see, we have a new voting system in place now. It is pretty simple and already explained on the page and in our Voting Policy, but the main points are that you may cast one vote in support of and one vote in opposition to any candidate, but no more than that. You do not have to use the "Oppose" vote, but if you do, please cast a "Support" vote to show your alternative suggestion. You can oppose a candidate because you think s/he was featured too recently or their article needs work or s/he is not at the forefront of storyline right now. Do not oppose it simply because you dislike the character. And remember to give proper, detailed reasons and to sign your votes. Let us know if there are any problems. --Yyp 23:42, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Not saying I am any better but do you guys actually plan on enforcing the "don't just oppose because you hate the character" thing? Because almost all the opposition to Yammy is from people who don't like him as a character. Not to mention that there has been some manipulation (including by me) of support and oppose votes to try and tilt the "total count" towards someone they like. I mean, right now Yammy has 8 in support (one of them mine) and 6 in opposition: 2 total. Kenpachi has 7 in support and 4 in opposition (one of them mine): 3 in total. I could switch my support to Gin (who does have a good clean article) and then Gin and Kenpachi would tie at 3 votes total because the lone opposition to Gin moved their opposing vote to Yammy (because they don't like him). Is there even a tie-break process? Tinni 12:02, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't read through every post, but I'll check them now and remove any such votes. As I said above, decent reasons should be given and disliking a character is not a decent reason to oppose them. This is not a vote to determine who is the best character - we are voting for an article to be featured. I'll be keeping an eye on how this vote progresses (especially the switching of oppose votes) and plan to ask the other admins how they feel about how this vote went once it is over. Any problems will be ironed out and solutions put in place for the next vote. And as said in the Voting Policy, if there is a tie, the admins will vote. --Yyp 15:06, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

I have removed several oppose votes that give no reason other than just not liking the character. You must give proper reasons for opposing a candidate. Such reasons include:
 * They have already been featured (or not enough time has elapsed since they were featured) and you would prefer if a different article was featured;
 * You think the article needs more work before it is ready to be featured;
 * You don't think that they have played much of a prominent role in the story;
 * You think that there is another article that is even more worthy of recognition.

Any oppose vote that says nothing more than "I dont like him, hes weak" is not allowed. It is just not a good enough reason to oppose an article. Other reasons for opposing a candidate will be judged on a case by case basis. I've said it several times and I'll say it again - this is a vote for an article, not your favourite character. Additionally, people have always been free to change their votes at will for whatever reason, including to alter the odds of one character's profile winning over another - it is not something new, but it is certainly becoming more prominent with the new system. (Sorry that took so long, but my internet connection freaked out just after posting the previous message and wouldn't open any edit windows.) --Yyp 19:15, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Due to problems with the way many users voted in our three features last month, we have changed the system. Full details are set out in the Voting Policy, but are summarized below. Familiarize yourself with the policy before voting. -- Yyp  (Talk)  12:55, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Oppose" votes will no longer be deducted from a candidate's total votes. It exists purely to highlight issues with a candidate.
 * Valid reasons must be given for voting for/against a candidate, otherwise the vote will be moved to the "Deleted Votes" section. A full list of valid reasons are given in the Voting Policy. Basically, the votes are not popularity contests - reasons must be based on the merits of the article/picture/quote.

January Article
In the result of a tie between two character articles up for consideration per the rules of voting it falls to the admin to vote on which article is to win. After a little consideration based on votes following the rules the decision was in favor of Shūhei Hisagi, thus breaking the tie. Salubri (Talk)  08:24, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

April Feature Article Vote: Isshin is not admissible
Please note that we will not be allowing any votes for Isshin Kurosaki this month. You can vote for him next month, but for this month, he does not meet the criteria for the vote. He has only appeared on 1 page and said 1 short line. Sorry, but that is just not good enough. Also, while it is improving, his article is currently not fit for being featured. It has a litany of problems that need to be addressed before it is featured. Work on this has begun, but even if it is finished before the voting deadline, the article still will not be April's feature. -- Yyp (Talk) 15:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

May Article of Month: Rukia Kuchiki admissable
She's appeared in the Anime during her fight with Rudobōn. Shouldn't she be included as well or isn't she admissable?? SunXia 20:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I did anything on the Featured Article page at all, but if so, we'd add Rudobōn, Orihime Inoue (it's been many months since she's been featured, so she should be an option again), Yasutora Sado, and Renji Abarai. Rukia is questionable, because I'm not sure if her page is completely referenced or not. I'll check with Yyp, since he's been running this page more than any of the other administrators had. Arrancar109 (Talk)  20:09, April 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Yyp messaged me, and both Rukia and Orihime are not to be on this. They won't qualify until their articles have been properly referenced and possibly overhauled (in other words, they're in the same boat as Ichigo). Renji and Chad will remain on the list though. Arrancar109 (Talk)  20:23, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, was just curious!! I noticed they did need a lot of work because their standards, which were great back in the day, have fallen due to the rising standards of current articles and I might have goofed up a little in error too but Yyp fixed it but I will try and improve the quality, sorry for the Acidwire-Fireringer mistake on Orihime's page!! She needs her plot developed and referenced more and maybe more pics for a main character!! Are we allowed to continue editing them?? SunXia 20:43, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Move on to the next one
Not trying to rush, but it's almost half way into the month, and the June 2010 voting preparations haven't been made yet. - WhiteArmor - (Talk) - 09:10, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Feature article voting only happens during the last week of the month. Tinni  (Talk)  09:25, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Other articles?
Is there a reason why characters are the only articles permitted to be featured? Why not diversify? maggosh 14:09, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

While I guess there's no reason why not, I imagine most visitors to this site will be looking for information on a specific character, not for some of the other stuff. Secondly, the character pages make up a significant portion of the articles here, so it's easier to find suitable candidates. Thirdy, as they tend to garner the most attention here and outside, they're more likely to have had the time taken to be referenced, grammar/translation checked, have decent pictures and the like.

Does anyone have any suggestions for any non-character articles we could forward? TomServo101 (Talk)  15:01, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

NO! Absolutely not! There are very good reasons why only character articles are permitted to be featured and we are not diversifying. So what are the reasons, first the character profiles are the most prominent articles on the wiki and also the most detailed. The majority of the other articles exist to support the character articles. Secondly, one of the conditions of the featured article is that a character is recently featured in the manga or anime. This cannot be said of non-character articles. In addition, featuring other articles serves no value. We already have the latest chapter and the latest episode featured weekly, that is enough. Stick to characters only. Tinni  (Talk)  15:25, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

So fights that have recently transpired, or an object that has recently been elaborated upon doesn't count? There's more to a story than characters. And wouldn't this encourage people to go forth and edit so the article they want featured has a chance? If we don't change this, I move to rename this Featured Character as they're the only articles featured. maggosh 15:33, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

The feature article votes have never worked as a inducement to edit more and that's exactly right. This is because fights that have recently transpired and objects that have recently elaborated upon will by in-large be accessible through the character profiles of recently featured characters. There is more to the story then character and the character profiles do the best job of capturing that through their plot section. In addition, we will not be changing the name because we are not featuring the character but the characters article. We have enough problems trying to get people to vote for the article and not the character without naming this the "Feature Character" vote. Tinni  (Talk)  15:41, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Then "Featured Character Article". maggosh 15:45, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Help with feature article pictures
I am just merging all previous discussions on the feature article picture here and putting all previous suggestions here as a gallery and adding possible selection for articles currently under consideration just to make it easier on the admins to find the picture for the feature article thing. Tinni  (Talk)  14:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

If Byakuya wins
If Byakuya wins can we use this picture as his Feature Article of the month pic? It's from the "All Colour But the Black" art book. Tinni 02:43, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

+Oh, I like that picture!! It shows his aloof personality with his back being turned to the audience and his head being lowered somewhat, and yet, he's angled a little so that his back is not completely turned and his expression is hard showing that he is aware of everything around him while still appearing uncaring at the same time!! I like it!! SunXia 07:54, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved

Kenpachi
gives up hoping Yammy get's what he deserves Do you guys have a good pic of Kenpachi for the Feature Article? I just uploaded the pic to the right. Like Byakuya's, it is from the "All Colour But the Black" artbook and is a recreation of his character cover from the early volumes. So if you guys don't have anything better for him, you can use if it you like. Tinni 00:52, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved

Aizen
Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that Aizen has only ever that one cover page. So that's the only available picture of him for use for the Feature Article box. Tinni  (Talk)  16:33, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * He also had the one during the "End of Hypnosis" arc seen here. (http://www.onemanga.com/Bleach/172/03/) -StrangerAtaru 17:04, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

It seems inevitable that Aizen will be this month's featured article. I personally prefer the End of Hypnosis one. We don't have a chapter page of Aizen's newer appearance, but the latter implies his evil side. Mohrpheus 18:36, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

That's great! I didn't know about the 172 one. He does look more menacing in 172 picture. Tinni  (Talk)  01:42, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved

Voting Deadline is a Day Earlier
As stated in the recent update to the Voting Policy, please note that all Featured Votes will end on the penultimate day of the month (that's the 29th this month). This is to allow time for the votes to be sorted & counted, ties to be broken (by admin vote) and the feature article/quote/picture to be prepared in advance of the first day of the new month. This way, we should be able to have all features up straight away, which has not always been the case before. Yyp (Talk) 14:59, June 22, 2010 (UTC)