Bleach Wiki talk:Administrators

Bleach Movie 4
I was wondering, since we are likely to see an influx of edits about it, how are we going to deal with the new movie. Would any plot info from it be treated as a spoiler? If so, a new section for it should be made on the spoiler page. And how would we treat it considering the timescale involved here (a year until its release and likely another 9 months until a sub becomes available) - do we not allow plot details to be added until it is released in English, or would we allow details to be posted once it is released in Japan? -- Yyp  (Talk)  12:57, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Committee Members
Just bringing it to everyones attention. A procedure for how to remove a member of the Committee (including the 1st seat) has been proposed here: direct link. -- Yyp  (Talk)  15:27, January 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is ever to be done, here is the page for it: Bleach Wiki:Committee Procedures. Yyp  (Talk) 12:24, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Ichigo's page
Ok so Ichigo's page has been locked for maintenance and referencing, which as a major page it needs alot of extensive work. The problem is unlike normally this one requires far more then I alone can do. Im working on the powers and abilities section which is turning into a large chore all itself, somewhat equivalent of doing any others character entire article. In any case while im trying to handle that the problem is the rest of the article. It would be much appreciated if we could all work together to make it happen, as a major page he is gonna have alot of appearances in the up and coming anime and manga. The faster the page can be done the sooner it can opened back up otherwise we will have to just update it on are own until such time that we can reopen the page. Salubri (Talk)  02:51, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll start work on the Appearance, Personality & History sections now. And I'll do the Agent of the Shinigami arc too. Once that's taken care of, I'll see what's left to do and claim some more sections. -- Yyp (Talk) 21:18, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since I'm going through extensive editing through Amagai's page and plan to do Ran'Tao's page as well, I guess I can take both the Bount and Amagai arcs for Ichigo's page. Arrancar109 (Talk)  21:29, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing Ichigo has had relatively small role these last few weeks. I've got the appearance, personality & history sections done and broke up the walls of text with some pictures. I'll start the long trudge through the plot section next. -- Yyp (Talk) 19:29, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Concerned
Hey im a little concerned here. Where is WhiteStrike and where is Twocents. Like for admin they haven't been on and there really isn't any explanation as to why and im starting to wonder whats going on. Besides that the committee is looking i dont know spars. Like i know minato was having comp problems and his taking a break till he gets another one, which is fine. but some of the new members are on infrequently at best and therefore alot of the planned stuff doesn't get done. That removal idea is starting to look alot better. But considering these people made a big deal about joining the committee and now it feels like they arent the least bit bothered. No one has to be on everyday but more then once or two out of seven days would be ideal. I know people have stuff they need to do, but if they are that wrapped up then maybe they need to drop this so we can move on to those that are more open. Just some thoughts but we need to start finding people. Personally the fights project hasn't even been started cause nwang is never on now. Salubri (Talk)  19:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I emailed Twocents a few days ago, just to ask if she was alright and whether or not she thought she'd be back soon, but no response. I guess whatever is keeping her away from here is keeping her from answering emails too. I notice Arrancar109 hasn't made any edits since the 1st Feb. -- Yyp (Talk) 22:33, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well its been a while and Twocents is still nowhere to be found, I checked her other site where she is an admin and she hasn't been there either. So im not sure what we do cause we are literally down to 3 admin total, which is the same as we had when Whitestrike was still active. Now its back to that same number and having two new admin defeats the purpose if one of the admin we had aren't really active on the site any longer and the other new one is AWOl. Im not sure what to do in this situation but we might need to take some action here. Because there are plenty of things not getting done and that doesn't help the site at all.Salubri (Talk)  03:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Quick update: still no reply from Twocents, but Minato88 has been in touch via User:Soul reaper magnum to say that "he wont be getting back for a little while longer". -- Yyp (Talk) 19:29, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the statistics page, it has been just over three months now since Twocents last logged in. I figure at this point we should list her as Periodically inactive on the admin page and add the inactive box to her talk page. Yyp (Talk) 23:14, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the best option to me. Arrancar109 (Talk)  23:17, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes good point. Also if you two could go to the admin template and sign your signatures that would be good too. Salubri (Talk)  23:37, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Translation
To make everyone aware. I had a conversation with MarqFJA and he has recently informed with this translation:

Yo. Just wanted to check up on the progress regarding the Hollow/Shinigami hybrid topic.

BTW, I finally managed to acquire raw scans of the two pages that I had brought up in our "Hollow-Shinigami hybrid" discussion on Talk:Kaname Tōsen, and confirmed that the original terms used by Aizen are as follows:


 * Shinigami no Horoo-ka (死神の虚[ホロウ]化) - "Hollowification of Shinigami".
 * Horoo no Shinigami-ka (虚[ホロウ]の死神化) - "Shinigamification of Hollow(es)".

Note: The kanji 化, when used as a suffix, is virtually equivalent in purpose and meaning to English "-ification". As we can see, the term "Shinigamification" is actually an official/canonical term, contrary to original belief.

So in fact Shinigamification apparently is a canonical word in the series. Though obviously never really used. By no means does that mean it deserves a page but it can be used in text of already established pages. Seeing as its rarely used and we really have no information on it at any level. The original conversation was about the use of the term Hollow-Shinigami Hybrid and Shinigami-Hollow Hybrid. Apparently these translations provide a canon use of the the hybrid terms without explicitly stating hybrid (Except in the common translation found on most sites). It also provides that Shinigamification is an actual word. The term Hollow-Shinigami Hybrid for those originally Shinigami and Shinigami-Hollow Hybrid for those originally Hollow. Salubri (Talk)  03:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Committee Nomination (TheDevilHand888)

 * 1)  TheDevilHand888 has put himself up for consideration as a member of the Policy & Standards Committee. Having already seen his contributions which involve frequent activity on the new Grammar Corner, constantly making sure the sight is free of vandalism and erroneous information. Helping out and constantly doing good work on the project pages. Salubri  (Talk)  21:10, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  I approve him as well. He's done a lot to improve the articles, removing speculation, and adding many references that were missing. Having him on the Committee would be good in the long run. <font color="teal" size="2px">Arrancar109  <font color="teal" size="1px">(Talk)  22:49, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  He has done a great job updating the articles, referencing, helping the Volume Summary Project massively and also other projects, keeping speculation off the pages. He's around regularly and is approachable and easy to deal with. He'd be a great asset to the Committee.  Yyp  (Talk) 09:28, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Page Moves
After going through our policies, I didn't see anything mentioning page moves. Lately, certain users have been moving articles without proper discussion for the moves, and I've warned them not to do it without discussion first, but it's still a problem. I think we should have a rule regarding Page Moves as well, so we don't end up getting in many edit wars regarding page moves in the future. I was thinking something along the lines like:


 * "Article pages may not be moved without discussing it on the relevant article's Talk Page first. Before a page move can be initiated, you must present the reasons for your belief behind the move on the article and obtain approval for it before moving the page. If you move an article page without discussing it first, your move will be undone and you will be warned not to do it again. If you persist on moving the article before an administrator approves or without discussing it beforehand, you will be blocked."

This is what I've come up with, but it may need some tweeking before we post it up. I want your feedback on this as well, and if you think this statement needs improvement, then go ahead and tweek it accordingly. <font color="teal" size="2px">Arrancar109 <font color="teal" size="1px">(Talk)  03:07, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine with me.<font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  03:21, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Definitely need to make this a rule. I've slightly tweaked the wording. Yyp (Talk) 09:25, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, looks good. We should put it up then. <font color="teal" size="2px">Arrancar109 <font color="teal" size="1px">(Talk)  19:32, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Policy Additions
I was just looking at the Discussion Policy and realized that we had nothing about the closed discussion boxes in there. How about adding something to the effect of the below. It pretty much reflects how things have been done, but feel free to change it or suggest something different altogether.


 * Do not edit a closed discussion - Admins and Committee members may mark a discussion as closed with the template. If you see the blue "Discussion Closed" box in a topic, then do not continue the discussion or remove the  template. If you wish it to be reopened, contact an admin stating clearly your reasons. It is at the discretion of the admin whether or not they reopen the discussion.

Also, I've moved plenty of random questions & speculation from the article talk pages that have nothing to do with the article. As it is an ongoing problem, I was thinking about adding something like this to the policy:


 * Related to the article only - The article talk pages are only for discussing the contents and upkeep of the article itself. Please place all general comments and queries in the forums and blogs. Any such posts on the article talk pages will be removed.

As I said, feel free to change, fix or tear it apart as you wish. Yyp (Talk) 12:24, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these additions as well. I also wanted to bring up again the whole thing about those that dont participate at all. Now its one thing to join in on forum and blog discussions but but the level of all that being whats only happening on the site seems to get bigger and bigger. There are plenty of people who either haven't helped with the site at all or who have done very little. This is counter productive as we are not a social networking sight and what we have up donesn't seem strong enough to address this. Also we have to come up with a new way to address profile pic changes as the discussions become too long and clutter talk pages. There also needs to something done more about the crack theories on the site. Speculation should clearly come from information presented in the series. No one has the right to make up the story into an unrealistic concept the only one writing the story should be Kubo. Also to add onto the discussion closed there is too many multiple reopening of the same topic which adds to a continuation of the same talk previously. Sometimes with new users wanting to add their two cents because they were left out of the previous discussion. As these discussions are pointless and get nowhere because the arguments are the same nothing remotely new is being used in the arguing of the point or they have nothing to do with the point of the issue. Prime example, the Vizard talk page. <font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  13:44, April 26, 2010 (UTC)