Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Genre and categorization

This is seriously missing more of those subjects. I can take of this part, I've done the same for other popular series like Dragon Ball and YuYu Hakusho, surely I've seen enough Bleach to know this much. Can I sort these stylistics now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, 9001 times no. The number of genres is supposed to be limited to as few accurate ones as possible. We don't need 20-odd ancillary terms in the genre field that do nothing but confuse the readers as to what the primary focus is. Especially not the uber-generic ones like "drama", those are only supposed to be used for cases where it doesn't fit into anything else.

Besides, if you want to discuss the range of elements incorporated in a series, wouldn't it be far more sensible to actually put it in the text of the page, rather than just crammed into an infobox? --tjstrf talk 04:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah? How come I don't see anything for that? And why is it that the word "comedy" isn't nowhere on the article? This is from the Dragon Ball article: "Genre Action, Adventure, Comedy, Fantasy, Science fiction"; this is from the Naruto article: "Genre Action, Comedy, Drama, Fantasy"; oh, and this is from Cowboy Bebop, which doesn't even revolve around comedy: "Genre Adventure, Drama, Comedy, Science Fiction, Space western". I don't see how ONE or TWO more genres hurts anybody or "crams the infobox", when there's other articles there with equally "crammed infoboxes", and I don't see anybody complaining. I could cite other examples, if necessary.--SyL64 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See this and the genre guideline. I was not aware of these rules 'til much later. DB and YYH have been cleaned-up, stylistic-wise. Naruto probably needs to be fixed too, haven't had the chance to look at that one yet. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Urahara

Urahara isn't a "main character". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.80.195 (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He appears in all of the story arcs and is a major actor/agent in most of them.217.43.27.170 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He appears in every arc, is a major plot builder, is the guy who orders Ichigo and everyone around, and is a major ally. He is the only character given a special exception from the main character qualifications because he is the main plot builder of the story. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disclusion of Several Things

I noticed that several things have been discluded/forgotten from the bleach page. First of which would be "Valley of Screams". Introduced by the Bleach Movie: Memories of Nobody is a new dimension known as the "Valley of Screams". Personally by my opinion(Even listed in the Bleach Movie page), I think this should be listed as one of the worlds of bleach such as Soul Society or Hueco Mundo. It's not like we can take the stance of "lol no it's filler crap" becuase the Bount ARE listed as a Character Type just like Shinigami or Hollows. Though I notice that neither Vizard nor Arrancar are listed as character types. And that Aizen Sousuke is not listed as a Main Character. Why exactly is this? Aizen Sousuke is the main antagonist of the series since...about a year or even two years ago since the Soul Society arc. And since we're including Urahara as a Main Character due to being a Plot Helper, why not the antagonist of the series? Even assuming we're going on the stance of "not in the dubbed anime yet" then...Why are the Bount listed as a Character Type? They haven't made an appearence yet. So exactly what's going on with this page? I thought of editing this all in myself, but...No point if it's just going to be reversed. So in conclusion, I want feedback: 1. Should Valley of Screams from the Bleach Movie be counted as one of the worlds in Bleach? 2. Shouldn't Aizen Sousuke be counted as a Main Character? 3. Shouldn't the Arrancar/Vizard have SOME kind of mention in the character types page? 4. Does anyone read these huge paragraphs I type or simply nod and go "Uh huh"? That's all, why bye! 67.11.46.168 06:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)HeartCard67.11.46.168 06:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions, I'll have to give some introduction. The Bleach (manga) page is GA because of the work all the editors done. We do not usually change something unless it contributes to the overall understanding of the series.

1. Valley of the Screams is only a one shot thing which gets destroyed. Its in the movie, so its not located here, and it doesn't make an appearance in the manga or anime. Usually movies happen in a parellel universe, but the anime character continues on, not knowing anything about what happens in movies. No, its not filler crap, its just in a movie one shot thing so nothing worth mentioning here and getting people confused, like asking,"When did the anime ever show the Valley of the Screams?"
2. Bounts are filler, but yes, they take up 2 arcs of the show, and they aren't mentioned anywhere else.
3. People don't know Aizen is the antagonist yet, so no point putting him there. He also doesn't fulfill the criteria to be a main character, despite being the antagonist.
4. Urahara fulfills the criterea.
5. No we aren't going by dub anime.
6. Arrancar gets mentioned in Hollows.
7. Vizards are mentioned in the shinigami sections.

Criteria:

• Consistently important from time of introduction until present. (Aizen fails this one, Urahara passes)
• Have been on the core character team ("ryoka" group) for at least one trip or major supporter. (Aizen semi passes this one, he isn't a core character team thing but a major supporter thing)
• Strong connection to Ichigo. (Aizen fails this one, Urahara trained Ichigo bla bla bla so he passes)
• For the males at least, have seen quite a bit of combat. (Aizen semi-fails this one, as he isn't seen fighting alot, more talking done; Urahara passes as he shows his shikai and knowledge of things)

Of course, you would know this if you went and edited it, seeing as there is a hidden message there.--Hanaichi 06:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the Valley of Screams being a One Shot wonder thus it's disclusion. Point to you there. But I think you contradict yourself. "People don't know Aizen is the antagonist yet," and then "No we aren't going by the dub anime"? The Japanese Dubbed Anime is already to Orihime going to Hueco Mundo. The only way someone could miss Aizen being the antagonist at this point(Aside from the obvious "lol retard") is that they're going by the English Dub anime*Which to my knowledge does indeed not have Aizen revealed as of yet and has him assumed dead if I'm up to date*. So we've established that (Based on the Bount, Vizard, Arrancar, etc being mentioned) we are indeed going of the Japanese Dubbed version, yet we're leaving out the antagonist? As far as the Criteria goes: (Reframe from reading if you're an English Dub-only kind of person) 1.Importance since Appearence: Talks to Gin and acts as if he's going to stop what Gin is planning. Is then found dead. Is then reveal to have slaughter Room 46. Then steals the hougyoku from Rukia's body. And at this point is declared "Big Bad" as he goes to Hueco Mundo. Has no relation with the Bounto Arc, but come on is it really fair to count this against him? Hence forth, he commands the Arrancar and currently holds Orihime in his hands as well in that classic "princess to be saved" type of fashion. Aside from the Bount Arc, Aizen is important since introduction and even somewhat before(Only revealed after introduction though). 2. Been on Core Character Team: True, he undoubtable failed this one in it's entirety. I wouldn't even call him a "Supporter" really. I'll let you explain how he could be if you see fit. 3. Strong Connection to Ichigo: Well Urahara's "Training" for Ichigo was basically just tons of fighting. Aizen did infact fight Ichigo before going to Hueco Mundo(if only a moment). Aizen did take an interest with Ichigo, later sending Uluquirra and Yammy to kill him if he's a threat. There's atleast SOME connection there. 4. Males require much Fightning: While Aizen virtually PWNTS everyone he fights instantly, he's actually had about as many fights thus far as Urahara. Urahara: Ichigo. Yammy/Uluquirra. Yammy(Most recent). Aizen: Hitsugaya. Foxfaced Captain(His name escapes me T_T). Ichigo. Hmmm THREE fights each? How interesting. But as you said, Urahara has shown his Shikai. Okay good but...So has Aizen. Aizen first used his shikai to fake his death, then beat Hitsugaya, then Ichigo. But Urahara had other techs to fight with besides his shikai? So did Aizen. Aizen beat Foxfaced Captain with a Kidou Spell.

They both supply and build plots. Urahara: "Go Heroes! I have taught you much now go Rescue them!" Aizen: "Pinky...Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" Gin: "I think so, Brain. If my Shikai makes my sword grow, my bankai should make me be able to play basketball." See my point? While Urahara is the important "Teacher" figure. Aizen is the important "Bad Guy" figure. (Each sold seperately). Honestly I think Aizen and Urahara have the same level of importance.

EDIT: Aizen gets another Fight to his list: Flashback(Renji, Hinamori, and Kira saved from hollow by Aizen/Gin). That and I forgot to sign this post. :P 67.11.46.168 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)HeartCard67.11.46.168 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you should really have an account if you keep coming back here. You do list very good points, but strong connection to Ichigo is ummm...hmmm how do I put it? Aizen doesn't really know about Ichigo other than his bankai, orange hair and he being a ryoka. Yup, Aizen did send Ulqouirra to investigate. Still. Yes, we are not going by dub anime (or else half of the articles would be VERY short) but we are waiting for Aizen to reveal himself so that we can remove his ugly spoiler tag. We left out Aizen mainly because he is the antagonist for the Soul Society + Hueco Mundo + Arrancar arc, and I think that most of the characters listed in the front page (Urahara and Renji) appeared in the early story arc with ALOT of attention towards them, while Aizen didn't.--Hanaichi 13:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I signed up after the last post. I also made mention on the "Yoruichi=Main character" topic near the top of the page. So okay, Aizen fails the Strong Connection to Ichigo, true. But he kinda passes all three of the other criteria. That and I think I see what you were getting at with him being a "Supporter" to the Ryoka group. Being that he did somewhat manipulate things to their favor in some way. Except for the whole "Rukia must diezorz!!!1one!" bit. So maybe we should bring in other people to this discussion and just have a general poll on it? But if you ask me, to not include the CREATOR of the arrancar(despite their listing) as a main character seems somewhat redundant and outright silly. That's all I've really got to say for now. Why Bye! .--HeartCard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, Aizen passes strong connection to Ichigo. It was he he put up Rukia for execution, which affect Ichigo. It was he who tried to kill Rukia, which affects Ichigo. It was he who has Orihime kidnapped, which affects Ichigo. It was he who told the Espada not to get off their butts to kill the intruders, which affects Ichigo. It is he who is the ultimate main villain Ichigo must face, which will and is affecting Ichigo.

Now for the ryoka group one, he fails. If he were to suddenly go to the Soul Society or Human World, however, he would pass, as he would become a ryoka to that world as he cannot enter those legally anymore. Techniqually he's a ryoka to the Hueco Mundo, as only hollows can't really be considered natives, and he didn't enter it with Soul Society permission. Basically, he passes for the most part. The only doubt for putting him there is spoiler. That's not a reason. If you ask me, if we decide things by spoiler, then don't give articles to the arrancar so people won't know about them yet. Either way, the manga has gone past his betrayal with Shonen Jump releasing six chapters of Bleach (Grand Fisher already died, you know), and the majority of those who read the Wikipedia Bleach article have found out (or will find out) Aizen is a villain, the arrancar exist, Shinji is a vizard, and Isshin is a shinigami, so spoiler isn't really a reason anymore. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that the article is discussing the setting and other background elements of the story without revealing the plot. This has generally been justified on the grounds that the series isn't over yet, so we don't know how the plot will turn out (I've always thought that this is a mistake, and I've advocated adding a plot summary based on the one from the Japanese Wikipedia - our arc articles would work just as well). At the same time, I advocated keeping Aizen out when he was only involved to the extent of a plot twist. I think the situation has changed. He has become much more central to the plot of the story since the Soul Society-based plotlines ended. I think we should consider adding him to the list of main characters. Dekimasuよ! 03:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're in agreeance? I mean I agree about keeping him out when it was still into the Bounto Arc. But the moment Aizen sent Yammy and Urruiqula out, that should have been the moment it became very clear he was the main bad guy in my opinion. So let's have a vote on if we should or should not do it. So far we have three votes, HeartCard, Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, and Dekimasu. Given that both of you made the statement he should be added, I'll assume you agree. Please sign your name under here if you agree with us and believe Aizen should be added as a Main Character. Or we could just skip this, edit the page, and hope no one reverts it back. >_> —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartCard (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for adding Aizen in as a main character. However, I think we should hold off until the twist is revealed in the dub. However, that might take a while since Bleach is going on hiatus in America this weekend in order to dub more episodes. Dunno when it'll be back. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GhostStalker, put Aizen when the english dub reveals him (episode 60 was it?). Even though the manga chapters came out already, I say, watching tv is easier then buying the book.--Hanaichi 11:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1stly: I'd like to say I think the hiatus is done. I heard Ichirin no Hana(3rd season opening) on the TV a day ago, turned up episode 51 of bleach was showing. 2ndly: I'd like to say that: LOL FORK TEH DUBZORZ. Thank you, that is all. 3rdly: As someone pointed out above: Anyone on wiki pretty much knows about Aizen already, not to mention they're already going to spoil the bount/arrancar/vizards for themselves, why not the main bad guy too? Doesn't it say HOW the arrancar are made listing Aizen Sousuke by name in it? Isn't that a clue itself that he is lolbadguy #1, for anyone who hasn't seen the show that far?

Personally I'm thinking "Do not tomarrow what can be done Today". >:D HeartCard 10:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright you guys. It is freakin December... The english release of the manga is up to 21 with 22 due in Feb. Add Aizen as a main character already. I don't care for the english translation of the anime, I prefer the manga over the anime any day. Aizen is one of my favorite characters and I was disapointed to see tat he wasn't listed as a main character. Jeez people, stop arguing about it and just do it. You can say all day "we don't want to reveal to peoplethings that they might not have seen yet..." If so then why show the: Arrancar, Bounts, Hueco Mundo, etc... I don't watch the anime, english or japanese, and those articles where revealing to me things that haven't yet been realesed in the english manga. You can't make everyone happy, but it seems that the majority of people on here want to see Aizen as a main character. ~Anonymous 5:14 AM, 8 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.182.224 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm reposting this here since the title of this part is "of SEVERAL things" and...no one is looking at it way at the top of the page. X_X : "Actually I wanna reopen this one for discussion. Becuase I got a few things to say about Yoruichi VS Criteria: 1.Important since Appearence: She is indeed not very important after her intro. Nothing centers around her. But she is the main guide around the Soul Society Arc for the core team. 2. Been on Core Character Team: Pass, very distinct pass. Not sure anyone would argue this anyways. 3. Strong Connection to Ichigo: To be honest she has about as much connection as Urahara. Urahara trained Ichigo and brought out his Shikai/Shinigami Powers back. Yoruichi trained Ichigo and brought out his bankai. She also saved his life when he was going to fight Byakuya for the secound time. So roughly about the same connection as Urahara. 4. For the males, Must have alot of Combat: You said Yoruichi fails this one but...SHE IS NOT MALE. The rule says "For the" what's that word? Oh yeah "MALES". Not Female. We can't really count this rule against here, it states in itself it doesn't applie to her. But even if it does count against her, yeah you can count all her fights on one hand but...You can do roughly the same with Uryu or Chad. Ishida: VS Hollows(Ichigo VS Uryu competition), VS Shinigami(Using the mass amounts of ranged weaponary), VS A Captain(Mayuri), VS Tousen(Stretching for this one), VS Bount Fangirl, VS Ryuuken Ishida. Hmmm SIX fights? Thats...one hand. Chad: VS Canary's Hollow(With Rukia), VS Random Hollow(With Karin), VS Random tons of Shinigami, VS a Captain(Ukitake)...Oh wow, four battles if you will. Though Yes, I'm going by times not number of people. Otherwise the mass of Shinigami would put him over 100 easy. Same with Uryu and hollows. But Most of those fights are off screen. Now for Yoruichi's fights(Listed in order of anime appearence): VS Byakuya(More of a Fight-Break up, but whatever), VS Soi-Fon, VS Hollow(Soi-Fon's memories), Vs Yammy/Uluquirra. So four fights. Not really too bad even though this rule shouldn't applie to her. Lemme know what ya think. Why bye! 67.11.46.168 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)HeartCard67.11.46.168 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)" HeartCard 10:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The manga has revealed the twist (Shonen Jump did, too) a while ago, and the episode is a few weeks away. As I pointed out earlier, just about everyone who visits the Bleach Wikipedia pages know Aizen's the main villain, and those who are knew will find out. As such, "spoiler = no" just doesn't cut it anymore as a justifiable reason. Back when Aizen was first found dead, yeah, that was a good reason, but now we're at most 2 months away from the spoiler, so it's not good enough a reason anymore. It also seems the majority of the users support a yes, though when isn't clear. So instead, let's have a seperate poll and decide if we should do it now or two months from now. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 06:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Combat

on combat have articles about Zanpakutou and kidou, but the 4 ways of fight are Zanjutsu, Hakuda, Hohou and Kidou. Bleach chapter 175, page 09.--200.140.71.91 14:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because only two of the four are complicated enough to need an article. ~SnapperTo 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But, have to change the name of "Zanpakutou" to "Zanjutsu".--200.140.71.91 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That article is about the sword itself. Zanjutsu is the process of using the sword. "Zanpakuto" is the appropriate name. ~SnapperTo 02:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiatus on Adult Swim?

The wiki shows that the Bleach anime by Viz Media is on hiatus here in America on Adult Swim, when that is clearly not so. As of today, October 19, 2007, Bleach is shown Monday through Friday nights at 12:30 AM EST. (Which would technically make each of them fall on the day after in EST, but that's besides the point.) Should this be changed? 68.63.219.1 05:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC) ddmdandaman

New episodes of Bleach shown on Saturday nights/Sunday mornings are going on hiatus. The weekday showings are repeats. So technically, I think Bleach would still be considered on hiatus... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My DVR just recorded episode 53 this week of Bleach. Are you SURE it's on hiatus? I remember the hiatus stopping at the end of season 2, the new episodes would have the new opening: Ichirin no Hana, which 51 and 52 both have. So are you SURE it's still on hiatus? HeartCard 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)HeartCard

Pretty sure... Death Note replaced it last Saturday, at least in the US. I didn't actually see the episode, but response from people who did make it pretty clear that Bleach is on hiatus. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, this guy has something off. 52 debuted Ichirin no Hana, not 51. 53 hasn't aired and was replaced by Death Note 1 this past weekend. --User:Guess Who, not signed in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.197.145 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know why it's on hiatus. The FCC are idiots who believe that any mention of a swastika is representative of the Nazi party, and so they have to find some way to edit Ichigo's bankai. WTF??? Sasuke9031 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Shinigami Cup

Should there be mention of the Shinigami Cup at the end of episodes 54 onwards? Jigen III 00:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By Shinigami Cup, do you mean the omake? --Eruhildo 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

yea Jigen III (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nature of omake, I would say probably not. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Byakuya

Just to point this out, but Byakuya now passes all four qualifications for being a main character. There's no question he's close to Ichigo. He is currently part of the current ryoka group. He's had six battles and is about to have a seventh, way over that of most other fighting characters. He's had an appearance in every one of the story arcs. Yes, he didn't really do anything during the arrancar arc, but the last time I checked Uryu and Chad didn't do very much either. Byakuya currently passes all qualifications. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it for now. As much can be said for Toshiro. Lets discuss this without editing for awhile shall we? I think we are clogging up the protangonist section anyway. Although a significant amount of backstory has revealed stuff about Byakuya, the same can be said for Toshiro. Yes, both are quite close, I say the latter more so then the former as Toshiro has worked with Ichigo more then Byakuya. --Hanaichi 01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When did we assign these arbitrary qualifications for a "main character"? That section would be better off discussing the characters in general rather than simply the "main characters" per se. The race list could also be combined into that, allowing for better flow and a less in-universe method of presentation. It would also solve the problem of having to decide who is and isn't a main character. See Excel Saga#Characters and plot for an example. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the criteria are too arbitrary to be called objective. We can go back to objective criteria somehow - voice actors who are top-billed in the credits, or characters listed as main on offical websites, things we've looked into in the past. At the very least, the criteria have caused the persistent edit wars over inclusion in the article to be replaced by persistent discussion on the talk page, which is probably a slight improvement. Dekimasuよ! 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to copy the format of Excel Saga in the manner in which characters are displayed for the simple fact that there are such a large amount of them. Making such a list difficult to negoiate. I think that Dekimasu's proposal would work best for now. Showers (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This will sound stupid

Like I said, but whats the name of the division captain who has the big thing over his head? I can't for the life of me his name. I must sound fairly retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio777 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See List of Bleach shinigami#8th Division, and next time please ask such questions on a forum. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improving the Bleach (manga) article. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well I think you're talking about either Mayuri Kurosatchi (Sp?) , or Komamura (Don't know his last name). Mayuri has some Black and white painted face, and Komamura (Most of the time) Has a big bucket looking thing over his head. If you're not too far in the anime, I won't spoil anything as to why. --Shinigami Soi Fon (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception..

According to WP:ANIME, there should be a reception paragraph, but it's kinda been combined with Media Information (the best dvd award, best manga etc), can anyone else find out some other info to make a paragraph on Reception?

RedEyesMetal (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

13 captains

how about insert all the 13 division captains?

since some captain can't be the major character while they quite important to the story.

thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recca rebellion (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No point? None of the captains are main characters by the way.--Hanaichi 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mergers

Per an AfD awhile back, Soul Society and Hueco Mundo are supposed to be merged into the settings section of this article. Anyone want to take on the task? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay STOP!

STOP! See what has happened when one merges without thinking based on the AFD? Giving the main article, the workgroups only GA class article, many many images about the different settings has earned it the too many copyright image tag. With this, the article will probably flop the GA standard and revert back to B-class. This is why I exactly said merge to the List of Bleach locations! We have unnecessarily cluttered this page.--Hanaichi 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I can understand your frustration, the project has had almost a month to do the merge themselves, but no one bothered. Someone finally was bold and did something. The project can still do a List of Bleach locations, if that is desired. Perhaps the merge will not prompt the project to actually do the work rather than quietly ignoring the prods to get it done. In either case, one should consider whether pictures of the locations are even necessary, either here or in a List. Does their inclusion satisfy the requirements at WP:NONFREE and add significantly to the discussion (while keeping in mind that most anime and television articles do NOT have such images)? AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and removed two images as well as the tag. I think the pics of Soul Society and of Hueco Mundo are important enough for this article to justify keeping them. I don't think a List of Bleach locations article would really be necessary, but I haven't been keeping up with the discussions lately. The image Gates of hell bleach.png will probably be deleted soon as it is no longer linked to by any article. Does this help any? --Eruhildo (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we just sort of sat on our hands for those two. The article can still be made, just drag the info from the redirects. Not sure how necessary it is, but then again, I'm not very concerned with necessity so long as something happens. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What's with Bleach?

Can anyone out there give even the slightest reason why they decided to call this thing Bleach? Or is it just one of those things where someone in Japan decided that a random English word sounded really cool?

I believe I read somewhere that bleach represented the bleached out versions of some of the main characters. "Hollow ichigo is white, or a bleached out version of ichigo"

Keigo once said that Ichigo bleached his hair everyday (likely just a rumor) in an omake in volume 12 or 13 (forgot which). This could be the source. Or mabye that word had a meaning in Kubo's original plan for the series, but later changed it. Bleach could also be nothing at all. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I always took Bleach to refer to the purification of Hollows - like bleach purifies stains, or something like that. Meh, it's just what I think anyway. I don't think Kubo has really said why, so it's just up to speculation right now. --Eruhildo 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard rumors that Bleach is japanese translation for the word "Death" but, I'm not positive. Shinigami Soi Fon (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You have the Japanese word for death right in your own username. Jibbley (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

-Ha, I'm a pretty gullible idiot. I had no idea what it meant, I just heard it on the show. Anyways, I was part of a discussion on a different website about this, and alot of people said Tite Kubo was intrested in the band Nirvana, and they said he named it after one of their albums... I really hope that's not why. That would just be a big let down for me. Aha, found the link...if you sort through the pages a bit, you'll see more people agree. http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/anime-manga-comics/the-origin-of-the-title-bleach/t.35155655_16/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinigami Soi Fon (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it has something to do with Ichigo's hair color being the usual result when a Japanese male bleaches his hair. Thus why Ichigo got crap for his hair color and the source of the name. Or something. --Cronodude360 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this a couple times before. Most of the prominent instances of black/white symbolism have reversed meaning. The protagonist Ichigo is shown as dark, while his enemies (hollows, Captains, Arrancar) are notably white. Considering this "To Bleach" may be construed as a descent into darkness; as we are seeing Ichigo undergo. None of this is WP:V, however, so discussing it here is pointless. –Gunslinger47 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good summary. Dekimasuよ! 04:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading in an issue of the American Shonen Jump that it might come from the title of Nirvana's album, Bleach, since Tite Kubo is a big fan (and a fan of American music in general). I don't remember which issue, however, but I think it might have been part of a two part Tite Kubo interview.

Chibi Gohan (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah what the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.140.35 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right, well, until someone gets believable, solid evidence from Kubo Tite or the publisher, I suggest we leave this alone. Speculations aren't for articles, we're here to provide solid fact. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

life span soul society

what is the life span of someone in the soul society, i have herd them say that life in the soul society is immortal but the there are some in the soul society who look really old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.164.243 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Kubo has ever said, but it is many times a human's life span. --Eruhildo 04:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe a soul in Soul Society lives for two millenia or so. Possibley only one millenia. Becuase (This is all just off my memory): Captain Yamagato is roughly almost a thousand years old, and he looks very old indeed. While Rukia is over a hundred years old(I remember hearing a number close to 137 somewhere), and looks about 15. So I'd say about 10 times that of a normal human lifespan. Rukia looks 15, but is probabley 150. So Yamagato looks about 90, and probabley is about 900. Assumabley in that case, the average life span would be(Excluding in-battle deaths) is probabley between 400 and 900 if it's anything like current-day. HeartCard (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)HeartCard

Speculation. Rukia did say she was 10 times as old as Ichigo was though, and seeing as Yamamoto founded the Academy 2000years previous to the Bleach storyline, the lifespan is all mixed up. Until Kubo says "Rukia is 150, Yamamoto is 2000, blablabla" then we can't put anything.--Hanaichi 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey um like.... what happens when you die in soul society?

When you die in the soul society you are rencarnated on earth with no memories of your past life.Example(Ichigo looks just like Kaien Shiba and he died before the story line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.216.235 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaien Shiba and Ichigo have nothing to do with each other, other than they have similar personalities and were both close friends of Rukia. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehwere--maybe ep. 161, Kaien said that when a shinigami dies their bodies become spiritual particles in Soul Society. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But at the same time, in the Bleach movie, the shinigami/memory rosary Senna died, and she was sort of reincarnated on Earth at the end, or at least that is hinted on. But as the Memory Rosary, not really a true shinigami, I don't think that counts... IceUnshattered (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also when you die do you like the way you died in Soul society? Because then people who died very young in the human World would live longer than those not. Moom.wolff (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)moom.wolff

Please take this discussion to a forum as most of this is just speculation and won't help improve the article. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No Description of Bankai

I saw no reference to Bankai on the main page, despite having referances to powers in the storyline after Bankai is introduced. Considering it's importance, and seeming prequisitie for Vizards (could be wrong here, but I doubt it), it seems a major error not to have it even mentioned, let alone linked to. I do realize it is linked to under Zanpakutō, but considering a Wikipedia search of Bankai goes to the section, it should be somewhere on the page as a link. Jinnai (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ichigo was a vizard as of his training with Urahara, long before he attained bankai. For that matter, Ichigo is the only vizard so far to even confirm that he has a bankai on stage. Where did you get the idea that it was a prerequisite from? --03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was not that it was a prerequisite to becoming a Vizard, though in trooth without any other example other than Ichigo, the question should be "what proof is it that Bankai isn't a prerequisite?" You take only the evidence given to you and so far only Ichigo has shown how he obtained his powers and not much of the backgrounds of the Vizards has been revealed. Therefore, without any contradictory evidence, a prerequisite of Bankai should be assumed.Jinnai (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically you stance on the matter is "right until proven wrong." So far there is no evidence to support your idea or disprove it and really until there is, there's no point bothering with the idea. No information is better than false information. Ditch88 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not if no information leads to false assumptions, which in this case it is liable to do. Jinnai (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleach Wikia Needs Aid

Or more realistically, a active mod. I an creator of the Bleach Wikia, but initial domain over a slightly more rowdy Naruto Wikia got in the way of my duties there. So I need someone to act as the super mod there.

The reason I bring this up here is because the Bleach Wikia could be the best place to move Non-Wiki Worthy info to in the case of Deletion/Mergers. Will ease the problem or debates over character information and the like.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll have better luck finding someone who's already on the Bleach Wikia. I'd love to do something like that, but I don't even have enough time for Wikipedia these days. From what I've seen, a lot of the people Wikipedia who'd make good mods are already pretty busy. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I personally am a huge romance fan, I think some things should be cleared up, for one, there is alot of Bleach related yaoi, (mainly Rinji and Suishi Hisagi) another thing, many anime articals have things in the discusion colum about romance for example Edward Elric and Winry Rockbell, Sango and Miroku, etc. one needs to be stared for couples like Momo and Toushiro, Rukia and Ichigo, etc., it's bad enough that Tite Kubo dosen't put enough romance in there, but can't there be a disscusion? Espically because half the Bleach world likes IchigoxRukia, MomoxToushiro, OrahimexUuryu, and YouraweichiexUrahara, but the other half is IchigoxOrahime and RukiaxRinji, it could make a really hot topic espically considering how hot the "Soifon and Youraweichie are not lesbions" topic is! It's my opoinion that there should be a colum on the romance stuff! -CaptinAsagi —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinAsagi (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the Bleach wikia. Wikipedia is not the place for fan innuendo/fantasies.AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen and well said. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I completely forgot about this thing. I was thinking of using the people already at the Bleach Wikia. The main problem is that there is a almost completely unorganized style of editing there, and I much prefer the established Wikipedia style. So the mind frame was "Get someone who doesn't like Wikipedia's handle over anime and stuff and give him a job at the Bleach wikia.". CaptainAsagi....ok here is my question: What exactly did this have to do with this topic exactly? Or was it just something you just had to reveal to the world?--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of the names

Just wondering shouldn't be Kurosaki Ichigo. I know this is the ENGLISH wikipedia but when when adding suffixes on to the names the order matters. So if we were to say that Orihime refers to Ichigo as Ichigo-san then titling the article as Ichigo Kurosaki would screw it up. It's not neccesary but I'm still wondering. Moom.wolff (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC) moom.wolff

No, people that haven't seen the English version of Bleach and don't no about Japenesse respect would get confused, in the English version Orahime just calls him Ichigo, it's espically true for names like Uuryu Ishida, in fact, a charecter in Bleach ounce got confused on weather or not it was Ishida Uuryu or Uuryu Ishida, a simaler problum could occur -CaptinAsagi —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinAsagi (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre and categorization, Pt. II

The discussion about the categories here didn't really finish so I was wondering if we can settle it for good now. I am considering a third and final genre placed on this article; WP:MOS-AM#Content hints there can be up to three so, because of the magical elements and fictional races in Bleach, which fits this series more: fantasy or magical boy or something else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided on fantasy because the magical boy page is unsourced, and it's probably not even a genre. The edits will look like this: [[Action (genre)|Action]]; [[Fantasy]] [[supernatural fiction]]

Any objections? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed the date

Adult Swim advertises March 1, 2008 for the return of Bleach and it does fir because Saturday is the Anime Night for Adult Swim.

March 2, 2008 was Frisky Dingo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge2 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone it. Adult Swim is well known for its tendency to call Saturday Friday and so on. The show comes on at 1 am. That is March 2nd, not March 1st, regardless of Adult Swim's inability to tell dates accurately. They can't change the calendar. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Namesake? Change it, for heaven's sake!

Under "characters" Ichigo is described as becoming his "namesake." I believe that this is an improper use of the term "namesake," which denotes an individual for/after whom one is named or with whom one shares a name.

A better phrasing might be "As the story progresses, Ichigo increasingly lives up to his name, which translates to 'one who protects'."

130.245.220.154 (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)NJ

Agreed...reworded. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! --Eruhildo (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Popularity pools

I have tried to start some systematic compilation of pool info here. Luis Dantas (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sine you keep spelling it wrong here's a correction for you: it's spelled "poll", not "pool". ~SnapperTo 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks and sorry! :) 201.14.125.169 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Snapper, you misspelled "since". Maybe you should check your own spelling before complaining about others'. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Death of a Shinigami

I'm at a loss to understand what the heck death means to a Shinigami. Where are they going to go, Detroit? -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked, yes, they very well might end up in Detroit. Shinigami reincarnate when killed" i.e. reborn on Earth. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Detroit? They probably only get reincarnated into Japan or Asia due to the fact that Soul Society is an entirely Japanese based society. Please don't bring this up again. Moom.wolff (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)moom.wolff

You seem to have a pretty sharp tongue, moom.wolff. In any case, where Shingami get reincarnated into in the physical world is a rather pointless discussion, as well as original research, since Tite Kubo (AFAIK) hasn't ever written about it. —Dinoguy1000 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Movie

While the media section needs some serious overhauling (no idea why its all in some hideously formatted list elsewhere), someone may want to note that Viz has acquired the license for the "Memories of Nobody" movie: http://www.animeondvd.com/news/pr.php?pr_view=1316 and will give it a limited theatrical release. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Characters.

I believe Hitsugaya Toshiro should be considered a main character since he exceeds the criteria and is currently active in the recent chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moom.wolff (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe because you are a Hitsugaya fan? I think the list is fine by the way it is, Hitsugaya is a major supporting character but certainly not one main character. He could be compared to, for instance, the Outer Senshi in Sailor Moon. --Hanaichi 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you, the last OVA really did feature him as kind of a main character, but really the list is fine as it is.--DeviantCharles (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue with brief description of Urahara

I feel like that the immense knowledge Urahara has of the spiritual world is just as important as the impact he has already had on the world as we see in the anime/manga. I understand it's a summary, but I feel that as he created one of the most important plot devices in the story thus far, it should probably be mentioned. What do you guys think? --DeviantCharles (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The Hogyoku's just a slightly more concrete MacGuffin, and sidetracking the article to explain what it is would disrupt reading. Saying he's an inventor in general might be good, but specific inventions go on his page, not here. --erachima talk 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The inventor thing is probably a good inclusion, but I was basically thinking of saying something along the lines of how Urahara's past has a major impact on the story. I wasn't necessarily thinking of citing the hogyoku, just that his past actions have a vast influence on what's happening on the story now.--DeviantCharles (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Renji?

Just curious why Renji is listed as a main character when they don't mention him often at all in the beginning and mention other characters much more frequently then him. Just curious why Rukia's brother is not mentioned in the main characters but

Rukia's brother isn't a main character. If you are watching the cartoon network version you'll see why Renji is labeled as a main later on in the series, if you're watching the japanese dub you must not be paying enough attention. Hellz88 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We are referring to the whole series in general when we list the main characters. Please do not bring up the fact that you have not seen the new released episodes in Japan. Bring it to the forums. You don't have the right to complain just because you aren't updated. Not everybody watches the "cartoon network version". Some of us otakus prefer to stay with the authentic episodes not crappy voiceovers.Moom.wolff (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)moom.wolff

He isn't a main character from the very beginning, but the latest arcs in the anime and manga have really made him a pretty primary character.--DeviantCharles (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Urahara

While we're at it, is there a really good reason Urahara is listed as a main character? Theories aside up to current manga, he's acted mainly as an adviser more then anything. --Knighthammer (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - I'd definitely call him a supporting character. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --deerstop (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, more minour than the others. He shouldn't even have his own page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bleach name

I don't understand why this is called Bleach (manga) and not Bleach (series). The anime and the manga are two different entities and should be labeled as so, by having their own articles.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Per our MOS, no the anime and manga properties should NOT have their own articles. They do not have significant enough differences to warrant it. It is called manga because that was the initial property, it is consistent with our naming guidelines, and it disambiguates from the more well known chemical. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's where it says that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eruhildo (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mynameisnotpj, you may want to brush up on a few old discussions, see this, this, and this. There really is no better page title. Well, I could go for Bleach (franchise). The article does seem to describe every form of media and not just the manga. Any takers? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think manga is fine. We focus mostly on the manga and anime, so I think franchise would be misleading as the other stuff doesn't get that much coverage (except maybe a few video games). Its in keeping with the MOS, and the manga is the primary property, so its fine. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What if you compare it to Dragon Ball (franchise)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at how many different series it links to. That page is just a summary of the franchise as a whole. This article is more like a combination of Dragon Ball (manga) and Dragon Ball (anime) (I'm saying this without having only scanned the articles, so I may be a little off). Anyway, I think the current title is the best choice. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what is wrong with Bleach (series). Since this article refers to both the anime and the manga, it would make more sense to let the reader know right away that they are looking at a summary of both of the media for Bleach. Naming the article Bleach (manga) implies that there is also an article named Bleach (anime).--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I once wondered, until Berserk (manga) came to mind, and left it alone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because another article has done something does not mean it is right. It seems like many of the decisions editors make are based on other articles, rather than what would make sense to the reader.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion but you did a similar thing here. It's normal to compare one subject to the other, regardless of other crap existing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

More because the MoS does not give an option for series, so it defaults to the first work if disambiguation is needed (which most of our articles usually don't). Of those that have needed disambiguation, its never been an issue, but such a topic should be opened to the project as a whole. I've left a note on the project talk page about this discussion to invite wider comments. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. It will be interesting to see how this turns out, since it is probably very rare for an article to ever have a problem like this.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to move the article to "Bleach (series)" because the article is primarily about the manga. Another article that has "a problem like this" is X (manga): "X" deals with the manga and its two anime adaptations, but I don't see the need to move it either because it's primarily about the manga. Also, the "(series)" disambiguation is used for franchises articles like Devil May Cry (series) and Boogiepop series. If an article is created for the Bleach franchise (covering manga, anime, videogames, musicals, etc), then that article would be named "Bleach (series)".--Nohansen (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the manga and anime have significantly (or even decently) different plot lines (as many often do), the MOS-ANIME does not prevent the creation of separate articles for the anime and manga. If there is enough sourceable material to create two different articles which would not significantly duplicate each other, I recommend doing it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree slightly. To me, MOS-ANIME makes it pretty clear that separate articles should ONLY be created if there are significant differences, not just slight ones. There is nothing that I've seen that would indicate the need for a different article for the Bleach manga and anime series, its just an issue of what to call this one article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I said "significantly" or "decently", not slightly. I agree that slightly different plots shouldn't be a reason for splitting it off. I think you're interpreting things far too literally, and misunderstanding what I wrote. Please note especially the last sentence in my previous comment. That pretty much sums it up, I believe. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM also provides the option for a split when "the article becomes too large" or there's enough information on the adaptation (see Haruhi Suzumiya TV). As this article is right now, there's no reason for renaming or splitting.

There's a similar concern with the Elfen Lied article here.--Nohansen (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...if anything, it needs some stuff brought back in, like the badly split out media section. *shaking head* AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Media list

Agreed...if anything, it needs some stuff brought back in, like the badly split out media section. *shaking head* AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A much better split than media and materials might have been to just have a list of all the character CDs and OSTs and whatnot. --erachima talk 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, properly following the MoS: the main should have a section on the manga linking off to the chapter list, a section on the anime linking to the episode list, a section for the novels, a section for soundtracks, and a section for the artbooks, with everything properly cleaned up of course. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So what useful content from List of Bleach media can be merged here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? Not much of anything. Its horrible and has a bunch of stuff that doesn't belong at all, like the huge staff list. About the only usable bits are the names of the CDs and a few sentences. :( Sad state really, for such a popular series that should have tons of sourceable info. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If other things are going to be merged into this article, then it should definitely be renamed to Bleach (series).--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is disambiguated using "(manga)" because the manga is the primary topic. All adaptations and derivatives of the manga are a part of that topic, including the anime. "(series)" is used as a disambiguation only when there are separate articles on the anime, manga, novels, movies etc. that would otherwise have the same title. Understand the reasoning now? --erachima talk 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The stuff that needs to be merged here is content that shouldn't have been taken out of the article. It isn't a matter of it needing to be renamed, its the same topic. Its just fixing what was probably an attempt to address the size. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So nothing will be merged then? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the current format, probably not. Some of it needs cleaned and reformatting before merging, like the CDs, some is already in the main, it just needs sectioning and the links, while the rest is stuff that doesn't belong there. I've done the manga, anime, and light novels already. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Oh, Collectonian, mind chiming in on the discussion below? Think all reasons were presented but there could be something amiss. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at my edits from today - I was reverted by Collectonian three times. I made several changes: reducing bias by mentioning the number of Japanese volumes as well as the number of English volumes, reducing the ever-increasing number of dates (why do we need to know the exact timing of the hiatus, or what was run in Bleach's place on Adult Swim?), and correctly noting that the novelizations are not light novels - they are novels. I also removed the chart from the novel section, because while I understand that the media article is a mess, the ISBN of the Bleach novelizations is simply not something we need in any of the articles. I am not going to break the 3RR over this, but to be told that my edits are "incorrect", "inappropriate", or the result of not having read this talk page leaves me to ponder WP:OWN... a bit strange, considering I've been editing this page for two years. I'd hope other eyes can review the exchange. Dekimasuよ! 07:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put back your corrections, but left the sections - they belong there. I also kept the novel table, as it also belongs. It isn't just a list of ISBN's, but also to have chapter lists and summaries, when someone adds them, and such lists are appropriate per the MoS. They are as appropriate to include as our lists of manga chapters/volumes is. With only two volumes, this list just happens to be here instead of there. I left the hiatus in because I think that should probably be discussed before removing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I had already readded the sections. I believe that the novels aren't even notable enough to merit mention here. There will be no summaries, unless you want to have the first few volumes of the manga explained in detail on the main Bleach page. They simply reiterate the manga storyline using words instead of pictures. I would still like my edit to be seen and commented on by outside parties. Dekimasuよ! 07:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you deleted this question from your talk page, I'll ask here. Can you explain to me why we need to know the exact dates of the Bleach hiatus, or what replaced it on Adult Swim? Separately, how does adding the ISBN numbers of the novelizations help us understand the topic of the article? Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The novels are a part of the series, whether you personally feel they are notable or not. Just because they "reiterate" the manga story doesn't make them any less relevant. Several anime series have novelizations of their manga and/or anime conterparts. We don't just ignore their existance because its the same story. If we used that kind of criteria for inclusion, we wouldn't bother mentioning the anime adaptation of any series where the story lines stay the same. Their release and ISBN's are part of the information on Bleach as a whole. How can you say there will be no summaries? Such summaries need not be detailed (and shouldn't be), but they could easily be added if someone reads the novels, along with the chapter lists.

As for the hiatus, I didn't say it was needed to know, I said I believe it should be discussed before just removing all mention of it completely. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is a mistake to make the media section overdetailed here. The novelizations mentioned here have no more link to the original author than do the lines spoken by actors in the anime. The fact that Death Note replaced Bleach while Bleach was on hiatus is no more notable than the fact that "Soul Candy" chocolates, Luppi pins, and Byakuya Kuchiki shirts are sold at the Jump Shop. And we certainly don't need to discuss who's on the cover of the next music CD. On balance, these are all non-notable aspects of the series, and do not contribute notably to the article reader's understanding of Bleach or its franchise. It would be much more profitable to mention the major media, as we attempt to do in the lede, by noting the existence of the manga, the anime, the movies, the video games, and various other merchandising ventures, while directing readers to the main articles for the main media (in this case, List of Bleach chapters and List of Bleach episodes). Once we begin to try to list every character who has appeared on an eraser or notepad, the section will never recover. Dekimasuよ! 07:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your personal view, and does not agree with the consensus of the project as seen in our GAs and our MoS. We don't concern ourself only with the media that you deem notable. Other people may actual care to know about the rest of the stuff. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you disagree with me, but despite your appeals to consensus, you are not the sole arbiter of it, and I would like to hear from the other editors you say you represent. This has been a GA for about a year because of the efforts of several Bleach editors of long standing; I am one of them. I'm not sure it is a GA now. Many of these things are not notable per Wikipedia guidelines (the novels and artbook per WP:NB#Criteria, for example) whether Bleach fans care to know about them or not. I like the artbook, and I have one - same for the novels - but that doesn't mean that they need to be written about in detail on Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 08:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the article never should have passed GA as it did back in 2007. It didn't meet any of the GA qualifications then, and it still doesn't now. It should have been delisted a long time ago. I have left a note at the project requesting project members come join the conversation. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Those comments are unnecessary, but I have no problem with it being reviewed now. It will be delisted solely on the basis of the evident instability. On the other hand, it seems a little silly to have them review a version that is clearly under dispute and has been up for only a few hours. Dekimasuよ! 08:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was surely better on point 3B at that time: "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details". It "didn't meet any of the GA qualifications"? Sigh. Dekimasuよ! 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they weren't unnecessary, they are the plain and simple truth. It looks back on our articles and the project when articles are passed as GA when they are not really GA quality. As for instability, one brief skirmish would not result in delisting. Even with out the merge back of the media version, it fails all of criteria 2 and 3, and has since it was first listed, as I noted in the GAR. I have also added a link to the premerge version, since you feel it is "silly" to ask for a review despite the pre-merge version also completely failing both criteria. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't fail GA candidates for lacking adequate breadth when they link to daughter articles that treat the other aspects of the subject at hand. Take your version. In what way does it fail 3A? Why would you rather ask for reassessment than add the necessary references to the synopsis and character summaries, which are the only parts that lack sourcing? Dekimasuよ! 08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see; the novelizations are actually light novels; Shueisha runs a line of Jump novels, some original stories, some maybe just adaptations (haven't read many) and these are generally considered light novels. Mentioning novel tie ins to a media franchise is pretty standard through the Wikipedia; I don't think they require a table. Release dates and ISBN are of debatable importance; if they do adapt the first few volumes of the manga, I'd rather see a quick mention of that. I agree no great detail is warranted; this is hardly the same as the Death Note or Jojo's Bizarre Adventure part 4 novels. Artbooks and databooks are certainly worth mentioning as well. Haven't seen this done, but why couldn't these all be grouped under one heading? Other print media, or something. The ISBNs and dates could go at the bottom of the manga chapters article, if people wish to preserve that information - the Death Note manga chapters article mentions the fanbook, for instance. The CD and Musical sections look fine to me; an appropriate level of coverage. I understand why Dekimasu is saying these things are not notable, but I think this is the right level of coverage of them, and certainly reflects that general standards for articles on Wikipedia. I don't see that the hiatus needs to be mentioned. Doceirias (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just note that if they are light novels, the definition of light novel at Light novel needs to be changed: "A light novel is a novel with anime or manga style illustrations...." Dekimasuよ! 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The second one does move off the main storyline. I hadn't looked at it recently. Dekimasuよ! 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that apply here? Aren't there illustrations? There usually are, in that line. (Either way, light novel is simply a marketing term, a demographic; every bit as fuzzy and shonen, and can really only be defined safely by publishing labels.) Doceirias (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The novels and the art books probably could be grouped, since I don't think Viz has come into the light novel market yet so the Bleach novels probably won't be licensed (though who knows). The current was just the result of a quick merging from the media list, which had no referencing so wasn't sure how much information was available. We include a list of release dates and ISBNs for manga, even when unlicensed, so why not include for the novels as well? The summaries can, if nothing else, note that they are novelizations of manga chapters X-Y, which I think should be included as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

They've done the Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist, and Death Note novels, so who knows? Doceirias (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the section that listed the openings and endings of the anime are missing. Wiki gal8 (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't missing, it was not merged back because we don't generally have a specific section for that in the main article, rather they are noted in the episode lists. The opening and ending themes for Bleach are covered in the individual episode lists for each story arc. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the section listing the opening and endings needs merged back in. It'd probably look awkward given whoever's half-witted decision to remove the Media and Materials page in general, but it'd certainly be better than the current system. Having all the openings and endings in one place for such a long series is very convenient, and I think exceptions can certainly be made for long-running titles such as Bleach. As it stands now, it's really cumbersome to search through about five different pages just to find what episode a theme song changes, and even when you do find the page, it's in a cluttered paragraph format instead of a simple chart. I really think that the openings and endings need brought back in as a standard list. --Tasogare (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See below. Wikipedia is not a Bleach fansite. For that, go to the Bleach wikia or any of the other dozens of Bleach fansites. This is an encyclopedia and we have certain standards for how articles should be formatted, including not having some huge list of openings and endings in the main article when they are primarily relevant only to individual episodes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Media list....why?

Tell me why the media page was directed here? The media page was already orgainised well, so there was no reason to merge it here. Now this page looks messy...RedEyesMetal (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussion. The media page was not "well organized" and was not an appropriate breaking out of information per our MoS and discussions in the project regarding this, and a small number of other articles. It also had a lot of unnecessary content and gave undue weight to some aspects of the series. The section in the article now better follows our MoS, and now just needs referencing and some clean up since the former media list was lacking those and the actual basic information that should have been there (like who released the CDs instead of huge track lists). AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the original user. I came here today to look up information on the media page like I usually do, and found it not only gone, but half the information entirely removed. Regardless of what some users might say, it was organized well and every bit of information was very easily found. It needs brought back in its basic format. As things stand now users have to sift through almost a dozen pages to find some bits of information, then sift through another dozen to compare it with something else. It's just a horrible system all around and I can't imagine why it would have been implemented. --Tasogare (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not "well organized" in any way shape or form, it was just a huge catch all for anything and everything that people wanted to shove on it. All relevant, verifiable information that belongs on Wikipedia is in the main article or, for theme songs, in the appropriate episode list. Anything else belongs on a fansite or the Bleach Wikia, but not here. Feel free to ask that the old list be transwikied there, if you think its useful to fans, but it does not belong here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Put on Bleach Wikia, done. There ya go. However I have made a user page for it so it could be worked on. If the article was crap then fix the crap instead of deleting it. But this is for the people who wish to see it put back up. I have the most recent edit before the merge, so if anyone wants to fix the article they are welcome to.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything that can really be fixed that will have it be acceptable. We don't break out the entire media list into a standalone article, by the project MoS and consensus. We do an episode list, a chapter list, if enough then a light novel list. The rest belongs in the main article, in well-sourced prose and without excessive detail that puts undue weight on the lesser aspects of the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not by your opinion. I see from your user page that you're a deletionist, and somehow I'm not surprised. You are, I'm afraid, not the be-all end-all, final word on what is and what is not appropriate for a Wikipedia page, as much as you'd like to think otherwise. I've yet to see a half-decent argument made in favor of deleting this page, other than "because I think it looks bad." Not good enough, sorry. --Tasogare (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed above, and the whole media list has been discussed in the project and the MoS talk page. Go read the archives. Overwhelming view: they do not belong and are just fodder for deletion (many of which have been deleted of late, FYI). Your only argument for keeping it has been that you like it. Reasons for merging back include: compliance with MoS, removal of OR, unreferenced information, and excessive detail, lack of cohesion and being a catch-all list that was doomed to go to AfD, etc etc. Lots of good reasons, even if you, the non-neutral fan disagrees.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is definitely cluttered. However, I am glad TheUltimate3 kept the page safe instead of deleting it like some people. I am currently working on streamlining the information and removing unneeded things such as track lists and other data that serves only to bloat the page. In a more simple and cohesive format there is no reason to completely eradicate the page. It is on the level of deleting a prolific artist's discography. Bleach is an extremely popular and far-reaching series, and there is no reason to disallow expanded coverage beyond the "typical anime." --Tasogare (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant information is already in the article and the whole thing was already transwikied. Recreating the list will just have it quickly sent to AfD for permanent deletion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the information is not in the article. For example, to find when the series theme changes, one must seek through several pages. First finding the list of episodes, then finding the arc that contains the episode they're watching, then clicking through to the arc's separate page, then -finally- skimming a few intro paragraphs to find the information. Furthermore, to find out when a theme changes again, they must repeat the entire process. Now, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be easy to use, and yet this change alone is as cumbersome and needlessly complex as it gets. Again, I refer back to the example of a prolific artist. As I'm sure you're well aware, many artists have far too many albums and other bits of material to include on their artist page. Thus, a discography page is created. As Bleach is a much more expansive series than most anime, it stands to reason that a simple, uncluttered page collecting the basic media in chart form would be very helpful instead of driving users to seek out information over several pages that, quite frankly, don't even seem like they would contain the information to begin with. Why would a series theme be listed on a page listing episodes? Who knows! It just makes no sense. Again, I agree that the original page was far too cluttered, but I believe your policy of "Delete it and forget it" simply is ridiculous and I will be re-instating this page as soon as I fully streamline it. --Tasogare (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Because when the theme changes is a trivial bit of information that is only relevant to the episodes the themes are used in. If the media list is reinstated, it will be deleted just like the others have been. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, the whole thing wasn't actually "transwikied". The article created in Russian wiki is dedicated to the soundtracks and drama CDs only. --deerstop (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian wiki? I assume you're referring to this article on the Russian Wikipedia, in which case, that's not what's being talked about. The article got transwikied to the Bleach Wikia (though I'm not sure what its name there is). The Russian Wikipedia's page doesn't really have anything to do with this transwiki-ing. —Dinoguy1000 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I just thought that Collectonian meant "We did much harm in other wikis with this useless article" :) --deerstop (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason for keeping {{Redirect}} hatnote

My explanation is here; someone may eventually come along and take off the {{Otheruses}} hatnote per WP:NAMB. This is why some pages, like Horses in warfare and Son Goku (Dragon Ball), have {{Redirect}} and not {{Otheruses}}. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no "explanation" here. Second, there is no reason to suppose the otheruses hatnote will be removed. Third, if it is removed time enough to consider change. My reason for the simple hatnote is just that ... it is simple and therefore more easily used to help with disambiguation. It is supported by User:Bkonrad here. Case closed. Abtract (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you being silly? That supposition by Bkonrad would apply if the page was titled "Bleach". It is currently not, and perhaps never will be. And in case you didn't notice, I was referring to my edit summary, which was reason enough for the revert. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The shorter simply disambig is more than sufficient. Bleach goes to the article on the chemical. It is unlikely that anyone is going to type in BLEACH to begin with, and if they are, its not likely to be someone looking for the chemical. The disambig link if more than enough for the likely .01% of hits to this page from that. Also, Abtract, I strongly urge you to remember WP:CIVILITY and stop referring to other editors as "stalkers" in your edit summaries. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You say on your edit summary that the "shorter form is better" but my version was much shorter and simpler so why did you revert me? Was it a mistake? Abtract (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, the hatlink which references the redirect should stay right? Isn't it likely that if we used Abtract's, someone would remove it per WP:NAMB? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not it wasn't a mistake. Sorry for the badly worded edit summary. The redirect reference should stay. Erachima's change to redirect is a good solution. Keeps the redirect, and just skips the chemical all together. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not likely that anyone would remove it. However, it is worth using one of the redirect forms rather than the disambiguation template because there are several bands that use stylized forms of the word Bleach for their titles. (And people tend to type band names in all caps for no reason at all.)

Alternately, we could just redirect BLEACH to the disambiguation page and get rid of the hatnote entirely. --erachima talk 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK that seems a good compromise I will go along with that, while the redirect remains in force. Abtract (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on now, isn't the series franchise known as "BLEACH" in Japan? That could be turned into a primary topic on Bleach (disambiguation), hence, stay as a redirect for this page. And what about the brand? Should it not mention the Japanese franchise, like it did before Abtract's reverts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your current change. Though I can understand the reasonings for it, I don't think we need to redirect BLEACH to the disambig page. I also agree that the main Bleach page should mention this series as it did before, since this is one of the most common alternative uses of Bleach and it was added per talk page consensus. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the article statistics are the same now as they were back when they ran the top viewed Wikipedia articles counter, Bleach (manga) is about 500 times more prevalent of a usage. And that's counting all the hits the chem article got from people typing in Bleach to get here. --erachima talk 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(RE:Sesshomaru)Fixed. And no, I don't think BLEACH makes a good subheader on the dab page either way, since it's only a capitalization difference and Wikipedia intentionally doesn't give articles their "special" trademarked spellings. --erachima talk 01:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But you're okay with having "BLEACH" target "Bleach (manga)"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it went to the dab page instead, but I can't dispute that it's a common search term for this page. --erachima talk 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly favour it pointing ot the dab page, especially since mos:dab tend not to distinguish between capitalisation variants ... as indeed nor do a lot of readers. Abtract (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess everything stays how it is. You know, had it not been for MOS:CAPS, this page could have been titled "BLEACH". Consarn it all! Moving on. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just 16:9 broadcast...

...it's 720p minimum. --87.168.48.123 (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bleach is animated for 480(i) and 720p and 1080i is just upscales (by brodcaster), it was also case with 4:3 brodcasts. Pahajoki (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Setting

Just wondering - shouldn't Hell be removed from the settings section? It isn't really a location to which characters go at any point, and even in reference, it's only seen twice in the anime... I really don't think it belongs there. -SergeVGmyria (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But it IS a setting/area and we DO see it. Give me info from WP:N and WP:FICT showing that it doesn't belong there, and then we can see what I'll say. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really play any role in the series seperate from just a couple of episodes or chapters, and where it does appear, it has almost no impact on the development of the series as a whole. Just because it's seen in the series doesn't automatically provide it the notability necessary for a mention. Characters with this type of appearance wouldn't even be mentioned on a list of characters (except in a more notable character's description, as necessary), so I don't see much reason to provide Hell with its own section either. —Dinoguy1000 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"in a more notable character's description, as necessary" You mean, like, say, Bleach (manga)#Setting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No. In my example, I was referring to occasions in which a character doesn't have the notability to recieve its own section on a list of characters, but that character does play an important role in the development of a character who does have the necessary notability. In that case, the nonnotable character would not recieve its own section, but could be mentioned in the more notable character's section. However, in Bleach, Hell is not notable enough for mention by itself, nor does it help develop any notable character or location in the series - it is suddenly introduced, and just as suddenly pushed to the wayside after just an episode/chapter or two. The only mention it really warrents is in the episode and chapter summaries for those episodes and chapters it is seen in. —Dinoguy1000 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The picture for the infobox looks terrible. It is grainy and stretched out. I don't know anything about pictures on Wikipedia, but I can tell when one doesn't look very good. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the little one someone tried adding that was reverting or the current one? If the current one, do a hard refresh to make sure its actually showing the right image. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, it looks fine now. I don't know why it was doing that, because I looked at the page more than once. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Its probably because I replaced the image a moment ago with the full cover, and the cache hadn't caught up with the new size. It does that sometimes when replacing images. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bon-what??

As someone who stumbled into Bleach (on Cartoon Network) mid-way, I would really like to know more about the levels of technique, whether or not the jutsu's, bonkai's, etc. are terms specific to this series and fictitious or if they have literal translations and spur from specific martial arts. I find the samurai mythology embedded in the series fascinating, but I don't know enough about it to make any assumptions.70.245.160.254 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)newfan

See the articles on the various races as well as the Zanpakutō and Kidō articles - that should help with some stuff. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To partially answer your question, most of them are terms specific to the series, which makes it harder to discuss them here using reliable sources. We generally try to limit ourselves to reporting facts (or report on the fact that someone has a certain published opinion). Dekimasuよ! 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

bankai and senkai are just japanese. kai meaning form, ban - final, bankai - final form Diablo11d (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This might be a better question to ask on a Bleach forum, as this talk page exists to discuss the article, not elements of the series itself. 71.234.99.64 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bankai (卍解, final release), as seen under bankai. For technique and weapon lists, look to Wikia:Bleach. –Gunslinger47 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening/Ending Themes

This article needs a table or something with the opening ending themes for each season. --SKiPMacD (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Theme songs are covered in the episode list per our MoS. We don't do tables of themes in the main articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Vital info missing!

Why is it called Bleach? Even if the answer is not clear, there should be a sub-section discussing precisely this (that it's unclear), and mentioning some possibilities. If this isn't important info to mention in the article, then I don't know what is. Kreachure (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture or guess work, nor do we fill up an article with "we don't know". Unless the author has specifically noted why he called it Bleach, there is no place for such content (and if he ever does reveal why, then it would go in the production section, not its own section). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, we could mention it in "Production" section (to clear the subject). --deerstop (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer this correctly I can't say 100%, but in a Shonen Jump interview from when the manga first debuted over in th US the very same question is asked and Tite Kubo responds with "Bleach" being the title of a song By Nirvana perhaps, though I'm not entirely sure my memories gone a bit fuzzy on the topic. i Offer this tidbit not as an absolute, but as an answer to give piece of mind to Kreachure, who really shouldn't worry for this is why Vandal Buster ONyx is ON the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoonyxalchemist (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source and it can be included. Simple as that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm back and after looking for a moment I found the answer of the title with source. The actual answer is: Bleach can mean both Ichigo's bleached hair as well as the shinigami's job of "bleaching" the sins of the Hollows and sending them to Soul Society. And there U Go! (That's My Source) --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A forum posting is NOT a reliable source, and certainly not one from a fansub group. Your link here has been removed per WP:COPYRIGHT and the false information removed from the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of bleach is very important and reliable information. The question is often asked "Why is it called bleach?" I answered the question after searching for over two days for a resonable explanation. I found it, why does it keep getting removed? This is the second time it's been removed. Why, so mostly my main concern is the headline. Please answer whoever keeps doing this. Happy editing --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could try reading the message right above as it explains why it was removed both times...as do the edit summaries of the removals...to reiterate, though, you linked to a copyright violating fansite, and a forum posting of some fan's theory is not a valid reliable source. It is false/incorrect/unverifiable information that doesn't belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And besides, Ichigo's hair isn't bleached, he's a natural carrot-top, so that's half of the explanation gone right there. —Dinoguy1000 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

haha if you type in google "why did tite kubo name it bleach?" your two day search comes down two a .87 second ping. The real reason Bleach is named Bleach has two options: It has no reason (like frisky dingo) or it has not been revealed yet. Being so far in the series and not knowing what it is, im going with the former option. After we meet one more character( possibly the last new character) then i believe we will know.Diablo11d (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why bleach is called "bleach" is because of ichigo's inner hollow,please tell me that you knew this and was just joking about all the other things that were speculated in this article.AND ALSO I WILL ELABORATE ON THIS MORE, Ichigo's inner hollow is a bleached out Ichigo.Bleached is when a substance lose it color pigments and turns white which is what inner Ichigo is to ichigo thus making the author come up with the tittle name Bleach.BTW ichigo's hair is naturally orange and that is why kids used to make fun of him so stating it is because of ichigo hair is just...............i can't even explain it!!!Grimmjow E6 (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is purely speculation and guess work. Kubo has never said himself why he named the series that. All fan guesses and rumors are irrelevant and have no place in the article, at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, HAT'S OFF Grimmjow E6 for the idea, I don't think most people ever thoguht to put that simple 2 and 2 together. Second It might be guesswork but it does have some merit, even if it isn't 100% creditable. In fact that type of speculation, which is evidentially-supported through a logical basis is exactly what is needed more on the discussion pages of articles that lack basic and even important information. And maybe, in this case, deserves a mention in the article. To say that Wiki doesn't know isn't as bad as showing viewers Wiki's indifference to not knowing. Simply put, I contend that its better for Wikipedia to be the first to state that it does not know certain information(and just say as such in a professional manner- ie: like, "Our resources are limited"), than just avoid the issue completely. Not every view knows that Wikipedia lacks this type of basic info so it should at least be said. Also I think it's time for Wikipedia to begin to provide a Speculation Page as a part of both the discussion and/or article pages for certain topics, for example: topics lacking certain subject information. That way Wiki can expand its info with insightful information when its resources seem limited. Moreover, instead of people automatically rewriting the main article, and WP Editors and Copywriters having to rewrite those rewrites in a perpetual cycle, sometimes amounting to a "edit war[s]"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war), WPCP's can just edit or simple make correctional notes in these speculation pages; since it isn't allowed in the discussion page. But That's Just Me.--AKIRA70 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also if anyone has an opinion on this idea just say so.--AKIRA70 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Um no, Wikipedia does not need a speculation page nor should any article have a bunch of fan rumors and what not. That is a total violation of Wikipedia's core policies, and willnot happen period. Nor can/should people be trying to add "insightful information" (also known as original research and made up stuff) as that is not what an encyclopedia does. People want to know others pet theories on why the series is named Bleach, go to a fansite. Those theories will not be found here. 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. If you find sources why it is called Bleach then by all means add it to the article. However, if its just your speculation than save it for a fansite forum, not in the Wikipedia discussion. -71.190.180.67 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I see you sides and get what you are saying, however, not all topics have a fan site, not all articles/subjects have a web based forum for their content. All I'm saying is that if we are to really be a free encyclopedia, we have to a least entertain the idea. With all due respect I am not saying that we allow just any type of topical jargon to appear on Wiki, just a least the creation of a place that preforms more of a buffering zone so that major articles are left in-tact. OR should we just do nothing and allow the reputation of Wikipedia to be just another UNRELIABLE web resource? This way, any type of irrelevant "jargon" can be edited or removed with out having to constantly cut and paste the main articles for errors. Also it can help to solve Wiki's backlogging problems as well.(Join Wikipedia and Check out Backlog articles) It might not be what "AN Encyclopedia does" ,however Wiki is not just the average encyclopedia. Given that, we should at least play with idea of innovating Wiki's abilities to gather new information instead of being the "typical encyclopedia" and allowing Wiki's resources to stagnate. BTW, these Speculation Pages dont have to be shown with the main article- same as the discussion page is not view on the same page as the main article it's about. Also BTW people are all ready putting their "pet theories" and "original research and made up stuff" on Wiki with out permission. I'm just saying we redirect and regulate them. BTJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people do it already, and its removed when found and such people blocked if they don't learn from the warnings and stop it. Most people who do it don't know better. Wikipedia's is still an encyuclopedia, so no, we don't need to entertain the idea nor allow people to have personal playgrounds for shoving out false stuff. That would make Wikipedia just another unreliable source. That is why we have the verifiability policy. It is a free encyclopedia, but free doesn't mean free to do what you want. Vandalism and people putting in false stuff is undo every second. If people want to do personal research, they can do it at wikia, wikibooks, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not the place for it at all. It is not a platform for publishing personal research, nor positing new information that is not verified by actual reliable sources (not just "oh, this is what most fans think"). That is what an encyclopedia does. We do redirect them, off Wikipedia to somewhere else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

not going to happen
original research is stupid
go away StardustDragon 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, If original research was "stupid" and irrelevant to facts of valid knowledge, there wouldn't be any original concepts, theories, or thoughts, and there would not concept of "BLEACH" to begin with. Other than that I do understand and respect Collectonian.--AKIRA70 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In wikipedia, OR means that you have thought up of the information and you can't back it up with any legit sources. Fansites, and other wikis don't count as legit sources. Many people have their own ideas which is OR. However this is Bleach, a creation made by Tite Kubo. Therefore, Kubo's thoughts on Bleach should be added, not any random fan. -71.190.180.67 (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as Kubo's thoughts on Bleach are noteworthy enough for inclusion and have a place in the article, and you can back them up with reliable sources, then there is no reason not to add them. Without those reliable sources, though, Kubo himself wouldn't be able to add his own thoughts to the article - it would still be unverifiable original research. —Dinoguy1000 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposals

I've tagged a few Bleach articles for possible merging here. I've listed each separately below so they can be discussed individually. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bleach: The DiamondDust Rebellion

Proposed for merge to the "Movies" section. The film article is little more than a stub, and the film itself is not significantly different from the main series. I don't see why it can't be covered properly in the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening 4th would make the film notable on it's own. And I don't think that merging this into the main article is beneficial nor is there a point in doing it. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is mergism without attention. The movie is without a doubt notable enough for its own page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Gotta love all the "good faith" going around. I considered each carefully when contemplating the suggestion. The article is a stub, and it does not show any notability nor significant difference from the series for having its own article. There seems to be little to say about it that would not repeat the series info beyond its plot summary and reception info. That can be covered here just as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though everybody is suppose to "assume good faith", when someone is passionate about the work they put into an article, and then see it significantly reduced via majority, it's hard not to take it personally. Now, getting back onto subject, while I don't feel that this page should be merged, I agree with AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) for now. I believe that there is enough notability to expand this article, however there isn't enough exposure outside of Japan for anybody to write anything on it. For example, I know the main characters, plot summary and that it has been release in theaters in Japan but that is it. So until the world outside of Japan gets more information, I have to agree with AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs). Maybe there are people who have actually seen the movie. If there are, please help by contributing to the article so it doesn have to be merges. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose; wide-release films are independently notable. Merge IFF we are also going to merge the Lord of the Rings movies into the articles for the books. 17.255.252.10 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Two very different media and a hideous comparision, nor was it a "wide release" of anywhere near the same level. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be merged? You don't need every single article merged with it's original source to create a huge page. Why not propose ALL Naruto's movies to be merged with the main article? After all, it has 5 movies, one unreleased movie and one movie that needs editing. Try to have patience and wait for the release and more reviews of this movie. -- Arech186 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I eventually plan to propose they be merged into a List of Naruto movies, due the sheer number of them. The last bit culd also apply to however made the articles - why not be patiet and wait till its actually notable and there is content before making the article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why not leave the movies the way they are? If you are planning to do that, then leave the Bleach movies the way they are. Plus whoever wrote the comment above this didn't sign.Arech186 (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no reason to have them separate, IMHO, hence my proposing they be merged. Naruto's would go to a single list due to the number. Bleach doesn't have enough, yet, to need a list of movies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you are trying to propose on merging every single anime movies and extras into one cluttered page? Since the DVD release of DiamondDust Rebellion is coming out in September, there's a likely chance that someone will give out more facts for this movie. In my opinion, merging the movies are pointless. Arech186 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The articles will be able to be expanded better once the English Versions come out, or at the least the fansub. 75.105.128.37 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be merged if every single Family Guy episode gets its own article.(i know bad comparison but tryin to make a point about numbers here) guitarguy99081 ( talk) 6:46 , 20 July 2008 (UTC)

One has nothing to do with another (nor should every Family Guy episode have an article, if any at all...but if no one bothers sending them for merging or deletion, it won't happen). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bleach: Memories of Nobody

Proposed for merge to the "Movies" section. The film article is pretty much nothing but a huge plot summary. The film itself is not significantly different from the main series, having the same characters, story flow, etc. Again, I don't see why it can't be covered properly in the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that merging this into the main article is good for the main article. It will only result in bloat. The movie section provides a nice summary of all of the movies while individual articles covering the movies in more detail, per WP:SPINOUT. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Same as previous. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Same for me Neovu79 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't the article just be edited? Why merge? "Not significantly different from the main series" isn't really a reason that it shouldn't exist. Otherwise The Simpsons Movie and Sex and the City: The Movie should also be merged into their respective series because the exact same argument could be made there. --Smashville^BONK! 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. Please see the Anime and manga MoS which keeps adaptations together unless they are significantly different. Neither of the Bleach film articles show that they need stand alone articles right now. Having separate articles just to have long plot summaries is not a valid reason to keep them. The film and TV projects have different guidelines, so the example given doesn't apply. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit my ignorance of the anime and manga MoS. However, I think #2 is applicable. This article as it stands now is long enough. WP:SPINOUT says that when an article hits 60 KB, that it should probably be split. It's at 50 KB right now. And we're talking about merging in a 10 KB article, an 8 KB article and a 4 KB article. Even with liberal cuts it's going to push it close to or over 60 KB. --Smashville^BONK! 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We would hardly be sweating at 60 kb. In any case, the first movie is alright in terms of having its own article: [1], [2]. I'm sure more exists as it's an English film now, but that should be sufficient for now. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This movie has its own reception which is separate to the reception of the TV series, and the plot, although re-using the characters from the series, has been noted as being different and unrelated to the main plotline in reviews. There is a making-of feature (Production!!!) floating about, which ANN hopes will be on the DVD. I would suggest keeping this article separate, especially with the possibility of the making of feature being on the DVD to be released in October. -Malkinann (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock Musical Bleach

This musical does not seem to be very notable at all, and the entire article is unsourced and rather rambling in nature. I think all relevant, sourcable information can more easily and concisely be covered in the main article. The CD soundtracks can be covered in the main soundtrack area with the rest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that the reason we cover both the manga and anime in one article is to reduce the need for duplication. We can have articles covering the manga and anime separately, but we chose not to because most times, we would have near duplicate plot summaries and character profiles. However, I don't see how that is a problem with any of the articles above and that this is simply merging for the sake of merging the articles. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the movies as being duplication as well. The characters are all the same. They are just long episodes. We also don't make full articles on less notable aspects of a series. We don't make one for every artbook, for example, or less notable films. I don't see how the musical is notable enough for its own article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The musical, like the movies, is a separate production. To be quite frank, your reasoning is stupid. The Iron Man TV series uses characters from the comics. Should we merge it? Hulk series, Fantastic Four, etc? Normally I'm fairly supportive of merging where it has a point, but this has none. As Farix said, it's just merging for the sake of merging, with no thought given to why these things would deserve their own articles. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, nice to see you respond so politely. It is not merging for the sake of merging. It is in keeping with the guidelines. Your example is a beyond ludicrous red herring. A more appropriate example would look at other anime articles that have film and or OVA adaptations, and whether those are all individual articles. Most of the time they are not, as is in keeping with WP:MOS-AM. If you disagree and feel the musical can stand on its own, why not go fix its article (which is horrible) and add in the sources showing it has the significant coverage you claim it has to show its notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous proposal. It had to be noted. It's one thing to merge an OVA, which is little more than a direct to DVD movie in most cases. Here you are trying to merge theatrical releases which have reception info for their country of origin. There is no reason or point in merging them, and there is no question that a theatrical release is notable. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Rock Musical isn't a theatrical release, its a musical with what appears to be a limited release and no significant coverage anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment was generalized, but even the Rock Musical is notable. Shouldn't be that hard to track down sources. A simple google search reveals that you can buy the musical on Amazon. Just because it is badly written is not a reason for merging, it's a reason for cleanup. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can but one of its soundtracks from Amazon, which is in fact Amazon's standard import option. Can't not the musical. The other soundtrack listing isn't even being sold by Amazon, but by a single marketplace seller. And neither confers notability on a product. That's like saying you found a book at Wal-mart and it is now notable because it was there. Existance alone does not equal notability. The musical isn't licensed, and again, still waiting for actual, reliable sources showing notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only demonstrating that it can be bought, not that being bought makes it notable. Nevertheless, reviews are liable to exist, and on the official site you can find a number of interview-related blog posts, which is useful production info. Tracking such things down in Japanese isn't my specialty, but judging it guilty outright just to merge it is jumping the gun. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the cast information from the musicals reflected in the character articles? -Malkinann (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually character articles only deal with the manga and anime versions. Character voices in video games are also usually not noted. No idea why, though my guess would be that they are considered unnotable depictions. In the case of the musical, the info is in the musical article (hideously) at least. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually, though, there aren't musicals - perhaps that's why musical actors aren't often included in the character's actor list rather than editors actively deciding that this depiction or that isn't notable. There are only about 14 articles in the Category:Musicals based on anime and manga. Interestingly, there isn't really a consistent style between the five or so that are solely about the musical adaptation of a work - and the musical wikiproject gives guidance for articles that are about solo musicals (where you can conveniently get reception information in English), whereas the anime musicals tend to be presented in a series of musicals. I wonder if using the episode list template might be appropriate? -Malkinann (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its pretty rare that such musicals are notable enough for their own articles. Most are just mentioned briefly in the main article, such as with Tokyo Mew Mews. I think a blend of the MoS AM and musical guidelines is probably best. How many Bleach musicals with different plots are there? 01:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think musicals like these can be compared to Broadway productions. Just because it isn't in English (therefore the lack of reviews and reception in English) doesn't mean it is not notable at all. If enough reception in Japanese articles are found, are those sufficient to sustain a reception section? And what do you mean by "pretty rare such musicals are notable enough for their own articles"? If talking about the Sailor Moon musicals for instance, I can find info (excluding the plot, which is extremely long) on production and creation, but most of it is from the videos in Japanese, therefore it is hard to sometimes translate and get the actual meaning. Infering is more of an option, but that's on the edge of original research. --Hanaichi 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"pretty rare such musicals are notable enough for their own articles" means just that. Most of the musical type stuff done for anime and manga are done as marketing ploys, not as true musicals, and thus have few to no reliable sources required to pass Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines. Remember, existance alone does not make it notable. That is why most are usually just mentioned a one paragraph (if not 1-2 sentences) in the main article. Some iconic series, like Sailor Moon, will generally get the notability thanks to the main series resulting in almost anything related to it get coverage as well. Bleach is also a huge series, however despite all the discussion here, no one has yet to provide a single reliable source for any of the content in the musical article. Even the official site is long since dead. That's why I proposed its being merged in a smaller form. Without any reliable sources, it fails WP:V which makes it ripe for deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the musical plots could be contained in a form of the anime episode list template? WP:SM discussed rearranging Sera Myu like so, but it was a bit daunting so soon after converting the anime episode list. I would suggest that the cast information from the Bleach musical series (including which of the musicals they appeared in) should be in the various character pages. These can presumably be cited from the archive of the official site. -Malkinann (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are multiple musicals in the one article with different plots, I think the episode template could be adapted well for it. I know I've used it for novel lists before we had the {{graphic novel}} template :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if everyone saw this or not, but I've done a test of {{Japanese episode list}} on the musicals - Talk:Rock_Musical_Bleach#Japanese_episode_list. C&C welcome, but keep in mind it is a draft, so feel free to WP:BE BOLD! -Malkinann (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• I see no reason for a merger. The movies, while starring the same characters, have plotlines different from the manga and TV series. It's not like the Escaflowne, RahXephon or X movies, where the plot is a condensed retelling of the original.

• Like Penguin said, the musical is a separate production. The short section in this article pointing to the main article on the musical is in line with the Summary style guideline.

• Furthermore, if one were to merge the three (whole) articles here, the article size would surpass 60KB, big enough to seriously consider WP:SPLITTING. Not to mention the fact that the article would be biased towards the numerous adaptations, when the focus should be on the main work.--Nohansen (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, size is size, but will the articles provide notability? *sigh* Are there any chances that Bleach: The DiamondDust Rebellion (for example) can be ever made good article? --deerstop (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  Talk page has a link to a booklet full of info that can be used for production. Memroies of Nobody is coming out in English soon. Yes, they can be made into good articles. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  It already is out in English/the United States. --Smashville^BONK! 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, so it is. Even in a limited theatrical release then, there should be some reviews. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  Unless someone wants to add that there was a guest appearance at the NY premiere and that they gave away 100 Bleach armbands for free at the premiere too. -- Arech186 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• To me it seems that the article has the basic requirements to stay as an article. Enough information, sources, merging all of this will just make this article just huge and scattered. -71.190.180.67 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• My vote is to keep them separate. If I'm not mistaken, manga refers specifically to just the comic books. If anything, combine it with the anime. Though, like I said, I think it's best to keep them separate. The anime comes from the manga, but it does have a few of its own arcs that aren't covered in the manga (like the bount and whatever the current one is called). And the movies don't have to do directly with either story line. The movies just use the same settings and characters. Icehcky8 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, there is no separate article for the anime. All adaptations are discussed here, as per WP:MOS-AM, with the films and the musical having split out articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can honestly say that I'm not at all pleased with the merger that has occurred on the wikispace. Before you all had discussed all of these ideas of merging all the information, I had used this space almost religiously due to the fact that it was a very useful source of information for the Bleach Roleplay that my friends and I had started up. Hell, I even went so far as to make a link directly to this wikispace. And now everything isn't nearly as detailed as it used to be. There used to be a list of Hollow and Quincy abilities in their own concurring sections. Everything is far too geared toward just what's in the show but not what's in the whole universe of Bleach. So, please. I ask you. Put everything back the way it was. Sexydoughboy (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC) — Sexydoughboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That isn't ever going to happen. Wikipedia is no there to discuss everything in the whole universe of Bleach. Its an encyclopedia. For indepth coverage of the fictional aspects, you should go to the Bleach wikia or a fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sexydoughboy... I was wondering if there was a reason for the Race Description Pages have been deleted and then just replaced with List Pages. Those pages had a lot of good information that I, for one, referenced many times for posts on forums. Collectonian, the problem with going "to the Bleach wikia or a fansite" is that you can't that kind of information on any other site. Now when it comes to referencing for forums Wikipedia doesn't have the greatest credibility reputation, but it had more information than any other site that I can find about Bleach. It seems really dumb to throw away a resource this great, the details that were in the Race Description Pages were the kind of things you don't normally find on most Bleach pages. I hope that the Race Description Pages can be brought back eventually because if not it's going to be tough to find references for my posts in the future.SchmoozingWouter (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC) — SchmoozingWouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The race pages were removed per AfDs for all of them. They were not appropriate content for Wikipedia, violating multiple policies and guidelines (including WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:NOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT). Some of the info was merged to the various lists for those races, but that's it. The race pages will not be brought back. Allof the Bleach articles are being cleaned up to remove unsourced information, excessive fictional details, etc. I.E. to bring them in-line with actual Wikipedia standards rather than acting as a giant fansite. As for the wikia, they were (and still are) free to transwiki any of the old pages over to the wikia where unsourced, unverified information is welcome. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's fine I suppose. It's your wikispace, do what you want with it. But I'm curious, do you still have all that information about the Kidou spells and the history of the Quincy and their abilities? Because if so, I would be grateful if you could send that to me somehow. That would be a valuable resource. If not, that's fine too. It's just hard to find sites nowadays that had the amount of information that you guys had before the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexydoughboy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard to find if you go to Wikia. Wikia:Bleach:Kidō. Wikia:Bleach:Quincy. –Gunslinger47 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fourth setting?

Currently it lists the real world, soul society, and hueco mundo. I think there is a separate one though. It is the 'Valley of Screams' referenced in Bleach: Memories of Nobody. If this is considered as canon (and it doesn't interfere with the manga so it probably should) that would be a fourth dimension. This dimension may be related to the area they travel through when going back and forth between Earth and Soul Society. It is similarly dark. It is seen when they initially invade Soul Society, when Inoue is ambushed by Ulquiorra on the return, and also with the new captain arc that is recently airing in the anime when he defeats the guardian. This may be considered a fifth setting though, since I think the Valley of Screams is more like a slightly separate dimension than these tunnels, or possibly contained within it, or possibly the tunnels are within the Valley of Screams. It's hard to tell, since both are supposed to lie between earth and soul society. Tyciol (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a notable setting. The idea isn't to list/discuss every last setting. Valley of Screams appears only in the movie, so it isn't something to mention here. Its basically the same as them going to visit a place in an episode. We'd mention it in the ep summary, but not anywhere else. Also, your creation of a ton of "Valley of Screams" redirects was completely inappropriate, excessive, and totally unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

it isnt related to the inbetween dimension at all. thats why it needs to be explained in the movie, because they never heard of it before. Also the new captain arc is filler, it doesnt relate to the manga, or series in anyway besides the obvious. besides there is already a fourth setting that hasnt been visited yet, but is told to exist.Diablo11d (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I propose supernatural fiction (referring to genre), is removed or changed to something else. My reasoning is that supernatural fiction is generally meant as a literature and not an anime genre. Besides, there is no need to add fiction onto supernatural because anything supernatural is generally considered fiction anyways. I beleieve the more proper genre would be fantasy (which is already included) or perhaps Science fiction. If you want to be more specific than the very broad term Science fiction, there is a list of Science fiction sub-genres that could be used instead on the Science fiction page. All the other genres listed appear right and should be left as is. ---Mangler13- (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make you stop rapidly editing your comment *_*: I think it should be Supernatural fiction too, sounds good to me. It definatly suits it. : ) – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Not too good with wording things the way they sound in my head, so takes me a few tries to get it how I want it, sorry about that :P ---Mangler13- (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's okay. : ) It's just that it kinda overflows my watchlist, it's no big deal. – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 02:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bangsian fantasy should replace fantasy and supernatural fiction (a similar discussion once took place here). Now should sword and sorcery go in the place of action? Maybe heroic fantasy instead? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bangsian fantasy is perfect, sword and sorcery is more like the Dungeons & Dragons, Warcraft, sort'a deal. – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I also believe Bangsian fantasy works, shall we change it then? (Nevermid, ya already did) :P---Mangler13- (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I like Bangsian fantasy and Heroic fantasy. The sorcery part of Sword and sorcery doesn't really fit here. Would y'all agree that Bangsian fantasy covers Supernatural fiction enough that we could remove it? I figure if it's about afterlife stuff it has to be about supernatural stuff by default. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can probably use just Bangsian fantasy and Action. Or, we could at least narrow Supernatural fiction to Supernatural instead, either way is fine with me. We'll have Jump Guru decide seeing as how she has been involved in this conversation as well. However, if we can't reach an agreement, we will keep it as is.---Mangler13- (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a "he" by the way. Bangsian fantasy, and Supernatural fiction are both fine. : ) – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But what about Heroic fantasy? I covers areas that the others don't. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for "Bangsian fantasy", but not "sword and sorcery" or "heroic fantasy" (the terms are practically interchangeable). I expressed a similar discomfort when InuYasha's genres underwent this change, and my reasons still stand: Bleach just doesn't say "Sword and Sorcery" (or "heroic fantasy") to me. The imagery and the archetypes are not like the ones you'll find in Conan the Barbarian... or Dungeons and Dragons, for that matter. Also, "Bangsian fantasy" makes "supernatural" redundant because bangsian fantasy already deals with the supernatural (see Talk:YuYu Hakusho#Genres).--Nohansen (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth Nohansen :). I'm all for just Action and Bangsian fantasy. Supernatural as well as adding anymore fantasies in is becoming too redundant. P.S. Sorry for the mistake Guru :$.---Mangler13- (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sword and sorcery and Heroic fantasy are nothing alike acording to the articles here on Wikipedia. Heroic fantasy says:

"Heroic fantasy is a sub-genre of fantasy literature which chronicles the tales of heroes and their conquests in imaginary lands. Stories tend to be intricate in plot, often involving many peoples, nations and lands. Grand battles and the fate of the world are common themes, and there is typically some emphasis on a universal Good versus Evil conflict."

which to me sounds just like Bleach. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that definition is not really reliable. The article has been tagged for lacking citations and neutrality since December 2007. Still, the terms are interchangeable. Here are some quotes:

• "The kind of story Robert E. Howard created with his Conan yarns, and which C. L. Moore imitated with her tales of Jirel, we call ‘Sword & Sorcery’ today. The term, however, was not coined until long after the new sub-branch of heroic fantasy appeared. [...] Although some prefer ‘heroic fantasy’, as being more dignified and literary and a few employ a variant, ‘swordplay-and-sorcery,’ the term ‘Sword & Sorcery’ caught on and is now generally accepted." From Imaginary Worlds: the Art of Fantasy.
• "Heroic fantasy, often commercially applied to Sword and Sorcery tales featuring muscular barbarian heroes, but sometimes to any variety of Epic or Quest fantasy, particularly those that derive from specific heroic tradition, such as Arthurian tales." From Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy by Gary K. Wolfe.
• "Howard will always be remembered as the father of Conan, and, thereby, one of the founders of the sub-genre that would be called, variously, epic fantasy, heroic fantasy, and sword and sorcery." From an article by Kathi Maio, published in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction.

I hope that clears it up.

On a related note... We should be careful when choosing specific sub-genres, specially the ones with such imposing names like "heroic fantasy". Just because a series features some gun-play doesn't make it heroic bloodshed (see Talk:Madlax#Genres), the same way not all martial arts fantasies are wuxia.--Nohansen (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, very well put Nohansen. I agree with you and believe we have enough support to leave it as Action and Bangsian fantasy for now. There is really no need to go on a genre adding rampage when those 2 genres seem to describe bleach the best.---Mangler13- (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)