Bleach Wiki talk:Policy & Standards Committee

Novel Referencing
Think this is a discussion to have here as I have recently gotten the official translations of the CFYOW novels so would people be against use using pages numbers for those translations the way people would when referencing other books and works?
 * TBH, when I first wrote down the summaries, I was contemplating adding page numbers, so I could do that if people want me to. A big problem, however (aside from the time and effort), is that aside from 1 book of which I have a physical copy, I have them all on Kindle instead. And I'm not sure if those are the same page numbers. So should I write the numbers of the physical copies or the Kindle versions? Timjer (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assume that the physical and Kindle editions would have the same pagecount, but if not (check with Sun about how yours line up - see if, say, chapter 8 of the same book starts at the same page for both of you), let's go with the physical version.--Xilinoc (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's see here. Sun, Chapter 1 (not the prologue) of Vol. 1 of the Kindle version starts at page 37 of pages 179. Is that the same with yours? Timjer (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright that's not syncing up, I'm page 32 of 154 and most copies I can find are 154 or 156 but yup, guess this is a little more complicated so no worries, keep it to the Chapter numbers for clarity so we don't have to change versions.

Klub Q&A facts
So, as some may have noticed already, there has been a decent update on Klub Q&A facts that I was able to update my page with. Now, while I'm fully aware of the policies of the wiki concerning Klub (as Xil graciously explained for everyone to read here), I do truly think it's worth debating if we can or cannot put the info on the wiki in some form at least. Perhaps in the trivia sections with a disclaimer? I mean, one of the questions Kubo recently answered (#475) was that it is possible to defeat Gerard Valkyrie conventionally (even saying how it's possible), something that I've noticed fans are STILL heavily debating to this day. Likewise, some answers seem to imply that Kubo considers CFYOW at least more canon than SAFWY. I'd really like this to be brought up as much as it can, as I'm actually a bit ashamed that this wiki, even if it's justified, is not updated with some very crucial info from the author himself. Timjer (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm not over the moon that the one source of "direct contact" we have with Kubo is Japanese-only, Japan-only, and restricted as much as it is. That said, if we were to begin implementing the content; as you suggested, it should go in Trivia with a preface of "According to Tite Kubo on the KLub fansite" or something to that effect, and I would ask that we only put up the most clear answers/content for now (like the Gerard stuff) while leaving aside anything that's just implied.--Xilinoc (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I get it, Xil. If it were only useless trivia that was locked behind all that stuff, or at least just the ability to ask questions, I'd be much more understanding. But sadly it's not much we can change. Anyway, I had my ideas of how to do it, and I'll experiment a bit, but I'm glad the options are still there. And don't worry, I'm NOT going to add the less important or implied stuff. ...Unless you count stuff like Nelliel's breast size as "important". Let me experiment a bit and I'll get back to you, alright? Timjer (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I trust ya, go for it.--Xilinoc (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, so I've tried... something on Gerard's page to start with. Let me know what you think of it, alright? Oh, and thanks for the trust in me. I mean it, if I didn't have this site's trust by now I have failed as an editor. Timjer (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I like the tabber divide system!--Xilinoc (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ruby: Furigana Template
Hello! First off, sorry for the wall of test.

I wanted to open this discussion back up again seeing how it concluded 8 and a half years ago. I feel like it's very possible that people who were against/on the fence about it at the time may have changed their mind by now (in case they may have seen the template effectively implemented on other wikis for instance), and even 8+ years ago there was already a fair amount of support anyway.

Personally, I still very strongly agree with Xilinoc that the implementation of a Ruby template would be extremely conducive to making the Bleach Wiki — so many paragraphs in particular — more clean, readable, and professional-looking, and it just makes sense to me to implement on this wiki given the sheer amount of foreign terminology used in Bleach (and with how lengthy most translation listings are on here). I feel like one needs to only look at certain pages where this becomes especially apparent (e.g., the Wandenreich or Sternritter pages).

Some cases are more extreme than others of course, but between something like it just seems like an obvious choice to me to declutter a lot of text on various pages and make it more readable/appealing to look at, especially the ability sections for characters that are already broken up into bullet points starting with translations.
 * , vs.

Now, from my perspective as a very casual editor on here (and far from someone very knowledgeable about code), I admit it's easy for me to say "c'mon let's just implement it already" and not realize the amount of work that'd go into it from the admins' POV, but I still feel strongly enough about this that I wanted to reopen this discussion.

A couple points regarding what was said in the previous discussion:


 * As Xilinoc mentioned, the Ruby Template would make it not only more readable, but maps onto how Japanese text is portrayed in the original manga; furigana are meant to be a reading aid after all — extra information to supplement the kanji.
 * I agree with Xilinoc + Mohrpheus that it simply looks more aesthetically pleasing if used in lieu of the lengthy parentheses within parentheses.
 * I've seen numerous other wikis implement the Ruby Template in effective ways that have arguably made readability significantly better; with how many are using it (pretty much all the major animanga wikis I frequent) I don't even think I necessarily need to name specific examples.
 * Yea the katakana would be smaller, but this I feel is just a matter of getting used to more than anything (I disagree that it's too small, and since wiki editors + visitors may already frequent other wikis, I think one can expect many to be used to it anyway; on Japanese websites it is also usual to see furigana of that size (example here).
 * Most English-speaking wiki visitors may not in earnest read the Japanese in any case (which makes skimming through the lengthy translation listings mid-text more tedious for them), and those who are interested are probably used to it/know how to read + copy/paste the furigana from above the kanji.
 * Regarding the very slight if noticeable gap btw. lines due to the template, I don't think it is so big an issue as to outweigh the benefits of Ruby (esp. from a design POV, as a lot of translations are at the start of paragraphs).
 * However, I wanted to ask also, is it because of the Helvetica font used on this wiki? Because I couldn't help but notice how line spacing with Ruby is not an issue whatsoever on other wikis (small examples here and here on the One Piece Wiki, which uses the more common Rubik font, where the spacings are all uniform despite ruby being pressed inside paragraphs). Is it a font issue?
 * Ruby may be not as good of a fit into infoboxes (don't know if this has changed?), but as has been pointed out by Yyp, one could elect to keep the parentheses in infoboxes, but implement Ruby in texts. I also believe at the time of the discussion, Mohrpheus and Xilinoc pointed out the possibility of separate kana box within infoboxes (?).
 * Yyp also pointed out how some techniques have much longer furigana than kanji (e.g., here and here), but I personally don't think this is too big a problem; in fact, I'd say Ruby even still looks better than the overlong double parentheses in a lot of these cases (of which there aren't many to begin with). An example here:
 * Xilinoc also noted that one could simply retain the current layout for those rare few techniques with an overly large furigana/kanji disparity, but otherwise use Ruby.
 * Xilinoc also noted that one could simply retain the current layout for those rare few techniques with an overly large furigana/kanji disparity, but otherwise use Ruby.

What do you think? Honestly, I'd love to see a new vote on this! Karama20 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) This still has my vote of confidence, I think it'd really improve the look of the articles. And, as mentioned before, we could easily keep the kanji and kana separated in the technique infoboxes for readability--Xilinoc (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I may not have been here as long as Xil-sama or Sun-sama, but I have always silently wondered why we never did implement this template. So this, alongside the fact that we've had several users come here trying to change it themselves gives it my support as well. Timjer (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Since I'm the one re-proposing. Karama20 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)