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)