Bleach Wiki talk:Policy & Standards Committee

Omakes

 * Omake pages — There are several different omakes in the anime (Shinigami Cup, etc) and several of them have their own pages. They are fairly short and are not really deserving of their own individual pages. I was thinking of merging them into a single page called Anime Omake Segments (or something to that effect). I think it would be much better that way. The committee would be charged with finding all these pages, merging them into one, coming up with a format for the page, bringing it up to date, etc, and it can be updated as you go along with the summary project. How to go about this: copy/paste the contents of each of the individual pages onto one page and mark the others for deletion using the template. Redirects may also have to be changed. They show up in the maintenance reports on the "Special pages" page (it is in the sidebar - I cannot link to it), but may not show up straight away. I'll take care of fixing them if you are unsure about how to do so. The pages that I am aware of are: Arrancar Encyclopedia, Shinigami Illustrated Picture Book, Kon-sama's Ultimate Shinigami Illustrated Guide, Quincy Encyclopedia and Substitute Shinigami Work Diary.

This is something that has been brought to my attention. My suggestion is to include a brief explanation about which Omake follows the episode below the Summary section. Yyp suggests combining all of the different Omake specials to one page called Anime Omake Segments(this way is easier, but less descriptive). Either way would be better then all of them having a different page. Minato 23:45, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to that - I really don't think there is enough information on most of the pages linked above to justify them having their own individual pages. It would be better to combine them in one central location, rather than having them as tiny pages scattered around the place like they are now. I think those pages were intended to be just a basic overview of the omake segments (giving details of what the segments are like and listing what episodes they are found in), while a more detailed description of what happened in each omake would be placed on the episode pages, as is done in the early episodes and the most recent ones. If you want to go with that, or have a better idea for it, it is fine either way. -- Yyp  (Talk)  00:05, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Actually after some thought, we could always do both. What do u think? Minato 00:24, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Hm. This is a tough one. But I have to agree with Yyp; the specific articles do not even elaborate on each individual Omake segment. Those should be included in the article of the episode it was featured in, and one big article could be used to give concise descriptions of each Omake series, as well as the episodes that they appeared in. Mohrpheus 00:59, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I like what u guys have said. On most of the episodes such as The Resolution to Kill only mention the featured character of the Omake. So thats all I am suggesting about the different Omakes being mentioned after the Ep Summary. Do we need any other Admins to agree with this? Minato 05:09, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be included in each individual episode (since people do like to go look for those specifically, and it'd help people track down a specific omake they may be dying to see) and then have a separate article with a general overview of what the omakes are like. We could have the current pages redirect to that (in case someone would search for, say, Arrancar Encyclopedia), but I don't think those pages justify their own articles, because each of them on their own, they're kind of useless and lack information. But there's no point in detailing every Arrancar Encyclopedia segment (for example) in the article either. Twocents  (Talk)  02:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking exactly. I purpose a new page titled "Anime Omake Segments" and describe the different segments on that page. i.e "Arrancar Enclopedia" "Shinigami illustrated book" etc. The redirects to this page can be made in the Omake segment after each Episode which can be done after this page is setup and all of the current omake pages can be deleted after the information has been transferred over. Minato 02:19, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan! Twocents   (Talk)  02:21, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yyp suggested it, Twocents and Mohrpheus agree. We all seem to be in concurrence. I will make this page. Minato 03:35, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

OK guys got it up and running. Anime Omake Segments It is obviously lacking, but before I go any further I want to get the introductory paragraph more concise and more descriptive, but don't worry about the rest. I am going to add the different segments and give them their own sections on the page. Minato 06:42, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

It could also use a good pic at the top(other pics will be added for their sections). Maybe one of Kon seeing as how he is usually seen in the beginning of many of them. Minato 07:03, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that some of the omake segments, such as "Bleach on the Beach," are based on segments within the manga itself. In this case, does "omake" refer to the anime only, or the manga as well? If it applies to the manga as well, then we would have to further subcategorize the article, perhaps even change its name to "Omake Segments." Mohrpheus 17:43, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember which chapter that was, but if u say it is then I believe u. Is "bleach on the Beach" the only one? Minato 17:56, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

22.5 KARAKURA SUPERHEROES was also originally an omake (though it might not count since it was adapted as a filler episode). However, several of the omakes are also manga exclusives. Several of the oneshot chapters, especially the "minus year" ones are referred to as omakes, like the Hitsugaya special. We need to decide what is and isn't an omake, or categorize them accordingly somehow. Mohrpheus 18:10, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I will rename the page. The manga takes precedence and could u provide some links(even ones to other websites)here on this talkpage so I can know more about them. If they were Omakes in the Manga then they r Omakes and will be added to the page once I rename it. Thanks Mohrpheus. If u want after I rename it u can start adding the information u have found. Minato 18:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

OK Mohrpheus. Its been renamed "Omake Segments". Minato 18:24, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I know that many of the short chapters are given their own summaries in the volume pages, which is where I'd prefer to keep them, so that if someone wants to find those, they know the specifics of what volume it's included in, what other chapters are in the volume, etc. Plus, a lot of them have been made/included in with specific episodes.

Speaking of, I want to get rid of the Bleach On The Beach article. I think it should be merged with the appropriate volume (as all of the other omake chapters are included in with the related volume), with the pictures taken from the anime added to the anime episode article. Anyone have any problem with this before I do it? Twocents  (Talk)  01:01, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Information added to Omake page. "Bleach on the Beach" marked for deletion. Minato  (Talk)  01:10, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Since you seem to be all for it as well, I moved the content to the appropriate articles, and the separate Bleach on the Beach article has been deleted. Twocents   (Talk)  01:24, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. It'd appear that we have yet another problem. I looked over some of the descriptions for the chapters, and all of the "flashback chapters," such as -12.5, are identified as omake chapters. I said before that we have to define exactly what makes an omake; this has been confusing me for a while. They seem to range anywhere from canon material to humorous segments - but is this correct? Mohrpheus 02:25, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

According to the wiki entry on omake, omake means "bonus" or "extra." So anything that's not part of the main storyline (i.e. the main chapters, episodes) would be omake, regardless of whether it's a funny snippet at the end of the episode or an additional chapter not related to the current storyline. Twocents  (Talk)  02:35, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also. The Bleach Omakes fall into the Categories: Humerous first, Canon second. Mostly they seem to talk about what has been shown in the Chapter, Episode. So yes they r Canon. Minato  (Talk)  02:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, Omake just means "extra" and as such the -12.5 chapters and such are Omakes because they were extra content included in the volumes and such. I think the problem is that "Omake" has a negative connotation in some circles as not-canon. But I don't think we really have to factor that into our discussion. I think that as long as something was "extra" on top of the regular chapters/volumes, then we can call it Omake and that doesn't make them any less canon. In addition, Omake's don't have to be humours, although they often are. I think it is perfectly valid to classify the flashback chapters as Omake's because they were extra content Kubo granted us to flesh out the world of Bleach more. At least, that's my opinion. Tinni 01:21, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Committee Nominations
I have been taking a fairly hands off approach to the committee nominations and at first it seemed like the best thing to do. After Minato came on-board he actively went and recruited and since then Morpheus has come on board. But now request for nominations for the committee has somewhat exploded, as has requests for adminship and rollback rights. It seems everybody wants to be in a position to have an official say in how this wiki is run. Well I for one am not comfortable with the idea of putting forward to the admins every single nominee without comment. I mean, those of us in the committee to actually have to work with these people. Therefore, I suggest from now on those already in the committee can use the "oppose" template to oppose a nomination. Grounds for opposition,

1. They haven't contributed towards committee projects

2. They have caused trouble in the past

3. You have reason to believe that they will not perform their committee duties

4. They are too new

Not a reason for opposition,

1. You don't like them

I suggest that any nominee who has had one or more committee members oppose them be not be considered for membership at all and for others the admins take into account the opposing arguments when making their decision. This is just to put a filter at the committee level so that the admins don't waste their time debating a candidate completely unsuitable. Also, what do you guys say to opening a "6th seat" position? Tinni  (Talk)  04:03, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I like the idea of a Sixth Seat. Initially the Committee was supposed to support 8, but for now 5 is ok and more can be added at a later date, if they r needed and if Salubri says its ok to do so. I will go ahead and put my vote on all of the Committee nominations. Minato (Talk)  00:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

KiranTheBoi and Serial Sniper

 * -User:KiranTheBoi and User:SerialSniper14. Reason, I have dealt with Kiran in the past. He is a nice guy and friendly. He is also on on a regular basis, but not as much as the others. Also, many, many of his edits have been undone(the majority of which was Trivia, considered Junk, that he added). He likes to add Trivia and every time he has added some it has been undone. As for Serial. I don't kno him at all. He just joined this month and still has a low edit-count. Yyp has mentioned to me that he has contributed to the referencing project. Still, if he continues he can be made a member, but at this stage, I don't kno. Minato  (Talk)  00:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * -User:KiranTheBoi. Reason, has multiple warnings. Violated multiple policies in the past. Does get a lot of edits reverted on a regular basis. Is making no effort to help with projects. Tinni   (Talk)  15:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * -User:SerialSniper14. Reason, he is making a determine effort to help with the referencing project and as such get's my support above anyone who is not helping with projects. However, he still probably does need more experience and some lessons on good and bad edit styles. So call it support with reservation Tinni   (Talk)  15:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

TomServo101, Ice Cerberus, and Animeluvr92

 * (Neutral)-User:TomServo101, User:GODKING OF ICE CERBERUS WERE-GARURUMON User:Animeluvr92-U guys might be surprised to see me Neutral about Tom. I was recommended to him, and really haven't worked with him as much as the others. Overall, Tom is attending school and isn't on as often as I would like. If a Sixth Seat or more Seats r added, I can easily be swayed and I think he would be good for 1 of those seats. As for Animeluvr, he doesn't have the edit-count or history to justify his position. He has presented a good reason behind this, but for his time here, he could have many more edits even if they r just minor. And Cerberus. Despite his edit-count I am leaning toward oppose. His user name and the comment about being an Admin on 20+ plus other wikis really throws me. I just don't kno what to think about him as he has never really associated with many people here. So much so, that he was not aware that User:Mili-Cien was inactive. Apparently he and Mili r friends(or so he thinks), as he left a message on Mili-Ciens page asking for him to be made an Admin. I told him Mili-Ciens inactive and referred him to the Committee and the Request for Adminship. So thats pretty much the scoop on him. A good editor, but in my mind hes too much like User:The Shadow Dragon and User:Steveo920, they like to do there own things. Minato  (Talk)  00:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * - I am happy to support User:TomServo101 based on his willingness to help with the anime project. Tinni   (Talk)  15:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Gold3263301 and Nwang2011

 * -Gold is really the guy whom I feel is best suited for Fourth Seat. Pros: He has a large edit-count, good edit history, and is on more often then ANY other nomination. Cons: he can (at times) be alittle aggressive(tho not flat-out rude or disrespectful). Also, Gold is only 13 yrs old, so yes he is very young and due to his age, it is natural that he would be alittle confrontational. However, his age can also be a good-thing. He is mold-able. He is open to suggestions and other teachings. So his only con is his aggressive behavior, but that can be easily dealt with. And Nwang. I looked at his contributions and recently all of his edits have been directed to the projects. So yes I support him. I don't kno of any cons, aside from the slightly low edit-count and time-on questionnaire. Also, both of these users hate Junk-Trivia and Vandalism and have been very vigilante is undoing it without hesitation. Minato  (Talk)  00:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * -User:Nwang2011. Reason, he is making a determine effort to help with the referencing project and as such get's my support above anyone who is not helping with projects. Tinni   (Talk)  15:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Tinni's general comments
At this point in time there are three projects running. Of the people who are currently nominated only User:Nwang2011, User:SerialSniper14 and User:TomServo101 are helping with project. That to counts for more with me then prior edit counts or anything else. I am not going to actively oppose anyone aside from KiranTheBoi just because I he is the only one I feel is totally inappropriate for the committee but I am not supporting anyone who is not making an active effort to help with committee projects. It's a matter of commitment. Someone like User:Nwang2011 wanted to be in the committee enough to start helping out with projects. For User:SerialSniper14 and User:TomServo101 its a natural progressing since they are both already helping with projects as much as they can. That has to count for something. Tinni  (Talk)  15:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Future projects
Anyone have any suggestions for future projects? Remembering that total overhuals are admin responsibility. Tinni  (Talk)  04:03, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion for a FUTURE project. The Overhaul project. Many more pages then I thought have been marked for an overhaul. Salubri is currently using the Referencing page to mark pages which need overhauls, so that will work for now. Minato (Talk)  00:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain what you mean by the Overhaul project. If it is a project that goes through the wiki to find articles in need of Overhaul well then that is acceptable. But the actual overhauling must be done by an admin because of the difficulty of the work involved. Whole sections have to be rewritten, speculative information removed, information referenced etc, etc. It's actually a very long tedius project that is best done while the page is protected. Currently Salibur is doing it with Nnoitra's page. As such, we can't do a project which overhauls pages. Tinni  (Talk)  11:04, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I completely forgot that overhauls have to be done by Admins. I hadn't done something stupid in awhile so I guess it was time for me to do it. Minato (Talk)  14:18, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

It's cool. :) No harm done. Tinni   (Talk)  14:29, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Committee Box
I have created the above box for inclusion on the user pages of the committee members. It is not compulsory and is just something fun. I opted to use the picture of the lieutenants as the admin box uses the picture of the captains. However, I am happy to change both the picture and the colour of the box. The box also automatically puts the "rollback" category on your page and so can be used standalone without the need to include the rollback box. Let me know what you guys think. Tinni  (Talk)  15:39, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Girl thats awesome. :) I like both the pic and the color, but if u want to change the color u can. Minato  (Talk)  15:42, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Nah! I like shades of purple. Besides, everybody should just be glad I didn't use a picture of Gin. :) Tinni   (Talk)  15:47, December 30, 2009 (UTC)